Citizens Oppose WisDOT Highway Boondoggle Beyond Milwaukee

Here's a short course in how the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, (WisDOT), is wasting public highway dollars by the millions while ignoring safer and less-costly alternatives.

Often these battles are fought in cities, where neighborhoods oppose expensive, polluting new Interstate highway lanes and ramps that overwhelm densely-populated areas.

But the subject of today's guest post is the financial, environmental, legal and public safety mess known as the Highway J/164 expansion-and-boondoggle (map, here) - - a battle in the out-suburbs and exurban hills of Waukesha and Washington Counties west and northwest of Milwaukee County - - and it's getting more and more media attention.

There have been some excellent accounts lately in The Capital Times, and the Shepherd Express.

A coalition of groups, suburban homeowners and farmers firmly opposed WisDOT's plan and initial re-construction to widen miles of two-lane highway in the Highway 164/J corridor that runs north through Washington County off I-94 in Waukesha County into a piece of the Kettle Moraine.

I've been posting their views since 2008.

The expansion will also add a wide median (that's how you build-in capacity for even more lanes later) along with limited, inconvenient access points - - so the opponents followed the process and Civics 101 by asking the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, (SEWRPC) - - a frequent WisDOT ally with an unelected board - - to reject the plan.

But SEWRPC, as is its pattern, ignored the views of thousands of petition signers, and thus began WisDOT's spending and bulldozing - - and ongoing litigation, too. More history, here.

It's a familiar story to Milwaukeeans who have had to fight the WisDOT/SEWRPC/road-builder alliance for years over similar highway expansion in the Marquette Interchange to serve suburban commuters.

And now, as we speak, over the possible addition of more noise, pollution, lanes, ramps and elevated bridges in the narrow, urbanized I-94 corridor near Miller Park, the Story Hill neighborhood and three cemeteries there, too.

Today is right day for this history lesson, as WisDOT has the entire SE Wisconsin region detoured, delayed, diverted and other disgusted with orange barrels illustrating the state's refusal to use the longest-lasting highway building materials, hence our Memorial Day weekend congestion.

Jeff Gonyo leads the HJCJ Coalition; here is a first-hand account of what he, concerned citizens and the Waukesha Environmental Action League are facing:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSERVATIVES, ENVIRONMENTALISTS AND THE FEDERAL COURT

ALL SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE WISDOT’S HIGHWAY 164 PROJECT!

By

Jeffrey M. Gonyo,

Steering Committee Member for the

HIGHWAY J CITIZENS GROUP, U.A.

P.O. Box 152, Hubertus , WI  53033

E-Mail: jmgonyo164@core.com

Website: www.hwyjcitizensgroup.org

            Since 1999, the Highway J Citizens Group, U.A. (HJCG) has been waging a strong, well-organized grassroots battle to stop the Wisconsin Department of Transportation’s (WisDOT) repeated attempts to illegally and unnecessarily expand Highway 164 through Washington and Waukesha Counties. During the past five years, the HJCG (along with its co-plaintiff, the Waukesha County Environmental Action League) has scored four major victories as a result of these efforts.

            In 2009 and 2010, the federal court twice rejected the Highway 164 expansion project mainly because the WisDOT had failed to fully consider environmental impacts and reasonable alternatives and did not hold a proper public hearing, and last year, after the HJCG and WEAL filed another federal court action, the Federal Highway Administration rescinded its prior approval of this highly-controversial project. 

            At a January 23, 2014 public hearing, a standing room only crowd of irate citizens, along with many organizations (from both sides of the political spectrum), again joined together to strongly speak out against the WisDOT’s latest “warmed-over” version of their previously-rejected Highway 164 expansion project.

            In addition to the HJCG, this impressive list of organizations included the Waukesha County Environmental Action League, Scenic America, Citizens for Responsible Government, Endangered Species Coalition, Sierra Club, Milwaukee Riverkeeper, Wisconsin Metropolitan Audubon Society and the Center for Health, Environment and Justice. The 2014 Libertarian Candidate for Governor (Robert Burke) also submitted comments calling for the immediate cancellation of this project because it would waste over $16 million in tax money and jeopardize the private property rights of many area residents. 

            Because of this strong united opposition by both conservatives and environmentalists combined with several serious legal deficiencies identified by the HJCG’s attorneys, WisDOT now has been forced to delay the highway expansion plans for Highway 164 by another two years (until 2018). 

            Most disturbing here is the WisDOT’s adamant refusal to reduce Highway 164’s speed limit to 45 MPH which is a proven-effective, low-cost, easily-implemented and minimally-intrusive alternative to greatly improve traffic safety. According to proven, past experience, lowering Highway 164’s speed limit to 45 mph would reduce traffic accidents by nearly 80% (just like what happened back in 2000 when the speed limit was temporarily reduced to 45 mph for a five-month period).  The full implementation of a 45 mph speed limit on Highway 164 would cost only $8,000 according to the WisDOT’s current cost estimates. 

            However, instead of implementing this simple, low-cost, and highly-effective speed limit reduction, the irresponsible WisDOT bureaucrats want to wastefully-spend over $16 million to make Highway 164 wider, faster, busier and even more dangerous for both area residents and travelers.

            To help us continue this very worthwhile grassroots effort to stop unnecessary highway expansion, protect our natural resources, preserve our communities and save tax dollars, please donate today by mailing your checks to: HIGHWAY J CITIZENS GROUP, U.A., P.O. Box 152, Hubertus, WI  53033 or donate online using PayPal on our website at: www.hwyjcitizensgroup.org.  With your much-appreciated support, we can “change the way WisDOT does business” in Wisconsin .

==================================================

Sincerely,

Jeff Gonyo,

HIGHWAY J CITIZENS GROUP, U.A.

P.O. Box 152, Hubertus, WI  53033

Phone: (262)-644-8334

E-Mail: jmgonyo164@core.com

Exurban Opponents To SEWRPC Speak Out: Guest Post

SEWRPC-blessed highway expansion in Waukesha and Washington Counties against the wishes of rural and small town residents has sparked the creation of The Highway J Citizens Group.
It offers its views below:

Dear Friends and Neighbors:

On Wednesday, October 22, 2008 (between 5:00 PM and 7:00 PM), the Federal Highway Administration will be holding a public hearing at the Milwaukee County Downtown Transit Center in the Harbor Lights Room (909 East Michigan Street, Milwaukee, WI) to receive citizen input concerning the recertification of the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC). Please join us there to speak out in strong opposition to the recertification of SEWRPC. For your convenience, I have attached a PDF file with some detailed information about this public hearing to this e-mail.

For the past nine years, SEWRPC has been nothing more than "an unresponsive, taxpayer-funded, rubber stamp" for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) and the roadbuilding lobby in this region of our state. THAT IS NOT THE INTENDED PURPOSE OF SEWRPC!

40 years ago when SEWRPC was organized, its stated mission was to create a reasonable balance between the transportation, land use, environmental, social, economic and other interests in Southeastern Wisconsin so that our communities could be well-planned and provide a high quality of life for this area's residents. All of these interests were to have "a place at the table" during this planning process. However, that is not what is happening here.

