Mary Lazich Is Still Fighting The Sovereignty Debate

Fighting a states' rights issue pretty much resolved by the US Civil War, and apparently forgetting that the same language she is belly-aching about is in a 23-year-old federal water rights law, State Sen. Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin) blogs to her constituents that she cast the lone Senate vote against the Great Lakes Compact because it gave up some of Wisconsin's sovereignty.

Still siding with her obstructionist, fringy allies in Ohio, Lazich grossly misinterprets the Compact and thus the federal law, and seems unaware that decisions of the Great Lakes Governors about water allocations can be appealed in court.

I think Lazich has another agenda:

If and when New Berlin strikes a deal to buy diverted Lake Michigan water from Milwaukee, Lazich will blast the terms if they include any premiums tied to regional, social or land use considerations.

Having already called some Milwaukee actions "extortion," (all these links to her blog are surely driving up her hit counts, so give me credit over there, Kevin), Lazich could point to her vote against the agreement and say, "bad idea, told you so."

It's mind-boggling that New Berlin is the only Great Lakes city in the nation with a diversion application pending, and the state senator representing that community is still out there opposing the very agreement that makes it likely that the diversion application will be approved.

I can't find one Lazich 2007 post on her blog where she expressed her outrage at Milwaukee's position on water transfers, but I did save it when she emailed it to me, so I can put it here, in text, below:


Subject: FYI-See column from 3/16/07
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:54:29 -0500
From: "Sen.Lazich" Sen.Lazich@legis.wisconsin.gov
To: jer45y@gmail.com

THE GREAT LAKES COMPACT IS FLAWED A legislative column by state Senator Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin)

As a member of the Wisconsin Legislative Council Special Committee on the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact, I readily admit that I am not in a hurry to ratify the Great Lakes Compact. I cannot support a flawed document that is bad for public health, bad for the environment, bad for economic development, and generally bad public policy.

Mark Squillace, Director of the Natural Resources Law Center at the University of Colorado Law School has written a research paper titled Rethinking the Great Lakes Compact.

The Compact’s ideal goal is to protect, conserve, restore, improve and effectively manage the Great Lakes waters.

Squillace writes the prescription in the Compact is sorely inadequate for achieving the stated goal. The research paper to be published in the Michigan State Law Review can be found at http://ssrn.com/abstract=960574

With surgical precision, Squillace dissects the Compact components, illuminating the reasons the document is far from being ready for prime time. The Compact is so problematic that Squillace suggests chucking it entirely and starting from scratch.

Absent of any strict cap on overall use of water resources, the probability of overuse of water is high. Thus, the Compact fails to encourage conservation.

A critical Compact requirement is that states manage new or increased water withdrawals, a requirement Squillace calls cumbersome.

Concentrating on new uses of consumption ignores existing uses of the resources that have a far more significant impact. This edict will result in a failure to protect lake levels and a failure to promote the ecological health of the Great Lakes Basin.

Squillace also contends the Compact focuses too much on the place of the water use instead of the impact of the use on the overall water resources of the Basin. Far from simple and efficient, the Compact forces states to regulate in a heavy-handed fashion that will impair economic development.

In conclusion, Squillace says the Compact will not achieve its goal of protecting and conserving the Great Lakes.

I agree.

Riddled with too many problems, the Compact is bad public policy.

Meanwhile, the need for New Berlin and Waukesha to obtain Lake Michigan water remains serious.

Because both communities must reduce the concentration of radium levels in their drinking water, their need for increased access to Lake Michigan water is in the interest of public health.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett has made it clear he is going to stand in the way. Barrett is threatening the ability of New Berlin and Waukesha to gain access to Lake Michigan water, resulting in requiring those communities to spend millions of dollars to drill new wells and treat existing wells.

I am very concerned about allegations James Rowen posted on his blog, The Political Environment, on February 28, 2007.

http://thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com/2007/02/barrett-takes-hit-over-regionalism-and.html

Barrett is threatening not only to delay Waukesha’s access to Lake Michigan water but also to impose a tax on access to water.

The need for Lake Michigan water in New Berlin and Waukesha is critical and undeniable. It is unconscionable that Barrett would attempt to profit from this public health crisis by extorting these communities to pay a huge new tax.

Withholding water will endanger public health and will damage economic development. Barrett needs to reconsider his ill-conceived notion to take economic advantage of the public health plight in our communities.

If you have comments on this or any other issue, please contact me at Sen.Lazich@legis.wi.gov, Senator Mary Lazich, State Capitol, P.O. Box 7882 Madison, WI 53707 or 1-800-334-1442.

Cleveland Plain Dealer Calls Out, Again, A Mary Lazich Ally

The Cleveland Plain Dealer notes that the handful of state legislators who held up passage of the Great Lakes Compact in Ohio for years had subscribed to a "wacko conspiracy theory" that did not fit into 21st. century thinking.

Let the record show that State Sen. Mary Lazich, (R-New Berlin), the sole State Senator to vote against the Compact in Wisconsin, touted Ohio State Sen. Tim Grendell, the acknowledged leader of the Ohio obstruction.

And when she brought to a legislative study committee, in writing, some of Grendell's argumentation, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources replied, in writing, that what Grendell was arguing for Ohio was incorrect for Wisconsin and irrelevant to our law.

Yet it is, and has always been, New Berlin, Mary Lazich's home city, that is first in line for a diversion of Lake Michigan water - - something that was blocked without the Compact's approval.

It never made much sense to me that Lazich would align herself with forces and argument in Ohio that stood in the way of New Berlin obtaining water that Jack Chiovatero, the city's Mayor, says New Berlin needs for health and safety reasons.

Water access for which New Berlin has formally applied - - through consultants that New Berlin water ratepayers have paid - - and to which the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has given some preliminary, positive reviews.

In fact, the DNR has been encouraging New Berlin and Milwaukee, in writing, to begin discussing the many technical, legal and financial details that would need to be ironed out if a water deal is ever approved.

Yet Lazich, on her blog, ripped into Chiovatero for even having the discussion, and, in response to earlier remarks that Chiovatero had made about her to the Shepherd-Express, called the New Berlin Mayor "simplistic and small-minded."

Her words, July 19, 2007.

"Chiovatero’s rationale and line of thinking is small-minded and simplistic," wrote Lazich on a blog - - "Conservatively Speaking" - - carried online through Journal Communication "CommunityNow" websites serving Lazich's Senate district.

"His criticism is misdirected. Instead of cozying up to Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett who opposes access to Lake Michigan water for New Berlin and Waukesha, Chiovatero should be working with me, the state Senate representative of the area most affected by the Compact, to ensure our communities get the water they so desperately need. "

Amd Kevin Fischer, Lazich's staff aide, has recently demonstrated on his blog a lack of understanding of water issues.

Makes you wonder about that whole Lazich staff/blogging/office operation.

As I said, Lazich's approach to the Compact never made much sense to me.

Anybody out there in New Berlin, or in water-hungry Waukesha County, got an explanation for the Senator's actions?

Lazich Butchers Water Issue, English Language

State Sen. Mary Lazich, (R-New Berlin), is at it again, declaring in an online suburban newspaper column her opposition to the Great Lakes Compact.

The full text is here.

Lazich claims the City of Milwaukee is practicing "extortion" by saying it will not sell Lake Michigan water to a portion of New Berlin that is outside of the Great Lakes basin until the Compact is ratified.

How is that extortion, which, by the way, in common usage has a felonious, legal definition, and libel suits have been filed for far less unpleasantness that suggesting that someone is a criminal.

Furthermore, Milwaukee's position is completely logical and legal: the Compact sets in place formal Great Lakes diversion procedures that are designed to standardize that process, minimize diversions, encourage conservation and preserve the Great Lakes.

A state that jumps the gun and approves a diversion before the Compact has been adopted by all parties runs the risk of either a) triggering a wholesale rush in other states for diversions without standards, or b) a veto of a community's application by one of the other Great Lakes, since unanimous approvals by all eight Great Lakes states is already required by a 1986 federal law and by the Compact itself.

Lazich seems to be the only one in Wisconsin who cannot grasp these simple facts, along with a state legislator in Ohio whose flimsy property-rights opposition to the Compact was shot down by Wisconsin's DNR months ago as irrelevant to Wisconsin law.

