Walker Stuck Milwaukee County With Multi-Million Wage, Legal Bills

Like a home seller leaving behind a hidden termite nest in the foundation, Scott Walker walked away from Milwaukee County government in 2010 and left the next administration a multi-million dollar mess to fix:

$4.1 million in wages Walker illegally withheld from County employees through mandatory furlough days he had no authority to order, plus responsibility for a yet-to-be-calculated legal tab run up in the last two years by employees who won restoration of the lost wages, the Journal Sentinel reports.

His imperious behavior - -  on top of eight years managing County finances into the ground - - hurt individual workers, and now all County taxpayers, but Walker is now ensconced in the Governor's Mansion and beyond local accountability.

In Wisconsin US Senate Campaign, An Excess Of GOP Ambition

The highest-profile candidates in the GOP primary race for the Wisconsin Senate seat being vacated by Democrat Herb Kohl are also in a contest to see whom among them will go the farthest over the top to get elected.

Eric Hovde and Tommy Thompson are currently tied for that lead.

And maybe a race to the bottom is a better metaphor.

Newcomer Hovde, a Madisonian who went off to Washington to run a hedge fund, is unashamedly spending his fortune on ads while mining deeper for conservative support in a four-person contest among conservatives by attacking food stamp recipients and calling Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, the only Democrat in the race, a communist.

Veteran pol Tommy Thompson also left Madison for Washington, where he parleyed a Cabinet position into a slew of corporate positions and board seats, and also like Hovde, is mining deeper for support into a GOP conservative base redder than it had been in Tommy's heyday by reinventing himself, as the Journal Sentinel reports, to be at least as conservative as is Hovde and the other two GOP candidates - - the genuinely conservative Mark Neumann and the equally-authentically right-wing State Assembly leader Rep. Jeff Fitzgerald.

Hovde will say anything for conservative votes.

Tommy will say anything for conservative votes.

In that Journal Sentinel piece about Tommy's political makeover:

He described himself as "way over on the right, but I'm also an individual that can get things done."

And:

Thompson sounded regretful about signing, in 1999, "smart growth" legislation that works against sprawl and emphasizes conservation, land-use planning and environmental protection.

He said he was against it but told business, municipal and environmental leaders that if they could agree on a bill he would sign it.

"I wish they all wouldn't have signed it," he said. "But I gave my word because I never thought they would come together."

This isn't the first time this iteration of Tommy Thompson has run from his record, whether abandoning his love affair with Amtrak to sidle up to train-killing Scott Walker, or claiming to be a new wave small-government devotee after having added thousands of employees to the state payroll and agreeing to generous wage and benefit settlements through collective bargaining.

And while Hovde is saturating the airwaves with commercials, Tommy is running an ad of his own that says he'll stop the government takeover of health care - - PolitiFact's Lie of the Year for 2010 - - while a neutral party like the Wisconsin Historical Society has catalogued Tommy's multiple health care initiatives that gave government a role far bigger than played under his predecessors:

Thompson also worked to extend health care benefits to low-income and disabled people. His BadgerCare program provided health insurance to uninsured families, and had enrolled more than 77,000 people by 2000. Wisconsin's Pathways to Independence was the nation's first program to ensure the continuance of health benefits for disabled individuals who entered the workforce, providing easy access to a system of service and benefits counseling. Another health program, FamilyCare, allowed elderly and disabled citizens to receive care in their homes as long as possible. 

Say anything, do anything, be anyone to be a US Senator.

A few weeks ago I wouldn't have give Hovde a prayer, but you can spend you way to a path to win.

Tommy is certainly the front-runner, and he might be able to sell himself out to a win.

Eric "The Entertainer" Hovde Has An Encore

Fresh off his pre-teen screed about poor people, Republican Senate candidate and Goofmesiter Eric Hovde offers up more fringy standup by calling Democratic Congresswoman and Senate opponent Tammy Baldwin a communist. And more:

Her philosophy has its roots in Marxism, communism, socialism, extreme liberalism — she calls it progressivism — versus mine, which is rooted in free-market conservatism."

Here's how Hovde will get out from under that word salad.

First he will claim he was taken out of context because,  like, you know, it's hard work to get six "isms" in one sentence without turning your words into word salad...whatever.

Then he will say he got confused because he meant to take a shot at Tommy for having said Jeff Fitzgerald was a preferable Senate GOP alternative.

Finally, he'll say he was talking about Alec Baldwin. Those progressive Baldwins with their Balwinism- - seen one, seen 'em all

One thing for sure: it's gonna be another sob story.

New State Report Suggests Walker Can't Meet 250,000 New Jobs Pledge

The State Revenue Department's latest "full report" economic forecast says Wisconsin will lag the national recovery at the end of 2014 and will be far behind Walker's pledge of 250,000 new private sector jobs created after January, 2010.

A chart I can't copy out shows the deficit in non-farm jobs will be 138,000.

The revised employment data show a lower peak and trough during the last recession. Wisconsin employment peaked at 2,885,800 in January of 2008 and bottomed in November of 2009 after losing 6% of total employment. 

In the 29 following months, the current data show that the state recovered 18,360 jobs. This data shows Wisconsin employment falling in the second half of 2011.

However, data from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) indicate that these estimates will be revised upward. QCEW figures show the state continued adding jobs in the second half of 2011, with an estimated 23,321 being added that year.