During the past nine years, many HJCG members and other like-minded, concerned citizens from both Waukesha and Washington Counties have attended SEWRPC meetings and hearings to speak out against unnecessary, fiscally-irresponsible and environmentally-damaging road expansion plans (including the Highway 164 four-lane expansion, the Pioneer Road-Waterford Road-County Highway E expansion, the Lannon Road expansion and many other related projects) only to have their thoughtful comments "fall upon deaf ears" and ignored.

For example, in 2006, many of our members attended SEWRPC's 2035 Regional Transportation Plan public hearings in Washington County to speak out against these road expansion projects and offer more reasonable alternatives. GUESS WHAT -- Even though 100% of the people who spoke at that meeting were vehemently opposed to SEWRPC's roadbuilding plans, this unresponsive agency refused to eliminate or modify those plans. Also, earlier this year, concerned citizens participated in the Washington County Smart Growth Plan public meetings and raised concerns about several road expansion projects as well as the unresolved groundwater contamination problems in the Ackerville area -- only to have the SEWRPC representative at those meetings summarily dismiss or minimize these valid community concerns.

By caving-in and catering to the WisDOT and their roadbuilding allies at the great expense of our precious environmental resources (air, water and land), our neighborhoods, and our health and public safety, SEWRPC has effectively "abandoned its original mission" and, thus deserves to be immediately decertified as a taxpayer-funded, regional planning agency. If SEWRPC is decertified, then it will no longer be able to tell the WisDOT which highway projects need to be built or expanded in Southeastern Wisconsin (which includes Waukesha and Washington Counties). Decertification of SEWRPC would give the people greater control and more influence over the roadbuilding decision-making process and ultimately lead to implementation of more reasonable alternatives, better protection of the environment, and greater preservation of our local communities.

Please join us at this very important public hearing and "make your voices heard" on this matter of great concern to all of us. If you are unable to attend, then you can submit your written comments before November 8, 2008 to the Federal Highway Administration at: Federal Highway Administration, Attn: Planning Certification Review, 525 Junction Road, Suite 8000, Madison, WI 53717, FAX: (608)-829-7526, E-Mail: wisconsin.fhwa@fhwa.dot.gov.

Thank you for your sincere concern for our homes, families, communities, and the environment. We hope to see you on Wednesday, October 22nd at the Milwaukee County Downtown Transit Center (between 5:00 PM and 7:00 PM) to vigorously oppose the recertification of the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC).

Sincerely,

Jeff Gonyo,
HIGHWAY J CITIZENS GROUP, U.A.
P.O. Box 152, Hubertus, WI 53033
Phone: (262)-644-8334
E-Mail: jmgonyo164@core.com
Website: www.hwyjcitizensgroup.org

No Surprise: Waukesha Wins At SEWRPC

It took five years, requests from organizations like Waukesha County and $1 million - - about a quarter of which was diverted to SEWRPC in 2004 from deed registration fees from Milwaukee County to get it all financed and finished - - but the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission finally approved at its Wednesday meeting a set of water supply recommendations that include piping Lake Michigan water to Waukesha.

Waukesha is hailing the SEWRPC action, but take that with a grain of salt, as I'll explain.

SEWRPC is also recommending that Waukesha be allowed to ship some of the diverted water to a new service territory that is 80% larger in acreage than what it supplies now - - and it will need all the new customers it can get to help finance the possible diversion, should it happen, as it carries a minimum estimated cost of $164 million.

Waukesha will build up the SEWRPC water report adopted Wednesday as some sort of imperative etched in stone, a directive to water regulators in Wisconsin - - who are still sitting on the city's diversion application paperwork and labeling it after eight months, "deficient" - - and a message also to the other Great Lakes states, when, in fact, the water study recommendations, like all SEWRPC findings, are recommendations only.

And can be ignored - - like its recommendations for ag land  or environmental corridor preservation in Waukesha County and elsewhere.

As SEWRPC Executive Director Emeritus Kurt Bauer - - chairman also of the water advisory committee - - himself recounted in a 2007 posting on this blog when discussing the loss of open space SEWRPC had recommended in the region for preservation.

From my interview with him in that posting:

"Pabst Farms was at one time in a prime agricultural area. If the [SEWRPC] Regional Land Use Plan had been followed, it [Pabst Farms] would not have been given over for development...it should have been kept in agricultural, open use."

And as to agriculture in Waukesha County, which Bauer said was a worldwide cattle provider as late as the 1960's?

"Agriculture is pretty much gone there," he said.

Bauer said the key to containing sprawl is land use decision-making at the front end of the planning and development processes because "land use is the key to all these problems that we don't address" - - but he said that residential developers across the region continue to convert open land, with commercial and industrial land following.

"The containment of sprawl: [SEWRPC] has been preaching against it for forty years, but it's crying in the wilderness."

"Pabst Farms is a big change. You can see it," Bauer said.

"But a lot of these changes occur in small increments. What do the Chinese say? 'It's the death by a thousand cuts.'"

Waukesha Water Application Discussed; Uphill Climb Predicted

Thursday's meeting of the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission's (SEWRPC) Environmental Justice Task Force centered on whether and how environmental justice would or could be influenced by the preliminary recommendations reached last year by another SEWRPC body, its regional water advisory committee, that had endorsed the diversion of Lake Michigan water to Waukesha, among other draft recommendations.

Given that the EJTF has been assigned a review of the water advisory committee's preliminary recommendations, EJTF's consultants in their progress report Thursday made some insightful and noteworthy remarks about the necessity and implications of Waukesha's May, 2010 application for Great Lakes water.

These were the meeting highlights, as I saw them:

1. Consultants from the UWM Center for Economic Development hired six months ago by SEWRPC, and assigned to the EJTF, said their research to date indicated it was unlikely that there would significant socio-economic consequences if a community like Waukesha changed its water source from groundwater to Lake Michigan Waukesha - - but that "existing regional socio-economic imbalances could be rectified through an intergovernmental cooperative agreement."

They suggested hard details be included in such future agreements, in contrast to an approach to socio-economic matters in Milwaukee's recent water deal with New Berlin they called "soft."

The New Berlin-Milwaukee agreement contained an unenforceable pledge against job poaching, and called for a yearly meeting to discuss issues of mutual concern - - a meeting which has not been held as the second anniversary of the deal approaches.

2. The EJTF, however, agreed that its consultant work was not yet done and should be expanded to examine potential socio-economic impacts inherent in some additional possible Waukesha water supply options other than the Lake Michigan alternative from Milwaukee, such as groundwater sources.

Waukesha's Water Utility and Common Council have said such alternatives are less desirable and more costly.

They recommend, and will seek from the eight Great Lakes states, a Lake Michigan supply alternative with an estimated $164 million price tag with Milwaukee the preferred seller.

But Waukesha has not released the projected costs of a Lake Michigan supply from either Oak Creek and/or Racine - - a brewing legal and political problem.

And Waukesha has rejected a groundwater supply solution, such as maintaining and improving existing deep wells, or drilling new shallow wells, or tapping into the Fox River's bank, or a groundwater source combination; the EJTF is saying the socio-economic question and consultant mission requires the examination of some groundwater alternatives.

