CHICAGO’S HYDROFUTURE

1. CHICAGO’S HYDROFUTURE

2. The Metropolitan Planning Council Since 1934, the Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC) has been dedicated to shaping a more sustainable and prosperous greater Chicago region. We develop, promote and implement solutions for sound regional growth. Transportation and housing choices Sustainable water supplies Efficient public infrastructure investment Environmental health, social equity, and quality of life

3. MPC and Openlands’ work on water issues • Changing Course (2003) • Showed connections between development patterns and water issues • Promoted watershed planning and cooperative stormwater management • Troubled Waters (2005) • Led to pilot regional water supply planning groups • Led to SB2184, which requires high-volume users in all parts of the state to report water usage to ISWS • Before the Wells Dun Dry (2009) • Proposes reforms to state investment programs to support conservation and efficiency • Encourages a rethinking of traditional water supplies, shift to full cost pricing • Urges “optimization” of the Lake Michigan diversion

4. Water Sources in NE Illinois • Lake Michigan (provides 77% of region’s water) • Subsurface aquifers (19%) • Deep (capped by solid rock, recharge VERY slowly) • Shallow (recharge relatively quickly, but closely connected to wetlands, rivers, streams, etc) • Other surface water (Fox and Kankakee Rivers) (4%)

5. Political boundaries vs. Hydrological boundaries

6. Political boundaries vs. Hydrological boundaries

7. Political boundaries vs. Hydrological boundaries

8. NE Illinois Regional Water Supply Planning Group

9. Population Pressures

10. Lake Michigan DIVERSION • In a state of nature, all precipitation falling in the diversion area would ultimately flow into Lake Michigan (i.e. we contributed water to the lake) • Reversing the Chicago River fundamentally altered everything (i.e. we now divert water from the lake) • A 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision limits our diversion to 3,200 cfs • The 2008 Great Lakes Compact reinforced this earlier decision by severely limiting any “new diversions”

11. Lake Michigan DIVERSION • As of 2005, Illinois used 85% of its allowable diversion • We are leaving water in the lake, and have paid off our water “debt” • These percentages change every year (e.g. more rain means more stormwater, hotter weather means more pumpage for use) • So while we could theoretically pump more water for use, in any given year it could be more or less than the 15% we left in the lake in 2005

12. Lake Michigan DIVERSION • The 9.2% seen here should be eliminated as the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan is finished • TARP “should” eliminate Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs). TARP will store that water until the system’s capacity is suitable for treating the water. • As the 9.2% is eliminated, Illinois could divert water for other purposes, or leave it in the lake. • TARP outflow will still run to the Mississippi

13. Lake Michigan DIVERSION • The same principle applies to the 27.7% stormwater runoff. • If we can use stormwater, or return it to the lake, then more water could be used for domestic purposes. • e.g., South Shore Drive and the roof of McCormick • 27.7% of 2005 diversion = 588 million gallons a day. • That’s approx. 2X as much groundwater as the southern and western suburbs use daily.

14. Lake Michigan ALLOCATION • Ill. Dept. of Natural Resources manages an allocation system to determine how much water each community gets. • Must show projected demand, conservation efforts, and meet IDNR’s 8% standard for “unaccounted for flows” • Older infrastructure is given more leniency, so little incentive to fix leaks. • In 2008, Chicago lost 10.5 million gallons a day to known leaks (2% of total water), and 45.6 million gallons a day in “unaccounted for flow” (8.65% of total water).

15. Leakage, loss and energy • 10% leakage is considered “good” • Major difference in pricing by public water utilities and private water utilities • Cost and price are not the same • The U.S. Dept. of Energy estimates that 4 percent of the nation's energy use is attributable to drinking water and wastewater systems (pumping, treatment, and disposal).  • At the local level, this percentage can be much, much higher.  Here in Illinois, water systems can account for as much as 75 percent of a municipal government's energy use, and 50 percent of a utility's budget.

16. Groundwater • The State Water Survey has done little/no research on shallow aquifers • Minimal permitting is required, so tough to get data on which wells are doing what • They recharge faster, but are to wetlands and surface water. Sucking water out of shallow aquifers pulls water from these other sources.

17. Groundwater • Deep aquifers are the MAJOR WATER CONCERN for NE Illinois

18. Groundwater

19. Groundwater

20. Groundwater

21. Groundwater

22. Surface water • Some good news… the Fox River can probably serve a greater population than it currently does. • Taking more water from the Fox River will have affects on adjacent shallow aquifers, wetlands, etc. The reverse is also true.