After this revision is incorporated in March of 2013 the recovery path for Wisconsin will again follow the path of U.S. employment.

The state economy followed the national economy into the recession and it will exhibit a similar pattern into the recovery. Anemic demand, high unemployment, tight credit, and a sluggish housing market restrain the recovery. The U.S. will recover all the jobs lost in the recession by the third quarter of 2014.

Wisconsin employment will return to its 2008 peak level of 2.9 million jobs by early 2015. The forecast expects Wisconsin employment to grow 1.0% in 2012 and 1.7% in 2013.

Waukesha Hopes For Federal Subsidy To Fund New Water System

Federal grant funds for an Amtrak line running through Waukesha linking Madison and Milwaukee? Can't have that. Too expensive.

After all, isn't dependency on Big Government and its Nanny State pocketbook something that conservative policy-makers and voters say is at the heart of our fiscal and cultural morass?

But federal grant funds to subsidize the Waukesha Water Utility and users faced with paying for the new water system the utility and Common Council are pursuing?

Bring it on, 1.0:

Waukesha tries to tap $100 million for water projects

The utility is writing an application for a $100 million U.S. Army Corps of Engineers grant. If the corps approves the application, the money would be available for water utility projects in Milwaukee and Waukesha counties.

But the Waukesha utility still could get between $25 million and $50 million, said Dan Duchniak, water utility general manager...

“It’s something our water systems need,” he said of maintenance money, “that’s for sure.”

Duchniak said the Waukesha utility has no choice but to swallow the cost of new construction for a new water source. Without outside grants, he said, the cost will fall on people who buy water from the utility.

“We need to do something,” he said. “We can’t do nothing.”

Bring it on 2.0:

I'd noted the effort to get GOP Cong. Sensembrenner's backing for the US Army Corps of Engineers grant, and it sure looks like that's a continuing effort.

Waukesha Water Utility General Manager Daniel Duchniak told his commission in April during a Great lakes water update that he'd been to Washington, DC in furtherance of "support for the Army Corps of Engineers project."

From the April 19 minutes, Discussion Item #9 (see pdf files, here):

Duchniak went to Washington D.C. for support of the Army Corps of Engineers project-- received support from Congressman Sensenbrenner and Senator Kohl and is waiting to hear about a letter of support from Senator Johnson.

Waukesha Said Water Service Map Can Be Redrawn

One of the issues raised at Wednesday's meeting in Milwaukee City Hall was whether changes could be made to the territory in which the City of Waukesha intends to offer diverted Lake Michigan water obtained either from Milwaukee - - Waukesha's preferred seller - - or from Oak Creek and Racine.

The City of Milwaukee objects to the proposed water service territory map in the City of Waukesha's diversion plan that contains portions of four additional communities, including the Town of Waukesha, but the Journal Sentinel reported that a representative from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources said Wednesday that Milwaukee could not negotiate a water deal with the City of Waukesha that did not include the four smaller communities.

And the City of Waukesha said it would not consider such a deal.

The Wisconsin Public Service Commission is now saying it will review the particulars of a water deal, too - - so it seems there are lot of cooks at the stove, but Milwaukee is being told just to bring the main ingredient without any say in the recipe.

So is the proposed water service area as mapped set in stone?

Milwaukee officials don't think so, and while I'm waiting for an answer to the question from the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission's Executive Ken Yunker yesterday, here's some additional support that a little Googling turned up early this morning for the idea that the map can be changed.

City of Waukesha Water Utility General Manager Dan Duchniak described a fairly straight-forward procedure available to change the map when he addressed a public meeting on water issues hosted by the Town of Waukesha on May 12, 2011 as part of its public process to decide if it wanted to be in or out of the diversion application.

The Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission drew up the map without consulting the Town of Waukesha, and the City of Waukesha included the SEWRPC map in the diversion application without the Town's approval.

The Town has yet to decide if it's in or out of the water map and plan: being in carries with it benefits - - Lake Michigan water, for example - - but also potential financial, legal and conservation-planning costs, too.

If you go to the Town's website, and click on the red link in the middle of the home page - - Minutes from the May 12th Water Service Meeting - - you will find a long pdf containing that meeting's transcript, and on successively posted pages numbered 19 and 24, Duchniak notes that there is "a process in place" for deleting from or adding to the service territory as mapped for the diversion application by SEWRPC.

So the question would be: why can't the City of Milwaukee as a potential seller of water request or negotiate for a change in the area to which its purchased water would be delivered if potential receiving water communities can add or delete themselves from the service area?

...but if we wanted - - if you wanted to eliminate other areas from the water service area, we could go through the process of requesting that through SEWRPC because there is a process in place that allows for addition or elimination of properties from that.

So if the Town Board decides not to be included in the service area, what we would do is we go to SEWRPC and request that the Town of Waukesha be eliminated from the service area.

Duluth Rainfall Breaks 1909 Record; Climate Change Predicted Such Events

Duluth floods. Heaviest rains since 1909.

I've been posting versions of this warning for years:

Then-Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist and I attended a conference in Chicago in 2003, hosted by Mayor Richard Daley, where officials from the [George W. Bush-era] EPA told Midwestern elected leaders that climate change models predicted heavier rain events.