Current Waukesha Mayor Jeff Scrima - - elected in an April upset over pro-diversion Larry Nelson - - has questioned the Lake Michigan option, and called for more study of non-Lake Michigan alternatives - - so is being ripped mightily by the Water Utility and Common Council.

The Wisconsin DNR has said Waukesha needs to supply more information in the application about various water supply, cost, discharge and Great Lakes Compact compliance issues - - and for the time being has set the application aside.

History here.

These various calls for more research and/or data by Mayor Scrima, the DNR and the EJTF are not coordinated - - but could become the framework for an upgraded Waukesha water supply if The Common Council and Water Utility were willing to consider what could be a more practical approach.

3. UWM Prof. Joel Rast, the lead UWM consultant to the EJTF, also said his review of existing studies indicated "Waukesha had enough water if they managed it properly to sustain development through 2035."

Said Rast: "The ground water is going to be adequate. There isn't actually a pressing need for Lake Michigan water."

Waukesha's application faced a "tough" and uncertain future, Rast said, because "the science says it is not needed, not necessary."

4. The EJTF consultants are preliminarily recommending that future studies like the SEWRPC regional water study have designated representation from disadvantaged communities, and that recommendation is already being implemented, according to SEWRPC Executive Ken Yunker.

He pointed to SEWRPC's establishment of the the EJTF (in 2007) and the agency's assurance that an EJTF member had been placed on what became the next major SEWRPC study committee - - on regional housing.

The water advisory committee's all-Caucasian 32-member makeup - - frequently criticized - - still exists with the same makeup it has had since it was named by SEWRPC, with local government and private sector input in 2005.

The overall water study is on hiatus, awaiting the ETFJ component's completion in a month or two.

The full water advisory study committee, SEWRPC standing committees and the full 21-member SEWRPC commission will need to approve the water supply study - - with the EJTF input - - before the water supply study becomes final and is available to all municipalities in the seven-county region as a set of recommendations only.

Let's put today's meeting into some context:

Waukesha's biggest legal hurdle to winning access to Lake Michigan water lies in convincing regulators in eight states under the Great Lakes Compact that 'the science' indeed says that Lake Michigan water is the city's only reasonable water supply alternative - - therefore using this precedent-diversion application under the Compact to define what "reasonable" means.

Talk about a political process!

Throw in that citizens and water ratepayers in Waukesha and the neighboring communities where it wants to transfer some of the diverted water - - including the Town of Waukesha, plus Pewaukee and Genessee - - will have to decide what's "reasonable" to pay to a selling community for water.

And officials in a selling community - - probably Milwaukee, as Racine and Oak Creek are too expensively far from Waukesha, and in Oak Creek's case, with infrastructure too small to seriously compete with Milwaukee for the sale - - will also have to decide what is "reasonable" to charge for the water and to use its value to mitigate or rectify socio-economic imbalances.

More politics!

See what a slog Waukesha's diversion application has in front of it?

SEWRPC Study Will Recommend Lake Michigan Water Meet Waukesha's Needs

As I predicted on this blog Monday, the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission's staff and consultants will recommend to its water supply advisory committee, after nearly three years of work, that much of the region's water needs to the year 2035 be met with a major shift from well water to Lake Michigan water, including a diversion out of the Great Lakes basin to the City of Waukesha.

While never really in doubt, the initial recommendation is a big political victory for Waukesha, which has said it wants 24 million gallons of Lake Michigan water daily - - more than double its current peak daily usage - - as it is the nerve center of a county whose Executive has predicted nearly 150,000 new residents by mid-century.

Waukesha County's population in the 2000 census was 360,800: Dan Vrakas has said it could hit 509,000 by 2050.

The staff and consultant's preliminary recommendation for major new Lake Michigan water usage is found on page 46 of a lengthy document, Chapter IX of the study-in-progress, "A Regional Water Supply Plan For Southeastern Wisconsin."

The consultant is Ruekert-Mielke, the ubiquitous Waukesha consulting and engineering firm that also has produced the pending Lake Michigan diversion application for the City of New Berlin.

The document and recommendation is to be presented to the water advisory committee at its meeting on Tuesday, September 23, at 9:00 a.m. at the SEWRPC Pewaukee headquarters about a mile north of the intersection of state highway 164 and I-94, at W239 N1812 Rockwood Drive, Pewaukee.

Because materials for the committee meeting were mailed to the 32 members- - committee papers are mailed in hard copy, not emailed or sent on-line - - I simply picked up a packet at SEWRPC's office and read through them Wednesday afternoon.

This posting is based on a first, quick read.

The recommendation technically supports what is called "subalternative 2 to the Composite Plan" - - that is, an amalgam of water conservation plans and techniques, proposed rainfall capture areas on open land to recharge underground supplies, and use of the City of Milwaukee's water works pumping and treatment capacity by up to 13 communities for obtaining Lake Michigan water, including the City of Waukesha - - the biggest of the southeastern Wisconsin communities seeking, and recommended for, Lake Michigan water.

The plan's total estimated capital costs are $326.5 million.

The recommended alternative achieves significant recovery to overused groundwater supplies by substituting Lake Michigan water for a number of communities' wells.

Milwaukee, as the presumed seller, would obtain a new revenue stream, though it would presumably have to bear significant capital costs, too.

The report notes that Waukesha, which has yet to formally apply for a Lake Michigan diversion - - and that application would require approval by all eight Great Lakes states under the new Great Lakes Compact - - has yet to say how it would return diverted water to Lake Michigan, as is required by the Compact.

This is a key point.

Possible solutions include wastewater discharges into the Root River and the Menomonee River's Underwood Creek tributary, or in pipe connections to the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Commission, or in even more potentially-controversial scenarios that include allowing Waukesha to continue its current practice of discharging wastewater to the Fox River.

That is a flow away from the Great Lakes, and thus perhaps also from easy approval by the other states, given that the Compact has tight return flow procedures. requirements and expectations.

The document suggests Waukesha might be able to get away with 85% return flow, annually. I'm not sure if that will fly.

Sending any Great Lakes water to the Mississippi River watershed via the Fox River might not pass muster in Michigan, and elsewhere.

The staff and consultants say the overall supply alternative they are initially recommending to the committee is cost-effective and "more fully meets the plan objectives" than other options.

Therefore it is the one they suggest the committee move along to a series of public meetings, additional review and final approval SEWRPC approval.

The alternative is also said to match up with SEWRPC's guiding land-use plan, though from the beginning, the three-year water supply study came with parameters limited primarily to engineering and capacity cost-benefits analyses and comparative conservation methodologies.

Specific implications such as the impact of water transfers on regional housing patterns, business development, employment opportunities, transportation options and economic justice were not considered.

After the public meetings and additional reviews, the full SEWRPC 21-member board, made up of representatives from each of its seven counties, would adopt a final recommendation and the region's municipalities would then be free to cite and use it.

SEWRPC's final recommendations carry weight in the region: Waukesha would certainly incorporate it into a Lake Michigan diversion application to the other Great Lakes states, as would other communities.

Given the scope of the recommendations, and because SEWRPC has also studied the possibility, a regional water authority might be created to facilitate multi-community diversion applications and even funding for new infrastructure.

