Because the federal government is dragging its feet, the state Department of Natural Resources, under pressure from the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation and other state conservation interests, is adopting statewide rules to keep invasive species out of the Great Lakes.
Backgrounder from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, here.
Had the pleasure of listening to the infamous Rush for a few minutes today.
He managed to drop two of his stock phrases, "feminazis" (feminists) and "the drive-by media" (mainstream media) in nearly consecutive sentences, indicating his intellectual limitations and his waning appeal during the presidential campaign.
Limbaugh sounds predictable, whiny and out of touch, not just with people like me, who drop in here and there, but to his core, conservative audience that, unlike Rush, likes McCain.
This installment on our virtual tour, The Road To Sprawlville, uses the roadmap for planning (sic) in Waukesha County as a warning for Dane County.
Capital Times editor emeritus Dave Zweifel notes the efforts of Dane County activists who see Waukesha County's sprawl-happy groundwater depletion as the road to ruin.
Right now, Dane, Waukesha and Milwaukee County are linked by an interstate, and many missed commercial and educational connections and opportunities.
Rail service among the three major southern state counties and population centers would be a boon.
But Dane County's imitating Waukesha County's loss of agricultural lands in favor of subdivisions and strip malls that help drain the water table and pollute the air would be giant step backward.
You don't want The Road To Sprawlville becoming a permanent fixture in your community.
The Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state's largest business lobby, just can't stay out of the headlines.
The most recent installment: a solid piece in the Madison Capital Times by editor emeritus Dave Zweifel about the group's campaign to unseat State Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler.
Paul Soglin has been hitting those same themes, while in Milwaukee, One Wisconsin Now is on the case, too,
And I've been cataloguing the WMC's leadership, if you can call it that, in trying to sink the Great Lakes Compact.
References to Soglin, and One Wisconsin Now's recent efforts are in a single posting, here.
Of note in the Zweifel posting, in the comment section, are indications that some Wisconsin customers and consumers are thinking twice about buying from WMC member companies.
Pushback against the WMC has been a long time coming, and for the group's members and their clout, financial consequences would be more than mere food for thought.
A comprehensive look at water issues and the Great Lakes Compact, by Barbara Miner, is in the current Milwaukee Magazine, featuring themes and faces familiar to readers of this blog.
Including the afore-mentioned Mary Lazich.
Small world.
State Sen. Mary Lazich, (R-New Berlin) has been hard at work undermining Wisconsin's ability to approve and implement the Great Lakes Compact - - a multi-state, US/Canadian agreement designed to ensure regional water conservation - - even though the Compact would ease federal water diversion restrictions that are currently blocking New Berlin from quick access to Lake Michigan drinking water.
As I wrote in a blog posting last April, it's how a State Senator shoots an entire District in the foot.
It's a strategy of delay and destroy that regrettably was adopted last week by the GOP-run Wisconsin State Assembly, though those leaders, like Lazich, claim (wink-wink) that the intent is to "improve" the Compact.
Like destroying the village to save it.
Leaders in the Assembly said the Compact, produced after five years of negotiations that ended in 2005, should be reopened to produce an agreement so watered-down that the other Great Lakes states would just jettison it - - leaving the Great Lakes vulnerable to large-scale withdrawals without standards or reasoned processes, let alone with guarantees to return of diverted water.
Some improvements.
Lazich has a blog on which she notes her working alliances with similarly-minded, anti-regional ideologues in Ohio - - a blog on which she flays New Berlin Mayor Jack Chiovatero and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett for having had the temerity to even talk ("cozying up," are her words) about negotiating a water deal for New Berlin in the spirit of the pending Compact.
Lazich is not content with using her blog to tout her proud Compact "obstructionist" (her word) stance on the Compact's procedural heart - - a diversion-approval requirement also embedded in 22-year-old federal law.
She also calls for the Compact's renegotiation (four of eight Great Lakes states' legislatures have already aproved the Compact, making its renegotiation an impossibility and/or certain procedural death) - - and just to make sure you know who's saying and proposing all these things, she recently posted a blog link to every word she's put there about the Compact.
Why?
Vanity? Chutzpah? Blogger's Look-At-Me Syndrome?
All she's doing is calling attention to the details of her willingness to represent - - Ohio.
And her inability to grasp regionalism, or the need to preserve commonly-held resources, while parading her intemperance and intolerance.
People and things she doesn't like in this debate, in her own words, are "threatening," "extortion," "unconscionable," "dictatorial," "small-minded," "simplistic," "ill-conceived," "off-base," "appalling," and others.
Here are all her postings, in text, from this self-proclaimed "obstructionist," who, if her allies in the GOP-run Assembly have their way, will put the Great Lakes Compact and Great Lakes waters at risk:
Let’s work with Ohio to improve the Great Lakes Compact
By Mary Lazich
Friday, Feb 15 2008, 12:55 PM
For months I have been recommending that Wisconsin refrain from approving a Great Lakes Compact that is flawed and should instead work with officials in other states that share my concerns, like Ohio to achieve a strong document.
That is why I am encouraged to hear that Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch and State Representative Scott Gunderson have written a letter to the President of the Ohio state Senate, Senator Bill Harris, stating they want to collaborate with the state of Ohio on changes to the Compact.
Representatives Huebsch and Gunderson correctly state they desire a strong Compact to protect the waters of the Great Lakes, that private property rights must be protected, and that one state should not have the power to impact the economic development efforts of another Great Lakes state.
I support Speaker Huebsch and Representative Gunderson in this endeavor.
Here is a copy of their letter to Ohio Senate President Harris.
I also concur with state Representative Jim Ott who has also expressed concerns with the Compact in its current form.
Representative Ott appropriately points out that the current Compact would deny cities like Waukesha access to Lake Michigan water, and that there should not be a rush to adopt a Compact.
A strong Compact is necessary for many reasons, including the fact that the Compact will be in place, as Representative Ott states, for “generations to come.”
Here is a copy of Representative Ott’s statement.
Here is a link to all of my blogs on the Great Lakes Compact.
I agree that Wisconsin should proceed cautiously and work to adopt a Compact that is the best document possible for the Great Lakes, Wisconsin, and the other Great Lakes states.
Filed under: Great LakesPermalink Mail to a friend
Comments (3) Add Comment
We need a Great Lakes Compact, but…
By Mary Lazich
Friday, Jan 11 2008, 06:31 PM
The Great Lakes Compact is headed to the state Legislature for consideration.
We need a Great Lakes Compact, but as I have stated so many times in the past, it has to be the right document, free of flaws and trap doors.
Passing a Compact just to pass a Compact is the wrong approach.I was interviewed by Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel reporter Stacy Forster for today’s article on the Compact.
Filed under: Great Lakes, Mary in the mediaPermalink Mail to a friend
Add Comment
The Journal/Sentinel gets it right on Great Lakes
By Mary Lazich
Wednesday, Nov 21 2007, 10:24 AM
The Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel Editorial Board has written an excellent editorial in today’s edition, stating the sale of much-needed public drinking water from the city of Milwaukee to New Berlin should not be predicated on approval of the Great Lakes Compact.
The editorial position by the newspaper is right on the money and I commend the Editorial Board for taking this stance.
Here is the editorial.
Filed under: Great LakesPermalink Mail to a friend
Add Comment
Milwaukee using extortion to pressure for approval of Great Lakes Compact
By Mary Lazich
Thursday, Nov 1 2007, 08:53 AM
Several elected officials, representatives of conservation organizations, and private citizens held news conferences Tuesday calling for quick approval of a Great Lakes Compact.
I continue to urge caution to avoid approval for approval’s sake that might result in a flawed Compact.
Some of the comments made to endorse a fast Compact resolution are disturbing.
Milwaukee Alderman Michael Murphy issued a press release that, “the (Milwaukee Common Council’s) Public Works Committee unanimously passed a resolution that Milwaukee will not sign final agreements relating to the sale of water to communities outside the Great Lakes basin until all eight state legislatures in the Council of Great Lakes and two Canadian provinces ratify the compact.”
