Saturday, July 3, 2010

Letters From A House Divided: Special Delivery In Waukesha

Waukesha's internal struggle to sort out who speaks for the city when it comes to water planning - - and a potential commitment to spend $164 million on a plan endorsed by the Common Council to divert Lake Michigan water to the city - - led to a battle over letters of policy and intent for the state Department of Natural Resources to read.

The Waukesha Water Utility drafted this one for Lake Michigan diversion skeptic Mayor Jeff Scrima to sign.

Aside from its overly, overtly technical wording, there was no way Scrima could sign that letter of support, given his winning campaign during which he had raised questions about the Lake Michigan diversion.

So he balked, not taking the Joycean, "apologize, apologize" bait.

This is the letter Scrima sent instead.

Totally different, as he asks instead for clarifications from the DNR and restates his policy and fiscal concerns.

As the issue was gaining steam Friday, I posted this explanation and background.

The DNR' set all this unto motion a few weeks ago when it notified Waukesha that the agency had suspended review of the diversion application, pending the addition of more analyses and data, and also noted Scrima's stated interest in pursing more study of alternatives to the application's Lake-Michigan-or-bust choice.

By publicly announcing that it had drafted a letter for Scrima to sign in support of the application, the water utility, it seems to me, made it more likely that Scrima would resist and the letter would not get sent.

Elected officials don't like to be cornered or pushed around (actually, who does?) - - surely not by non-elected officials - - and don't forget that Scrima also has been getting an earful from a pro-diversion business coalition that includes the County Chamber of Commerce.

So was there really a chance that Scrima would capitulate, confess the errors of his ways - - and sign?

Did the utility expect Mayor Scrima to become Mayor Culpa?

So what was the point, really, other than to build a case against Scrima the way an employer

documents a case against a troublesome employee.

The DNR has Scrima's letter, and will reply. But I don't think it's the DNR's job to draft a roadmap for the political establishment in Waukesha to help itself out of the this thicket.

But the DNR will now also read the letter that didn't get sent; was it in the interest of diversion proponents for the DNR to see even more evidence of the internal divisions within Waukesha government over the application?

Who thinks the DNR wants to get between the factions in this house divided, let alone pick a side, and sponsor that kind of case before the other Great Lakes states?

I don't see the DNR volunteering for a no-win, suicide mission.

Perhaps Rush Limbaugh's Ugliest Moment Yet

This is what happens when raging self-loathing is projected onto others.

Friday, July 2, 2010

OnMilwaukee.Com Columnist Hissom Posts About Great Lakes Drilling Ban

I'm all for it.

As I said...

Mike D'Amato's World Cup Blog A Fun Read

Hat tip to Sam for alerting some of us to this well-done blog by former Milwaukee Ald. Mike D'Amato,

Waukesha Mayor Scrima Asks DNR To Clarify Objections To Lake Michigan Water Plan

You will recall that earlier this week, Waukesha Water Utility Dan Duchniak prepared a letter for Waukesha Mayor Jeff Scrima intended to get Scrima's support for the city's Lake Michigan diversion application, in writing, to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

Though Waukesha's Common Council has approved the application, the DNR returned it to Waukesha, citing deficiencies in the application and also Scrima's stated doubts that Lake Michigan was the city's only water supply alternative.

Waukesha needs a new water supply in place, meeting federal standards, by June 30, 2018.

The Lake Michigan alternative needs the approval of all eight Great Lakes states under a new regional Compact.

Waukesha's plan calls for preferably purchasing from the City of Milwaukee up to 18.5 million gallons of Lake Michigan water daily and returning it as wastewater down Underwood Creek.

My interpretation of the water utility letter to be signed by Scrima - - and we'll see in a minute that he has balked through a letter of his own - - was that it continues the post-election power play against Scrima involving pro-diversion forces in the Waukesha County business community, and within Waukesha city government.

So Scrima has sent his own letter (following below) to the DNR, seeking clarification about the DNR's reasons for holding up the application's review.

Scrima sent me the letter based on my email request for the letter that Duchniak had prepared for Scrima's review.

(That letter I still do not have; Duchniak said by email to me yesterday he would ask the Waukesha City Attorney next Tuesday about releasing it. He does have more to say to the Journal Sentinel, here, so Scrima's battle with Waukesha's power brokers and insiders continues.)

Here is Scrima's letter to the DNR, in full:

July 2, 2010

Matthew J. Frank, Secretary

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

101 S. Webster Street

Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7921

Dear Secretary Frank:

In your letter addressed to me on June 8^th 2010, you identified several deficiencies in Waukesha ’s application for a diversion of Great Lakes water. Included in those identified deficiencies was the fact that our City had not provided appropriate information on three potential water supply alternatives and that there was no corresponding return flow

option for each withdrawal source.