The EPA officials were urging the Midwestern leaders to adapt their planning and spending to more aggressively confront storm water and related services because heavier, intense rains were going to be come more frequent.

Romney Wants Crackdown On Job Exporters...Like That Bain Company Some Guy Founded

Records reviewed by The Washington Post show Bain Capital helped move jobs overseas.

Romney better our-source his criticism of those practices to someone not named Mitt.

During the nearly 15 years that Romney was actively involved in running Bain, a private equity firm that he founded, it owned companies that were pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas call centers and factories making computer components, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

While economists debate whether the massive outsourcing of American jobs over the last generation was inevitable, Romney in recent months has lamented the toll it’s taken on the U.S. economy. He has repeatedly pledged he would protect American employment by getting tough on China.

“They’ve been able to put American businesses out of business and kill American jobs,” he told workers at a Toledo fence factory in February. “If I’m president of the United States, that’s going to end.”

GOP Legislator Drops Out Of Voter ID Lawsuit Intervention

Nice work by One Wisconsin Now - - keeping sunlight on the process.

Disclosure - - I am on the OWN C-3 issues board, but had no role in OWN's actions in this case.

Link To PSC Letter, Plan To Engage In Some Waukesha Water Review

I posted information from the PSC's letter yesterday, and finally can supply a link to it.

Try this one.

This was the lede on the posting:

Word on the street has been that the Waukesha Water Utility had something up its sleeve to help goose along its Great Lakes water application, and that could be a PSC card apparently now in play.

We haven't heard from the Wisconsin Public Service Commission in this matter because there is no water supplier deal for it to approve - - but now with a 2-1 Scott Walker appointee-majority, the PSC has begun to involve itself in the already-heavily politicized Waukesha water supply issue, according to a PSC letter to the DNR dated June 18th. 

Getting Waukesha Water Events Distributed Through Purple Wisconsin Blog

Here's a bit of a summary. Thanks for sticking with it.

How contradictory and hypocritical is it for the small government conservatives running state government to morph into Big Government to trash home rule and local control in Milwaukee on behalf of red County Waukesha?

Both the Public Service Commission, and the Department of Natural Resources - -  the latter agency now managed with a Waukesha-development ally in the resource agency's powerful Deputy Secretary slot - - are beginning to dictate to Milwaukee water negotiation parameters and sale terms on behalf of the City of Waukesha even though Milwaukee had openly disclosed and published its water negotiation and sale policies since 2008.

Waukesha is doing its part to promote a "must-have," self-serving narrative for obtaining a diversion for itself and four neighboring communities by saying the water territory map in its water application can't be changed, and Milwaukee must comply - - with the state agencies beginning to add their weight to that argument

Except that Waukesha has said the map can be changed.

As Mayor Barrett explained things...:

Waukesha Says It Can't Amend The Water Map, But...

Both Waukesha and the DNR are saying that the entire five-community water service territory as laid out in Waukesha's Lake Michigan diversion application must be supplied by a selling community, but earlier statements suggest the service territory is not set in stone.

From Mayor Tom Barrett's remarks at the Milwaukee Common Council Public Works Committee water meeting yesterday:

However, contrary to what the Waukesha Water Utility Manager states in his letter yesterday to Alderman Bauman, various statements made in newspaper articles and correspondence indicates he believes there is some ability to amend the water service area.  [ 6/12 JS Article “Waukesha still waiting on town’s water decision.” ]

In yesterday’s letter to Ald. Bauman, the Waukesha Water Utility Manager stated:

“A change in the service area can only be made by SEWRPC or the DNR – not the Utility – and would cause unacceptable delays in our approval process.  Therefore, a motion by the Milwaukee Common Council to negotiate a water sale for a service area that is inconsistent with the SEWRPC determination will amount to a refusal to negotiate.”

However, this seems to contradict the Waukesha Water Utility Manager’s comments to the Town of Genesee and the Town of Waukesha in the City of Waukesha’s January 10, 2011 correspondence:

“Non-approval by the Town of the City’s Great Lakes water supply for the area of the Town designated by SEWRPC will result in this area being deleted from Great Lakes Water Supply Service by the City of Waukesha and revision of the Water Supply Service Area Plan.”
   
A newspaper article yesterday indicated that the City of Waukesha could ask SEWRPC to amend the service area to include only the City of Waukesha, but that Waukesha doesn’t have time to do that. [ 6/19 JS Article “Alderman’s proposal could thwart Milwaukee, Waukesha water talks.” ]

Senior DNR Official Opposed Great Lakes Compact As Approved

Water for growth in Waukesha County has a champion high up in the DNR.

Matt Moroney, an attorney and former SE Wisconsin home builders' executive, is a Scott Walker appointee to the powerful post of Deputy Secretary of the DNR.

His is not a household name, though Moroney helped write the original Assembly mining bill prior to its defeat, popped up in the story about the DNR having decided against referring to the State Justice Department an egregious case of human waste spreading on Jefferson County land near residential wells and helped explain the drop in DNR enforcement actions against polluters.

The DNR is reviewing Waukesha's Lake Michigan diversion application, and is elevating its political role in the process by pressuring Milwaukee to negotiate a water deal for an expanded service territory beyond the City of Waukesha's borders that is mapped out in Waukesha's application - - including portions of four communities near Waukesha that, to date, have failed to provide information about their water needs and services' accessibility to Milwaukee residents as requested by Milwaukee.