SEWRPC Contest: Test Your Political Skills! Win A Fabulous Prize!

Readers of this blog will know that I have been posting updates - - with no fresh news - - about the incomprehensible delay in the release of an every-four-years certification review by federal authorities who look at the work and outreach effort of Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission - - with which SEWRPC can approve major transportation projects in our seven-county region.

The 2004 review hearing was a public relations bloodbath for SEWRPC, and the resulting federal report forced some changes at the agency - - namely the creation of an Environmental Justice Task Force that since its 2007 founding - - yes, delay is the name of the game with many SEWRPC functions - - has been a growing force for planning openness and innovation.

When the 2008 review had its public 'meeting' phase - - October 22, to be exact - - the Federal Highway Administration officials who were in charge tried unsuccessfully to turn the formal hearing into a tepid, so-called open house, without amplified testimony directed to both officials and the large audience that had gathered.

People who had gathered protested, and a compromise was reached - - though after Federal Judge Lynn Adelman scolded federal officials in the Highway J (164) process for pulling the same stunt, I doubt this deadening format will be allowed as a hearing substitution around here again.

The certification report was to be released in March, 2009. Then May. Then the Federal officials stopped answering my emails and calls about the report's whereabouts and release date, though they have promised me a copy when it's done.

Now that we closing in on an entire year since the hearing-cum-open house, I've decided to enliven the process by seeing who among you can guess when the report is actually released.

Notice my optimism: I didn't say "if." I said "when."

So let's do this: Through my email - - jer45y@gmail.com - - or on this blog comment section - - I will gather entries guessing when I will get notification that the report is a released public document, or when that notification gets posted on SEWRPC's or the FHWA's or another public sector website, whichever is sooner.

You should state the date and time.

You will win the following great prize from my personal library - - the very nice and collectible copy of the hardbound and illustrated 1949 Trees, Yearbook of Agriculture, a publication of the USDA.

And coffee and the location of your choice, where I will deliver your prize.

Rules: No entries from anyone at FHWA or SEWRPC: you might have some inside information.

One entry per person.

I guess I can send it to an anonymous entrant, but that will be up to you to resolve.

Have fun!

Change Is Everywhere - - Except In Highway Planning

Huge layoffs and aircraft mothballing at Midwest Airlines.

Even faster production cessation at the General Motors truck plant in Janesville.

Tract and subdivision homes losing value quicker and deeper than city or older, inner-ring suburban properties.

Spiking fuel costs are making economic waves and changing behaviors everywhere - - except in the offices of public sector agencies that plan highways and have power over transportation improvements and investments.

At the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, and the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, planners, designers and engineers continue to propose and execute highway construction projects as if gasoline still cost about half what it actually costs today.

WisDOT is forging ahead with a $1.9 billion bells-and-whistles rebuilding and expansion of I-94 from south Milwaukee to the Illinois state line.

It is using a plan recommended by SEWRPC in 2003 that used traffic projections based on gasoline costing $2.30-a-gallon, with a predicted 3% annual increase, putting it today at $2.51-a-gallon.

[I was at SEWRPC today: regular gas at the Mobil station just south of the offices there at the intersection of State highway 164 and I-94 costs $4.299-a-gallon]

The same SEWRPC-written, WisDOT-implemented plan also contains another $3.8 billion in spending throughout the SEWRPC seven-county region on more freeway rebuilding and added lanes, with a half-billion ticketed in 2012 for the Zoo Interchange west of Milwaukee.

SEWRPC's plan calls for adding 127 miles of new lanes, but did not include any rail components.

Taking its cues from SEWRPC, and incorporating its own historic disdain for any passenger rail except the federally-subsidized Amtrak system, WisDOT did choose to add them - - even though a commuter rail initiative from Milwaukee to Racine to Kenosha, parallel to the freeway segment being widened in that corridor, sits on a shelf after many years of study.

Plenty of people have worked on the commuter rail plan in good faith. That's not the problem.

It's that road-building signals coming from the top are still the priority and direction.

I know a person pretty high up in the Minnesota Department of Transportation - - the WisDOT equivalent just to our northwest - - and that person said when Jesse Ventura was elected Minnesota Governor, the law was laid down:

We're Building Light Rail In The Twin Cities, Now!

The agency was redirected from the top to get it done, and the Hiawatha system is up and running, and breaking all ridership projections.

In our largest urban area, we do not have these choices - - because our political leaders and their opinion-maker partners deny them to us.

While Governor, Tommy Thompson and then-Waukesha County Executive Dan Finley toadying to anti-city interests fomented by right-wing talk radio, blocked and vetoed light rail.

The Waukesha Freeman as we speak opposes Waukesha County even joining a regional transportation authority to rationalize area-wide transportation services because it believes it would be too much of a benefit to the City of Milwaukee.

Our bus system in Milwaukee is dying, rail is stalled, but billions are about to be spent on wider highways, with fancier exit ramps, as driving is declining.

It's a collective state and regional failure, being played out with our tax dollars, on behalf of a dying paradigm in which road contractors and their political allies are the winners at society's expense.

Spell Cast By Waukesha City's Water Diversion Letter

Two things.

1. There will be a Town of Waukesha public meeting Monday night to sort out the on-again, off-again Town inclusion in the City's Great Lakes diversion application - - which all began when SEWRPC put the Town in line for diverted water without consulting the Town or notifying the public.

So - - another meeting, another decision, more redundancy, but a good idea.

2. And speaking of SEWRPC:

The letter is from the Waukesha City Administrator, and while we all make mistakes and I've been known to be a spell check failure myself, the letter at the bottom misspells the first or last name of the SEWRPC Executive Director, a DNR water official, the City of Waukesha water utility general manager and the City Administrator himself.

Four strikes and yer out!

Here is the full text:

CITY ADMINISTRATOR    Edmund M. Henschel
201 DELAFIELD STREET WAUKESHA, WISCONSIN 53188-3633 TELEPHONE 262/524-3701 FAX 262/524-3899
April 25, 2013
Town Chairman and Supervisors Town of Waukesha W250 S3567 Center Road Waukesha WI    53189
Dear Town Chairman and Town Supervisors:
ehenschel@ci.waukesha.wi.us

On October 16th the City of Waukesha (“City”) submitted a formal response to your September 18, 2012 proposal concerning the Waukesha Water Service Planning Area. Subsequent to receiving the City’s October 16th letter, a meeting with then Town Chairman Van Scyoc and Town Supervisor Banske was held to discuss the City’s response. Through the discussion, we understand the concerns of the Town are related to the Town’s potential loss of revenue as a result of annexations and the desire to preserve the water and water related resources to its residents.

This letter is a follow up to our meeting with Town representatives on April 13, 2013 and supersedes and replaces any of the City’s previous letters, which are now null and void. The terms set forth in this document are only valid if the Town of Waukesha approval of the Water Supply Service Area Plan is consistent with the “Planning area” as defined by SEWRPC in their letter dated December 23, 2008; and once the City of Waukesha receives all necessary approvals for a supply of Great Lakes water.