Murphy’s blunt statement is a direct shot across the bow, a clear indication that the city of Milwaukee doesn’t have any intention of assisting communities like New Berlin or Waukesha in dealing with their need for water.
Murphy’s press release also states that, “Once the compact is ratified; the City of Milwaukee may enter into agreements for the sale of water to neighboring communities outside the Great Lakes Basin.”
Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett has made similar statements, threatening to withhold water.
This amounts to pure extortion, and it’s very sad that Milwaukee officials would use a public-health issue as leverage to extort a vote. Here are the facts.
Milwaukee's role as it relates to water to the suburbs is only technical infrastructure, not denial or approval of access to Lake Michigan water.
Milwaukee doesn’t have authority to say yes or no.
It doesn’t have exclusive ownership of Lake Michigan or control of Lake Michigan water.
New Berlin has received approval from the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to negotiate with the Milwaukee Water Works for infrastructure access to Lake Michigan water.
The DNR told New Berlin they could negotiate with Milwaukee to access water, and those negotiations are taking place.
Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett is telling mayors in the Senate district that I represent that they will not get water until I and other suburban legislators approve the compact.
The communities are under a radium enforcement issue. I do not take kindly to extortion, and I find it appalling that Mayor Barrett uses public health, denial of safe drinking water to my constituents as leverage.
I am told that Mayor Barrett is telling Mayors he wants them to develop low income housing and give him a share of all growth that results from Milwaukee giving the communities water.
If he wants to be the Mayor or city planner for the communities that I represent, then he ought to apply for the job.
Why does government regional cooperation not work? Because it is never cooperation; it is the City of Milwaukee using any means available to get control of suburban growth and get revenues from communities surrounding the city of Milwaukee.
The broad language of the compact and the problematic provision that allows a single Great Lakes governor to veto a proposal to divert water outside the Great Lakes basin are major sticking points about the Compact that remain.
One state enjoying dictatorial power is not consistent with the concept of majority rule our country is founded on, not to mention the issue of a governor of another state having the power to veto actions of people that do not elect that governor.
I spoke with a senator from Ohio and he informs me that Ohio is not going to ratify the Compact in its current form. Wisconsin should work in partnership with Ohio to address similar concerns and develop a more effective Compact.
I continue to interact with Ohio Senator Tim Grendell as he drafts legislation in Ohio.
Now the discussion on the Compact shifts to the state Legislature where the issue could very well get bogged down in partisan politics rather than focusing on scientific evidence and expertise.
Only two states that have little at stake, Minnesota and Illinois have ratified the Compact. It might be best for the Compact to be sent back to the Governors of the Great Lakes States so that they can correct the fatal flaws. Approving the Compact just to attain a Compact is not the solution.
Filed under: Great LakesPermalink Mail to a friend
Comments (5) Add Comment
My comments on radio about the Great Lakes Compact
By Mary Lazich
Wednesday, Oct 31 2007, 11:43 AM
I was interviewed by Wisconsin Public Radio about my reaction to concerns about the Great Lakes Compact.
From the Wisconsin Public Radio website:
Local Officials Call for Great Lakes Protection10/31/07A committee working to protect the Great Lakes against large-scale water diversions disbanded recently in Madison.
But with the state budget debate over, local officials are calling on the Legislature to pick up the pieces of the Great Lakes Compact. Chuck Quirmbach reports. --…running time 1:27
Listen to this story now using RealPlayer
Filed under: Great Lakes, Mary in the mediaPermalink Mail to a friend
Add Comment
Sharing my concerns with the Great Lakes Compact
By Mary Lazich
Sunday, Sep 2 2007, 07:12 AM
Last weekend, Great Lakes Legislators met in Michigan to discuss the great Lakes Compact, an issue I have been extensively involved in as a member of a special Wisconsin Legislative Council Committee reviewing the Compact.
Because I could not attend the meeting, I sent the following letter to Michigan State Senator Patty Birkholz and Great Lakes Legislators that outlines my many concerns about the Compact:
Dear Michigan State Senator Birkholz and Great Lakes Legislators:
Currently I serve on a Wisconsin Legislative Council Study Committee that has been meeting since September 7, 2006, to study and recommend whether the Wisconsin Legislature should adopt the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact.
Each of the eight Great Lakes states has a different stake in the Compact and the status of legislation to ratify the Compact varies from state to state.
I have followed this issue closely both on and off the committee, and I am very disappointed that I will not be attending the meeting in Traverse City.
Prior family plans with people attending from other states keep me in Wisconsin. The Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact implicates conflicting public policy issues.
The Great Lakes hold about one fifth of the world’s freshwater. It is undisputed that freshwater is a valuable resource that must be preserved.
Some people may argue that water should not be removed from the Great Lakes or from the Great Lakes Basin.
However, it is also undisputable that freshwater is used now to meet current needs and those needs will continue to grow.
We Great Lakes states do not want to be at a disadvantage by agreeing to a compact that denies our constituents and our states reasonable use of Great Lakes water.
There are various problems with the Compact including, but not limited to:
ONE STATE VETO
Under existing federal law, the 1986 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), one state’s governor can veto an application for a diversion of Great Lakes water. The parties negotiating the Compact failed to remedy this twenty year old flaw in totality.
Instead, it still exists in the Compact in relation to some diversions. Allowing one state to veto an application gives one state power out of proportion with that state’s interests in the Basin’s resources.
Giving dictatorial power to one state is not consistent with majority rule. Our country was founded on majority rule and our country exists to this day on the principle of majority rule.
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY
Proponents of the Compact may say that it should be enacted so that the states in the Great Lakes Basin can determine the future management of Great Lakes water.
However, Congress has the final legal authority to interfere with the operation of a compact. The ultimate check on Congress is political and unfortunately the eight states that are party to the Great Lakes Compact have a minority of seats in Congress.
Historically Congress has rarely interfered with compacts it has approved; however; with water becoming a scarce resource and the Great Lakes states status as a minority in the U.S. Congress, there is a lot at stake for the Great Lakes states. I am concerned that over time Congress might enact changes to water law that are not in the best interest of the Great Lakes and the Great Lakes states.
GOVERNORS MIGHT CHANGE COMPACT
Once approved by Congress, there is a provision of the Compact allowing the Governors of the Great Lakes states, sitting on the Council, to amend key provisions of the Compact regarding standards and reviews. There is the risk that they may amend the Compact so that it provides less protection for the Great Lakes, or at the other extreme, onerous regulations. This uncertainty always invites the possibility of litigation.
PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE
Adopting the Compact raises the specter of extending the Public Trust Doctrine to all waters in all Great Lakes states, including groundwater. Specifically, the trust language in the Compact, “The waters of the basin are precious public natural resources shared and held in trust by the states.”
For example, Ohio Senator Timothy Grendell has already noted that the Public Trust Doctrine language of the Compact would also have negative results in Ohio.
The Trust language in the Compact has been identified as language that cannot be modified by the states.
The Public Trust Doctrine has various meanings in the states, and the Compact may affect each state differently. What will it mean in the State and Federal courts, how will this get resolved?
FISCAL IMPACT
State and local governments will incur a fiscal cost for implementing the Compact, including the costs associated with litigation. The broad language of the compact is ripe for extensive litigation and state costs.
REGULATORY UNCERTAINTY
If ratified by all eight states and adopted by Congress, the Compact will be federal law. The results of litigation over the Compact may be unanticipated and unintended regulations, and states cannot change the Compact. The states do not have discretion to change substantive Compact language.
Early in the process, the Wisconsin Legislative Council staff provided our Study Committee with a memorandum that among other things identified examples of the broad language of the Compact. That memorandum is attached. The broadness of the Compact’s language invites litigation over its meaning and application.
