DNR Gives Waukesha Time To Address Its Water Application And Its Political In-Fighting

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, in tabling - - for the time being - - its review of Waukesha's application for a diversion of Lake Michigan water, has actually done the City a favor:

It's creating a time out - - an opportunity for Waukesha to address what had been percolating for months while the application drafting was close to completion, but also while a local election was underway with the application as a key issue.

Former Mayor Larry Nelson pushed the Lake Michigan option - - as he had done for years - - and upstart opponent Jeff Scrima opposed it.

Nelson lost. Scrima won. The Common Council approved it (though some as-yet-delineated changes were made subsequently, and without resubmission to the Council - - and the DNR found the application as submitted insufficient and incomplete.

That's where things stand.

What has to be addressed by Waukesha in light of the DNR's action?

* The deficiencies in the application - - both as pointed out by the DNR in its letter to Mayor Jeff Scrima, and earlier noted by environmental groups.

* The City's internal power struggle/mess.

If the Council and other Waukesha officials who supported the application as it was submitted want to fight the Mayor, and thus infer that they discount or altogether deny the results of the election, fine and good.

Except that while they may feel like they are fighting the good fight, their intransigence will not get the City any closer to addressing the DNR's findings and ultimately winning the diversion permission from all eight Great Lakes states.

That's because the DNR said the City needed to a better job or assessing the desirability and costs of alternatives to the Lake Michigan option.

As required by the Great Lakes Compact of 2008.

And remember, the other Great Lakes states will take the same position, and review the precedent-setting application very carefully - - so why not do this hard work now, pre-emptively?

I don't recall off the top of my head his exact phraseology, but it seemed to me that Mayor Scrima either just before or after his election had suggested moving the Lake Michigan application forward while also examining the options in greater detail.

The application was moved forward - - minus the $5,000 processing fee - - but has been sent back for more work.

That's the reality of the situation, and no amount of foot-stomping or personal attacks on the Mayor changes that.

So there is really no contradiction between what the Mayor wants and what the DNR says it must have before it can assess the application under the guidelines in the Great Lakes Compact.

So it seems to me that the water utility and its consultants have no other real choice except to do what is needed to fix the application, thus meeting what the DNR says must take place - - which also meets the Mayor's wishes, too.

Scrima won in a landslide.

Surely his opinion counts for something.

Saying "no" to further assessing the options - - as the DNR says it has to have in hand - - only freezes the application itself.

Besides delaying the inevitable research, and perhaps really damaging the application's chances of approval, what does it get the proponents?