In addition you noted:

“…the application lacks sufficient detail, as required by the Compact, regarding the costs for the diversion. We would expect the cost analysis for each of the requested options to be based upon information received from the potential withdrawal sources indicating what they would be charging for providing Great Lakes water. The City must provide to the Department (of Natural Resources) detailed cost estimates for each of the withdrawal and corresponding return flow options.”

Your letter closed by also saying that this information is needed at a “minimum” before you can accept an application for review and, I would assume, before you can begin the formal environmental impact statement process that the Department will be undertaking.

If my read of what your letter as stated is incorrect,

I would appreciate your clarification of my understanding of this matter.

While much has been made of my push to have our City consider all viable water supply options before settling on just one—a Lake Michigan diversion of water—the deficiencies outlined in your letter are significant and confirm that our City’s water utility needs to objectively and openly consider all reasonable options.

It is my understanding that the Department expects to be provided with a detailed analysis of all reasonable water supply alternatives, including a combination of shallow and deep aquifer water appropriately treated, along with more meaningful water conservation measures.

The combination of these measures, along with the further exploration of the capturing and recycling of rain water, could reduce our overall water supply needs thereby making Waukesha less dependent on costly outside sources of water.

Secretary Matthew J. Frank

dated July 2, 2010

Page 2 of 2

The citizens of our great City need to know upfront what the true cost of all reasonable water supply alternatives are—including the detailed cost estimates for Oak Creek and Racine—before we can make a informed decision on what is in our City’s best long term interest.

In addition, because our expanded water service territory as outlined in the Application includes parts of Pewaukee, Genesee and the Town of Waukesha, we would also be wise to gather public input on that before we proceed.

I believe it is my responsibility as Mayor, in keeping with my obligation of transparency to the City’s residents to be sure that every reasonable alternative has been thoroughly examined before moving ahead with an application.

Sincerely,

Jeff Scrima

Mayor

cc: Bruce Baker, Department of Natural Resources

Dan Duchniak, Waukesha Water Utility Manager

Ald. Bob Bauman Weighs In On High Speed Rail Station Issue

[Ald. Bauman sent this to me, and as it was too long to include as a comment to an earlier posting, agreed that I could run it separately, which I am happy to do:]

The proposed Milwaukee to Madison high speed rail line will become a reality at least as far as the upgrading of the rail lines to accommodate high speed passenger trains.

It is possible that the next governor could block the appropriation of state funds for operating costs, however, that would set up the rather ridiculous situation of having a new and upgraded rail line with no trains running on it. It would be like spending $823M on a new highway and then refusing to fund the cost of policing, snow plowing, routine maintenance, street lights, etc. thereby effectively preventing any motor vehicles from using that new road.

It is highly unlikely that any reasonable elected official, even a conservative elected official, will allow this to happen especially in light of the fact that, unlike local transit, intercity rail passengers tend to be middle and upper middle class persons who vote including campaign contributing business persons.

Based on ridership between Milwaukee and Chicago even Republicans ride the train. WisDOT is moving very quickly to let contracts for all or most of the $823M prior to January, 2011. A significant number of jobs will be attached to these contracts and politically powerful engineering firms (HNTB) and road builders will be the contractors.

There is nothing anyone can do about this since the necessary funding agreements have been entered into between the WisDOT and the Federal Railroad Administration. In addition, if these contracts are cancelled down the road, some portion of the federal money would have to be refunded (or the Feds will simply deduct the money from Wisconsin's federal highway appropriation; i.e. less money for the Zoo Interchange and countless other highway projects). In short the next governor will face the choice of either allowing the work to proceed or asking the legislature to write a check for the federal funds expended to date.

I cannot envision the latter scenario happening. Accordingly, the time is ripe to lobby for a western Milwaukee County station. This rail line will become reality no matter what talk radio says so even opponents would be well advised to make the best of this infrastructure investment.

SEWRPC Questions For Milwaukee Aldermen, County Board Supervisors

Given another example of SEWRPC's pro-suburban biases, and weak land use focus:

1. Whatever happened to that Milwaukee Common Council unanimous resolution asking its lobbying corps to push a legislative, structural reform to address SEWRPC representation and spending issues?

2. And what happened to the County Board resolution calling for a state legislative performance audit of SEWRPC, since the County sends SEWPRC more than $400, 000 a year in tax revenues (half collected in the city, fyi) ?

I raised some these issues more than two years ago.

Copper, Nickel Mining Firm Says It Will Protect Michigan Upper Peninsula

Are you reassured?