CONCLUSION
The governors of the eight states and the premiers of the two Canadian provinces signed the Compact in 2005, and only Minnesota with very little at stake, and Illinois with massive special diversion protection in the compact, have ratified the Compact.
The Compact should be sent back to the Governors of the Great Lakes States so that they can correct fatal flaws in the Compact.
I hope the meeting in Traverse City is filled with healthy debate. I am very disappointed that I will not be in attendance, and I look forward to knowing the information presented in Traverse City.
If you have questions, comments, concerns, or advice for me, please contact me. Sincerely,Mary LazichState SenatorSenate District 28
Filed under: Great LakesPermalink Mail to a friend
Add Comment
Chiovatero’s comments on Great Lakes Compact off-base
By Mary Lazich
Thursday, Jul 19 2007, 03:55 PM
For the past year, I have been serving as a member of the Wisconsin Legislative Council Special Committee on the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact.
My efforts have been focused on the Compact’s ideal goal to protect, conserve, restore, improve and effectively manage the Great Lakes waters.
That is the large picture. I have also been concentrating on gaining access to Lake Michigan water for New Berlin and Waukesha, a need that is critical for those communities.
The work has translated into hours upon hours of meetings, exhaustive research, and numerous correspondences with other concerned officials and water experts from around the Midwest.
That is why I was very surprised to read the off-base comments of New Berlin Mayor Jack Chiovatero in today’s Milwaukee Shepherd-Express Metro weekly newspaper.
Reporter Dennis Shook writes in today’s Shepherd Express-Metro:
Chiovatero, who has meetings this week with Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett to discuss water access details, said he sees Lazich as the major obstacle to solving the city's water woes."These are her people ... she lives here," Chiovatero said of Lazich, who could not be reached for comment.
"She has Lake Michigan water herself and she's enjoying it. So let everybody else [enjoy] it. This is just a political thing going on that has me upset," he said of her opposition to the compact.
Chiovatero’s rationale and line of thinking is small-minded and simplistic. His criticism is misdirected.
Instead of cozying up to Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett who opposes access to Lake Michigan water for New Berlin and Waukesha, Chiovatero should be working with me, the state Senate representative of the area most affected by the Compact, to ensure our communities get the water they so desperately need.
How ironic that Chiovatero would call me an obstructionist on the Compact when he sits down at a meeting with Milwaukee’s Mayor who has been steadfast in his opposition to our area getting Lake Michigan water.
Barrett’s threat to prevent the ability of New Berlin and Waukesha to gain access to Lake Michigan water will result in requiring those communities to spend millions of dollars to drill new wells and treat existing wells. Withholding water from our area will endanger public health and will damage economic development.
Consistently, my opinion has been that the current Compact is a flawed document that is bad for public health, bad for the environment, bad for economic development, and generally bad public policy.
I am in no rush to approve a Compact that allows a single Great Lakes Governor to veto any diversion of water to New Berlin. Apparently Chiovatero fails to understand that provision alone would put the city of New Berlin that he is supposed to be representing in serious jeopardy of obtaining much-needed water.
The Compact that Chiovatero and Barrett say we should approve immediately is filled with flaws. Mark Squillace, Director of the Natural Resources Law Center at the University of Colorado Law School has written a research paper titled Rethinking the Great Lakes Compact.
Squillace maintains the Compact is so problematic that chucking it entirely and starting from scratch might be the best option.
Absent of any strict cap on overall use of water resources, the probability of overuse of water is high. Thus, the Compact fails to encourage conservation.
A critical Compact requirement is that states manage new or increased water withdrawals, a requirement Squillace calls cumbersome. Concentrating on new uses of consumption ignores existing uses of the resources that have a far more significant impact.
This edict will result in a failure to protect lake levels and a failure to promote the ecological health of the Great Lakes Basin.
Squillace also contends the Compact focuses too much on the place of the water use instead of the impact of the use on the overall water resources of the Basin.
Far from simple and efficient, the Compact forces states to regulate in a heavy-handed fashion that will impair economic development.
Chiovatero believes approving the Compact will be tantamount to waving a magic wand and like a panacea, our water troubles will conveniently be over.
I have done a lot of homework on this issue and it is far more complex than that.
Sadly, Chiovatero doesn’t get it.
I will not endorse a Compact that puts our communities in the precarious position of having water access stripped away by the whims of a single Governor in a neighboring state.
Furthermore, I will continue to speak out against the many defects in the document as long as they pose a threat to the welfare of residents in New Berlin and Waukesha.
Filed under: Great LakesPermalink Mail to a friend
Add Comment
Great Lakes group holds meeting without notice
By Mary Lazich
Wednesday, Jul 18 2007, 11:13 AM
On Tuesday, a group formed by Governor Doyle to work on the Great Lakes Compact met for two hours in the Governor’s office.
As a member of the Wisconsin Legislative Council Special Committee on the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact, and as the state Senator representing New Berlin and the Waukesha area that will be affected by the Compact, I should have been notified about the meeting and invited.
I was not.
Darryl Enriquez of the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel interviewed me Tuesday about the meeting and writes about it in today’s paper:
“Lazich (R-New Berlin) is fighting a key detail in the compact, one of several that show the deep political and economic divisions that have brought work to a standstill.
The legislative group headed by state Sen. Neal Kedzie (R-Elkhorn) has a Sept. 15 deadline to complete its work. It is reconvening today after a lengthy lull.Lazich's beef with the federal version of the compact is that any proposal to divert water outside the Great Lakes drainage basin can be vetoed by a single governor.
As outlined in the accord, a diversion must be unanimously approved.
Lazich is working to change that provision so that only a simple majority vote of the eight Great Lakes states governors is needed for approval of a diversion project.
Her stance is viewed as an obstruction to compact approval.
"The compact is so flawed that it gives one governor veto power and no recourse," Lazich said. "I'm very much an obstructionist to the single veto. I'm very much a supporter to preserving the Great Lakes."
Lazich said she was upset about not receiving an invite to the governor's working group.
A governor's spokesman said that seven members of the Kedzie committee attended the working group, along with governor's staff, state Department of Natural Resources staff, environmentalists and others."
Was there a meeting of the Kedzie committee and I wasn't notified?" Lazich asked. "I am very, very concerned, and I will make this an issue at the start of the compact group meeting tomorrow (Wednesday) morning."
You can read the entire Journal/Sentinel article here.
At the beginning of today’s meeting, I asked for a show of hands of those committee members who attended Tuesday’s meeting at the Governor’s office.
Seven people raised their hands, many of whom are members of the same Great Lakes Compact subcommittee that I serve on.I reiterated my concern that I represent an area that has a great deal at stake on this issue, and yet was not notified or invited to Tuesday’s meeting.
I then respectfully asked some of the members who did attend to give a brief summary of what transpired so I could have the same frame of reference before today’s committee proceedings began.
There was a quorum of members of the subcommittee I serve on at Tuesday’s meeting in the Governor’s office.
That is very troubling, especially since I have been critical of the compact. I have referred to the Compact as a flawed document that is bad for public health, bad for the environment, bad for economic development, and generally bad public policy.
At today’s committee meeting, I requested that Mark Squillace, Director of the Natural Resources Law Center at the University of Colorado Law School be invited to speak to the Great Lakes committee. Squillace has written a research paper titled Rethinking the Great Lakes Compact.
The Compact’s ideal goal is to protect, conserve, restore, improve and effectively manage the Great Lakes waters.
Squillace writes the prescription in the Compact is sorely inadequate for achieving the stated goal. The Compact is so problematic that Squillace suggests chucking it entirely and starting from scratch.
The research paper published in the Michigan State Law Review can be found here.
Committee chair, Senator Kedzie said he will consider my request to add Squillace to a future committee agenda.
Filed under: Great LakesPermalink Mail to a friend
Add Comment
The Great Lakes Compact is flawed
By Mary Lazich
Monday, Apr 9 2007, 08:52 AM
As a member of the Wisconsin Legislative Council Special Committee on the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact, I readily admit that I am not in a hurry to ratify the Great Lakes Compact. I cannot support a flawed document that is bad for public health, bad for the environment, bad for economic development, and generally bad public policy.