In addition, this offer requires action by the Town Board no later than April 30, 2013. If the offer is not accepted by April 30, 2013, the City will move forward with the area previously approved by the Town Board at its January 24, 2013 meeting and reaffirmed at its February 8, 2013 meeting. If the City is not successful with its Application, the Town’s approval of the Water Supply Service Area Plan and the conditions outlined in this letter are null and void.

1.    With regard to the joint consideration of petitions for annexations from territory within the Town of Waukesha to the City of Waukesha, the City will follow Wisconsin State law. The law provides a formal process by which property owners and electors may petition the City for annexation. The City agrees that the Town of Waukesha may represent its position to the City for consideration. This position will be considered by the Common Council when a request is made.

2.    With regard to annexations, the City of Waukesha will agree to compensate the Town of Waukesha for twenty (20) years at the Town’s mil rate for the value of the property at the time the annexation is approved by the City. This would be effective once the City receives all of the necessary approvals for its Application for Great Lakes Water and begins receiving Great Lakes Water.

3.    The City of Waukesha is in agreement that neither the Town of Waukesha, nor any of the property owners of the Town of Waukesha who are in the “Water Service Planning Area”, and who are not presently “customers” of the Waukesha Water Utility, will be assessed any charge(s)/cost(s) until and unless they are “connected” to the municipal water system which will provide water from Lake Michigan by their request and upon approval by the City.

4.    The City of Waukesha is in agreement that the Town of Waukesha may review the Letter of Intent and the contract between the City of Waukesha and the Lake Michigan Water Supplier, to be provided to the Town of Waukesha, as soon as available (which has already been done).

5.    The City of Waukesha is in agreement that the Town of Waukesha will not be encumbered or bound by any economic/social, development requirements of the Lake Michigan Water Supplier.

6.    The City of Waukesha is in agreement that the Town of Waukesha will be able to choose between purchasing Great Lakes Water from the City of Waukesha either on a wholesale or retail basis or combination of both. However, individual properties that receive water service will be provided water service on a retail basis. The purchase of water by the Town or owners of individual properties will require the approval of the Common Council when a specific request for water is made.

7.    The City of Waukesha is in agreement that the City of Waukesha shall confirm, in writing, the amount of water that will be allocated to the residents of the Town of Waukesha (as it is presently constituted). The amount of water so allocated shall be reserved strictly for use by the residents of the Town of Waukesha (as it is presently constituted) with the approval of the Common Council. Water allocation will be proportionately reduced if the boundaries of the Town of Waukesha are modified.

The Town’s support of the City’s application for water will protect residents in the Water Supply Service Area from problems such as the groundwater contamination that has contaminated private wells in the Town with molybdenum near the intersection of Highways 59 and 164; spills similar to the one that occurred in the Town of Jackson; or failing septic systems resulting in groundwater contamination. Without this support, the Town would be precluded from obtaining water from the City to resolve future potential groundwater contamination issues

We appreciate the spirit of intergovernmental cooperation the Town of Waukesha has exhibited through this process. The City understands the Town’s concern about its ability to continue to provide effective services to its residents in light of lost assessed value resulting from annexations. In addition to the twenty year revenue sharing offered above, the City would also propose entering into negotiations with the Town to provide certain services to the Town on a cost effective basis. Such services may include, but are not necessarily limited to: snow plowing, fire.EMS service, inspection service and other mutually beneficial services.

Sincerely,
Edmunc M. Henschel City Administrator

cc: Common Council Water Commission

City Attorney Steve Crandell, Community Development Director Danield Duchniak, General Manager Ken Yonker Dale Shaver Eric Ebbersberger

Highway 164 Update, And Another SEWRPC Story

The good folks in Waukesha and Washington Counties trying to deal with an obnoxious four-lane road expansion through their front yards and the Kettle Moraine are still in court, seeking redress.

Their coalition update is here.

Keep in mind that when the widening of Highway 164 north from I-94 was proposed, 7,000 people signed petitions against the project (the number of project opponents is now up to 15,000) and turned them into the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission.

Those signatures went into SEWRPC's reflexive 'react and dismiss' procedure, and the project was approved.

From farm to Sussex business park, Chapter 60, The Road to Sprawlville

In this the 60th chapter of our ongoing series, "The Road to Sprawlville," we note that the exurban Waukesha County Village of Sussex, population 10,695 - - and nineteen miles from the region's largest labor market in the City of Milwaukee - - is planning a big mixed-use business park on a 73-acre farm at the developing intersection of Lisbon Rd. and State Highway 164.

The site is about five miles north of I-94.

Looking north across the site from Lisbon Rd. 

For those of you who think you're seeing only the wise hand of the free market guiding job creation, business development and land use without public subsidy or government intervention, think again:

The Village is getting ready to rezone the property away from its open space designation - - an action by a third governmental body - - to further manage changein  region's landscape and economy.

It all began when the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, (SEWRPC), headquartered a few miles to the south on State Highway 164 approved the highway's widening  - - over the objections of thousands of area residents - -  followed by the State of Wisconsin Department of Transportation, (WisDOT), launching the spending millions of dollars on the road-widening project for about sixteen miles into Washington County - - again over local objections - - and even flouting the law.

This reminds me of an issue often reported here on this blog - - the local and state lending subsidies, site improvements and highway interchange spending of nearly $50 million at the troubled and incomplete Pabst Farms residential and commercial development further west of Sussex in Waukesha County.

These are the kinds of decisions that help keep the region's development and job opportunities separated by distance, race and income from Milwaukee, the state's largest city and commercial center.

According to US Census data, Sussex is less than one percent African-American, and its residents have, at about $70,000, twice the average Milwaukee household income of about $35,000.

It's all an illustration of growth patterns in Waukesha County as it heads from a population of 360,800 in 2000 to a build-out projected at 520,000 people, and where farms in Waukesha County will all but disappear, according to former SEWRPC Executive Director Kurt Bauer:

 "Agriculture is pretty much gone there," he said in a 2010 interview.

Looking south from the site's Lisbon Rd border.

Sussex is certainly not the cause of these disparities - - expertly analyzed by UWM Professor Marc Levine and his colleagues - - ,and neither is a single new development, but, like so many others, the new jobs created there are unlikely to be available by transit to Milwaukee workers - - and the development illustrates a reality about the region's economic distortions that are frequently noted in local and national reports.

Waukesha's Lake Michigan Diversion Application: First Read

I've begun reading, side-by-side, hard copies of the April 2010 Lake Michigan water diversion draft plan that was approved by the City of Waukesha's Common Council and the final diversion application that the Waukesha Water Utility sent six weeks later, on May 20, to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for its mandatory state review.

The application is on the water utility website, as I indicated.

Is it a new application, given the changes?

Depends on your definition of "new," though the Water Utility says changes are minor.

A little background first...

The drafting was slowed in 2009 by several factors, including the water utility's dropping its long-time technical consultant in favor of the firm CH2M Hill.

Before finally sending off the application, the water utility also added a fresh legal consultant to work on the application, and the utility said the Waukesha City Attorney had recommended some changes, so it's an understatement to call this a work in progress - - and one that has been revised in-house without a public airing, formal approval by the Waukesha Common Council, or the signature of new Mayor Jeff Scrima,.

