tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6621691715090523319.post2740429437579351276..comments2023-10-08T04:12:46.273-05:00Comments on The Political Environment: No Surprise: Waukesha Wins At SEWRPCJames Rowenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10203270946492159686noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6621691715090523319.post-81464629329741667072010-12-05T22:34:52.158-06:002010-12-05T22:34:52.158-06:00"and if groundwater is NOT a reasonable alter..."and if groundwater is NOT a reasonable alternative, and the Lake is the only option, then the SEI consultants were clear that selling water could result in adverse impacts on low income and minority communities."<br /><br />The CED report and interested parties to this issue have a gross misconception about Waukesha. Waukesha has the largest percentage of low income and minority communities in Waukesha County. Waukesha is not the "perfect suburban community" Milwaukee residents have come to believe. We have crimes of murder, rape, drugs and poverty like any other city.<br /><br />In my opinion the report by the CED's greatest flaw is the baseless falsehood, "switching Waukesha or any of the other communities to lake water would not cause any significant social or economic imbalances through 2035." Really? Will the poor, fixed income, and low income in Waukesha stop bathing because they cannot afford their water bill? <br /><br />Waukesha's poor, low income, and fixed income will suffer financially over the cost of a Lake Michigan diversion.<br /><br />Based on the handout past out by the water utility, the water portion alone will increase from $67 per quarter to $142. Then add the sewer portion. Then add the construction cost. Then add the maintenance cost. Then add economic compensation costs for water purchase rights.<br /><br />A diversion to Wakesha has the potential to bring economic chaos.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6621691715090523319.post-40885495893627989292010-12-04T15:48:22.786-06:002010-12-04T15:48:22.786-06:00Bill,
It's still sprawl when new development...Bill, <br /><br />It's still sprawl when new development leapfrogs over ag land, conservation area and other open space--whatever the sewer and water supplier. <br /><br />Your contention that "Waukesha’s plan to switch from an unsustainable water supply to a sustainable water supply" is laughable. Do you not get it that if the deep aquifer water--water that's used once, then flushed down the Fox River--were to be re-used or re-cycled back into the aquifer--it, too, could be easily sustainable? And far less expensive than the pricey Star Wars plan you propose.<br /><br />Your Kate Madison quote is useless in advancing your argument and contradictory to the inflated number of gallons per day your old application asks for. 18 million gallons/day is nearly 3 times the amount of water used on average currently. If there isn't much undeveloped land to be HAD there, then there won't be the population to support the exorbitant amount in the application. You can't have it both ways, although I grudgingly admire your persistence in trying. <br /><br />Your continued claim that Lake Michigan is a sustainable source is also ridiculous--and false. How much "consumptive use" will Waukesha claim--10%? 15%? 20%?--that won't be returned to the Lake? You need to go back to the drawing board to write some new talking points. People are on to you.<br /><br />And while you're there--at the drawing board--you'd better get started on a new application. Looks the DNR thinks you need one. Please make it good this time around, and quit wasting precious time and the taxpayers' money in re-working the old, failed application. Or commenting on blogs such as this one.<br /><br />Busy, busy--get to work! Start spinning!Boxernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6621691715090523319.post-15277272684528487492010-12-03T14:11:50.528-06:002010-12-03T14:11:50.528-06:00the JS article misstates the SEI findings. The act...the JS article misstates the SEI findings. The actual report, and comments of the consultants, make it clear that sprawl will continue. the basis for the finding of no greater impact is that the SEI is based explicitly on SEWRPC's representations that the science shows that if the suburban communities don't get Lake water they can use groundwater to develop. So, basically, they will sprawl as much as they want.<br /><br />of course, if - as SEWRPC claims the science shows - groundwater is a reasonable alternative, then the suburbs can't legally get Lake water under the compact.<br /><br />and if groundwater is NOT a reasonable alternative, and the Lake is the only option, then the SEI consultants were clear that selling water could result in adverse impacts on low income and minority communities.PurpleAvengernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6621691715090523319.post-82539044744736071982010-12-03T10:22:39.886-06:002010-12-03T10:22:39.886-06:00Bill - - there will be sprawl into those new lands...Bill - - there will be sprawl into those new lands and the growth there will continue the trend: upper-income housing and jobs relative to development in Milwaukee.James Rowenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10203270946492159686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6621691715090523319.post-91154360898295300562010-12-03T10:16:27.877-06:002010-12-03T10:16:27.877-06:00I may have had a typo in my question.
Do you p...I may have had a typo in my question. <br /><br /><br />Do you prefer development on well and septic systems instead of urban sewer and water? <br /><br />Waukesha’s plan to switch from an unsustainable water supply to a sustainable water supply will not promote sprawl, as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story points out: <br />“SEWRPC hired the Center for Economic Development at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee to evaluate social and economic impacts of the regional plan. Among its conclusions: switching Waukesha or any of the other communities to lake water would not cause any significant social or economic imbalances through 2035.<br /><br />“Specific to Waukesha, the center found that providing lake water even to an expanded future water supply service area would not promote sprawl because there was not much undeveloped land to be had there, said Kate Madison, a policy analyst with the center.”<br /><br />http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/111223134.htmlBill McClenahannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6621691715090523319.post-89463405488847536752010-12-03T10:14:14.790-06:002010-12-03T10:14:14.790-06:00Do you prefer development on well and septic syste...Do you prefer development on well and septic systems instead of urban sewer and water? <br /><br />Waukesha’s plan to switch from an unsustainable water supply to a sustainable water supply will not promote sprawl, as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story points out: <br /><br />“SEWRPC hired the Center for Economic Development at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee to evaluate social and economic impacts of the regional plan. Among its conclusions: switching Waukesha or any of the other communities to lake water would not cause any significant social or economic imbalances through 2035.<br /><br />“Specific to Waukesha, the center found that providing lake water even to an expanded future water supply service area would not promote sprawl because there was not much undeveloped land to be had there, said Kate Madison, a policy analyst with the center.”<br /><br />http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/111223134.htmlBill McClenahannoreply@blogger.com