Mark Squillace, Director of the Natural Resources Law Center at the University of Colorado Law School has written a research paper titled Rethinking the Great Lakes Compact.
The Compact’s ideal goal is to protect, conserve, restore, improve and effectively manage the Great Lakes waters.
Squillace writes the prescription in the Compact is sorely inadequate for achieving the stated goal.
The research paper to be published in the Michigan State Law Review can be found here.
With surgical precision, Squillace dissects the Compact components, illuminating the reasons the document is far from being ready for prime time. The Compact is so problematic that Squillace suggests chucking it entirely and starting from scratch.
Absent of any strict cap on overall use of water resources, the probability of overuse of water is high. Thus, the Compact fails to encourage conservation.
A critical Compact requirement is that states manage new or increased water withdrawals, a requirement Squillace calls cumbersome. Concentrating on new uses of consumption ignores existing uses of the resources that have a far more significant impact.
This edict will result in a failure to protect lake levels and a failure to promote the ecological health of the Great Lakes Basin.
Squillace also contends the Compact focuses too much on the place of the water use instead of the impact of the use on the overall water resources of the Basin.
Far from simple and efficient, the Compact forces states to regulate in a heavy-handed fashion that will impair economic development. In conclusion, Squillace says the Compact will not achieve its goal of protecting and conserving the Great Lakes.
I agree.
Riddled with too many problems, the Compact is bad public policy.
Meanwhile, the need for New Berlin and Waukesha to obtain Lake Michigan water remains serious. Because both communities must reduce the concentration of radium levels in their drinking water, their need for increased access to Lake Michigan water is in the interest of public health.
Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett has made it clear he is going to stand in the way.
Barrett is threatening the ability of New Berlin and Waukesha to gain access to Lake Michigan water, resulting in requiring those communities to spend millions of dollars to drill new wells and treat existing wells.
I am very concerned about allegations James Rowen posted on his blog, The Political Environment, on February 28, 2007. Barrett is threatening not only to delay Waukesha’s access to Lake Michigan water but also to impose a tax on access to water.
The need for Lake Michigan water in New Berlin and Waukesha is critical and undeniable. It is unconscionable that Barrett would attempt to profit from this public health crisis by extorting these communities to pay a huge new tax. Withholding water will endanger public health and will damage economic development.
Barrett needs to reconsider his ill-conceived notion to take economic advantage of the public health plight in our communities.
This AP story, perhaps edited by the Waukesha Freeman, manages to state that snowmobiling deaths are escalating this winter, but leaves out any discussion of the traditional, and preventable causes: speed and alcohol.
Instead, it credits a 55 mph nightime speed limit for keeping the number of fatalities down, given this winter's big snowfall.
Wierd reporting, or editing,
After several days of dirty air alerts for all Wisconsin's 72 counties, the warning issued Monday evening and running through noon Tuesday by the Department of Natural Resources only covers 16 counties.
That's progress - - unless you live in Barron, Brown, Calumet, Chippewa, Clark, Dunn, Eau Claire, Kewaunee, Manitowoc, Outagamie, Pepin, Pierce, Polk, Rusk, St. Croix, and Taylor counties.
No clean air for you.
Here's the full text from the DNR as of Monday night, and I added a little boldfacing to help you plow through the bureaucratese:
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is issuing an Air Quality Advisory for Particle Pollution (Orange) effective Monday, February 25, 2008 8:00:00 PM through Tuesday, February 26, 2008 12:00:00 PM for Barron, Brown, Calumet, Chippewa, Clark, Dunn, Eau Claire, Kewaunee, Manitowoc, Outagamie, Pepin, Pierce, Polk, Rusk, St. Croix and Taylor counties.
The advisory is being issued because of persistent elevated levels of fine particles in the air. These fine particles come primarily from combustion sources, such as power plants, factories and other industrial sources, vehicle exhaust, and wood fires.
The Air Quality Index is currently in the orange level, which is considered unhealthy for people in sensitive groups. People in those sensitive groups include those with heart or lung disease, asthma, older adults and children.
When an orange advisory for particle pollution is issued, people in those groups are advised to reschedule or cut back on strenuous activities.
People with lung diseases such as asthma and bronchitis, and heart disease should pay attention to cardiac symptoms like chest pain and shortness of breath or respiratory symptoms like coughing, wheezing and discomfort when taking a breath, and consult with their physician if they have concerns or are experiencing symptoms.
Fine particle pollution deposits itself deep into the lungs and cannot easily be exhaled. People who are at risk are particularly vulnerable after several days of high particle pollution exposure.
To receive air quality advisories by e-mail, visit http://dnr.wi.gov/air/newsletters/.
There are several actions the public can take to reduce their contributions to this regional air quality problem.
Reduce driving when possible and don't leave vehicle engines idling.
Postpone activities that use small gasoline and diesel engines.
Minimize outdoor wood fires.
Conserve electricity.
For more ideas on how you can reduce your emissions today and every day visit: Do a little, save a lot!
For more information:
Federal interagency air quality web site, for information on the Air Quality Index and nationwide air quality forecasts and air quality conditions, http://airnow.gov/
DNR's statewide air quality monitoring web page, http://dnrmaps.wisconsin.gov/wisards
For local DNR air management program contacts, http://dnr.wi.gov/air/about/regions.htm
The City of Cudahy, Wisconsin, a blue-collar community south of Milwaukee, supports a strong version of the Great Lakes Compact, according to a unanimous vote of its common council.
Out-of-basin, water-hungry Milwaukee suburbs in Waukesha County, should they wish to put some substance into regional (both in southeastern Wisconsin and across the Great Lakes, too) cooperation, could take their cue from Cudahy.
The passing in Madison of Attorney Percy Julian, Jr. means that the State of Wisconsin has lost one of its civil rights mainstays, and a genuinely decent man.
We send condolences to his colleagues, friends and family.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has extended its weekend statewide air quality alert through this evening, which means when it rains and snows later today, that's toxic precipitation landing on your yard and poisonous particulate matter in the air that is burying itself into your lungs.
And those of your kids and grandparents, too.
You will recall that the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state's leading business lobby, last year advocated rolling back air quality standards for southeastern Wisconsin, home to most of the state's polluting industry and vehicle traffic.
What is the WMC's approach now that these alerts have been coming repeatedly this fall and winter, and are not just the summertime notices that discourage people from playing sports and otherwise exerting themselves in heavy, moisture-laden, warm air?
Issue every Wisconsinite a portable breathing apparatus?
Mandate regular lung capacity checkups in health insurance policies?
Hand out free asthma medicines at WMC's lobbying offices in Madison to low-income, elderly and children especially vulnerable to lung diseases?
Why not give them a call and ask: 1-608-258-3400, or head for the group's website, with other contact and issue information, here.
You could also ask them why the organization is suggesting that the GOP-led state Assembly derail the Great Lakes Compact, too - - exposing the Great Lakes to whimsical and damaging exploitation through diversions without standards or controls.
The WMC is always worrying aloud about the business climate in Wisconsin (see a nice dissection of this faux issue by Paul Soglin, here) but when you look at its recent record, it seems as if its goals are to run down the state with endless complaints while blocking statewide resource protections that are in the widespread interest of Wisconsin residents.
So on the issue of helping to end the growing list of dirty air alerts in Wisconsin - - a state that needs to bring in tourists and encourage its residents to make the state their long-term home, here's a simple suggestion:
Taking a stand on the actual climate on behalf of business owners and employees who live here instead of whipping up negative media about the business climate in Wisconsin.
That stand would also be on behalf of the rest of us who like to buy locally - - but also want to breathe what is a common resource - - the air.
So to the WMC I say: be a strong advocate for air pollution standards that are better than what we have now, since current standards and practices are giving all of us - - and that includes WMC members - - the air quality of a cruddy day in LA.