Lazich knows that because she forwarded the Ohioan's arguments to the state study committee that met for a year and failed to draft a Compact bill - - in part due to Lazich's obstructionism - - and the DNR told the study committee in writing that the Ohio argument sent its way by Lazich had no merit for Wisconsin.

Here is the DNR's statement, which has been posted on a state website for months, and it contains key phrases like "incorrect interpretations" and "no relevance."

Lazich knows that sending back the Compact for renegotiation is a way to kill it. The negotiations that created it over a five-year period could not be duplicated, and every day that the Compact is delayed is a day of peril for the Great Lakes.

Furthermore, the Compact negotiations produced a compromise package that included diversion exceptions, permissions and procedures specifically carved out for communities like New Berlin and Waukesha that were not included in the first draft of the Compact called Annex 2001.

So New Berlin and Waukesha have already won a crucial victory: all they need to do to apply for water is to follow the rules, and all Wisconsin has to do is adopt them.

Lazich doesn't want to do that, and still wants Waukesha County communities to be able to take Lake Michigan water - - a shared, internationally-managed resources - - away from the Great Lakes basin, and calls other people extortionist?

Finally: the old newspaper reporter and editor in me has to highlight her claim that Milwaukee's position is a "shot across the bough" to the suburbs.

"[Milwaukee Alderman Michael] Murphy’s blunt statement is a direct shot across the bough, a clear indication that the city of Milwaukee doesn’t have any intention of assisting communities like New Berlin or Waukesha in dealing with their need for water," she says.

The term references naval tactics - - a cannon shot "across the bow" was a way that a naval vessel could warn a ship to stop. The bow is the front of a ship.

A shot "across the bough" presumably flies over a branch, perhaps during a squirrel hunt.

Could it be that Lazich knows she is barking up that wrong tree, the one that gets in the way of seeing the rest of the forest?

How One State Senator Shoots Her District In Its Foot

OK, you ask: is that a proper metaphor? Can a legislator shoot her entire district in the foot, or just her own?

Well, you decide.

State Sen. Mary Lazich represents New Berlin. She also sits on a legislative study committee that has been dead in the water since its last meeting in December, unable to write a draft bill to endorse conservation standards and procedures in amendments to a US-Canadian Compact governing diversions from the Great Lakes.

Those amendments included a last-minute addition, pushed by Wisconsin's negotiators, I am told, that made it possible for communities like Waukesha, and New Berlin, to apply for and receive diverted Lake Michigan even though they lie partially or completely outside the Great Lakes basin.

Yet in large measure, the committee can't reach a consensus because Waukesha County interests think the Compact is too restrictive.

The Waukesha County Chamber of Commerce has, in fact, called one key Compact provision - - unanimous approval of diversion requests by all eight Great Lakes Governors - - a deal breaker.

Lazich had circulated throughout southeastern Wisconsin a statement of her broad objections to the Compact; it was posted in various places, including in a community newspaper's blog on Monday April 9th, here.

When a copy of Lazich's objections was emailed to me (Lazich said it came as a courtesy, though it had no additional note with it) - - and you will note in her statement that she blasted me over a blog posting I had written about these issues - - I emailed her on March 17th, and asked her for an explanation.

And pointed out that the blog link she copied into her draft letter was erroneous, linking to nothing, so whatever point she was intending to make about the blog item would be lost on the readers of her statement.

No reply.

Curiously, she emailed me a copy of the same draft statement four days later, on March 21st.

Ah, ha, I thought: dialogue! So I again emailed her, asking the same questions.

No response.

I tried again on March 22nd, and again on March 23rd - - even including my home phone number.

No replies to either (Lazich says she did answer me, but I have no such emails in my inbox).

But back to the original question: how does Lazich's objection to the Compact, as amended, shoot her constituents in their collective foot/feet?

Well, note in her commentary that she says, "I cannot support a flawed document that is bad for public health, bad for the environment, bad for economic development, and generally bad public policy."

Strong language.

And she touts the analysis of a Colorado professor who suggests "chucking it [the Compact] entirely and starting from scratch."

Now stop right there: Starting over would toss out four years of negotiations among ten state and Canadian provincial jurisdictions who produced a series of proposed amendments designed to ensure that the Great Lakes are conserved, not arbitrarily diverted or otherwise mismanaged.

And - - grasp the irony here - - amendments which created for the first time special exceptions to diversion prohibitions for communities exactly like New Berlin.

In other words, the process that Lazich's Colorado expert would dump entirely included a gift to New Berlin that wasn't included in the first set of draft amendments released by the negotiators a couple of years ago.

Does Lazich think that starting over at this late stage (Minnesota has approved the amendments; other states are moving forward, too) would play well in the very states that, under the Compact, and a separate federal law, have to unanimously endorse and approve Great Lakes diversion applications from communities like New Berlin?

This is not a theoretical question.

As I reported in this blog, New Berlin has again sent a Lake Michigan diversion application to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for review.

And like New Berlin's much-criticized initial application last year, this one, too, will be sent again by the DNR to the other states for their review.

Approval must be unanimous - - the very provision which business leaders in Waukesha County are calling, let me remind you, a deal-breaker .

Bottom line/flat prediction: The other states, and ultimately Wisconsin, too, regardless of Waukesha County's objections, will surely all endorse the amendments and the Compact again as the deal-maker, because without such uniform approval in each state's implementing legislation, there will be no Compact, and no stewardship for the Great Lakes.

And that would be bad...bad...bad...generally bad public policy for Wisconsin, the Great Lakes region, and the 20% of the world's fresh surface water held in trust here.

Imagine you are a water analyst or cabinet officer or Governor in Michigan, or Illinois, or one of the other Great Lakes states and provinces (the Canadians have an advisory role, but no veto), and the New Berlin application of March 7th lands on your desk.

You start asking questions as you read New Berlin's paperwork.

"New Berlin? Hmmm," say these Great Lakes diversion application reviewers.

"They're back again? What are the leading voices over there saying? Like, say, New Berlin's state senator? The one who's on that legislative study committtee? Where does she stand on the Compact, since she needs our approval?"

A simple Google search of Lazich...New Berlin...Compact will locate Lazich's April 9th condemnation of the Compact.

And her vouching for a professor from Colorado who thinks the entire Compact should be...chucked.

That's how you shoot your entire district in its collective feet.

State Sen. Lazich Continues Her Assault On The Great Lakes Compact

Though she represents New Berlin, the sole Wisconsin community seeking a diversion of Lake Michigan water, State Sen. Mary Lazich (R) continues her assault on the Great Lakes Compact with three new, blow-up-the-Compact documents (see "The following items distributed at the request of Senator Mary Lazich," under the August 21 meeting heading) delivered to a key state legislative study committee as it prepares for another meeting Tuesday.

The Compact is a multi-state agreement designed to protect and preserve the Great Lakes and rationalize requests to divert its waters beyond the borders of the Great Lakes basin.

The Compact generously includes a relatively easy diversion standard for communities like New Berlin - - while bringing about water conservation and wise water management across the Great Lakes.

What Lazich can't grasp is an essential political and procedural truth about why she should be championing the Compact, not continuing to undermine it:

If the anti-Compact mentality held by Lazich, and her allies in the Waukesha County Chamber of Commerce and the Ohio legislature were to prevail - - and the Compact stalled or died in one or more of the Great Lakes states - - New Berlin and the City of Waukesha could lose access to Great Lakes water because current US law makes diversions much harder, if not impossible to obtain.

The documents that Lazich has sent to the committee have been prepared in Ohio, where like-minded, anti-regionalists are raising off-note, fearsome political issues about sovereignity and property rights to slow down or kill Compact adoption in the Buckeye State.

The leading Ohio opponent of the Compact is State. Sen. Tim Grendell, who told this blog that anti-Compact legislators from across the region will gather this Saturday in Traverse City, MI.

Grendell is the author of one of the Lazich documents, and the recipient of another, the study committee's website indicates.

Lazich had earlier been prodding the committee, which has stalled for a year over various objections and red herrings thrown in by Waukesha County exceptionalists, to study the views of a Colorado legal scholar who has suggested scrapping the pending Compact (nearly five years in the drafting) and starting over.

