Waukesha Water Officials Still Resisting Transparency

I've documented prior instances where Waukesha's water planners embrace confidentiality even though public spending (local Waukesha dollars, plus state regulatory work far in excess of the $5,000 application fee, and possible federal grants) and environmental consequences are at the foundation of the push for Great Lakes water.

Through an application that needs the approval of eight states in very public forums and reviews with very public procedures established in laws and an international agreement.

These days, it's called transparency.

A summary of Waukesha's historical disregard for sunlight in its water supply planning is here.

But there they go again:

A letter somewhere between policy explanation and political apology the Waukesha Water Utility unsuccessfully asked Waukesha Mayor Jeff Scrima to sign last week contained this language:

"With regards to the details on the cost of Lake Michigan supply alternatives, the Water Utility Commission and Common Council are concerned about providing the detailed information as it relates to the City’s negotiating position with the potential water suppliers. The city would also like to note that the Legislature rejected proposed language that would have required a negotiated agreement or identification of a single supplier. Based on that input, Utility staff was advised to present the detailed cost for the preferred alternative. The reason the Milwaukee Water supply with return flow to Underwood Creek is the preferred alternative is that it is composed of the shortest conveyance system. The other alternatives require additional infrastructure and therefore are more costly. Dan Duchniak has discussed these issues with Eric Ebersberger, who will research the potential of providing additional information to the DNR on a confidential basis until a final agreement is negotiated with a water supplier."

Scrima, however, took a pretty different position in a letter to the DNR that he did sign.

Score one for transparency, regardless of what you think about water supplies or political infighting:

"The citizens of our great City need to know upfront what the true cost of all reasonable water supply alternatives are—including the detailed cost estimates for Oak Creek and Racine—before we can make a informed decision on what is in our City’s best long term interest.

In addition, because our expanded water service territory as outlined in the Application includes parts of Pewaukee, Genesee and the Town of Waukesha, we would also be wise to gather public input on that before we proceed.

I believe it is my responsibility as Mayor, in keeping with my obligation of transparency to the City’s residents to be sure that every reasonable alternative has been thoroughly examined before moving ahead with an application."

So list support for transparency between the Mayor and political Establishment as one of the differences in how a new water supply should be pursued.