Is that how to sell this region?
One Wisconsin Now blogger Cory Liebmann, source of much of the investigative reporting that landed Annette Ziegler in hot water with the State Judicial Commission last year over ethical issues, has turned his attention to the State Supreme Court candidacy of Burnett County Circuit Judge Michael Gableman.
This may not turn out well for Gableman, whose entry into the state judiciary took a rather unusual route, and which is now raising more questions as his explanations are vetted and documents are unearthed.
Gableman won his appointment to a Burnett County seat on the bench while living in another county, after making campaign contributions and helping host a fundraiser for Governor Scott McCallum.
Additionally, McCallum did not use the standard process when he gave Gableman the appointment.
Details here.
More information about One Wisconsin Now (OWN), here.
For some perspective, imagine for a moment if Gableman was a Democrat and got his initial appointment to the bench from a Democratic Governor under the same circumstances that are now emerging.
You get the picture. There'd be righteous, rightwing talk radio, blogger and newspaper editorial hell to pay.
(Standard disclosure with regards to any posting regarding OWN: I sit on an OWN board, but play no role in Cory's blogging.)
A senior executive at General Motors, having misread customers' sensibilities for the few decades, goes a step further in his company's suicide by labeling global warming "a crock of shit."
Hey: that'll win some customers from Toyota, Honda and the others selling hybrids so fast they can't keep 'em on the lot.
Ralph Nader is running for President.
Again.
I suspect he will attract few few votes this time. Five straight runs for President counting a 1992 write-in makes his effort this time really questionable.
Nader has been an important figure in many grassroots and progressive efforts.
He's iconic and has been influential.
But there's being strategic and smart and using your power to bring about awareness and change, and then there's marching too blindly to your own drummer, colliding with people with whom you'd be allies 95% of the time, but were too self-absorbed to see.
And in the worst of scenarios, sets up a repeat of the ugliness of the 2000 presidential election outcome, wherein Nader was credited or blamed with being the Bush-enabling spoiler.
And everything in its wake, from the Iraq war to years of environmental degradation.
Naderites hate that analysis, but that's a widespread perception, and unfortunately Nader can't help himself from having that all brought up again.
Kinda sad.
Why has Wisconsin turned into such a sourpuss? What's with this penchant for saying "No" all the time?
Wisconsin is headed towards being the ashtray of the Midwest, as we have failed again this year to enact a smoking ban in bars and restaurants, while neighboring states have made the move.
And we aren't permitted to have modern urban rail as a transportation option, as Chicago has had for years, and the Twin Cities is now enjoying.
Now our GOP--lead (sic) State Assembly is scheming various ways to kill the Great Lakes Compact, a regional water management agreement already adopted by four of the eight Great Lakes states, with others to follow, to help preserve a shared resource that makes up 20% of the world's fresh surface water.
We're looking like a backward, obstinate state that is a far cry from Progressive Wisconsin, the public policy laboratory that had a national reputation for good and innovative government.
Where the emphasis was on figuring out a way to say "Yes" to progress rather than reflexively saying "No."
It's more than coincidence that Waukesha County is the center of much of this negativity, having killed Milwaukee's light rail planning and now threatening to derail an entire eight-state, two-nation water conservation pact - - all to better serve powerful highway and land development interests.
Money in the political process, from the local level to the State Capitol, is the major barrier to a healthy Wisconsin agenda that puts common resources first.
The rise in special interest influence statewide - - and there is plenty of bi-partisan blame to go around on this one - - has given the restaurant and tavern lobbies enough sway in the legislature to overwhelm public sentiment that wants smoke-free dining.
It's why the highway lobby can find water-carriers at every level of government: they are even persuading Waukesha County to pledge $1.75 million in local funds to help build an interstate interchange to serve a privately-owned proposed shopping mall at Pabst Farms - - a mall literally planned in a farm field that has redefined itself from a so-called regional destination with upscale shops, fancy restaurants and other amenities to a big-box cluster in a glorified strip mall.
And into which your state transportation department, unwilling and unable to embrace rail transit in the region, has agree to spend nearly $22 million of our tax dollars to get the interchange done pronto.
The same special interest hegemony holds true for the damn-the-public interest Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, which is leading the fight against the Great Lakes Compact (though 80% of the public has said in recent polling it wants) and is also trying to win a roll back of clean air standards in southeastern Wisconsin despite a growing number of dirty air days this winter.
(UPDATE: The alert for unhealthy levels for particulate matter in the air from the weekend has been extended into Monday for the entire state. Hat tip to The Racine Post blog for the graphic).
Are we Wisconsin, or LA/Midwest?)
This is the same WMC by the way, that couldn't defeat two-term incumbent Democratic Governor Jim Doyle, so then poured millions into electing an ethically-challenged mouthpiece to the State Supreme Court last year.
And the WMC appears to be headed down the same road in this year's Supreme Court election, too - - details from Paul Soglin, here - - boosting a candidate whose initial appointment to the state judiciary has a odious back-channel flavor - - details from Cory Liebmann and One Wisconsin Now (OWN) here.
All to reify, or perhaps embed into the law being the better phrase, their bottom-line self-interest through the rulings of activist justices elected with WMC resources.
(Disclosure: I sit on a OWN board but play no role in its Supreme Court candidates' research or publication.)
You would think business, civic and education leaders would recognize that retrograde, unhealthy and just plain selfish state policy-making gives Wisconsin demerits as parents consider sending their kids here for an education.
Or that graduates, new business owners, tourists and retirees would begin to see Wisconsin as undesirable compared to other states, including our neighbors.
Recent visitors here are regularly shocked that smoking is still allowed in restaurants and bars. The frequent dirty air alerts got their attention, too.
And the state is pushing commercial expansion in the Kenosha area, and tourism in Door County. But doing it amidst air pollution that can bury dangerous particulate matter deep in your lungs - - some of which is there because we keep pouring billions into highways and intentionally withhold funding for rail alternatives.
How contradictory is that?
Study after study shows that an urban revival is underway nationally, but you can't pull that off in Wisconsin without rail.
Study after study shows that health is a major social and personal concern. But you can't attract and retain people if your public policies kiss off clean air, pleasant recreation indoors and out, and water conservation - - along with respecting the environment and the rights of neighboring states.
If Wisconsin's Assembly Republican leaders succeed in torpedoing the Great Lakes Compact, Wisconsin will go from good regional partner to pariah, the State that took "Smart" out of Smart Growth.
"No Way" won't keep Wisconsin moving forward, keeping up with the state motto and the statute of Miss Forward on the State Capitol dome.
It's no way to run a state.
The polluted air in Wisconsin is likely to drive more people out of Wisconsin than the tax climate.
We've seen these bad air alerts and warnings all winter.
Here's the unhealthy news from the DNR, again for this weekend, and now updated to include the entire sstate Monday, too, (and illustrated here by The Racine Post blog):
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is issuing an Air Quality Advisory for Particle Pollution (Orange) effective Saturday, February 23, 2008 1:01:51 PM through Sunday, February 24, 2008 11:59:59 AM for all Wisconsin Counties.
The advisory is being issued because of persistent elevated levels of fine particles in the air. These fine particles come primarily from combustion sources, such as power plants, factories and other industrial sources, vehicle exhaust, and wood fires.
The Air Quality Index is currently in the orange level, which is considered unhealthy for people in sensitive groups.
People in those sensitive groups include those with heart or lung disease, asthma, older adults and children. When an orange advisory for particle pollution is issued, people in those groups are advised to reschedule or cut back on strenuous activities.
People with lung diseases such as asthma and bronchitis, and heart disease should pay attention to cardiac symptoms like chest pain and shor tness of breath or respiratory symptoms like coughing, wheezing and discomfort when taking a breath, and consult with their physician if they have concerns or are experiencing symptoms.