Now there's a constructive approach!

While there are no doubt interesting ideas in Ohio's legislature and Colorado's academies, it is Wisconsin law and tradition that will guide the Compact committee.

The same goes for a separate bi-partisan committee on the Compact that Governor Jim Doyle set up after the legislative study committee, dominated by Waukesha-area members, was idling to a halt a month ago without having produced a draft bill.

Doyle left Lazich and her obstructionist tactics off the committee, and though she griped about it to the Journal Sentinel, which let her disclose her own powerless in her own words - - "I'm supposed to be the senator representing the area"- - Doyle's call was the right one.

Because what he established was a working group.

Compact Killers Are Gearing Up in Ohio

The same small band of naysayers and corporate water carriers who tied up the Great Lakes Compact in Wisconsin's State Assembly are doing their thing in the Ohio State Senate, according to Ohio media.

Their leader is State Sen. Tim Grendell, mentor to Wisconsin State Sen. Mary Lazich, (R-New Berlin).

Both argue that the Compact should be sent back to the eight Great Lakes states that took four years to negotiate it and 28 more months to approve it - - though Grendell's key demand, brought to a State Capitol study committee by Lazich last year, was labeled irrelevant to state law here by Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources water experts.

An indeterminate period of further negotiations would add years in which the Great Lakes remain vulnerable to mismanagement.

And would no doubt tick off the other states that have worked more productively than Ohio and Wisconsin to bring the Compact through their legislatures and into their statutes.

Renegotiation opens up everything.

Lazich and Grendell cannot control exactly which portions of this lengthy agreement get modified once the Compact is back on the table.

And that could hurt some municipalities if renegotiation led to horsetrading, compromises and power plays that, for instance, could remove one key exemption inserted specifically to help communities at the edge of the Great Lakes basin in Wisconsin and Ohio, like New Berlin (ironically, Lazich's home town).

The exemption grants them easy access to Great lakes water - - a benefit not accorded to those communities under current federal law.

That's why New Berlin Mayor Jack Chiovatero wants the Compact, under which only Wisconsin and not the other seven states could vote on a diversion application.

It's a privilege in the Compact just for communities that, through accidents of geography, literally straddle the boundary of the Great Lakes basin.

Chiovatero is the one with the grassroots water supply problem to solve, and regulatory consent decrees to honor - - but get this:

He is being fought by Lazich, his own State Senator, and the entire Waukesha County legislative delegation.

All of whom are Republicans, by the way, (the mayoralty is a non-partisan office) taking their talking points and marching orders from the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce and pretending, like Grendell, that the changes they want in renegotiations they don't control are minor only.

Hardly.

One change they seek is letting fewer states approve out-of-basin applications for water to help relatively more distant municipalities like the City of Waukesha win diversions.

Because all eight Great Lakes share control of the waters, current federal law and the Compact require those distant communities to obtain the states' unanimous approval.

Since the procedure is already in the federal law, and gives the states protection against unwise diversions of waters they all share, why would any of them give it up?

Do Lazich and Grendell not know how to read the very simple federal statute - - the Water Resources Development Act of 1986?

Are they forgetting that the makeup of state legislatures and governors' offices can change, with perhaps more sustainability-minded decision-makers calling the shots?

Do they not know that both Akron, Ohio and Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin did win the unanimous diversion permission for diversions, after careful planning and skilled interstate communications?

Or do they not know how to count to eight, recongizing that one is a smaller number for New Berlin, and that a five or six will not satisfy the other seven who have nothing to gain by making up rules just to help one or two of the states?

Letting a community like Waukesha obtain water with only a majority of the states' approval would be like asking the other National Football teams to allow the Green Bay Packers to make a first down with only six yards.

Grendell and his counterparts in the Wisconsin legislature are not interested in helping New Berlin's Mayor solve his water and regulatory problems, or in at least winning a set of standards and application procedures for Waukesha that improve on the Federal legal process.

Waukesha's mayor Larry Nelson (in another non-partisan position) supports the Compact as it was approved by Wisconsin's State Senate on a bi-partisan, 26-6 vote.

Somehow Lazich and Grendell know what's better for Waukesha than the Waukesha Mayor? Or the New Berlin Mayor?

Here is the truth about these so-called minor changes allegedly availabe through quickie renegotiations among eight states from Minnesota to New York:

The naysayers prefer the game-playing side of politics, turning the Compact into a political football to keep away from Democratic Governor Jim Doyle.

There's the pleasure.

For Lazich, or State Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch (R-West Salem), or key Assembly natural resources committee chair State Rep. Scott Gunderson (R-Waterford), the Compact is an opportunity for speech-making and cozying up with the Waukesha County Chamber of Commerce and other special interests.

Legislating on behalf of local taxpayers and Great Lakes preservation - - things which are not mutually exclusive if you are serious about your job?
Nah - - let's play the partisan, special-interest game.

And if they were to win this renegotiation, and New Berlin lost its favored diversion status - - approval by only the home state, not all eight or even a majority - - or if the diversion rules got toughened for Waukesha and other more distant communities, Lazich and Grendell could ask for another round of negotiations.

About Mary Lazich, Elections And Urban Affairs Expert

Not content with Voter ID bills that would obstruct central-city and campus voting, State Sen. Mary Lazich, (R-New Berlin), is pushing a new package of partisan measures to further embed her party's legislative majorities. Some observations:

1. The blatant partisanship input in the Lazich-directed legislation has the same stench that wafted over the Capitol when secretive GOP operatives were drafting reapportionment legislation in private offices.

2. Having anyone from elections-challenged Waukesha County chair a committee with the word "Elections" in its title is a sick joke. How long did the Waukesha County voting clerk circus go on, with its secret computers, multiple investigations, botched vote-count dramas, etc?

3. And having Lazich chair a committee with the words "Urban Affairs" in the title is a sicker joke.

Urban areas with substantially elderly, student and low-income populations need transit to succeed, but Lazich, from her pro-highway/anti-transit Waukesha County base, managed to work the words "stampede" and "frenzy" and "the Grim Reaper" into a rightist screed against transit.

And there was this 2007 rant accusing Milwaukee leaders of "extortion." Language alleging felonies does not make for regional or inter-city cooperation, but don't tell that to Lazich.

This was when New Berlin was negotiating what was to become its second mutually-approved water purchase from Milwaukee, despite Lazich's uninformed meddling.

She also was involved at the time in more unsuccessful meddling - - a foolish, pre-Tea Party state's rights campaign with an Ohio state legislator to scuttle the Great Lakes Compact (wonderful audio here)  - -  which was highlighted by this turn of events:

Lazich should check more carefully into the company she keeps: [Ohio State Rep. Tim] Grendell had to make a public apology for a racially-tinged barb he aimed at an African-American colleague and leader in the Ohio legislature.

The story with the details from the Cincinnati Enquirer is here, and thanks to Adam Young who left this information in the comment box on this earlier posting of mine.

Here are the key paragraphs from the Enquirer story:

"Grendell, of Geauga County, directed his comments last week toward state Sen. Mark Mallory of Cincinnati, who was a co-sponsor of a resolution asking the General Assembly to ratify the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"Grendell, who is white, told the Cleveland Plain Dealer for a story published Thursday that Mallory is "the only reason I might support the OhioReads program," referring to the state's volunteer tutoring program for schoolchildren.

"Grendell also said he doubted that Mallory, who is black, would understand the U.S. Supreme Court's historic 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson ruling that allowed legal racial separation.

"Grendell took the House floor Tuesday and apologized to Mallory, members of both the House and Senate and the citizens of Ohio."

Your urban affairs experts at work.

Lazich Hints At Litigation To Blow Up Great Lakes Cooperation

This blog has posted numerous items about the efforts of State Sen. Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin) to undermine the Great Lakes Compact.

And this blog has also pointed out several times that Lazich's obstruction of legislation in Wisconsin to implement the Compact is counter-productive to the effort that her home community of New Berlin is making to obtain Lake Michigan water.

The current Shepherd-Express goes over this ground again, but Lazich uses her exposure in the Milwaukee weekly to drop a bombshell: that New Berlin might go to court to try and wipe out the federal law that currently governs diversions of Great Lakes water.

