Open up the agenda for the upcoming Natural Resources Board meeting, scroll down to "action item 3.B.," and then open the link at # 10 - -
Congress Matters: Wisconsin Conservation Congress 2012 Spring Hearing Advisory Questions (Rob Bohmann, WCC Chair, 20 minutes) Added- - then scroll to items #3-4-5 there, and then after, yes, a laborious search of an arcane agenda for meetings during the working day when citizens can't attend, ask this question:
Do you want this particular DNR management team with its "chamber of commerce mentality" (Scott Walker's phrase) is the right group to obtain consolidated management powers over all 72 counties' existing wetlands, storm water and erosion programs and controls?
And is this the right way to go about it - - with barely a crack of sunlight into the Board's process, and with late additions to the Agenda?
The anti-big government, business-friendly crowd running the show in Madison is all for local control - - except when they are not.
This is the exact language of the proposals, buried as they are in an obscure agenda for a meeting in Madison:
3. Consolidating Jurisdictions for Wetland Management Regulations (requires legislation) Currently, the state of Wisconsin, each of the 72 counties and many incorporated municipalities in Wisconsin have independent wetland protection rules.
All or most local wetland ordinances are versions of a state model ordinance. Because of these overlapping jurisdictions it is often unclear, even within the agencies, who is responsible for a particular wetland.
Applications often need to be made to both the state, each of the 72 counties andall incorporated municipalities and permits are often received from both.
To reduce the number of employees required, and to make the permitting process easier to understand for permit applicants, do you favor the transferring shore land and isolated wetland protection responsibilities to the State of Wisconsin?
4. Consolidating Jurisdictions for Storm Water Management Regulations Currently, the state, many counties and many municipalities within those counties in Wisconsin have independent storm water management rules.
All or most county and local ordinances are versions of a state model ordinance.
Because of these overlapping jurisdictions it is often unclear, even within the agencies, who is responsible for a particular construction site.
To reduce the number of employees required, and to make the permitting process easier to understand for permit applicants, do you favor a consolidation of permit issuance responsibilities so that both the state and county permits are issued by the counties, with the state paying part of the necessary county employee's salary and costs, and with local municipalities having the option for county permit issuance?
5. Consolidating Jurisdictions for Erosion Control Management Regulations
Currently, the state, many counties and many municipalities within those counties in Wisconsin have independent construction site erosion control rules.
All or most county and local ordinances are versions of a state model ordinance.
Because of these overlapping jurisdictions it is often unclear, even within the agencies, who is responsible for a particular construction site. Duplicate applications, and permits from both the state and the county are almost always required.
To reduce the number of employees required, and to make the permitting process easier to understand for permit applicants, do you favor a consolidation of permit issuance responsibilities so that both the state and county permits are issued by the counties, with the state paying part of the necessary county employee's salary and costs, and with local municipalities having the option for county permit issuance?
It appears these questions are presented to the NR Board by the Wisconsin Conservation Congress Executive Council. The questions were approved by the WCC leadership. This is a separate, independent organization from the DNR and NR Board. While the three questions you highlight are extremely problematic, they are rooted in real world concerns about effectively protecting our state's natural resources and the unintended consequences of incremental adoption of regulations.
ReplyDeleteNow it is appar4nt that a Gogebic Mine has been in the works for a very long time. This is NOT a "Walker Issue" as has been framed by all. The fast-tracking aspect is but we all know that a slow process with the APPEARANCE of public "venting" is just as an inexorable grind to an foregone conclusion as a fast-track development.
ReplyDeleteSo...Doyle aides were approached and were "favorable"? Nice to know.
http://treaty.indigenousnative.org/penokee.html
Dave Zein has not been around for a long time. State officials of all parties and persuasions have apparently felt that mining was a real good thing for "the North".
Voting in a new Democrat Governor will change this outcome HOW? Also, it's highly unlikely you personally did not know this for up to and possibly surpassing 7 years. Embedded local officials WERE pimping for this Penokee mine since long ago. Yet the Democrat party made no big noise about it, and are only doing so now to get a PR toe-hold. Anyone who has read accounts of the mining approval processes in MN can easily see that The Powerful get their way, no matter if the approval process is slow or fast. So then... a FAST approval saves tax dollars of the public who will be raped anyway. Why waste time and money? The Mines Happen either way, the will of the people is ignored either way.