The editorial title says it all:
"Make it a priority: Protecting the Great Lakes from threats such as diversions, invasive species and falling lake levels needs to be part of the presidential election debate."
(Bold-face in the original.)
The editorial was sparked by a frontpage story Wednesday by reporter Dan Egan on water level declines in Lake Michigan having reached recorded lows.
A Waukesha Water Utility lobbyist didn't like my interpretation of that story. You can read my blog posting ,and his comments just as he sent to them for posting, among others pro-and-con, online here.
Further down in the text of the editorial, they muddy up the stance against diversions with a qualifier.
ReplyDeleteThey clarify by coming out against "harmful" diversions. I think McClenehan and the rest of the flacks working for the Waukesha Water Utility have already planted the notion that Waukesha's attempt to weasel on the question of diversion will do no harm. The MJS will go along with their plan to get approval to buy 20 million gallons a day and return a lot less than that.
The Journal Sentinel is a failing enterprise. For 25 years they have targeted Waukesha as the place in which they have to recoup the steady hemorrhage of subscribers and advertisers in Milwaukee County. They need sprawl and the kinds of growth that Waukesha has seen in recent decades. (Actually, as a newspaper they need a lot more than that, but they'll settle for the bigger target audience)
When it gets to a decision, expect the Journal editorials to support a Waukesha water grab--one that doesn't require full return flow;
I predict they'll argue it isn't a "harmful" diversion and and point to this editorial as proof of how consistent their view is.
Jim B. may be right. I think trends, expertise and public opinion are gathering against the Waukesha diversion position.
ReplyDeleteJames, this may really surprise you but I would tend to agree with the Journal Sentinel piece. I am not completely, or even mostly, against care for the environment, especially those things that make sense. I don't know all the ins and outs but it seems like preserving the Great Lakes makes sense to me.
ReplyDeleteBTW, as a resident of Waukesha any thing less than a full return to Lake Michigan of the water taken from it would be unacceptable. Again I don't know all the ins and outs of the methods of returning the water, but it should be returned.
ReplyDeleteTo Dean: I think that Great Lakes preservation is very important, regardless of political party, class, or any other division among us all.
ReplyDeleteThe waters are basic to life, and to the prosperity of eight states and two Canadian provinces, not to mention as an important, global reservoir of fresh water.
Keeping these lakes clean, healthy, renewed - - what better focus could we have in this part of the country?