The DNR may soon partner with the Walker-controlled PSC to further manage the application, so it's important to remember that Walker put into the #2 position at the DNR avocal and engaged opponent of the Great Lakes Compact as it was being considered by Wisconsin prior to its 2008 approval.

As a member of a Legislative Study Committee, Moroney raised numerous objections, including claims that the Compact could usurp local control, restrict economic growth, and place burdens and limitations on "straddling counties" - - the very category created by Compact drafters to help a city like Waukesha gain eligibility to apply for a diversion of water outside of the Great Lakes basin.

The overall goal of preventing water being diverted to dry states is a commendable goal and a goal that the homebuilding industry wholeheartedly supports. However, the compact is far too limiting on Wisconsin residents, usurps state autonomy to accomplish Wisconsin objectives, and reaches into water quality issues when quantity was the original reason for the Compact. I have heard several arguments that being located next to the Great Lakes will become an economic advantage for Wisconsin in the years to come. However, if the water cannot be utilized for economic growth, being located next to the Great Lakes will put Wisconsin at an economic disadvantage.

I will repost below what I wrote in December, 2010 about this matter. Fair warning: It is a lengthy post because I wanted to preserve Moroney's argument in its totality.

Friday, December 31, 2010

New DNR Deputy Secretary Wanted A Weaker Great Lakes Compact

Below are the formal comments submitted in 2006 to a special legislative study committee by Matt Moroney, then Executive Director of the Metropolitan Builders Association and now Scott Walker's nominee as Deputy Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources.

Moroney's efforts to water down the Compact and to remake what is basically a water management and conservation agreement into more of an economic development document were not successful - - State Sen. Mary Lazich, (R-New Berlin), led a failed state's rights campaign against the Compact.

Wrote Moroney:

"The homebuilding industry does not believe the case has been made that it is necessary to manage the quantity of water being utilized from the Great Lakes to the extent that the compact does at this time. The compact is far too limiting in its standards and approval process for water use by straddling counties. Mr. Dahl, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, indicated in his presentation that the Army Corps does not even factor into its forecasting of lake levels the municipal use and other “minor” diversions. Such impacts are so trivial to other factors like evaporation and temperature. As a result, it is our belief that a little more flexibility for water diversions in states that border the Great Lakes is desirable for continued economic growth."

Now Moroney, an attorney, is in a key position to influence all state environmental policy, including how the Compact is implemented in Wisconsin, and especially as Waukesha's stalled and incomplete application for the Compact's first out-of-basin diversion moves through the DNR and perhaps to the other seven Great Lakes states for a mandatory regional review.

Looks like those who lost the fight against the Compact are in the driver's seat now.

I'm posting the comments in their complex entirety.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MEMO

To: Special Committee on the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact
From: Matt Moroney, Executive Director
Date: December 6, 2006
Re:    Comments and Concerns Regarding the Compact ----------------------------------------------------------
General Comments:
In response to Senator Kedzie’s request to submit all issues concerning the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact, I am submitting this memorandum which includes a lengthy attachment that attempts to identify areas of concern for the homebuilding industry, specifically the homebuilding industry in Southeastern Wisconsin. The list is intended to be exhaustive, but quite frankly every time one reads the compact new questions emerge. I do believe however that the attached list covers the major issues.

It is important to stress that the homebuilding industry does share the sentiment of all of the Special Committee members that water, especially Great Lakes Water, is an important resource that should not be wasted and should be carefully monitored and managed, if necessary, to insure adequate supplies of water for consumption, recreation, transportation, and a healthy ecosystem. In our opinion, the Compact fails to address major environmental threats to the lake that may occur from invasive species like the Asian Carp entering the lakes through the Chicago diversion. These environmental threats pose a much more immediate and pending harm to the Great Lakes than water diversions to straddling counties.

The homebuilding industry does not believe the case has been made that it is necessary to manage the quantity of water being utilized from the Great Lakes to the extent that the compact does at this time. The compact is far too limiting in its standards and approval process for water use by straddling counties. Mr. Dahl, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, indicated in his presentation that the Army Corps does not even factor into its forecasting of lake levels the municipal use and other “minor” diversions. Such impacts are so trivial to other factors like evaporation and temperature. As a result, it is our belief that a little more flexibility for water diversions in states that border the Great Lakes is desirable for continued economic growth.

The overall goal of preventing water being diverted to dry states is a commendable goal and a goal that the homebuilding industry wholeheartedly supports. However, the compact is far too limiting on Wisconsin residents, usurps state autonomy to accomplish Wisconsin objectives, and reaches into water quality issues when quantity was the original reason for the Compact. I have heard several arguments that being located next to the Great Lakes will become an economic advantage for Wisconsin in the years to come. However, if the water cannot be utilized for economic growth, being located next to the Great Lakes will put Wisconsin at an economic disadvantage.

Technical Issues:

1.    Definition of Environmentally and Economically Feasible Water Conservation Measures Page 6, Lines 4 to 13 - It appears that the environmentally sound component also is used to determine the economic feasible component of this definition because of the inclusion of environmental costs in calculating feasibility. The feasible definition also includes energy impacts and other appropriate factors, which leaves a lot open to interpretation and potential disagreement. Economically feasible is also a very high standard that ignores traditional economic analysis which focuses on objective criteria of “cost effectiveness and the least costly alternative”. This focus on a proposal being economically feasible could raise costs of water use substantially.