REcords at the Waukesha Water Utility indicate that the newly-hired lawyer, Lawrie Kobza, from the Madison Board Law Firm, billed nearly $11,000 for meetings, work on and revisions to the application.

Waukesha's water utility general manager, Daniel Duchniak, has said the final drafting changes were minor, so the final document did not need another vote by the Common Council; I said in a recent posting that I thought that was a public policy mistake.

Duchniak has said he hopes the DNR's review can be accomplished in 90-120 days, which, frankly, would surprise me because the DNR has yet to complete work on an important procedural document that will define and declare the scope of its review.

The DNR made its task more difficult and perhaps slowed Waukesha's timetables by declining to write state administrative rules governing diversion applications even though the Wisconsin legislature approved the Great Lakes Compact in 2008, and Gov. Doyle signed it into law just about two years ago to the day - - May 27, 2008.

Had it begun the rule-making process then, that process would be over and everyone - - Waukesha, environmental groups, other municipalities and the other states - - would know what a Wisconsin application should contain, and why.

On the other hand, the DNR's passivity left Waukesha and its consultants more free to define what a diversion application would look like - - which may backfire if the other states think the DNR dropped the ball, willfully or not, and ceded too much power to the city making the application.

Anyway...

At first glance, in looking at the two application versions (I did not review a third draft dated 1/28/2010 that sat on the Water utility website even after the April version was approved by the Common Council) it seems as if the April version was principally aimed at the Waukesha Common Council (which voted its approval on April 8th).

And the final version appears - - my interpretation - - tighter, more strategically crafted and targeted at broader audiences: other municipalities (Wauwatosa and Milwaukee), or environmental groups, which have the power to intervene along the way, and also the eight Great Lakes states whose Governors must give their unanimous approval for this precedent-setting application to move forward.

To the naked eye, the two versions look identical. Both the April and final versions are about 120 pages, and have six main subject areas.

But I see differences in language, emphasis, argumentation and organization.

The April version, for example, has one section and four sub-sections under "Water System Overview," that total ten pages.

In the the Final Version (note: I'm bold-facing and italicizing throughout to differentiate between April version and Final version) that portion is 12 pages long, and has six sections, and four sub-sections.

Or take the Executive Summary.

The April version executive summary is nearly four full pages. In the Final version, it's been cut to two.

In the April version, the executive summary has three charts, including a flow chart of alternatives, and grid-like charts entitled "Water Supply Alternatives Evaluation Summary" and "Water Supply Alternatives Cost Estimate."

Money is obviously a paramount issue for local Waukesha politicos and residents; the Lake Michigan option is estimated to cost $164 million.

But in the Final Version: the sole chart in the executive summary is just the one entitled "Water Supply Alternatives Evaluation Summary." The flow-chart appears about halfway through the report, so, again, editing and reorganization has taken place.

By the way, the $164 million estimate, fully broken out, has not changed in the Final version.

There are more differences, just in the executive summary:

In the April version, this is the final paragraph:

"After analyzing various water supply alternatives, it is clear that a Lake Michigan water supply, with continued water conservation and return flow, is is the only reasonable solution for the City of Waukesha. It offers the most reliable, cost-effective, high-quality drinking water for the future. It protects the integrity of the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem. It more effectively manages the Waters of the Great Lakes Basin and eliminates the negative environmental impacts of using groundwater. Use of a Lake Michigan water supply will terminate pumping of the deep aquifer and help to restore the natural flow of groundwater towards Lake Michigan to benefit the Great Lakes ecosystem."

Contrast that to the Final version, final paragraph (and I know it's a hassle to read this way):

"The only reasonable water supply for the City is a Lake Michigan supply with continued water conservation and return flow, in accordance with the requirements of the Compact. This is the only water supply that balances the inherent social, environmental and economic development benefits of a reliable supply of drinking water with stewardship of environmental resources for future generations. A Lake Michigan supply for the City is sustainable, protective of public health, and results in more effective management, and improvement, of the waters and water dependent natural resources of the Great Lakes Basin."

That's a broader statement and speaks to bigger audiences, such as Milwaukee aldermen, environmental activists and social justice advocates.

And the language should interest the Environmental Justice Task Force of the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, because "the inherent social, environmental and economic development benefits of a reliable supply of drinking water" is the precise subject of a separate, continuing study by SEWRPC, and a UW-M think tank, that is holding up the completion of SEWRPC's five-year-long regional water supply study.

I expect that Waukesha, knowing that Milwaukee aldermen unanimously approved a resolution tying water sales to Waukesha to cooperation with affordable housing, transit and other socio-economic issues, will send a copy of its Final version to SEWRPC and its environmental justice task force.

This could be the way that Waukesha firms up the connection of social justice, regional cooperation and water access, and can partner with Milwaukee if the application is approved.

It could lead to financial and policy contributions from Waukesha in the name of water supply innovation that will put weight and resources behind the final application's rhetoric.

I also want to point to some differences in the two versions' conclusions:

April version:

The conclusion consists of four short paragraphs that reiterate Waukesha's case for Lake Michigan water, its pledged protections for the Great Lakes Basin, and so on.

But in the Final Version conclusion, those same four paragraphs, cut and pasted verbatim from the April version, also come with a different and rhetorically-confident lead paragraph that had appeared earlier in the April version's section on Lake Michigan water/wastewater return flow.

The authors of the Final version, like lawyers in front of an eight-state water management jury, seemed to have wanted, and found, a stronger closing argument:

"There are few communities with significant populations that are outside the Great Lakes Basin, within a straddling county, and as close to on (sic) of the Great Lakes as the City of Waukesha. Consequently, the Compact diversion exception standard is applicable to few communities of similar size to Waukesha, and communities further away will find a diversion less economically feasible. As required by the Compact, any community within a straddling county will also be evaluated individually for a water diversion based upon its ability to provide no significant individual or cumulative adverse impacts. With the City of Waukesha setting goals that exceed the Compact requirements, and rare similar circumstances in straddling counties as close to on (sic) of the Great Lakes as the City of Waukesha, there are no significant adverse cumulative impacts possible with any precedents associated with this application."

That idea of Waukesha exceptionalism - - written and presented that way (typos aside) - - is a strong statement of intent and belief which I know will draw the attention of reviewers in the other states.

Final thoughts for this post:

The application has thousands of lines and numerous maps and charts that must be read word-by-word, along with something like 800-1,000 pages of appendices.

Ideally this could be done on a split screen, or in a comprehensive version with changes highlighted, but I'm not holding my breath for that to appear.

And I'm betting there will be more comparative reading to come, because the Wisconsin DNR will certainly request from Waukesha additional information, or changes, as will the other states.

In these areas, among others, at a minimum, I think:

The return flow regime through Wauwatosa's Underwood Creek; the relative merits of supply alternatives Waukesha dismissed; and Waukesha's intention to send diverted water to an expanded service territory to its west and south that is 80% larger than what is currently hooked up.

Bottom line:

Given the complexity of the process, and the gravity of a precedent-setting diversion outside of the Great Lakes Basin with a return flow in most months headed exclusively for two Lake Michigan tributaries (Underwood Creek, then the Menomonee River downstream through Milwaukee) - - it's premature for Waukesha to engage in anything but an exchange of pleasantries with potential suppliers of Lake Michigan water, such as the City of Milwaukee.