23. So… • Overall, on April 14, 2010, NE Illinois does NOT face water scarcity issues. • We DO face immense inefficiency and waste issues. • e.g. Chicago’s plans to improve metering and replace water mains might save enough water to serve an additional 700,000 people a day… which means we waste at least that much water right now. • e.g. Again, 588 mgd of water supply lost as stormwater. • Inefficiency and waste could result in scarcity within the next 50 years.

24. So… • Let’s use our rain before it becomes stormwater. • Rainwater harvesting for non-potable uses. • Toilets, coolant tanks, irrigation, fire protection, etc. • Simply need plumbing code reform to ensure no backflow to public supply – SB2549. • Lake County Forest Preserve’s Ryerson Woods Visitor Center, HSBC’s Mettawa Campus, Shedd Aquarium (on hold) • Let’s keep stormwater out of the sewer • Reduces treatment costs, CSO threats

25. Green infrastructure’s unfulfilled potential • In theory, green infrastructure in the diversion area could BOTH: • Reduce flow into wastewater treatment system. • Expand the region’s water supply. • But gravity and CAWS flow direction impede #2. • Green infrastructure is only half as beneficial as it could be.

26. The Chicago Area Waterway System in the 20th Century In 1900, river reversal and CAWS construction/operation had two principle goals: Provide clean drinking water for Chicago by moving wastewater away from Lake Michigan. Establish Chicago as a hub of interbasin freight movement (water to rail and road).

27. CAWS in the 20th Century CAWS fundamentally altered the region’s hydrology. Storm/surface water diverted away from Lake Michigan. Diversion capped by U.S. Supreme Court at 3,200 cubic feet per second. In 2005, we diverted 88% of our allowable total.

28. CAWS in the 20th Century Approx. 70% of the water in the CAWS is treated effluent. Stickney Water Reclamation Plant is largest in the world. Designed for 1.2 billion gallon outflow, averages 750 million a day. Disinfection debate ongoing. All that water flows to the Gulf of Mexico.

29. CAWS in the 20th Century Use of Lake Michigan water quickly expanded through manmade infrastructure and allocation system. Lake Michigan currently provides 77% of the region’s water. Regional population and water demand growing rapidly.

30. CAWS in the 20th Century Freight capability relieves congested rail and roads. Origin and destination matter. Most thru-lock activity is at Lockport. Tourism and recreation have become Chicago assets, would be affected by lock closure at Navy Pier or O’Brien.

31. CAWS in the 20th Century Connection also makes interbasin species movement possible. Zebra mussels Round goby Sea lamprey Alewife Eurasian ruffe Spiny water flea Dozens of others Next? And yes, Asian carp

32. Things have changed since 1900 Wastewater treatment and stormwater management have improved, allowing return to the lake. CSO pollution better understood, stormwater mitigation costs higher. Lake Michigan diversion will likely need to serve more of the Chicago region. Illinois’ Lake Michigan diversion has bred animosity from other states. Belief that CAWS should be regarded as a river system, not a wastewater canal. Tourism and recreation are economic factors, while highway congestion has increased, making waterborne and intermodal freight more attractive. Interbasin species transfer possible because of CAWS, now deemed unacceptable.

33. SO, we need 21st Century Goals 21st Century Goals Improve water quality and ecosystems of Lake Michigan, Chicago area rivers, and Mississippi Basin, through better treatment and reduced stormwater/CSO effects. Provide clean drinking water for growing Chicago region, easing reliance on strained aquifers and rivers. Enhance capacity and efficiency of Chicago’s intermodal freight facilities. Sustain growth in recreational and tourism uses of the CAWS. Eliminate risk of interbasin species transfer. • 20th Century Goals • Provide clean drinking water for the city of Chicago by moving wastewater away from our water source, Lake Michigan. • Establish Chicago as a hub of interbasin waterborne freight movement, with intermodal connections to rail and road.

34. But that requires… … long-term vision. … coordinated planning from policy, architecture, design, engineering, and development communities. … focus on all of our 21st Century goals for CAWS. … an ability to think about what we could have, rather than simply what we do have.

35. Resources • http://watercalculator.fieldmuseum.org/ • Illinois Natural Resources Geospatial Data Clearinghouse - http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/nsdihome/ISGSindex.html • Natural Connections - http://www.greenmapping.org/ • http://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/ • Regional Water Supply Plan – CMAP website • City of Chicago Dept. of Environment and Center for Green Technology - http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/doe.html

36. Thank You Josh Ellis Metropolitan Planning Council 312.863.6045 jellis@metroplanning.org www.metroplanning.org