2.    Lack of a Definition of Tributary Groundwater Page 9, Line 12 - The term tributary groundwater is used without any definition. This has a Wisconsin impact because of the geology of SE Wisconsin. This term needs to be defined.

3.    Jurisdiction of the Council Page 14, Lines 1 to 5 – Grants the council ability to act outside of the basin if action is necessary “or convenient” to implement its responsibilities in the basin. This action is subject to the consent of the jurisdiction wherein it proposes to act. If passed into law by the State of Wisconsin, the legislation should clearly indicate that such action by the Council is not desired in Wisconsin.

4.    Ability to Revise the Standard of Review Page 15, Lines 11 to 14 - This provision gives the Council the authority to revise the standard of review with unanimous vote of all Council members in accordance with each party’s respective statutory authorities and applicable procedures. If passed, legislation should clearly indicate that the procedure to revise the standards includes action by the Wisconsin Legislature and not a rulemaking process or unilateral action by the Governor.

5.    Ability to Promulgate Rules and Regulations Page 16, lines 6 to 12 – Grants the Council (it appears by majority vote) the ability to promulgate and enforce rules to implement and enforce the compact after notice and a hearing. This usurps state autonomy. If passed, legislation should clearly indicate that the Wisconsin Legislature would need to approve any rule or regulation that is not administrative in nature. Substantive acts or material changes would require legislative action.

6.    Water Conservation and Efficiency Programs Page 19 to Page 20 – The Council will identify water conservation objectives that are to be utilized within the basin. Several goals are listed including “restoring the hydrologic ecosystem integrity of the basin; retaining the quantity of surface water and groundwater of the basin; sustainable use of the water; and reduction of water loses”. Some of these goals may contradict one another if the groundwater divide is not the same as the surface water divide. It also indicates that these goals could be mandatory state wide. This would again usurp state autonomy and should be resisted from being made statewide goals. The Council’s ability to establish policy for a State should be very limited.

7.    Cumulative Effects and Climate Page 20, Line 22 -- This section indicates that conservation programs need to adjust to new demands and the potential impacts of cumulative effects and climate. “Cumulative effects” is a dangerous standard to analyze. At what point is the tipping point where a cumulative effect is viewed as detrimental to the ecosystem? It would appear from the presentation by the Army Corps that this tipping point is far off for municipal uses of water. Why then have something in this document that is subjective and very controversial? There is also a concern about this document being utilized to implement air regulations and other similar regulations as a result of this reference to climate, which is an undefined term. If rules are promulgated as a result of climate concerns, this would place Wisconsin’s industries at a national and global economic disadvantage. Regulations to protect the climate that are adopted only by the Great Lakes States would have virtually no impact on the global climate.

8.    Time Limit on Opportunity to Comment Needed Page 21, Line 16 – What is a sufficient opportunity to provide comment? A specific day limitation is needed. Time is possible lost economic opportunity. On the next page it indicates a goal of 90 days, which is only a goal. A hard and fast timeline is needed. There are requirements for notices, hearings, etc. (page 23) later in the document. It is our belief this goal would never be met if it is just a goal. A hard and fast time line needs to be established.

9.    Majority of Members Can Request a Regional Review Page 22, Lines 20 to 24 – Grants a majority of members the ability to request a regional review of a “regionally significant or potentially precedent setting proposal”. These terms are very broad and leave a lot to interpretation. It appears this regional review can occur for proposals within the basin where the state has sole regulatory authority for approval. This provision really opens the door for the Council to even further usurp local control.

10. Requests for Regional Review Page 23, Lines 10 to 12 – Does Wisconsin want to ever request a regional review of an application when it is not required? Please note the recent experience of comments from Michigan on New Berlin’s request for Lake Michigan Water. Legislation may want to limit this ability.

11. Diversions Used for Only Public Water Supply Purposes Page 27, Line 1 and 2 and Page 29, Lines 5 and 6 – Is this the policy that Wisconsin wants to implement? What about diversions for electric generation? What about for a large industry user which would mean jobs for the region? Illinois is allowed a very large diversion where the primary purpose is not a public water supply. Do we want to foreclose options that might be necessary in the future?

12. Governor’s Veto Authority Page 28, Lines 24 and 25; Page 29 Lines 19 and 20    – One Governor has the ability to veto. Giving one Governor, who is not elected by the citizens of Wisconsin, the ability to veto a diversion is not reasonable. Supporters of the one-governor-veto provision will indicate that there at least standards and an alternative dispute resolution mechanism that is preferable to current practices under WRDA. However, upon closer review of the standards it appears that plausible arguments can be made to support and to oppose diversions in every situation. As we have seen in the committee, an answer can vary depending on how the question is asked or from what perspective it is answered. The science is simply not precise. In addition, it has yet to be determined how the alternative dispute resolution will work. See my comments regarding this section.

