A year-and-a-half ago, then-Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist, several Milwaukee aldermen and local environmentalist activists met at Lake Park, but hardly to picnic. They were there to denounce any plan to divert Lake Michigan water out of the Great Lakes' watershed -- and across the subcontinental divide in Brookfield -- to the fast-growing but water-starved Waukesha County suburbs.

In November 2002, the group was reacting to a plan floated by southeast Wisconsin regional planners to require Milwaukee County and six others to put up the lion's share of a $1 million to study water issues, including looming shortages, especially in Waukesha.

Ald. Fred Gordon summed up the critics' mood that chilly day by calling a possible diversion across the subcontinental diversion "unconscionable."

The study never materialized, in part because international agreements virtually forbid such diversions. (Water sales by Milwaukee to suburbs within the Lake Michigan watershed are allowed; the most recent one was established last year to New Berlin after a contentious Milwaukee Common Council debate about sprawl.)

But water problems, especially across the subcontinental divide in western Waukesha County, are accelerating just as fast as farmland is platted into subdivisions. And that makes the administration of new Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and certain Milwaukee City Council members worried that efforts to please thirsty suburbs may set a harmful precedent.

Some Waukesha County water is naturally irradiated and unhealthy. Treatment to make it safe is costly: The city of Waukesha is facing millions of dollars in cleanup costs ordered by the federal government. Another costly alternative is digging even deeper into the region's stressed aquifer. And piping into regional rivers for more water is expensive, too.

Regardless, sprawl is marching west to Jefferson County, with developers turning cornfields into big-lot houses, complete with swimming pools and multi-acre lawns that require plenty of watering. Look no farther than the upscale Pabst Farms mega-development on both sides of I-94 at State Highway 67. There, a city with 900 upscale homes on 1,500 acres is rising even though the aquifer in the area is dropping.

This all makes Lake Michigan's off-limits water even more tempting.

Now fast-forward to April 21 of this year, when Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle surprised some with a portion of his Earth Day 2004 remarks also delivered on Milwaukee's lakefront. He spoke not far from where the anti-sprawl activists held their 2002 news conference.

The surprise wasn't Doyle's tough stand against diverting Great Lakes water to places like Arizona and Nevada; no one in Wisconsin supports exporting Great Lakes water to the arid West.

But Doyle raised some eyebrows when he added that he might support a diversion from Lake Michigan -- and out of the watershed -- across the subcontinental divide to Waukesha County.

Doyle has on his desk an August 2003 report from the city of Waukesha and the Waukesha Water Utility that asks for Doyle's to help convince other Great Lakes officials to approve the construction of a pipeline to carry 20 millions of water a day from Lake Michigan, across the subcontinental divide. The goal: alleviate the city of Waukesha's problems with a more regional solution.

Waukesha Water Utility Manager Daniel Duchniak, in an interview, called the report " a roadmap," a precursor to a formal request. "Like it or not, Lake Michigan is our own backyard," he said, adding that he hoped Doyle and Milwaukee could work together to make the water flow.

Twenty million gallons is a very big diversion, and one virtually banned by current international law. But Doyle's speech suggested at least the possibility that the Waukesha plan may end up with his blessing -- something it would need to overcome a myriad of legal and political obstacles.

Any new diversion of water from the Great Lakes is made nearly impossible under the Great Lakes Charter and other agreements that cover eight Great Lakes states, including Wisconsin, and two Canadian provinces. The agreements allow a single U.S. governor or Canadian premier to veto a diversion request out of the Great Lakes watershed.

Few requests are made because rejection is so simple. Former Michigan Gov. John Engler, for example, vetoed one in 1992 for an Indiana community that had a poisoned water supply because he didn't want to set a precedent and open the floodgates to western states or foreign countries that crave Great Lakes water.

When water is sent out of the watershed it doesn't drain back. Land west of the Sunny Slope Ridge in Waukesha County drains away from Lake Michigan into tributaries of the Mississippi River. Rainfall doesn't even come close to replacing what is diverted.