It's not clear just what Lazich means by "New Berlin," since Jack Chiovatero, New Berlin's Mayor, supports the Compact, recognizing that it is the fastest route to a deal for Lake Michigan water.

And he has expressed frustration with Lazich's anti-Compact position - - one that is shared by powerful business interests, including the Metropolitan Builders Association and the Waukesha County Chamber of Commerce.

But going to court to knock out the federal law is regarded as the nuclear option in the Great Lakes region, the ultimate act of regional uncooperation.

That's because, if successful, the Great Lakes - - all five of them that touch eight states and two Canadian provinces, and that contain 20% of the world's fresh surface waters - - would be left without any protection against wholesale, whimsical, unjustifiable and flat-out greedy withdrawals of water.

And without any conservation planning or requirements that equal amounts of water taken from the Great Lakes be returned to sustain this vast, two-nation ecosystem.

The Great Lakes Compact would have installed a series of rules and procedures for New Berlin to obtain Lake Michigan water that are easier to meet than what is contained in the federal law.

If Lazich truly represented the public interest, she'd have been a leader in getting the Compact adopted.

Instead, she a) helped insure that no bill is moving forward in the Legislature to accomplish that, and b) is talking about wiping out the remaining law which the Compact, in coordination with the federal law, would help make diversion procedures more reasonable.

All to help sustain the Great Lakes. They're the only ones on the planet, and they are held in trust for all the people of all the states and provinces, making stewardship of this resource a shared responsibility.

There has been a spate of stories in recent weeks about damage that the US Corps of Engineers has done through dredging in a key Great Lakes tributary that appears linked to huge water losses daily from the lakes into the Atlantic Ocean.

Congress, the Canadians, and many organizations are marshaling resources to try and pinpoint and repair the damage so that water levels in the Great Lakes can be stabilized.

Imagine if all that political, scientific and engineering work were to finally get launched - - only to have one State Senator from New Berlin, Wisconsin help to blow open a bigger hole in the Great Lakes.

Look back to Wisconsin's conservation history. You'd have the Aldo Leopold Legacy - - defining for the state and country what a land ethic really is.

Then you've got former Governor and US Senator Gaylord Nelson's Legacy - - Earth Day, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, preservaton of the Apostle Islands, and more.

Then you could have the Lazich Legacy - - leadership to litigate, then lower the water levels, in the former Great Lakes.

Storm Warnings? Mary Lazich Forecasts On The Weather Channel

But not about the local weather. Sounds like "lake effects" would be more accurate (with apologizes to WUWM's Jane Hampden), according to information Sen. Lazich, (R-New Berlin), has posted on the Internet.

Lazich has a blog, "Conservatively Speaking," that is carried on suburban online news sites, and there is always something interesting on it.

In recent weeks, she's posted safe winter driving tips, support for smokers' rights, angst about Wisconsin taxes, and suggestions that you carry holiday gift cards in your wallet so you don't forget them.

Another thought-provoking posting began this way:

The true meaning of Thanksgiving

"By Mary Lazich

"Wednesday, Nov 21 2007, 06:28 PM

"Thanksgiving has become more secularized than Christmas."

The link is there for the rest of the story.

Anyway, on Wednesday she wrote on her blog that she will be appearing on the Weather Channel program, "Forecast Earth," based on her participation on the Great Lakes Compact legislative study committee.

That got my attention.

That's because a legislative/citizen committee failed after a year's meetings to draft a bill to approve the Compact - - an eight-state, cooperative Great Lakes water conservation and diversion management agreement - - in part due to Lazich's objections.

She balked at several Compact provisions, including diversion procedures and restrictions, as did the Waukesha County Chamber of Commerce and Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce.

Another Lazich ally opposing the Compact is Ohio State Sen. Tim Grendell, a conservative property-rights advocate.

Lazich brought his arguments to the study committee where they were dismissed as irrelevant to Wisconsin law by state Department of Natural Resources experts.

Here's her "Forecast Earth" publicity announcement:

I'm on the Weather Channel

By Mary Lazich
Wednesday, Jan 9 2008, 09:29 AM

Recently, a crew from the cable TV channel, The Weather Channel came to the state capitol to produce a segment on the Great Lakes. Because I served on the Legislative Council’s special study committee on the Great Lakes Compact, the crew interviewed me for the program, “Forecast Earth.”

The segment airs this Saturday at 4:00 p.m.

Entitled, "The Great Lakes Water Battle," the segment is being promoted on the Weather Channel website:

“Lake levels drop, revealing miles of rocky beaches, and cargo freighters begin to run aground. It's not the future, it's happening now to the world's largest freshwater lake system. We take you into the heart of the "Great Lakes Water Battle."

The segment airs this Saturday at 4:00 p.m. with a repeat at 4:00 p.m. Sunday afternoon."

Thanks to the good folks at the Sprawled Out blog for this information.

Foes Of Key Great Lakes Compact Provisions To Gather At Michigan Meeting

There could be more problems ahead for the pending Great Lakes Compact - - a water management and conservation plan that has to be adopted by the eight Great Lakes states' legislatures with identical language already agreed upon by their governors in order to go into effect.

Ohio State Senator Tim Grendell (R-Chester Township), confirmed in a telephone interview Wednesday that he is organizing a meeting later this summer where opponents of the pending Great Lakes Compact can meet with supporters "to work out a solution."

That may be easier said than done, since the pending Compact took five years to negotiate, and meeting some opponents' objections could unravel the entire agreement.

Ohio media have named Grendell as a major opponent of the Compact in that state, and he has been quoted saying it contains "un-American" language.

The areas in the Compact that Grendell and others are opposing, including State Sen. Mary Lazich, (R-New Berlin) are already spelled out in the Governors' December, 2005 agreement, so altering or deleting them negate the entire agreement.

Grendell's meeting is scheduled in Traverse City, Michigan on August 25th, and coincides with a separate regional conference for state legislators.

Grendell said his major concerns about the Compact were provisions that permitted one state to block a diversion of water in another state - - "the loss of an individual state's authority in their state," as he defined it.

"We don't want Michigan or Indiana to limit our [water] use or our economic development," Grendell said.

The Ohio legislator said he also was concerned that language in the Compact defining Great Lakes water as a resource held in the "public trust" could cause Ohioans to lose their property right to water - - a protected right that he said the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled required compensated if violated.

He also said there was other "vague" language in the Compact that needed clarification.

On the pivotal matter of public trust, the Wisconsin State Constitution includes broad public trust doctrine language that predates statehood and originates in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. That is a water protection principle that guarantees that the state's waters are owned by all the people of the state, with the state as trustee.

Lazich is a member of the Wisconsin legislature's Great Lakes Compact study committee that has been meeting for a year to draft a bill implementing the Compact, and sent Grendell's objections to the committee in January, documents show.

Lazich and Lawrie Kobza, a water law expert who works for some Wisconsin municipalities, have formally suggested stripping the "held in trust" language from Wisconsin's eventual Compact implementing bill, according to Committee records (see p. 2). And here.

Kobza is also a consultant on legal issues to the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, whose regional water supply study is about half done and is building a case for diversions as a regional policy, I have argued.

Opposition by Compact opponents stalled the Committee's work for many months; the creation of a parallel working group by Gov. Jim Doyle seems to have energized the Committee; Lazich was left off the working group and has been unhappy about it.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources told the committee by memo after receiving Grendell's letter from Lazich that Grendell's property rights concerns were inaccurate and had no relevance to Wisconsin.

Grendell said by telephone that his objections to Compact provisions could be cleared up "in less that 20 words," would make sure Ohio's economy will continue to benefit from proximity to Lake Erie, and would continue to guarantee that Great Lakes water would not be diverted from the basin.

Lazich has also strongly objected to the so-called 'single-state veto,' and has been joined in that criticism by the Waukesha County Chamber of Commerce.

In a July 19th New Berlin blog commentary, Lazich echoed Grendell's thinking when she concluded:

"I will not endorse a Compact that puts our communities in the precarious position of having water access stripped away by the whims of a single Governor in a neighboring state. Furthermore, I will continue to speak out against the many defects in the document as long as they pose a threat to the welfare of residents in New Berlin and Waukesha."

The full blog is accessible here.