Fine particle pollution deposits itself deep into the lungs and cannot easily be exhaled. People who are at risk are particularly vulnerable after several days of high particle pollution exposure.
To receive air quality advisories by e-mail, visit
http://dnr.wi.gov/air/newsletters/.
There are several actions the public can take to reduce their contributions to this regional air quality problem.
Reduce driving when possible and don't leave vehicle engines idling.
Postpone activities that use small gasoline and diesel engines.
Minimize outdoor wood fires.
Conserve electricity.
For more ideas on how you can reduce your emissions today and every day visit: Do a little, save a lot!< /ul>
For more information:
Federal interagency air quality web site, for information on the Air Quality Index and nationwide air quality forecasts and air quality conditions, http://airnow.gov/
DNR's statewide air quality monitoring web page, http://dnrmaps.wisconsin.gov/wisards
For local DNR air management program contacts, http://dnr.wi.gov/air/about/regions.htm
Henry Hamilton III, an attorney and candidate for Milwaukee's Ninth Aldermanic District, is running on a program that ties together job development, transit expansion and protection for the Great Lakes.
Sounds good to me: I think protecting the Great Lakes from growing exurban demands for Lake Michigan water is a litmus test for service as a Milwaukee elected official.
Hamilton has a website: Check it out.
Gov. Jim Doyle urged adoption of the Great Lakes Compact Friday after a tumultuous week during which GOP Republicans and major state trade associations suggested the historic regional water management agreement be derailed.
With only a few weeks remaining in the current legislative session, approval of a Compact bill, delayed for more than two years, may occur in the Democratically-controlled Senate, but the Assembly, managed by GOP, may bottle the bill up in committee, or adjourn without taking action.
With polls showing about 80% of the Wisconsin electorate in favor of a strong Compact, the GOP may be handing the Democrats an easy win in this fall's elections by turning the Compact into a partisan issue.
The GOP leaders and their business community allies are arguing that the Compact be renegotiated and amended, but that's little more than spin, as four of the eight Great Lakes states' legislatures have approved the Compact and inserted it into the states's law, as is.
Rewriting the Compact at this stage is impossible, and the GOP leaders know it.
Worse, if Wisconsin is the lone holdout among the Great Lakes states, the agreement does not go into force.
That would leave the Great Lakes vulnerable to wasteful uses and imprudent diversions that could harm the level and quality of their remaining waters.
And encourage the GOP and other Compact opponents to begin to sue to remove federal diversion protections, leaving the floodgates open for water to be moved by tanker ship to Asia (proposed in the 1980's), and by pipeline to parched areas too far from the Great Lakes for water to be returned.
For your archiving or reading pleasure:
http://thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com/2008/02/reckless-assembly-republicans-look-to.html
http://thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com/2008/02/80-say-protect-great-lakes-gop-and-wmc.html
http://thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com/2008/02/assembly-gop-leaders-ignore-record-this.html
http://thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com/2008/02/great-lakes-governors-again-urge.html
http://thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com/2008/02/wisconsin-groups-engage-in-water-policy.html
http://thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com/2008/02/compact-killers-are-real-zealots.html
http://thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com/2008/02/pushback-underway-against-assembly.html
http://thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com/2008/02/cleveland-plain-dealer-rips-ohios.html
Cleveland's Plain Dealer, Ohio's leading newspaper, editorially rips members of the Ohio legislature who are allied with GOP leaders in Wisconsin's Assembly who are also trying to kill the pending Great Lakes Compact.
Says the Plain Dealer, in plain talk that ought to shame Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch, (R-West Salem) and State Rep. Scott Gunderson, R-Waterford):
"As we have said before, there is no place in public life for elected officials who would put at risk the future of Northeast Ohio's most treasured asset. That includes any members of the Ohio Senate who would put at risk our bountiful supply of fresh water."
Full text here.
Several Wisconsin conservation organizations, civic groups and leaders are beginning to react to last week's cynical ploy by GOP Assembly leaders to water-down or kill the pending Great Lakes Compact - - an eight state water management agreement.
The River Alliance of Wisconsin responds, here.
The Alliance for the Great Lakes has posted its pro-Compact testimony delivered at a Kenosha hearing about the agreement - - a regional hearing moved out of the State Capitol to a Lake Michigan basin community, but was woefully under-covered by local and regional media.
An exception: a thorough account in the Racine Journal Times, here.
Eight Wisconsin environmental and conservation groups hailed the hearing as a chance to highlight why a strong Great Lakes Compact is a necessity. Their joint release about the hearing is here.
The City of Waukesha apparently has procedural manuals and dictionaries in which the word "transparent" does not appear.
It has decided to keep secret an appraisal of the cost of acquiring 42 acres near the Vernon Marsh in the Town of Waukesha to meet some its near-term water supply needs.
Granted that the plan is a controversial one, as experts have said the drawdown of water could harm the marsh and other resources.
And no doubt acquiring 42 acres through condemnation is a pricey move, since conceivably a developer, under some scenarios, could put a lot of half-million dollar homes on quarter-to-half acre lots there.
Not to mention the additional costs of drilling wells, adding pumps, pipes, monitoring equipment.
And, of course, the inevitable litigation that will ensue, either from neighbors, Waukesha taxpayers, the Town of Waukesha, some, or all.
But keeping the details under wraps again slaps the local taxpayers in the face, as the Waukesha City Council and the Water Utility have a history of closed meetings that has inflamed some residents.
And it feeds the impression that Waukesha prefers closed-and-back-door policy approaches.
That impression has made Waukesha look like a less-than-honest broker and player in the water debates ever since it twice confidentially (unsuccessfully) sought a Lake Michigan diversion from Gov. Doyle in 2006 while various commissions and committees were working in the open to write diversion rules and agreements.
Diversion requests that completely bypassed all the procedures in place for reviews, analysis and approvals.
I found those documents among files provided by the water utility through an Open Records request - - hardly the way for a community still seeking a Lake Michigan diversion to let the public know that 24 millions of water was being sought, and without any guarantee of its return to the Great Lakes basin.
It's hard to break old habits, but this love of closed meetings when doing the public's business, spending the public's money and impacting resources held in the public domain is completely counter-productive, and costs Waukesha credibility every time it is repeated.
Murphy Oil Co. recently paid $179,000 in fines for safety violations at the Superior, WI refinery on wetlands near Lake Superior that it plans to expand by seven-fold, according to news reports.
Among the violations: deactivation of alarm systems on pressurization equipment.
A few weeks ago, the Wisconsin Alliance of Cities pretty sharply criticized some environmentalists.
Those environmentalists had argued that if the Great Lakes Compact were implemented in Wisconsin, it should ban the shipping of water moved from a Great Lake to land that a diverting community annexed after December 13, 2005.
Here is a pdf to that Alliance publication. The Alliance argued that what the environmentalists were proposing could stunt Waukesha's growth, and shift development to Northern Illinois, where the US Supreme Court decades ago grandfathered a water diversion from Lake Michigan that the draft Compact cannot alter.
Why did the environmentalists suggest some limitations on water diverted to land annexed after December 13th, 2005?
That was the date that the eight Great Lakes Governors signed the draft Compact (in Milwaukee, by the way) - - the historic water management agreement now working its way through the states' legislatures, and which is about to be rolled out for formal legislative debate in Wisconsin.
Sources report that what the environmentalists had proposed - - and they would argue their suggested diversion limitation would discourage sprawl and minimize diversion volumes, and increase water conservation, too - - will not be in the Wisconsin draft.
At the time, I thought the term "zealots" was unnecessarily harsh:
Webster's Dictionary indicates that "zealot"connotes excess, extremes, fanaticism, "vehement activity," and other perjoratives.
The use of that term by the Alliance of Cities surprised me, because the environmentalists I know consider themselves urbanists, city-lovers - - pretty much the kind of groups and people that the Alliance represents.
When I worked for Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist, his office and the Alliance were pretty friendly. Those are good people there.