Support For Health Care Reform Grows As GOP Disinformation Fades

By election day 2010, the swing will be even more profound.

The Road To Sprawlville, Chapter XXXIX, Being Plotted And Platted At SEWRPC

This the 39th chapter in our all-too-sadly extended ongoing series finds the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission exhibiting its basic pro-suburban/exurban development bias, again.

And worse, expressing contempt, again, for its very own Environmental Justice Task Force [EJTF], a body of volunteer citizens that was created against SEWRPC's philosophies and wishes to help it better communicate with and represent the region's diverse, minority citizens and communities.

But it seems as if SEWRPC prefers to pull the rug out from under the EJTF.

This is what happened:

Earlier this week a group of businesses and heavy-hitters that support Waukesha's stalled and flawed application for Michigan water sent a series of written and leading questions to SEWRPC about its stance on whether such an application met the agency's water supply recommendations.

Their goal: get that application on track.

But the correct answer from SEWRPC should have been, unequivocally:

'Our water supply study is not completed, because our EJTF has not finished its part of that study, and our consultant has not finished its research, either.'

Instead, SEWRPC - - inserting itself into a factional political fight over water supply alternatives in Waukesha between the new Mayor on one side and the Common Council and staffers in City Hall and the Water Utility on the other - - told the business group that its water supply advisory committee had preliminarily recommended in favor of a Lake Michigan diversion, enabling the group to run out with a misleadingly titled news release:

"SEWRPC Reaffirms Recommendation of Great Lakes Water as Future Waukesha Water Supply"

Followed by:

"June 28, 2010—(Delafield, WI ) Per an inquiry by the Sustainable Water Supply Coalition (SH2OSC), The Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) has reaffirmed its late 2009 recommendation that Great Lakes water is the recommended option for the City of Waukesha’s future water supply needs."

Followed by online survey promo from the business group, including the Waukesha County Chamber of Commerce that repeats the error that SEWRPC had recommended the diversion:

"Both the City of Waukesha and our regional planning authority (Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Authority [sic] have comprehensively reviewed all potential options, considering both environmental impact and cost effectiveness, concluding that Great Lakes water is the best option for Waukesha. "

A mischaracterization that SEWRPC has not corrected - - so now we have a narrative out there that says SEWRPC has recommended the diversion, when, in fact, it has not.

The message to the EJTF: you've been spinning your wheels.

Waukesha's diversion application says the City intends, should it get Lake Michigan water, to ship it beyond its current borders to open space or relatively under-utilized land to the west and south, including into portions of the Town of Waukesha, Genesee and Pewaukee.

In its application, the City includes a map of that expanded service territory drafted by SEWRPC, so it's a foregone conclusion that some of that land will likely be annexed to the City - - if the application is approved by all eight Great Lakes states.

The end result would be that with SEWRPC's blessing, businesses and residents will locate or relocate to that area, pulling the economy farther from Milwaukee - - a city landlocked by state law and home to many transit-dependent, people of color or lower-income residents who cannot afford to move to the Waukesha area and cannot get there easily due to poor transit connections.

There is in Milwaukee, however, ample Lake Michigan water, and existing pumping infrastructure, available without the legal, political, procedural and financial hurdles needed to send it over the subcontinental divide to Waukesha - - and on to the Town of Waukesha, et al.

Milwaukee continues to be ill-served by its inclusion in the seven-county SEWRPC territory, where the agency continues to diss the very City residents whose options are repeatedly circumscribed by SEWRPC hiring, planning and spending.

Two years ago, both the City and County seemed willing to take these matters head-on, but I haven't heard much about it lately.

The EJTF meets next Thursday at 4 p.m. at IndependenceFirst, 540 South 1st Street, Milwaukee.

Maybe SEWRPC's Executive Director Ken Yunker - - the author of the reply letter to the business group that has blown the water supply study and the agency's credibility into uncertain waters - - can further explain his letter at the Thursday meeting.

His text and the business group's letter are here.

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Attention, Milwaukee Legislators: Some Follow-Through, Please?

The Milwaukee County Clerk is leading a one-man crusade to pull a planned rail stop out of anti-rail Waukesha County and bring it into Western Milwaukee County.

Details here.

Will our legislators get on the phone with the Governor, or WisDOT and make some noise?

More News About Climategate - - The Farce

Exonerations, yes.

Where are the formal apologies and media retractions?

In Waukesha's Bid For Lake Michigan Water, The Weakest Link

As I see it, the weakest link is not a fuller comparison of water supply alternatives, or the lack of side-by-side cost estimates for potential water purchases from Milwaukee, Oak Creek and Racine.

Or problems with the wastewater flow through Wauwatosa's Underwood Creek - - and, again, a lack of comparison of return flow options that might better comply with the environmental directives of the Great Lakes Compact.