I'd recommend that officials in those cities get their hands on the final application, assign it to their attorneys, water utility managers, environmental specialists and public works directors and get ready for detailed but interesting reading.

Last comment, for now: I really think Waukesha's Common Council missed the boat when it did not require the final application to come back for review.

It would have signaled to all of Southeastern Wisconsin and the other states that the Waukesha application was drafted and adopted as transparently as possible.

By simply delivering it to the DNR, and offering no guide to the changes, Waukesha missed an opportunity to make the document what former Mayor Larry Nelson often called a "role model application."

Water, Highway Decisions/Spending Will Fuel Waukesha Sprawl

Waukesha County, where small-government, fiscally-conservative politics is said to be the norm, is a;so about to absorb multiple government actions and spending that will direct where population expansion - - thus construction, development, traffic and demands for taxpayer-paid services - - will take place.

The drivers of this process will be a) expanded water service from a possible Lake Michigan diversion (estimated cost, $164 million), and b) highway expansion in the form of the West Waukesha Bypass (about $50 million expected).

One arm of government, the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission has determined that another arm of government, the Waukesha Water Utility, can expand its service territory to the south and west and add a land mass of 17.4 square miles, or about 80%, to the current service territory to which it could pipe Lake Michigan water.

Take a look at the expanded water service territory map - - developable land, as mapped by SEWRPC, is in orange, and the squiggly blue line is the existing water service boundary (yes, I know, there are too many blues in the map...)



The Journal Sentinel has a nice version of the map that more clearly shows the expanded and current service territories, here.

Some residents in the bordering, more rural Town of Waukesha are not happy with the Bypass - - project area map here - - or the prospect of diverted Lake Michigan water being offered in the town, but the state, county and city - - bigger governments, along with the unelected SEWRPC - - are calling the shots that will push development out from the City of Waukesha into open space and the smaller communities.

Bypass highway options would run north/south between I-94 and State Highway 59. A final route decision is pending and there will be a public meeting Wednesday night in Waukesha to begin to pare down the options; basically the Bypass will go somewhere north/south - - again the Bypass map is here - - through a portion of the expanded water service territory.

So highway expansion will serve the added water service territory, and vice-versa.

Permission to expand the Waukesha Water service territory, as defined by SEWRPC, has been added to that city's application for a Lake Michigan diversion.

The application, approved by the Waukesha Common Council in April, has been in the hands of the the state government - - the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, since June - - but a formal review of the application has not begun.

The other seven Great Lakes states would have to approve the application should the DNR eventually green-light it, leaving Waukesha free to pursue a Lake Michigan water sales agreement after negotiations with the three big cities to the East: Milwaukee - - the preferred provider - - Racine, or Oak Creek.

You might want to remember the many units of government involved in the growth and definition of the City and County of Waukesha the next time you hear someone saying that development and population patterns in Southeastern Wisconsin are dictated by personal choice.

Nope: Even in Waukesha County, big government, backed by big bucks, is calling the tune.

An additional note: CH2M Hill is now the water supply/diversion application consultant for the Waukesha Water Utility and also the bypass consultant for Waukesha County, the road project's eventual manager.

Water Questions For Tonight's Waukesha Council Meeting

Waukesha Common Council members tonight, will debate, and likely endorse a $164 million proposal to divert Lake Michigan water as a replacement supply, by June 30, 2018, for the community's well water.

Under the proposal, Waukesha is seeking to substantially expand both its average daily water distribution and the geographical areas to which it will provide water service, with long-term environmental and financial consequences and costs.

 

Is this why the eight Great Lakes states approved an historic water management and conservation Compact in 2008 that limits the reasons for diversions? To enable one community's growth?

The Waukesha County Environmental Action League, (WEAL), with years of experience studying, promoting and vetting water issues and plans, submitted formal comments to city officials on the diversion plans working draft.

WEAL's effort was a true public service. Their questions offer a solid framework for the council debate, so I am posting them in their entirety below.

The Waukesha County Environmental Action League (WEAL) is a 30+ year-old grassroots environmental organization whose mission it is to protect and preserve the natural resources of Waukesha County. WEAL’s membership includes City residents as well as residents of the surrounding townships whose addresses have recently been included in the service area boundary as drawn by SEWRPC in December 2009.

In addition to WEAL’s organizational work on the water issue, and our individual efforts as citizens and taxpayers, WEAL also works in collaboration with a regional and statewide coalition of environmental groups called the Compact Implementation Coalition (CIC), a coalition formed to ensure that the Great Lakes Compact be implemented as intended.

As you know, WEAL has been keenly interested and closely involved with the water issues in the City of Waukesha and surrounding areas since their beginnings back in the 1980s when City of Waukesha water was tagged as exceeding maximum standards for radium by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

In November 2008, the City of Waukesha and Waukesha Water Utility (WWU) officials called upon WEAL and other CIC member organizations to help them develop an application (and application process) that would be precedent-setting in its excellence, thoroughness and transparency--and use best available science and practices to support its case that Waukesha needs another water source. 

The CIC response was seven pages of thoughtful, thorough questions, and expertise provided courtesy of attorneys, biologists, health providers, scientists, and activists, representing experts and average citizens of the SE Wisconsin and the state.

These many questions were constructed to address both letter- and spirit-of-the-law standards established by the Great Lakes Compact, and to help the City meet its stated goal of setting a high standard (precedent) for what is expected to be the first Compact application for a diversion outside the Great Lakes basin. Though many questions were technical and detailed, we believe that answered in good faith, with an appropriate level of detail, and using science as the basis, these answers would, in total, lead to the making of a solid case for a diversion, a result we could and would endorse.

When responses to the CIC questions were finally received in June 2009, many answers were incomplete, vague or confusing, evaded the intent of the question or were not directed to the question asked.

In some cases, a response took issue with the wording of a question and focused on semantics while avoiding answering the question, referred to another document or inferred that the question should not have been asked. Arguments were unsupported by details. Conclusions were drawn that were not supportable from the scientific studies cited. Some responses contradicted others. Science and thoughtful analysis took a backseat to the sales pitch. Math sometimes did not add up. A typical response was that “we’re still studying that” or “we’ll get back to you.” And no one ever did. There are numerous areas remaining where questions have yet to be answered adequately.

Another meeting was held on September 8, 2009 at which we were assured that questions would be answered and details provided once “additional studies were complete.” In a follow-up letter to the City of Waukesha and Utility dated September 19, 2009, Attorney Jodi Habush-Sinykin of the CIC outlined several issues considered to be outstanding, including, but not limited to:

• the need for a more comprehensive evaluation of Waukesha’s water supply options and potential service area mindful of the Compact’s “no reasonable alternative” provision;

• the need for a thorough, side-by-side analysis of potential return flow options to accompany the respective water supply options identified by Waukesha to date;

• the value of Waukesha proactively committing to an Environmental Analysis protocol as a tried and true means of addressing both potential opposition and uncertain regulatory guidance given that any application for a diversion of this nature will comprise a major action under WEPA;

• the importance of providing a meaningful opportunity for the public and other stakeholders to be heard in the public participation process.