13. Difficult Standards to Meet for Diversions in Straddling Counties Page 29 – a.    Water shall be used solely for the public water supply purposes of the community that is“without adequate supplies of potable water”. This later potable water requirement couldbe a hurdle and subject to much debate during review. b.    No reasonable water supply alternatives exists “within the basin in which the community is located”, including conservation. What happens if there are feasible alternatives in neighboring communities, but neighboring communities don’t cooperate? This provision is very, very limiting and very difficult to meet. Costs in this standard is not a factor. If an alternative exists, no matter the cost, it appears that you would not be able to divert water from the Great Lakes.
c.    There is also a strong caution on lines 15 to 16 that seems to indicate that there is a strong preference against this type of diversion. Once again, the Governor veto is problematic, especially when combined with the standard of review and this very strong caution within the document. The caution further states that the diversion should not be authorized “unless it can be shown that it will not endanger the integrity of the basin ecosystem”. Whose definition of the integrity of the basin ecosystem? This is a very tough threshold to meet depending on how you interpret it and very broad in general. This threshold also seems to place a burden of proof on the party seeking the diversion.
d.    There is also a requirement that sufficient scientifically based evidence be produced that the existing water supply is derived from groundwater that is hydrologically interconnected to basin waters. This is also seems to place the burden of proof on the party seeking the diversion. As the committee has seen, the answer can depend on how you ask the question. Science doesn’t seem to agree on questions of connectiveness.

14. Exception Standard Places Even Further Restrictions on Diversions Page 30. a.    It must be shown that the need for all or part of the diversion can not be avoided by
conservation. Who determines this? What is an acceptable standard of conservation? Is it a per person standard of water use? b.    The exception standard also requires that “quantities be limited to reasonable amounts for
the purposes for which it is proposed”. Will this be read to stop annexations and future growth of a community? If the diversion is used to solve current water issues will a restriction be placed on a community to limit its growth.
c.    Water withdrawn must be returned except for that which is consumed. Ideally, groundwater outside the basin would not be used in return flow. We would generally agree with this principle.
d.    No cumulative adverse impacts to quantity or quality of waters . . . “with consideration given to the potential cumulative impacts of any precedent-setting consequences with the proposal.” If all of the scientific standards can be met, there is still the opportunity to veto the diversion based on precedent setting consequences.
e.    Must incorporate economically feasible water conservation measures. Again, the focus is on feasibility and not economically practical.

15. Standard of Review for Withdrawn or Consumptive Use Water Page 32; lines 11 to 14 -- Two standards are troublesome.
a.    The withdrawal or consumptive use will be implemented to “result in no significant individual or cumulative adverse impacts to the quantity or quality of the waters and water dependent natural resources and the applicable water shed”. The problem with this standard is that it creates ambiguity as to the scale of the impacts that would preclude withdrawal approvals. Is the significance of the impacts to be judged based on the impacts upon the overall Source Watershed (which is defined as the drainage area of each Great Lake) or can measurable impacts on flow within just a few hundred feet of stream be enough to preclude a withdrawal. Clarifying this provision to note the “applicable water shed as a whole” and the basin “as a whole” is essential.
b.    Economically feasible water conservation measures are required. Once again economically feasible is not the same as cost effective, which could place Wisconsin industries at a competitive disadvantage.

16. Surface Water Divide to Be Used to Determine the Area of the Basin Page 34 Lines 19 through 21 - This provision explicitly indicates that the surface water divide will be used to determine the basin waters. This provision prohibits any arguments about the location of the groundwater divide being utilized to determine straddling communities or straddling counties.

17. Ability to Change the Standard of Review Page 37 and Page 38 - This provision requires continued review of the standards if incremental losses reach 50,000,000 gallons per day average during any 90 day period from the last assessment, every 5 years, or the request of one of the parties, whichever occurs first. If enacted as written, this language will represent wholesale delegation of regulatory authority by the Legislature to what amounts to unelected staff members representing the governors of the 8 states. A requirement that the legislature must approve any new standards needs to be made clear.

18. Role of Climate Page 38 lines 4 through 7 – This provision seems to give much more weight for climate considerations to become an even larger factor in the review of the standards. The scientific community can’t even agree on climate issues, so why should this become a larger factor.

19. Alternative Dispute Resolution Services Page 40 and 41 --The alternative dispute resolution section is extremely vague. The decision on how this would proceed is yet to be determined by the Council. The main questions would be who will conduct the alternative dispute resolution? Who would have the burden of proof, if anyone? In a veto situation, it would ideally fall to the party issuing the veto. However, it appears by the language of the standards of approval that the burden would be on the submitting party. Is there a standard of proof being required? What will be the standard of proof? Beyond a reasonable doubt, preponderance of the scientific evidence, more likely than not? How quickly will this process occur? Time is likely lost economic opportunity.

20. Aggrieved Persons Ability to File Suit Page 41 – An aggrieved person is not defined and this section seems to allow the ability of almost anyone to file lawsuits to challenge a decision.

21. Common Law Water Rights Page 43 -- There is a reference to common law water rights. What are common law water rights in Wisconsin? Are these rights the same in all of the states and provinces?