The state Department of Natural Resources has told Waukesha to add these elements to the application.

The weakest link in the application - - and what will raise questions all the way from the Town of Waukesha to the City of Milwaukee, and with reviewers and regulators in all the eight Great Lakes states, is Waukesha's plan to send Lake Michigan water into parts of Pewaukee, Genesee and the Town of Waukesha.

Expanding the current service territory land mass by 80%.

That expansion - - mapped out and green-lighted by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission for the Waukesha application administatively, without public review - - plays some role in Waukesha's request for up to 18.5 million gallons of Lake Michigan water daily.

Yes, the figure is a maximum, worst-case, drought-or-fire situation to be sure - - but clearly Waukesha and its water utility, like revenue-producing utilities are wont to do, intends to grow its customer and water rate base outside the city limits and water service territory.

Can annexations be far behind?

Fact: Current Waukesha daily water use, on average: 6.9 million gallons.

Anticipated daily use, on average, post-diversion, according to Waukesha figures: 10.9 million gallons.

Some of that usage is for projected future population and business growth inside the city limits, and some will go beyond - - thus you have the application resting on the shakiest of premises, because:

Water for growth is not the goal of the Compact. Take it from a Compact expert's superb analysis, here.

Water to serve growth 20 some miles from the City of Milwaukee - - with its employment, housing, transit and development challenges - - cannot sanely be Milwaukee's goal.

And being absorbed into the City of Waukesha's water service is not the goal of neighboring Town of Waukesha people from whom I hear.

Waukesha's water-for-expansion goes beyond meeting its own needs. It's an assault on regionalism, and resource sustainability and the core preservationist principle of the Compact.

It's where the diversion application lacks the most justification and creates the most waves.

And is absolutely not where SEWRPC should have thrown its support - - about which I have more to say Friday.

Building Green Does Not Add Big Bucks To The Bottom Line

Myth-busting data, here.

England To Discourage Binge Flying, Reduce Airport Expansion

A major British move to curb greenhouse gas emissions - - by a conservative government.

Bad News For Weekend, Summerfest Air Quality

Watch for Ozone

Start Time:	12 Midnight CST Friday, July 2, 2010
End Time:	11:59 PM CST Saturday, July 3, 2010
Counties:	Door, Kenosha, Kewaunee, Manitowoc, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, and Sheboygan

AIR QUALITY INDEX CHART

Air Quality Index (AQI) Values	Levels of Health Concern	Colors
When the AQI is in this range:	...air quality conditions are:	...as symbolized by this color:
0 to 50	Good	Green
51 to 100	Moderate	Yellow
101 to 150	Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups	Orange
151 to 200	Unhealthy	Red
201 to 300	Very Unhealthy	Purple
301 to 500	Hazardous	Maroon

For More Information:

Daily Air Quality Hotline - 1-866-324-5924 (1-866-DAILY AIR)

Another Great Idea For High-Speed Rail Plans in SE Wisconsin

Governor Agrees to Relocate Madison High Speed Rail Station
He Should Do the Same for Milwaukee

Statement by Milwaukee County Clerk Joseph J. Czarnezki
July 1, 2010

I am pleased, that after listening to potential riders along the Milwaukee – Madison high speed rail corridor, Governor Doyle has reversed himself and agreed to relocate the Madison rail station.

Once again, I strongly urge the Governor to listen to the people in the Milwaukee area and site another high speed rail station in western Milwaukee County near the Milwaukee County Research Park in Wauwatosa and reject stations in Waukesha County.

I am renewing this request despite the fact that my May 2010 letter to Governor Doyle with this recommendation was summarily dismissed by DOT Secretary Busalacchi. If the Governor can reverse himself and consider public input on the Madison rail stop, he should do the same for the people in the Milwaukee area.

I realize there are currently two stations planned for Milwaukee. However, it is unlikely that travelers from western Milwaukee County will drive downtown or to the airport to board a train to Madison. It is, however, very likely that they would board at a station in Wauwatosa.

Such a station is also likely to generate more ridership than a station in Brookfield or elsewhere in Waukesha County.

Finally and most importantly, numerous state and local officials in Waukesha County have expressed public opposition to high speed rail, apparently because there is no desire among Waukesha County residents to ride the train. Therefore, we should not spend tax dollars to construct stations in Waukesha County where ridership is expected to be very low.

Joseph J. Czarnezki
Milwaukee County Clerk
901 North 9th Street, Room 105
Milwaukee, WI 53233-1463
joseph.czarnezki@milwcnty.com
414.278.4069
www.county.milwaukee.gov/CountyClerk