The first two bullet points remain unaddressed in the diversion application of January 2010.

At the (Great Lakes) regional review level, in order to establish the credibility needed for seven gubernatorial approvals, a successful diversion application will need to build a good case, cite or include base studies, and make reasoned arguments that are supported within the document. Other Great Lakes states, even those following Wisconsin issues, haven't been living and breathing a Waukesha diversion. 

The City of Waukesha and the WWU must begin at the beginning with this application, including a brief narrative of the EPA ruling on non-compliant radium levels and subsequent lawsuits. Without this, other states will wonder what led up to the WI DNR’s consent decree of 2008, or perhaps assume erroneously that the compliance order was the originating event for the application. We understand that this may be unpleasant, but without context, the application will fail to establish the need for a new water source, if the case can be made.

In many respects, our concerns and comments have changed little since WEAL first formulated a series of questions for the City of Waukesha Common Council in February of 2006. We observe the following:

The City’s draft application does not meet the Great Lakes Compact’s diversion exception standard to exhaust all “reasonable water supply alternatives within [its own] basin . . . including conservation of existing water supplies” as a condition of making application for an exemption to the Compact’s ban on diversions:

Many of the earlier (14) alternatives were dismissed as “too expensive,” “too political,” or “not implementable.” The City will have to do better to describe just how costs were estimated and compared, what details were analyzed, and how that conclusion was drawn. It could be said, without too much of a stretch, that a Lake Michigan diversion option represents all of those things and more.

Furthermore, in eliminating 12 of these alternatives, the City relies on a 2002 Water Supply Plan that is nearly a decade old. Has anything else changed in a decade? Costs certainly have increased. What assumptions are going into the numbers that lead the City to assert that a Lake Michigan diversion is the least costly option? No party can make that determination until the City releases cost breakdowns to the public.

WEAL remains skeptical about any alternative that was dismissed due to its being “too expensive” without being updated and reanalyzed. WEAL continues to call on the City to show its work in making projections and cost estimates (broken down, not in a single sum) in a side-by-side comparison of all options and combinations thereof.

The draft application does not adequately justify the need for the 18.5 mgpd that is being requested, an amount that is nearly three times the average daily amount now being used:

Page 2-1: 10.9 mgpd maximum day demand for projected service area

6.86 mgpd average daily use

Earlier estimates of requested amounts ranged from 20 – 24 mgpd. This fall, the amount was lowered to 18 mgpd. However, even with this adjustment, the application fails to establish a need for the 18.5 mgpd, even if “10.9 mgpd maximum day demand for projected service area” is used.

SEWRPC projects the City’s water service area will expand significantly over the current boundary area. Also according to SEWRPC, large swaths of land (in the additional service area) are not buildable due to their designation as wetlands or environmental corridor.

Another large part of the land within the newly drawn boundary is already developed under township residential zoning of larger lots with private wells and septic systems. Residents in these subdivisions are unlikely to request annexation in light of higher taxes

and the already incurred costs of well and septic. 

In these developed sections are newer subdivisions with high percentages of unsold homes (even after years on the market), excess inventory of new construction, and an unstable economy - with a grim jobs outlook and tight credit availability - which may never recover to its previous level. Peak oil, rising gas and oil prices may make this type of suburban/rural living unattainable for many. Due to these factors, projections in population growth may never materialize.

According to SEWRPC, “only 15 % of the service area land is available for new future development.” Much of this land is scattered to the south, west and east of current city boundaries and in the outermost extremes of the newly drawn service area. These far-flung areas would require enormous investments in infrastructure to bring city services to this largely rural area. There are no guarantees that the land will be developed at all, or that it wouldn’t become residential development with private wells and septic systems.

Water Conservation Lacks a Future Plan and Details About Implementation:

Page 2-5 lists “Water Conservation and Protection Plan Goals”, and rates each idea on a “relative water savings benefit scale.” However, a listing alone does not constitute an actual plan. We would expect that while making a case to the WIDNR and the Great Lakes Governors of the exceptionalism of this plan, an actual plan should include a description of each plan component and how it accomplishes or progresses toward each goal, a prioritization of components (in the plan) with start dates and target dates for goal completion, quantifiable and measurable standards of completion success, an analysis of already implemented components, an estimation of conservation impact, an annual conservation budget including actual funds expended for years 2006 - 2009 (and on what), and projections for 2010 and beyond for implementation of components yet to be launched.

On page 1-3, several water use decrease percentages were given, but lack of supporting detail raises more questions about how these amounts were derived and what impact conservation made on the decrease. For example, the 31% decrease between 1988 and 2008 is correlated with an 18 % increase in the population during the period, but no mention is made regarding loss of manufacturing capacity during the decade and what effect that those losses had on the 31%. Was any usage reduction attributable to conservation?

The 11% decrease between 2005 and 2008 does not factor in the two extremely wet

summers of 2006 and 2007. As drought conditions were a factor in ’05, and ’06 and ’07 exceeded average rainfall for summers, how can the 11% be attributed to conservation? The draft also fails to mention what year (and month) the sprinkling ban went into effect.

WEAL appreciated the City’s commitment to proceed with a transparent, “high-bar” application under the Great Lakes Compact. However, we are disappointed in the resulting process. The openness and transparency promised early and repeated often did not materialize as requests for information and details were stymied, closed meetings were held at both the Water Utility and the Common Council, and, a number of questions have gone unanswered. Comments were not recorded nor made available to the public. And the following chronology will show how little time has been available for citizen input on the actual application.

Feb 23: Public comment (Committee of the Whole)

March 8: Public comment (Committee of the Whole)

March 18: Water Utility Commission votes to recommend diversion application to Common Council

March 26: Public comment period ends

April 8: Common Council votes on recommended diversion application from Water Utility Commission

If the Water Utility Commission were to fairly consider and weigh public comments, why is the close of public comments seven days AFTER the WWU Commission vote? And how can the Common Council vote on the WWU Commission recommendation if public comments were not all received and known by the Commission when it forwarded the diversion application?

Because this proposed diversion application will likely be the first under the recently approved Great Lakes Compact, its precedent-setting impact will be enormous on the legal tenets of the Compact. Because of its scale, the diversion will cost a significant amount and will forever alter the environment in two watersheds. For these reasons, its details should be well explained and well understood by all stakeholders, and all decisions carefully considered before an application is submitted.

In many of its iterations, the diversion application continues to insist that it seeks Lake Michigan water as the most “sustainable” source. WEAL challenges the City and County of Waukesha to become truly sustainable: to live within its own means, both water and financial. The City is not without water resources, as are many communities in the southwest. WEAL challenges the City to model true leadership by demonstration through practice and recognition that all resources are finite, that a Midwest city with reasonable resources, imagination and hard work, can learn to live and thrive within its means.

The lesson to be taken from Peter Annin’s book, Great Lakes Water Wars, is that seemingly vast, inexhaustible water resources can indeed be depleted, the Great Lakes and precious groundwater resources among them.

We appreciate your consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,

Steve Schmuki, President

Waukesha County Environmental Action League