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.