So with that in mind, how do should we label what the Assembly GOP leadership and their allies in the business community are proposing in a fullt-court press on their side of the Compact debate?
With a great deal more clout than conservation-minded environmentalists, these power-brokers and their water-carriers in the Assembly are proposing a lot more than tying the use of diverted water to the date the Compact was signed.
They have suggested such wholesale changes in the Compact that the whole deal would have to be sent back to the states for renegotiation - - and its certain death.
Powerful business groups, trade associations and key Republican legislators - - Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch, (R-West Salem), and State Rep. Scott Gunderson, (R-Waterford) - - know full well there will be no further negotiations.
That's because it took five years to write the Compact and four of the eight Great Lakes legislatures have already approved it.
There's surely an element of partisanship in their 11th-hour maneuvering and reaching out to like-minded GOP allies in the Ohio legislature, as they all know that Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, is chairman of the Great Lakes Council of Governors.
With Wisconsin the last state among the eight to see a bill introduced (Waukesha-area Republican legislators and other allies also derailed an effort last year to produce a bi-partisan bill in a study committee), the GOP Assembly leaders think they see an opportunity to embarass Doyle.
Again, their concern for the Great Lakes is plummeting about as fast as the historic falls in water levels in Lakes Superior and Michigan.
I have been blogging about these opponents and their strategies often this past week, with other posts dating far back into 2007.
The Wisconsin-Ohio Compact Killing axis dates to last year, too.
Furthermore, the changes the Wisconsin Compact killers said the wanted last week want would render the Compact useless.
They want a simple majority of Great Lakes Governors, meaning five of eight, to be able to approve a request for a diversion of water to a community that is outside the boundaries of the Great Lakes basin.
That's a prescription for net water loss in the largest supply of fresh surface water on the planet.
It's like saying: "Wisconsin To Great Lakes Region: Drop Dead."
There is no way that three states could allow the other five to take water that belongs equally to all eight.
And to Canadians and native tribes, too.
That is why federal law for the last 22 year has mandated that all eight Great Lakes Governors must approve diversions of water that flows beyond the boundaries of the Great Lakes basin, and why that principle is in the Compact.
It's the only way to protect a shared resource.
A level-headed organization like the Green Bay Press-Gazette editorially calls the argumentation over the unanimous-approval rule "little more than a red herring."
I agree.
To justify their last-minute sabotage, Wisconsin's Compact killers say they are trying to write a better, stronger, more fair Compact, but that's pure spin, and they know it.
What they are really trying to do is procedurally destroy the Compact, principally so that Waukesha business interests and road-builders can add value to their projects using Lake Michigan water.
And placing profit, politics and partisanship over Great Lakes preservation.
If that that isn't zealotry on behalf of greed, power and partisanship - - the antithesis of protecting a shared resource for the common good - - then I don't know what is.
Disappointed that the reconfigured Pabst Farms 'upscale' mall may be anchored by a Target, and not a trendy IKEA, for example, some Waukesha County Supervisors are hinting that they may not fork over the County's $1.75 million share to pay for the mall's controversial interstate interchange.
The mall's store mix is still up in the air, its first developer pulled out, and subdivisions at Pabst Farms are on hold as the subprime lending crisis has cooled the housing market.
It may be that the entire exurban, regional-mall model is a thing of the past, as gasoline has run up to $3.19 a gallon and urban development looks more efficient and sustainable, experts say.
And it seems like some County supervisors are not as free-spending as the state department of transportation, which has promised $21.9 million of the interchange's $25 million pricetag.
Waukesha County is a Republican Party stronghold, but turnout there in the Tuesday primary suggests that the candidates they fielded, notably US Sen. John McCain (AZ), and former Gov. Mike Huckabee (AK) have a charisma deficit compared to their Democratic rivals.
Seems that the Democratic candidates, notably US Senators Barack Obama (IL) and Hillary Clinton (NY) out-polled their GOP counterparts 71,000-to-53,000, for an approximate margin of 28,000, according to the Waukesha Freeman.
Probable advantage, come November: The Democratic ticket.
A group of 19 Wisconsin business and trade organizations sent the Wisconsin legislature a letter on Tuesday that would have put a smile on George Orwell's face because it urged the adoption of something they called a "Strong and Fair Great Lakes Compact."
This is a bogus conceit: what the groups want is neither fair or strong.
They want the opposite, for the following reasons:
The current draft Great Lakes Compact - - already approved by four of the eight Great Lakes states' legislatures - - establishes first-ever region-wide rules and standards for communities wishing to move water out of the Great Lakes basin.
It even includes special exemptions for easy access for communities like New Berlin that straddle the Great Lakes basin boundary, as well as a process for out-of-basin communities like Waukesha.
You want unfair?
Current federal law has no standards or rules governing when or why an individual Great Lakes state governor can block a proposed diversion - - the opposite of what the Compact achieves.
Furthermore, the so-called "strong" Compact these groups say they support is actually a greatly-weakened version.
That's because it removes standards, proceedures and guarantees that make it more likely that diverted water would be returned to the Great Lakes.
Maintaining Great Lakes water levels, and requiring conservation and a demonstrated need for a diversion prior to a community's application is the entire purpose of the Compact.
What these groups - - led by the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce - - are proposing is in reality a loophole-ridden agreement that weakens, not strengthens, the Compact and preservation of the world's largest supply of fresh surface water.
And it pretends that seven others states, Canada and native tribes in both countries have fewer water rights than does Wisconsin.
The letter builds on the effort by the WMC, through willful actions last week by Assembly GOP leaders, to push the Compact back into renegotiation after five years of meetings that produced the draft Compact in 2005.
Regional negotiations that included business community input, and that produced, through the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the exemptions to help out New Berlin, Waukesha and similarly-situated communities in Wisconsin and the other seven Great Lakes states.
Because several states of those states have already moved to approve it, and now have the common Compact version in their state law - - calls for Compact renegotiation are disengenuous and potentially-destructive.
And lo and behold, a day after the groups sent their "strong and fair" letter to the legislature on the 19th - - the WMC praised the action in a separate news release on the 20th.
Let's be honest, and stop the spin and manipulation of events and language:
Renegotiation, arguing for impossible Compact amendments or stalling its approval in Wisconsin - - the only Great Lakes state without a bill under debate - - is simply a way to kill it.
And that would expose the Great Lakes to wholesale exploitation - - all to
please businesses and groups with water-dependent annexations, road-building and sprawl-development in Waukesha County, and not Great Lakes protections, at the top of their agendas.
Indiana became the third state to approve the Great Lakes Compact, and with a bill through the New York state legislature awaiting the Governor's signature, half of the eight Great Lakes states have already signed on the dotted line.
The only holdouts appear to be Ohio and, yes, Wisconsin, where righty legislators, ginning up arguments about property rights and scary veto scenarios, are threatening to kill the entire US-Canada water resource management plan that has been seven years in the making.
Details here.
Newly-appointed Public Policy Forum Executive Director Rob Henken may find the headline a bit inaccurate, since Rob has been involved for years in local transit work, and more recently in Milwaukee County efforts to resolve its funding woes, but as you can see from this posting on the PPF's blog, Henken is making transit funding and policy-making a top priority.
Sounds good to me.
The Atlantic Magazine offers a prediction that should make the planners of Pabst Farms, et al, think twice about that public and private investment there.
It's in cities where the growth is going to happen.
Will the State of Wisconsin and regional planners begin to focus on a real urban agenda around here?
Another report documents the relationship between warming temperatures, lower Lake Superior water levels, and economic losses.
Food for thought as Wisconsin GOP Assembly legislators stall the pending Great Lakes Compact agreement, and turn a blind eye towards Great Lakes protections.
I said in a pre-primary blog posting that I was making a note of Mark Belling's prediction of a Mike Huckabee win on the GOP side of the presidential ballot, and would use that prediction as a gauge of Belling's insight into GOP politics.
Full text of Belling's commentary is here.