Also objecting to the 'one-state' veto provision and other Compact items including restrictions on diversions to communities in Waukesha County is Committee member Matt Moroney, executive director of the Metropolitan Builders Association, headquartered in Waukesha.

Moroney is also a member of the SEWRPC water supply advisory committee.

Cities' Water Access Jeopardized By New Berlin And Ohio Radicals

I've posted several items on this blog going back to last year - - one example here - - about the counter-productive alliance between legislators in Wisconsin and Ohio whose obstruction of the pending Great Lakes Compact could sink this crucial, eight-state water management agreement.

Counter-productive because without the Compact - - seven years in the making - - applications for Great Lakes water by certain communities like New Berlin cannot move forward.

And counter-productive because the Compact's demise would be bad for the health of the Great Lakes and the entire region's economy and future, too.

State Sen. Mary Lazich, (R-New Berlin) is the self-described leader of Wisconsin's Compact opponents: you can listen to her 26-minute Senate Floor tirade about the evils of Great Lakes cooperative water conservation.

Yet New Berlin is the community whose Great Lakes water access is now the most in peril.

More about that and the contradiction caused by Sen. Lazich's obstructionism and Ohio alliance in a moment - - though you gotta ask yourself: who would want such possible damage from your hometown and across much of the continent on your resume?

There's fresh media coverage in Ohio of Lazich's major Buckeye cohort, State Sen. Tim Grendell, here, including accounts of Grendell's temperment and racial insensitivity.

I had earlier linked to a separate newspaper story from a while back that reprised Grendell's demeaning remarks to an African-American legislative colleague.

Both Lazich and Grendell are pushing for such basic changes in the Compact - - even though four states have already adopted it - - that trying to reopen the years of multi-state negotiations that produced it would lead to the agreement's demise.

That ploy has also been endorsed by other Wisconsin politicians and business organizations, including the Waukesha County Chamber of Commerce, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce and Waukesha County Executive Dan Vrakas.

Just as the Wisconsin State Senate and Ohio's lower house have already overwhelmingly approved strong Compact bills, it's important that both legislatures complete that positive, pro-Compact approval process.

It will help preserve the Great Lakes and soundly put these reactionary little cabals in their proper places - - at the fringe, where they can't do more damage.

It's important for Wisconsinites to understand just how radical and reckless that Grendell has been.

And Wisconsin legislators like Lazich - - more analysis and her own words here - - who have touted Grendell's 'approach' to the Compact should explain why they have thrown their prestige and Wisconsin's reputation his way.

New Berlin residents need to know that the longer Lazich plays political games with Ohio politicos over the Compact, the more likely it is that her home city will not win the Lake Michigan water diversion it has applied for, and that exemptions in the Compact specifically help enable.

Without the Compact, New Berlin finds itself blocked from Lake Michigan by a much tougher federal statute.

And if somehow Lazich and Grendell prevailed, thus voiding the Compact approvals already produced in New York, Illinois, Minnesota and Indiana, the anger in those states would surely lead to their blocking future water diversion applications coming from Wisconsin and Ohio communities.

Do residents of New Berlin, Waukesha and other cities in the region want to pay that price?

Mary Lazich Rambles On About Water, Wants Separate Peace Wiith Ohio

State Sen. Mary Lazich, (R-New Berlin), tells the Waukesha Freeman in an 'update' on the work of a now-defunt legislative committee she helped to obstruct that Wisconsin should join Ohio in essentially wrecking the Great Lakes Compact.

Lazich's interest in water is more about carrying it for the Waukesha County Chamber of Commerce and less about conserving the Great Lakes in coordination with the seven other Great Lakes states and two Canadian provinces.

The Waukesha County Chamber of Commerce opposes adoption of the Great Lakes Compact, according to its website, still suggesting inaccurately that a foreign county (Canada) has decision-making power over diversions of water to Wisconsin communities.

Lazich also calls Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett an "extortionist," putting her own special spin on regional cooperation and efforts by New Berlin city government to make a water sale deal with the City of Milwaukee.

Little wonder that Gov. Jim Doyle left Lazich off the working group he put together to pick up the pieces left behind by the moribund legislative committee.

If the goal is to draft a bill to implement, not demolish the Compact, then Lazich had no place on the Governor's bi-partisan working group.

It does, however, still contain members who do not support a strong Compact for Wisconsin, such as Matt Monroney, the executive director of the Metropolitan Builders Association.

Among his positions forwarded to the legislative committee was this memo.

Another person on the working group, water law expert Lawrie Kobza, had also sent information and opinion to the legislative committee taking similar positions that opposed a strong Compact.

Kobza is a paid consultant also to the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission's water supply advisory committee - - supplying SEWRPC with the legal foundation for creation of a regional water authority.

Such an authority, if creatively drawn and headquartered, could conceivably end-run the Compact's water diversion procedures by making a large region, including all of Waukesha County, eligible for Lake Michigan water under easier rules intended for individual municipalities like New Berlin that straddle the boundary of the Lake Michigan basin.

And that would satisfy Mary Lazich and her allies in Ohio, all of whom want relatively easier access to Great Lakes water.

Mary Lazich's Idea Of Regionalism: A Free Ride

Which, given that you can't ride the bus from Milwaukee to New Berlin, is somewhere between irony and a bad pun.

Here is what the State Senator (R) from New Berlin had to say on her blog about the notion that New Berlin would make anything in the way of a regional benefits payment to Milwaukee for extending water service to New Berlin:

"Despite an approved Compact, Milwaukee holds a gun to New Berlin
By Mary Lazich

Monday, Jul 28 2008, 12:55 PM

"I must admit I was taken aback when I read the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel that Milwaukee is negotiating with New Berlin to sell Milwaukee water.

"The price tag would be hefty $1.5 million one time fee in addition to actual costs.

"During the lengthy deliberations about the Great Lakes Compact, I made it clear that despite my reservations, I supported an effective document that was good for the Great Lakes, the state of Wisconsin, and would preserve our greatest natural resource.

"Time and time again, I heard Compact proponents make the case that the Compact would address the water needs of New Berlin.

"The conventional wisdom was that the Compact needed to be approved quickly, and if it was, New Berlin’s water woes would be taken care of.

"Making those arguments were city of Milwaukee officials from Mayor Tom Barrett on down.

"They claimed the city of Milwaukee would no longer have issues with New Berlin getting water if Wisconsin would simply okay the Compact. It seems that isn’t the case.

"Wisconsin has approved the Compact, but for the city of Milwaukee, on this critical public health issue, it’s still business as usual, imposing a hefty price tag for a community in desperate need of water.

"For the city of Milwaukee, it was never about the Compact. It was and remains a question of money and control over a suburb to the west."

My, oh my, where does one begin to unpack these 'arguments?'

* She was "taken aback" reading a July 23rd newspaper story that New Berlin and Milwaukee were negotiating a water sale?

The news that those negotiations were authorized by state officials was reported in a story in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 54 weeks ago, and there were subequent stories about negotiations, meetings between Milwaukee and New Berlin's mayors about water, etc.

(Tip also to Lazich and blog writing staff: There is no slash mark between "Journal" and "Sentinel" in "Milwaukee Journal Sentinel." Check the paper's front page more than once every 54 weeks for confirmation.)

Where's she been getting her information about Great Lakes water: the Ohio newspapers?

Or did she forget her earlier blog post where she blasted New Berlin Mayor Jack Chiovatero for meeting with Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett about water, or as it was described on her blog, "cozying up."

* The Compact, approved just a few weeks ago, would end New Berlin's water woes?

So it was up to outsiders to fix New Berlin's problem?

Wasn't that New Berlin's responsibility, something Lazich would understand, as a former New Berlin city council member, Waukesha County Board supervisor, state representative and now State Senator?

Lazich does not mention that New Berlin officials for years, on their own, and in the face of federal action, delayed cleaning up its water supply, then decided over the last couple of years not to buy water filtration upgrades that could have cleaned the water, and met the federal requirements, because New Berlin felt it could get better water - - Milwaukee's water - - cheaper.

* Lazich says "During the lengthy deliberations about the Great Lakes Compact, I made it clear that despite my reservations, I supported an effective document that was good for the Great Lakes, the state of Wisconsin, and would preserve our greatest natural resource."

Now come on, there: There's more spin in that sentence than an out-of-control Tilt-a-Whirl.