Questions:

1.    What communities in the Great Lakes Region have diversions already in place; what is the amount of water being diverted for each of these communities; and how much of the water is being returned to the basin?
2.    What communities in Wisconsin can be identified to be located in Straddling Counties that might be eligible for Great Lakes water and what is their current water usage?
3.    Are there other large water users in the Straddling Counties and what is the water usage?
4.    It appears that the any such diversions would have a fractional impact on the Great Lakes if return flow is required. Why should the compact be so limiting on Straddling Counties if this is the case?
What percentage of possible water being diverted are we really talking about? What is the
percentage after a return flow is required?
5.    Can we have a map showing the surface divide, straddling counties, and, if possible, the
groundwater divide for each state and Canadian province.
6.    Are there any protections in place to ensure that the diverted water into the basin continue into
the future? Or is this being left to other authorities? Specifically, are the large diversions from
Canada into Lake Superior guaranteed into the future?
7.    It appears that an imminent and potential substantial threat to the basin’s ecosystem is on the
horizon from an invasive species called the Asian carp. Why in this document is the issue about protecting the lakes from this invasive species, as well as other invasive species that can decimate
the ecosystem, not a part of the compact. It appears that there is no requirement for the State of
Illinois to address this issue as a condition of their continued, very large diversion.
8.    How are annexations and efforts for regional consolidation of services effected by the compact? In approving a diversion, the council can establish conditions. Will a standard condition be adopted to
limit further growth by a community?
9.    It appears that even if the compact is enacted, it doesn’t necessarily prevent Congress from overriding the compact. Is this understanding correct?

Posted by James Rowen at 12:12 AM  

Walker-Led PSC Involving Itself In Waukesha Water Planning

Word on the street has been that the Waukesha Water Utility had something up its sleeve to help goose along its Great Lakes water application, and that could be a PSC card apparently now in play.

We haven't heard from the Wisconsin Public Service Commission in this matter because there is no water supplier deal for it to approve - - but now with a 2-1 Scott Walker appointee-majority, the PSC has begun to involve itself in the already-heavily politicized Waukesha water supply issue, according to a PSC letter to the DNR dated June 18th.

One PSC commissioner, Ellen Nowak, is the former chief of staff to Waukesha County Executive Dan Vrakas.

The chair is Phil Montgomery, a conservative former state representative and 2005 ALEC Legislator of the Year - - meaning that the PSC should be a good institutional ally for pro-growth Waukesha to boost the application's bona fides.

PSC activity before a water deal is struck could come across as Big Government meddling in a selling city's home rule rights; a backlash across the eight Great Lakes states which signed the 2008 Compact to establish one set of water-conservation diversion rules would surely be counter-productive if it looked like the Wisconsin government had too heavy an agenda-laden hand pushing the application forward.

The letter - - from the PSC's water division administrator to the water division administrator at the DNR - - says that the PSC has statutory power to look into and approve water deals between Wisconsin utilities to guarantee that the arrangements are in the best interests of the utilities and their ratepayers.

When I get an electronic version of the letter I can copy, I will post it, but I'm sure PSC activity to push the application forward did not come as a surprise to the Waukesha Water Utility, whose General Manager and leading diversion planner, Dan Duchniak, is copied on the email letter.

The letter proposes that the agencies coordinate their activities now, and that "the DNR, with the cooperation of the Waukesha Water Utility," provide information to the PSC about infrastructure, costs and other matters regarding a water potential deal with the three Lake Michigan cities - - Milwaukee, Oak Creek and Racine - - that Waukesha has said are its options as the eventual supplier of diverted Lake Michigan water.

That is - - if all eight Great Lakes states approve Waukesha's diversion application, and a supplier is needed.

The PSC letter indicates it that the DNR may finish its review of the Waukesha application this summer - - an optimistic timetable, since, for example, the DNR has yet to complete its basic Environmental Impact Statement for the plan and the proposed return-flow scheme using Underwood Creek, and schedule and hold hearings on the document. 

The PSC letter says that it could finish its review of the utility comparisons in 60 days, and that the work it coordinates with the DNR would be included in the application when the DNR - - again assuming it will approve the application - - sends it to the other states for what is called the Regional review.

The letter acknowledges that the PSC typically does not get involved in a water sale approval until a deal is done, but says the diversion application approval process involving other states is a special case.

For which there is no timetable, as this is the first application of its kind.

Two Canadian provinces are permitted to review the application, but do not have a vote.

Waukesha has said Milwaukee is its preferred seller - - it's the closest of the three to Milwaukee, and Underwood Creek, near Milwaukee, is Waukesha's preferred route of the water's mandatory return to Lake Michigan - - but Waukesha is balking at negotiating a deal with Milwaukee declines to include Waukesha supplying some of the water to four smaller communities that are close to Waukesha.

That is Milwaukee's position, as Waukesha did not provide information about the smaller communities' water needs and public services that Milwaukee has said it wants to review prior to negotiations for a water deal.

When It Comes To Water And Development In Waukesha County, Picture This...

A reader sent these pictures yesterday:

The land is on the west side of Hwy 164/Townline Rd, which is actually 3.3 miles south of the Waukesha city limits at 59/East avenue.  It is also about 1.5 miles north of I-43 on 164/Townline Rd... this land [is] listed on both the north and south side of Townline Rd on the west side of Hwy 164 which would make the parcels both in the Town of Waukesha as well as a small portion in the Town of Vernon.

Thursday update: The realtor, Greg Cavaiani of Response Realtors, tells me the owner told him the property was annexed by the Village of Big Bend in 2011.

 Municipal water? Whose?  I'm checking. Here's the location...

After Four Years, DNR Still Has Not Written Water Diversion Rules

The DNR today has said Milwaukee cannot negotiate a water sale only with Waukesha if four neighboring communities that did not ask to be in the Waukesha application are not in the negotiations.