I guess the GOP is not as far, far Right as Belling assumes, or wishes.
Just pretty far Right, which is why McCain is running that way on immigration and torture.
The next installment of a never-ending series on this here blog, "The Road To Sprawville," today runs into a bit of congestion and doubt:
That's because the infamous, still-being-recalibrated upscale Pabst Farms mall won another approval in Oconomowoc - - but there are nagging questions about some huge issues, like viability and design, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
There seems to be an unhappy realization that what will be most visible to the driving public (the constituency this entire drama is all about) is less a gorgeous destination and more a generic brace of big-box stores.
With that reality shielded - - or is it actually highlighted by - - a thousand-foot wall. Don't forget that Robert Frost, discussing neighborliness, once wrote that there were things not to love about walls.
Without any hard information about the major tenants they'd be subsidizing, the Waukesha County Board of Supervisors is holding on to its commitment of $1.75 million in local revenues to pay its relatively small share of the $25 million interstate highway interchange that will funnel shoppers to the project.
You would think that residents and officials out in Waukesha would demand a better design and specifics before investing all that money into something that will dominate the landscape in Western Waukesha County for generations.
Not just because they were minding their wallets, but because they read that Frost poem along the way.
Our son Sam McGovern-Rowen ran third in the eight-person field vying for the Milwaukee Third District race, so he does not advance to the general election.
The Journal Sentinel's account of the race is here.
Naturally, we feel badly about that. Sam ran a positive race, didn't pander, didn't spin, but couldn't get past two other candidates.
He had the most City Hall experience in the race, and would have made an excellent Alderman, but it didn't work out.
So it goes.
I get to vote today for my son Sam McGovern-Rowen for Milwaukee Third District Alderman.
He's run a positive, issue-based and mature campaign, and it'll be a privilege cast my ballot for him.
Another blogger whom I have not met feels the same way: Thanks to Urban Milwaukee for the analysis and support.
The rest of my ballot choices I'll treat the old-fashioned way, and keep 'em to myself.
Just make sure you go out tomorrow and vote.
Noting the potential harm to the Great Lakes inherent in obstructionist legislative tactics in Ohio and Wisconsin, the Great Lakes Governors have reiterated their call for passage of the Great Lakes Compact.
The Council of Great Lakes Governors website carries this renewed call for adoption: four states' legislatures among the eight bordering the Great Lakes have approved the Compact.
Gov. Jim Doyle is the group's chairman, raising the stakes in Wisconsin over approval or obstruction.
The Governors' statement in pdf format is here as a news release.
And only Wisconsin, where GOP Assembly leaders said Thursday they want to send the Compact back to all the states for renegotiations - - an obvious procedural method of killing it - - has yet to have a Compact-ratifying and implementing bill formally introduced for debate.
The negotiations to produce the Compact already approved by half the states' legislatures took nearly five years to complete in 2005. New negotiations to allow a few opponents to gut the original are never going to happen.
And because the agreement is a cooperative document to manage a shared resource, reopening the negotiations would only embolden a handful of self-interested critics - - centered in Waukesha County - - who would continue to demand more and more concessions.
The amazing thing about the Assembly GOP's action is that the Compact contains diversion exemptions and procedural breaks for communities like New Berlin which are looking to immediately obtain a Lake Michigan diversion.
Without the Compact and its exemptions - - inserted into the negotiations towards their conclusion specifically to assist New Berlin (along with other changes that make it more likely that even Waukesha, an out-of-basin community, could successfully make win a case for a diversion) - - New Berlin and Waukesha face much tougher diversion legal obstacles in an existing federal law.
Without all eight states approving highly-similar Compact bills, this complex agreement to better manage the Great Lakes and promote regional water conservation could wither, or fail altogether, opening the Great Lakes to unregulated diversions and other negative consequences.
The Governors are right to push for adoption, now.
I don't expect the Assembly leaders to heed the Governors' actions, but their statement will help Wisconsin residents and others around the Great Lakes region better understand who is for the Great Lakes, and who is against them.
The Assembly GOP leaders who threw a monkey-wrench last week into what was supposed to be a bi-partisan approach to Wisconsin's approval of the pending Great Lakes Compact - - risking the very preservation of this crucial regional resource - - are ignoring basic documents and information about the Compact already made available to the legislature.
Makes you wonder whether Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch, (R-West Salem), or Rep. Scott Gunderson, (R-Village of Waterford), read the record and tossed it, or were unaware that their key arguments against the Compact have already been explained and settled.
Take, for example, the suggestion that the Compact - - a cooperative water management agreement among the eight Great Lakes states - - would somehow harm personal property rights.
That is one of the claims made by an Ohio State legislator, Sen. Tim Grendell, the leader of Compact opposition in that state.
Yet more than a year ago, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources official Chuck Ledin informed a state legislative study committee studying Compact issues that Grendell's claims had no relevance under Wisconsin law.
Yet both Huebsch and Gunderson have told Ohio legislators that they find merit in the Ohio arguments.
Their letter to the Ohio legislature is here.
The analysis by the DNR's Ledin, here, is either being ignored by the Assembly Republican Compact opponents, or their staffers haven't bothered to look at the record, absorb it and tell their bosses that they are out on a very thin limb.
Then there is the long over-looked, December 2006 advisory opinion written by then-Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager about Compact issues and water law - - also forwarded to the study committee.
It's an important document because it lays out the applicable federal law that Wisconsin must follow until the Compact is approved.
That statute, the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, (WRDA), says that all diversions of water away from the Great Lakes boundaries must be approved by all eight Great Lakes Governors.
Period.
No exceptions.
Huebsch and Gunderson say that gives the other Great Lakes' governors too much power over water use by Wisconsin (forgetting or overlooking that it also gives Wisconsin a voice in other states' water usages, too).
The Compact, however, at the insistence of Wisconsin's negotiators during the four years it took to write it, contained an exemption from that eight-state approval process for communities that straddle the basin boundary - - such as New Berlin.
And the Compact also creates, for the first time, a set of standards and rules that the Governors would have to follow when they were reviewing out-of-basin diversion applications for communities like Waukesha.
In other words, the Compact makes it more likely that Waukesha and New Berlin can apply for and obtain water if they follow the rules, while, as Lautenschlager explains in detail, WRDA is a much tougher law.
WRDA doesn't have any rules or standards or procedures for the states to use in reviewing eachother's diversion applications.
Makes you think legislators like Gunderson would be taking the lead on Compact approval because it is good for their districts.
But when you are an ideologue and under the sway of a special-interest powerhouse like the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, you are likely to put yourself in a politically-contorted and self-defeating position.
Gunderson, especially.
A good chunk of Waukesha County is in his district, and like State Sen. Mary Lazich, (R-New Berlin), a senior legislative colleague whose self-sabotaging proclivities Gunderson is channeling, these Waukesha legislators are making it more likely that their communities will not get the water they covet.
And are likely to find themselves locked in protracted and costly litigation for years.
Huebsch and Gunderson are making a mockery of the legislative process in Wisconsin, holding the state up to ridicule around the Great Lakes region, and are jeopardizing the world's largest supply of fresh surface water.
All in a day's work carrying water for the WMC, but I wonder: Will they put those achivements on their next piece of campaign literature?
And how will they explain it to constituents that a silly little daillance with an Ohio legislator and some self-parodying partisanship ended up costing their very own Waukesha County communities a rationalized shot at Great Lakes water?
The reviews keep coming in about the GOP's game-playing on the Great Lakes Compact, and the theme is pretty consistent.
This time it's the Madison Capital Times, which editorially goes after the GOP's Assembly leadership for its last-minute sabotage of the pending Great Lakes Compact.
The Madison law firm of Cullen Weston Pines and Bach goes green by meeting 100% of its energy needs from renewable sources.
Cullen Weston Pines and Bach is Wisconsin's only law firm to make that level of green partnership commitment, and only the second law firm nationally.
Details here.