By "effective document," Lazich must mean the revised, fantasy Compact she wanted renegotiated by all eight Great Lakes states and two Canadian provinces as an alternative to the draft Compact she vocally opposed from Day One, stalled in a legislative study committee, and voted against this year on the Senate floor.

Twice.

New Berlin Mayor Chiovatero still has to get this deal past his City Council; he and his brace of first-line consultants will not have to cozy up to New Berlin council members to help them understand that a $1.5 million payment to Milwaukee is a smaller number, and hence a better deal for cleaner, reliable water, than is $6 million for radium-removal filtration equipment and maintenance to further deplete their wells.

The New Berlin-To-Ohio Great Lakes Compact Cabal - - In Mary Lazich's Own Words

State Sen. Mary Lazich, (R-New Berlin) has been hard at work undermining Wisconsin's ability to approve and implement the Great Lakes Compact - - a multi-state, US/Canadian agreement designed to ensure regional water conservation - - even though the Compact would ease federal water diversion restrictions that are currently blocking New Berlin from quick access to Lake Michigan drinking water.

As I wrote in a blog posting last April, it's how a State Senator shoots an entire District in the foot.

It's a strategy of delay and destroy that regrettably was adopted last week by the GOP-run Wisconsin State Assembly, though those leaders, like Lazich, claim (wink-wink) that the intent is to "improve" the Compact.

Like destroying the village to save it.

Leaders in the Assembly said the Compact, produced after five years of negotiations that ended in 2005, should be reopened to produce an agreement so watered-down that the other Great Lakes states would just jettison it - - leaving the Great Lakes vulnerable to large-scale withdrawals without standards or reasoned processes, let alone with guarantees to return of diverted water.

Some improvements.

Lazich has a blog on which she notes her working alliances with similarly-minded, anti-regional ideologues in Ohio - - a blog on which she flays New Berlin Mayor Jack Chiovatero and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett for having had the temerity to even talk ("cozying up," are her words) about negotiating a water deal for New Berlin in the spirit of the pending Compact.

Lazich is not content with using her blog to tout her proud Compact "obstructionist" (her word) stance on the Compact's procedural heart - - a diversion-approval requirement also embedded in 22-year-old federal law.

She also calls for the Compact's renegotiation (four of eight Great Lakes states' legislatures have already aproved the Compact, making its renegotiation an impossibility and/or certain procedural death) - - and just to make sure you know who's saying and proposing all these things, she recently posted a blog link to every word she's put there about the Compact.

Why?

Vanity? Chutzpah? Blogger's Look-At-Me Syndrome?

All she's doing is calling attention to the details of her willingness to represent - - Ohio.

And her inability to grasp regionalism, or the need to preserve commonly-held resources, while parading her intemperance and intolerance.

People and things she doesn't like in this debate, in her own words, are "threatening," "extortion," "unconscionable," "dictatorial," "small-minded," "simplistic," "ill-conceived," "off-base," "appalling," and others.

Here are all her postings, in text, from this self-proclaimed "obstructionist," who, if her allies in the GOP-run Assembly have their way, will put the Great Lakes Compact and Great Lakes waters at risk:

Let’s work with Ohio to improve the Great Lakes Compact
By Mary Lazich

Friday, Feb 15 2008, 12:55 PM
For months I have been recommending that Wisconsin refrain from approving a Great Lakes Compact that is flawed and should instead work with officials in other states that share my concerns, like Ohio to achieve a strong document.

That is why I am encouraged to hear that Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch and State Representative Scott Gunderson have written a letter to the President of the Ohio state Senate, Senator Bill Harris, stating they want to collaborate with the state of Ohio on changes to the Compact.

Representatives Huebsch and Gunderson correctly state they desire a strong Compact to protect the waters of the Great Lakes, that private property rights must be protected, and that one state should not have the power to impact the economic development efforts of another Great Lakes state.

I support Speaker Huebsch and Representative Gunderson in this endeavor.

Here is a copy of their letter to Ohio Senate President Harris.

I also concur with state Representative Jim Ott who has also expressed concerns with the Compact in its current form.

Representative Ott appropriately points out that the current Compact would deny cities like Waukesha access to Lake Michigan water, and that there should not be a rush to adopt a Compact.

A strong Compact is necessary for many reasons, including the fact that the Compact will be in place, as Representative Ott states, for “generations to come.”

Here is a copy of Representative Ott’s statement.

Here is a link to all of my blogs on the Great Lakes Compact.

I agree that Wisconsin should proceed cautiously and work to adopt a Compact that is the best document possible for the Great Lakes, Wisconsin, and the other Great Lakes states.

Filed under: Great LakesPermalink Mail to a friend
Comments (3) Add Comment

We need a Great Lakes Compact, but…
By Mary Lazich
Friday, Jan 11 2008, 06:31 PM

The Great Lakes Compact is headed to the state Legislature for consideration.

We need a Great Lakes Compact, but as I have stated so many times in the past, it has to be the right document, free of flaws and trap doors.

Passing a Compact just to pass a Compact is the wrong approach.I was interviewed by Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel reporter Stacy Forster for today’s article on the Compact.

Filed under: Great Lakes, Mary in the mediaPermalink Mail to a friend
Add Comment

The Journal/Sentinel gets it right on Great Lakes
By Mary Lazich

Wednesday, Nov 21 2007, 10:24 AM

The Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel Editorial Board has written an excellent editorial in today’s edition, stating the sale of much-needed public drinking water from the city of Milwaukee to New Berlin should not be predicated on approval of the Great Lakes Compact.

The editorial position by the newspaper is right on the money and I commend the Editorial Board for taking this stance.

Here is the editorial.

Filed under: Great LakesPermalink Mail to a friend
Add Comment

Milwaukee using extortion to pressure for approval of Great Lakes Compact

By Mary Lazich
Thursday, Nov 1 2007, 08:53 AM

Several elected officials, representatives of conservation organizations, and private citizens held news conferences Tuesday calling for quick approval of a Great Lakes Compact.

I continue to urge caution to avoid approval for approval’s sake that might result in a flawed Compact.

Some of the comments made to endorse a fast Compact resolution are disturbing.

Milwaukee Alderman Michael Murphy issued a press release that, “the (Milwaukee Common Council’s) Public Works Committee unanimously passed a resolution that Milwaukee will not sign final agreements relating to the sale of water to communities outside the Great Lakes basin until all eight state legislatures in the Council of Great Lakes and two Canadian provinces ratify the compact.”

Murphy’s blunt statement is a direct shot across the bow, a clear indication that the city of Milwaukee doesn’t have any intention of assisting communities like New Berlin or Waukesha in dealing with their need for water.

Murphy’s press release also states that, “Once the compact is ratified; the City of Milwaukee may enter into agreements for the sale of water to neighboring communities outside the Great Lakes Basin.”

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett has made similar statements, threatening to withhold water.

This amounts to pure extortion, and it’s very sad that Milwaukee officials would use a public-health issue as leverage to extort a vote. Here are the facts.

Milwaukee's role as it relates to water to the suburbs is only technical infrastructure, not denial or approval of access to Lake Michigan water.

Milwaukee doesn’t have authority to say yes or no.

It doesn’t have exclusive ownership of Lake Michigan or control of Lake Michigan water.

New Berlin has received approval from the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to negotiate with the Milwaukee Water Works for infrastructure access to Lake Michigan water.

The DNR told New Berlin they could negotiate with Milwaukee to access water, and those negotiations are taking place.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett is telling mayors in the Senate district that I represent that they will not get water until I and other suburban legislators approve the compact.

The communities are under a radium enforcement issue. I do not take kindly to extortion, and I find it appalling that Mayor Barrett uses public health, denial of safe drinking water to my constituents as leverage.

I am told that Mayor Barrett is telling Mayors he wants them to develop low income housing and give him a share of all growth that results from Milwaukee giving the communities water.

If he wants to be the Mayor or city planner for the communities that I represent, then he ought to apply for the job.

Why does government regional cooperation not work? Because it is never cooperation; it is the City of Milwaukee using any means available to get control of suburban growth and get revenues from communities surrounding the city of Milwaukee.