This is a fine time for the DNR to be laying out the rules for diversion application proceedings - - as I pointed out in 2009, the DNR failed to write the rules for application consideration called for when the state approved the governing Great Lakes Compact and implementing state law in May, 2008.

This rule-making absence was also pointed out to the DNR last year by a coalition of organizations that raised a variety of long-standing questions when the DNR began to review Waukesha's application:

Additionally, we would like to know a timeline for when the Department will formally review and approve this plan, as well as adopt the necessary rules that Act 227 call for under these provisions.

The DNR delayed the rule-making under the Doyle administration and it has continued under Walker, so this is not a partisan matter.

It's a matter of the DNR following through on a legislative mandate so there would not be a dispute over rules and parameters in diversion applications - - which is where we are today.

Milwaukee Stand On Water Conservation Exposes SEWRPC's Suburban/Sprawl Bias

Props to the Milwaukee Common Council Public Works Committee and Mayor Barrett for making it clear that they will negotiate with the City of Waukesha about a sale of diverted Lake Michigan water - - but not with the Waukesha neighboring communities that Waukesha included in its diversion application.

Neighboring communities, by the way, that did not supply Milwaukee with information it said since 2008 it would need once negotiations began, and which Waukesha chose not to organize and submit for these client communities once it decided in 2010 to apply for water on their behalf.

Neighboring communities that have not said they need diverted water.

The committee meeting today and the narrative that Waukesha has put forth - - we didn't put those smaller communities in the application; that was done by the Southeastern Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) - - is an outrageous evasion of responsibility.

True, SEWRPC drew up a proposed service territory map, but Waukesha accepted it without editing or complaint.

But take Waukesha's explanation at face value for a moment: what does that say about SEWRPC - - an agency without a single City of Milwaukee representative, without that city office it said four years ago it was about to create, and that drew up the regional freeway expansion plan over Milwaukee objections because it took city land for more lanes to move people faster to the suburbs.

I've been arguing for years that Milwaukee should get itself out of SEWRPC, stop seeing its tax dollars sent there annually through the County to support the SEWRPC annual budget that is of no value to city residents and interests, and find a way to get planning in this area on an urban agenda.

Waukesha's timeline problems with finding a new water supply are entirely its own fault. If it wants Milwaukee water, it can work with Milwaukee - - or it can pursue sources in Oak Creek or Racine.

Time for Waukesha to stop hiding behind SEWRPC and redo that application.

Fresh Pipeline Leak In Canada; Firm Has Journal Sentinel Seal Of Approval

Remember that Journal Sentinel edit board vote of confidence for more pipeline capacity in Wisconsin for Enbridge, the tar sand crude oil shipper that has already spilled oil in Canada, Wisconsin, and a disastrous event in Michigan with a clean-up price tag above $700 million, too?

Seems the company has a fresh spill in Canada:

CBC reports that a spill along a pipeline near Elk Point, Alberta released 1,450 barrels of crude oil. The pipeline is operated by Enbridge, Inc.

Authorities claim that no waterways have been affected and that a cleanup is underway.

In the U.S., Republicans have repeatedly pushed for an extension to the Keystone XL pipeline in the United States. Environmental groups have opposed the move, citing concerns about the effect oil spills could have.

Predictable Journal Sentinel Water Editorial Leaks Content

The Journal Sentinel editorial board has again weighed in with support for Waukesha's Great Lakes water diversion application.

Nothing really new in this iteration, though it minimizes the complication that Waukesha built into its application by adding portions of four neighboring municipalities to the projected water delivery area beyond the Waukesha City limits.

For one thing, the eight-state Great Lakes Compact governing all such diversion requests  says a community obtaining a diversion shall have public participation processes and effective conservation measures in place as a condition of approval.

The Waukesha neighbors have not filed a semi-colon in support of that requirement. No one knows what water-related measures they have on their books, and how effective they might be.

But bet the farm that if this application is moved on by the Wisconsin DNR to the seven other Great Lakes states, someone in Michigan or New York or elsewhere is going to ask for that information, and withholding it as has been done with Milwaukee is guaranteed to sink the application.

All it takes is one state to say "no,"and the application is rejected.
 
Additionally, Milwaukee has said since 2008 - - in writing, by Common Council resolution - - that any municipality seeking a sale of Lake Michigan water must demonstrate that it has programs in place that guarantee transit, housing and job opportunities for Milwaukee residents.

Transit connecting Milwaukee and the Town of Delafield? Affordable housing in Genesee?

No wonder the smaller communities that have agreed so far to be in the application - - the City of Pewaukee, and the Towns of Delafield and Genesee - have yet to forward the information Milwaukee has requested.

Curiously, the City of Waukesha has not gotten its client communities to cooperate.

This is where the Journal Sentinel could have toughened its editorial.

Lost opportunity.

So it goes.

Complaint Filed Against Illinois Election Observer - - In Racine Recall Episode

Is this case part of the GOP's fraud narrative surrounding the Racine election and recount?

A complaint has been filed against the county clerk in Lake County, IL, for allegedly intimidating a Racine woman who wore a "Recall Walker" button to the polls on election day.

Nicala Aiello filed a complaint against Lake County Clerk Willard Helander with the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board stemming from her activity during the June 5 recall election, according to the Chicago Tribune and in Deerfield (IL) Patch.