DNR Raises Host Of Questions - - Some Sound Familiar - - About Waukesha's Water Application
No wonder Waukesha didn't want observers in the November 18 meeting it canceled with the DNR: The DNR is raising substantial questions about the city's Lake Michigan water diversion application - - and some echo observations made by environmental groups over the last 18 months.
Details from the DNR, here, in a ten-page letter with multiple and substantive questions on each page in basic subject areas. Many of the dozens of questions call for detailed submissions, plans, graphs, charts, etc.
[I will post the full text of the letter Monday.]
Given that the application was a couple of years in drafting, one wonders how at this stage there could be questions so basic and detailed.
The DNR is still labeling the application "deficient" (see DNR website, EIS process button, top)?
8 comments:
An interesting read from page 5.
"Document the public participation process conducted for the proposed water supply service area plan. Also, you'll need to provide evidence that the governing bodies of the towns of Waukesha, Genesee, and any other city village or town addressed by the plan HAVE APPROVED the Water Supply Service Area pan PRIOR TO RE-SUBMITTAL"
So if I am reading this correct, these other community governing bodies must approve the SEWRPC service area in which they have been placed and agree to have their own citizens serviced by the Waukesha Water Utility prior to the application being re-submitted by Waukesha.
Wow, that is a tough one alone, not including the other 11 pages of deficiencies.
I also noted the section that stated "Document the public participation process conducted for the proposed water supply service area plan. Also, you'll need to provide evidence that the governing bodies of the towns of Waukesha, Genesee, and any other city, village or town addressed by the plan have approved the Water Supply Service Area Plan prior to re-submittal"
Talk about Waukesha putting the cart before the horse. What the DNR is saying is, get these communities to approve this SEWRPC plan before you assume they will be part of it and you will be servicing them in the future.
How do Waukesha government/water officials have such a basic lack of understanding on such a basic issue that was brought up to them months ago.
How many town of Waukesha residents are going to be willing to cede their own water sovereignty for the projected high costs of Waukesha/Milwaukee water?
They also need to get their approval before they resubmit the application to the WiDNR on top of it.
Here ye! Here ye! Let the town public hearings commence! All in favor {crickets}.
I had noted months ago that I thought the application's greatest weakness was that the other communities into which Waukesha water was to be diverted had not approved the application.
http://thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com/2010/07/in-waukeshas-bid-for-lake-michigan.html
Are the residents of the Town of Waukesha,Genesee, and any other city village or town going to be force to pay for the construction and operation of the infrastructure just for the privilege of being within the Waukesha Water Utility service area?
At the Waukeshanow.com the most thoughtful comments have been posted by Robert and use considerations about the quarrys.
Interesting that other area publications have focused on the SEWRPC recommendation suggesting that subalternative plan 2, use of the Lake Michigan water to a non-straddling community outside the sub-continental divide, IF APPROVED BY THE COMPACT, is superior to Sub-alternative plan A which doesn't include Waukesha's "Plan B" alternatives, shallow wells and the Fox River Alluvium, or filling the quarrys with river water from the Fox and constructing a filtration plant. (Read Robert's comments from the December 2nd, article).
http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/111223134.html?page=1
When one reads the DNR letter to Waukesha three things seem certain, no stone will be left unturned, a diversion application is going to cost significantly more than the water utility budgeted (with no predictable outcome), and the cost of a diversion and return flow, or becoming part of MMSD as suggest by the DNR and rejected for consideration by the utility, will likely be significantly more expensive than anticipated.
One would have to believe that rather than continuing the application process, which will likely ultimately conclude that several alternative conceptual plans for a local source of water will have less of an environmental impact and cost less to construct and operate, Waukesha needs to consider all it's options before proceeding further.
To the last anonymous:
That is an extremely cogent analysis and I will repost it. Thank you.
You should get your own blog.
There is no "local" source of water. All of the alternatives are outside of the city's borders. Would there be any less opposition to groundwater alternatives?
Post a Comment