The broad language of the compact and the problematic provision that allows a single Great Lakes governor to veto a proposal to divert water outside the Great Lakes basin are major sticking points about the Compact that remain.

One state enjoying dictatorial power is not consistent with the concept of majority rule our country is founded on, not to mention the issue of a governor of another state having the power to veto actions of people that do not elect that governor.

I spoke with a senator from Ohio and he informs me that Ohio is not going to ratify the Compact in its current form. Wisconsin should work in partnership with Ohio to address similar concerns and develop a more effective Compact.

I continue to interact with Ohio Senator Tim Grendell as he drafts legislation in Ohio.

Now the discussion on the Compact shifts to the state Legislature where the issue could very well get bogged down in partisan politics rather than focusing on scientific evidence and expertise.

Only two states that have little at stake, Minnesota and Illinois have ratified the Compact. It might be best for the Compact to be sent back to the Governors of the Great Lakes States so that they can correct the fatal flaws. Approving the Compact just to attain a Compact is not the solution.
Filed under: Great LakesPermalink Mail to a friend
Comments (5) Add Comment

My comments on radio about the Great Lakes Compact

By Mary Lazich
Wednesday, Oct 31 2007, 11:43 AM

I was interviewed by Wisconsin Public Radio about my reaction to concerns about the Great Lakes Compact.

From the Wisconsin Public Radio website:

Local Officials Call for Great Lakes Protection10/31/07A committee working to protect the Great Lakes against large-scale water diversions disbanded recently in Madison.

But with the state budget debate over, local officials are calling on the Legislature to pick up the pieces of the Great Lakes Compact. Chuck Quirmbach reports. --…running time 1:27

Listen to this story now using RealPlayer

Filed under: Great Lakes, Mary in the mediaPermalink Mail to a friend
Add Comment

Sharing my concerns with the Great Lakes Compact
By Mary Lazich

Sunday, Sep 2 2007, 07:12 AM

Last weekend, Great Lakes Legislators met in Michigan to discuss the great Lakes Compact, an issue I have been extensively involved in as a member of a special Wisconsin Legislative Council Committee reviewing the Compact.

Because I could not attend the meeting, I sent the following letter to Michigan State Senator Patty Birkholz and Great Lakes Legislators that outlines my many concerns about the Compact:

Dear Michigan State Senator Birkholz and Great Lakes Legislators:

Currently I serve on a Wisconsin Legislative Council Study Committee that has been meeting since September 7, 2006, to study and recommend whether the Wisconsin Legislature should adopt the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact.

Each of the eight Great Lakes states has a different stake in the Compact and the status of legislation to ratify the Compact varies from state to state.

I have followed this issue closely both on and off the committee, and I am very disappointed that I will not be attending the meeting in Traverse City.

Prior family plans with people attending from other states keep me in Wisconsin. The Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact implicates conflicting public policy issues.

The Great Lakes hold about one fifth of the world’s freshwater. It is undisputed that freshwater is a valuable resource that must be preserved.

Some people may argue that water should not be removed from the Great Lakes or from the Great Lakes Basin.

However, it is also undisputable that freshwater is used now to meet current needs and those needs will continue to grow.

We Great Lakes states do not want to be at a disadvantage by agreeing to a compact that denies our constituents and our states reasonable use of Great Lakes water.

There are various problems with the Compact including, but not limited to:

ONE STATE VETO

Under existing federal law, the 1986 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), one state’s governor can veto an application for a diversion of Great Lakes water. The parties negotiating the Compact failed to remedy this twenty year old flaw in totality.

Instead, it still exists in the Compact in relation to some diversions. Allowing one state to veto an application gives one state power out of proportion with that state’s interests in the Basin’s resources.

Giving dictatorial power to one state is not consistent with majority rule. Our country was founded on majority rule and our country exists to this day on the principle of majority rule.

CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY

Proponents of the Compact may say that it should be enacted so that the states in the Great Lakes Basin can determine the future management of Great Lakes water.

However, Congress has the final legal authority to interfere with the operation of a compact. The ultimate check on Congress is political and unfortunately the eight states that are party to the Great Lakes Compact have a minority of seats in Congress.

Historically Congress has rarely interfered with compacts it has approved; however; with water becoming a scarce resource and the Great Lakes states status as a minority in the U.S. Congress, there is a lot at stake for the Great Lakes states. I am concerned that over time Congress might enact changes to water law that are not in the best interest of the Great Lakes and the Great Lakes states.

GOVERNORS MIGHT CHANGE COMPACT

Once approved by Congress, there is a provision of the Compact allowing the Governors of the Great Lakes states, sitting on the Council, to amend key provisions of the Compact regarding standards and reviews. There is the risk that they may amend the Compact so that it provides less protection for the Great Lakes, or at the other extreme, onerous regulations. This uncertainty always invites the possibility of litigation.

PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE

Adopting the Compact raises the specter of extending the Public Trust Doctrine to all waters in all Great Lakes states, including groundwater. Specifically, the trust language in the Compact, “The waters of the basin are precious public natural resources shared and held in trust by the states.”

For example, Ohio Senator Timothy Grendell has already noted that the Public Trust Doctrine language of the Compact would also have negative results in Ohio.

The Trust language in the Compact has been identified as language that cannot be modified by the states.

The Public Trust Doctrine has various meanings in the states, and the Compact may affect each state differently. What will it mean in the State and Federal courts, how will this get resolved?

FISCAL IMPACT

State and local governments will incur a fiscal cost for implementing the Compact, including the costs associated with litigation. The broad language of the compact is ripe for extensive litigation and state costs.

REGULATORY UNCERTAINTY

If ratified by all eight states and adopted by Congress, the Compact will be federal law. The results of litigation over the Compact may be unanticipated and unintended regulations, and states cannot change the Compact. The states do not have discretion to change substantive Compact language.

Early in the process, the Wisconsin Legislative Council staff provided our Study Committee with a memorandum that among other things identified examples of the broad language of the Compact. That memorandum is attached. The broadness of the Compact’s language invites litigation over its meaning and application.

CONCLUSION

The governors of the eight states and the premiers of the two Canadian provinces signed the Compact in 2005, and only Minnesota with very little at stake, and Illinois with massive special diversion protection in the compact, have ratified the Compact.

The Compact should be sent back to the Governors of the Great Lakes States so that they can correct fatal flaws in the Compact.

I hope the meeting in Traverse City is filled with healthy debate. I am very disappointed that I will not be in attendance, and I look forward to knowing the information presented in Traverse City.

If you have questions, comments, concerns, or advice for me, please contact me. Sincerely,Mary LazichState SenatorSenate District 28


Filed under: Great LakesPermalink Mail to a friend
Add Comment

Chiovatero’s comments on Great Lakes Compact off-base

By Mary Lazich
Thursday, Jul 19 2007, 03:55 PM

For the past year, I have been serving as a member of the Wisconsin Legislative Council Special Committee on the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact.

My efforts have been focused on the Compact’s ideal goal to protect, conserve, restore, improve and effectively manage the Great Lakes waters.

That is the large picture. I have also been concentrating on gaining access to Lake Michigan water for New Berlin and Waukesha, a need that is critical for those communities.

The work has translated into hours upon hours of meetings, exhaustive research, and numerous correspondences with other concerned officials and water experts from around the Midwest.

That is why I was very surprised to read the off-base comments of New Berlin Mayor Jack Chiovatero in today’s Milwaukee Shepherd-Express Metro weekly newspaper.

Reporter Dennis Shook writes in today’s Shepherd Express-Metro:

Chiovatero, who has meetings this week with Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett to discuss water access details, said he sees Lazich as the major obstacle to solving the city's water woes."These are her people ... she lives here," Chiovatero said of Lazich, who could not be reached for comment.

"She has Lake Michigan water herself and she's enjoying it. So let everybody else [enjoy] it. This is just a political thing going on that has me upset," he said of her opposition to the compact.

Chiovatero’s rationale and line of thinking is small-minded and simplistic. His criticism is misdirected.

Instead of cozying up to Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett who opposes access to Lake Michigan water for New Berlin and Waukesha, Chiovatero should be working with me, the state Senate representative of the area most affected by the Compact, to ensure our communities get the water they so desperately need.

