The political burden at the heart of Waukesha's bid for Lake Michigan water - - actually it becomes the Wisconsin DNR's political burden if the state agency forwards Waukesha's plan to the other seven Great Lakes states - - is to convince those states to line up behind a Wisconsin state law which officials here say mandates that some of the diverted water be piped beyond Waukesha's boundaries to communities that did not ask for it.
Anyway - - that's how Waukesha sees it.
Though independent experts hired by a coalition of Wisconsin organizations disagree.
So we'll see how they see it in Michigan or New York. Minnesota. Ohio, Illinois, Indiana and Pennsylvania. And the Canadians, too - - but they're just being asked for their opinion.
Which, if you think about it, is what Waukesha is asking the other Great Lakes states to buy into - - an opinion - - about the meaning and reach of Wisconsin law.
Anyway - - that's how Waukesha sees it.
Though independent experts hired by a coalition of Wisconsin organizations disagree.
So we'll see how they see it in Michigan or New York. Minnesota. Ohio, Illinois, Indiana and Pennsylvania. And the Canadians, too - - but they're just being asked for their opinion.
Which, if you think about it, is what Waukesha is asking the other Great Lakes states to buy into - - an opinion - - about the meaning and reach of Wisconsin law.
From www.takinittothestreets.us
ReplyDelete"The above referenced J/S article can be summarized this way: Wisconsin laws governing environmental regulations do not trump what Wisconsin agreed to when Wisconsin signed the covenants of the Great Lakes Compact.
This statement in the J/S article makes no sense: " Even if Waukesha would drop it's lake water request, as recommended by the environmental groups, it would be back with the same request in 10 years, Duchniak said.
I guess it would make sense if Waukesha annexed all the land in the service area!!!
But that couldn't happen because that would be what the opponents original premise is, the application is based on growth and not need."
Who negotiated the Compact with the other states? The DNR under Governor Doyle, who was co-chair of the Great Lakes Governors. Who added the water supply plan law to Wisconsin's version of the Compact? The DNR under Governor Doyle. Wouldn't they know better than anyone what the Compact said and intended? Can you point to a single objection to the water supply planning law by any group or state at the time that you and others were pushing for passage of the bill it was in? The DNR has repeatedly pointed out that water supplies must be consistent with the pre-existing sewer areas under state law. http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/clock-ticking-on-starting-waukesha-milwaukee-water-talks-kb5u6j5-160968855.html The Compact requires that consistency, too.
ReplyDeleteI have been writing about what I ca;;ed the Waukesha Exception Doyle and his DNR negotiated since 2008.
ReplyDeletehttp://thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com/2008/05/crafting-waukesha-water-loophole.html
The post you referred to makes no mention of Wisconsin's water supply planning law, which is what the topic of the Journal Sentinel story and my comment was. If it was inconsistent with the Compact (despite being written by the same people who negotiated the Compact), why did none of the people who spent years negotiating Wisconsin's implementation law ever object?
ReplyDeleteI am looking through my archives.
ReplyDeletehttp://thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com/2007/08/new-sewrpc-power-grab-for-even-wider.html
Still don't see any objection to Doyle's water supply planning law or to the Compact implementation bill. Because it never happened.
ReplyDeleteGovernor Foyle was never popular in Waukesha. So you're surprised that the Wisconsin version isn't consistent with GLC?.
ReplyDeleteThat's politics.