Here is the letter.
Insufficient attention to options, costs, and the water's return were the primary flaws.
But is it a surprise?
In January, 2009, the Waukesha Common Council, meeting as a committee of the whole, heard presentations on the application process - - including one by Powerpoint by Great Lakes journalist and book author Peter Annin.
I remember Annin telling Waukesha to expect a "brutal" review process because Great Lakes diversions were controversial and problematic, with the city's being the first under the Great Lakes Compact to require an eight-state, unanimous review and approval.
My report on the meeting is here.
Annin also told the assemblage in no-uncertain-terms that whatever was in the application, Waukesha should expect it to be turned back for more work.
Which has now happened, though awfully early in the process.
The political, legal and environmental challenges facing Waukesha are absolutely immense, especially as its political community is split between Mayor Jeff Scrima and other leaders he does not control: an elected City Attorney, Council members, and the water utility.
Is there a Plan B?
Combining radium treatment, plus conservation and new shallow wells - - regardless of what the rest of Waukesha County's political and business establishment thinks?
And isn't it time to pay more attention to what the environmental groups' coalition has been saying - - that the application had serious deficiencies along the lines cited by the DNR.
Let me post again what the Waukesha Environmental Action League (WEAL), for example, suggested the Common Council consider in April before it basically rubber-stamped what the DNR now say falls far short of a complete and comprehensive application.
Will the faction of Waukesha's city government that pushed the application so hard now take this advice?
No comments:
Post a Comment