How ironic that Chiovatero would call me an obstructionist on the Compact when he sits down at a meeting with Milwaukee’s Mayor who has been steadfast in his opposition to our area getting Lake Michigan water.

Barrett’s threat to prevent the ability of New Berlin and Waukesha to gain access to Lake Michigan water will result in requiring those communities to spend millions of dollars to drill new wells and treat existing wells. Withholding water from our area will endanger public health and will damage economic development.

Consistently, my opinion has been that the current Compact is a flawed document that is bad for public health, bad for the environment, bad for economic development, and generally bad public policy.

I am in no rush to approve a Compact that allows a single Great Lakes Governor to veto any diversion of water to New Berlin. Apparently Chiovatero fails to understand that provision alone would put the city of New Berlin that he is supposed to be representing in serious jeopardy of obtaining much-needed water.

The Compact that Chiovatero and Barrett say we should approve immediately is filled with flaws. Mark Squillace, Director of the Natural Resources Law Center at the University of Colorado Law School has written a research paper titled Rethinking the Great Lakes Compact.

Squillace maintains the Compact is so problematic that chucking it entirely and starting from scratch might be the best option.

Absent of any strict cap on overall use of water resources, the probability of overuse of water is high. Thus, the Compact fails to encourage conservation.

A critical Compact requirement is that states manage new or increased water withdrawals, a requirement Squillace calls cumbersome. Concentrating on new uses of consumption ignores existing uses of the resources that have a far more significant impact.

This edict will result in a failure to protect lake levels and a failure to promote the ecological health of the Great Lakes Basin.

Squillace also contends the Compact focuses too much on the place of the water use instead of the impact of the use on the overall water resources of the Basin.

Far from simple and efficient, the Compact forces states to regulate in a heavy-handed fashion that will impair economic development.

Chiovatero believes approving the Compact will be tantamount to waving a magic wand and like a panacea, our water troubles will conveniently be over.

I have done a lot of homework on this issue and it is far more complex than that.

Sadly, Chiovatero doesn’t get it.

I will not endorse a Compact that puts our communities in the precarious position of having water access stripped away by the whims of a single Governor in a neighboring state.

Furthermore, I will continue to speak out against the many defects in the document as long as they pose a threat to the welfare of residents in New Berlin and Waukesha.

Filed under: Great LakesPermalink Mail to a friend
Add Comment

Great Lakes group holds meeting without notice

By Mary Lazich
Wednesday, Jul 18 2007, 11:13 AM

On Tuesday, a group formed by Governor Doyle to work on the Great Lakes Compact met for two hours in the Governor’s office.

As a member of the Wisconsin Legislative Council Special Committee on the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact, and as the state Senator representing New Berlin and the Waukesha area that will be affected by the Compact, I should have been notified about the meeting and invited.

I was not.

Darryl Enriquez of the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel interviewed me Tuesday about the meeting and writes about it in today’s paper:

“Lazich (R-New Berlin) is fighting a key detail in the compact, one of several that show the deep political and economic divisions that have brought work to a standstill.

The legislative group headed by state Sen. Neal Kedzie (R-Elkhorn) has a Sept. 15 deadline to complete its work. It is reconvening today after a lengthy lull.Lazich's beef with the federal version of the compact is that any proposal to divert water outside the Great Lakes drainage basin can be vetoed by a single governor.

As outlined in the accord, a diversion must be unanimously approved.

Lazich is working to change that provision so that only a simple majority vote of the eight Great Lakes states governors is needed for approval of a diversion project.

Her stance is viewed as an obstruction to compact approval.

"The compact is so flawed that it gives one governor veto power and no recourse," Lazich said. "I'm very much an obstructionist to the single veto. I'm very much a supporter to preserving the Great Lakes."

Lazich said she was upset about not receiving an invite to the governor's working group.

A governor's spokesman said that seven members of the Kedzie committee attended the working group, along with governor's staff, state Department of Natural Resources staff, environmentalists and others."

Was there a meeting of the Kedzie committee and I wasn't notified?" Lazich asked. "I am very, very concerned, and I will make this an issue at the start of the compact group meeting tomorrow (Wednesday) morning."

You can read the entire Journal/Sentinel article here.

At the beginning of today’s meeting, I asked for a show of hands of those committee members who attended Tuesday’s meeting at the Governor’s office.

Seven people raised their hands, many of whom are members of the same Great Lakes Compact subcommittee that I serve on.I reiterated my concern that I represent an area that has a great deal at stake on this issue, and yet was not notified or invited to Tuesday’s meeting.

I then respectfully asked some of the members who did attend to give a brief summary of what transpired so I could have the same frame of reference before today’s committee proceedings began.

There was a quorum of members of the subcommittee I serve on at Tuesday’s meeting in the Governor’s office.

That is very troubling, especially since I have been critical of the compact. I have referred to the Compact as a flawed document that is bad for public health, bad for the environment, bad for economic development, and generally bad public policy.

At today’s committee meeting, I requested that Mark Squillace, Director of the Natural Resources Law Center at the University of Colorado Law School be invited to speak to the Great Lakes committee. Squillace has written a research paper titled Rethinking the Great Lakes Compact.

The Compact’s ideal goal is to protect, conserve, restore, improve and effectively manage the Great Lakes waters.

Squillace writes the prescription in the Compact is sorely inadequate for achieving the stated goal. The Compact is so problematic that Squillace suggests chucking it entirely and starting from scratch.

The research paper published in the Michigan State Law Review can be found here.

Committee chair, Senator Kedzie said he will consider my request to add Squillace to a future committee agenda.

Filed under: Great LakesPermalink Mail to a friend
Add Comment

The Great Lakes Compact is flawed
By Mary Lazich
Monday, Apr 9 2007, 08:52 AM

As a member of the Wisconsin Legislative Council Special Committee on the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact, I readily admit that I am not in a hurry to ratify the Great Lakes Compact. I cannot support a flawed document that is bad for public health, bad for the environment, bad for economic development, and generally bad public policy.

Mark Squillace, Director of the Natural Resources Law Center at the University of Colorado Law School has written a research paper titled Rethinking the Great Lakes Compact.

The Compact’s ideal goal is to protect, conserve, restore, improve and effectively manage the Great Lakes waters.

Squillace writes the prescription in the Compact is sorely inadequate for achieving the stated goal.

The research paper to be published in the Michigan State Law Review can be found here.

With surgical precision, Squillace dissects the Compact components, illuminating the reasons the document is far from being ready for prime time. The Compact is so problematic that Squillace suggests chucking it entirely and starting from scratch.

Absent of any strict cap on overall use of water resources, the probability of overuse of water is high. Thus, the Compact fails to encourage conservation.

A critical Compact requirement is that states manage new or increased water withdrawals, a requirement Squillace calls cumbersome. Concentrating on new uses of consumption ignores existing uses of the resources that have a far more significant impact.

This edict will result in a failure to protect lake levels and a failure to promote the ecological health of the Great Lakes Basin.

Squillace also contends the Compact focuses too much on the place of the water use instead of the impact of the use on the overall water resources of the Basin.

Far from simple and efficient, the Compact forces states to regulate in a heavy-handed fashion that will impair economic development. In conclusion, Squillace says the Compact will not achieve its goal of protecting and conserving the Great Lakes.

I agree.

Riddled with too many problems, the Compact is bad public policy.

Meanwhile, the need for New Berlin and Waukesha to obtain Lake Michigan water remains serious. Because both communities must reduce the concentration of radium levels in their drinking water, their need for increased access to Lake Michigan water is in the interest of public health.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett has made it clear he is going to stand in the way.

Barrett is threatening the ability of New Berlin and Waukesha to gain access to Lake Michigan water, resulting in requiring those communities to spend millions of dollars to drill new wells and treat existing wells.

I am very concerned about allegations James Rowen posted on his blog, The Political Environment, on February 28, 2007. Barrett is threatening not only to delay Waukesha’s access to Lake Michigan water but also to impose a tax on access to water.

The need for Lake Michigan water in New Berlin and Waukesha is critical and undeniable. It is unconscionable that Barrett would attempt to profit from this public health crisis by extorting these communities to pay a huge new tax. Withholding water will endanger public health and will damage economic development.

Barrett needs to reconsider his ill-conceived notion to take economic advantage of the public health plight in our communities.