Wednesday, July 7, 2010

DNR Criticisms Of Waukesha Water Application Are Not New, Record Shows

It is fascinating that some participants in and observers of Waukesha's political struggles over its application for Lake Michigan water forget, ignore or simply deny that environmental groups in Waukesha and the region, for months, were saying the application was insufficient.

And if you read the DNR's June 8th letter to Waukesha Mayor Jeff Scrima about the application - - addressed to the same Scrima being vilified since for objecting and somehow blocking the application's review - - you would see that the DNR is agreeing with the environmental groups that major portions of the application - - potential alternative sources, comparative costs and comparative return flow alternatives - - are not up to the needs and expectations of the Great Lakes Compact.

So let's look at a few facts; perhaps this can tone down the rhetoric and slow down the spin?

Here, in a nutshell, are the DNR's objections:

· The application failed to confirm that there is no reasonable water supply alternative available to the City of Waukesha other than Great Lakes water;

· The application failed to provide the return flow locations corresponding to the three withdrawal source options identified in the application;

· The application’s cost estimates lacked sufficient detail, as required by the Compact, for each of the withdrawal and return flow options for the diversion;

· The application lacked confirmation that it had received all appropriate local city approvals necessary for submittal under the Compact.

In its own words, the DNR letter says:

"One of the key requirements of the Compact for approving an application for a diversion is demonstrating that there is no reasonable water supply alternative. Through Discussions with representatives with the city we were told that Great Lakes water was the only viable option for a sustainable water supply.

Due to the fact that it has been publicly discussed that the City is examining alternatives to Great Lakes water and is actively considering other sources the Department cannot move forward on reviewing the application and the City must confirm that Great Lakes water is in fact the only long term sustainable water option.

The Great Lakes Compact requires the return flow to be as close as possible to the withdrawal source.

The submitted proposal identifies three possible withdrawal source options to obtain Great Lakes water. However, without providing a corresponding return flow option for each withdrawal source it is not possible to determine whether the proposal will comply with this requirement. The City must provide to the Department both the point of withdrawal and with the proposed return flow location.

In addition, 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 detailed cost estimates for each of the withdrawal and corresponding return flow options."

The DNR closes by saying that these questions, and some other matters, must be resolved "at a minimum" before the process will continue.

We assume the DNR is not tossing around words like frisbees: there must be some logic to their reasoning.

So let's be clear:

That's not the Mayor talking: those are the words, in writing, of the first set regulators to look at the application per the procedures of the Great Lakes Compact. Seven more groups will follow in all the Great Lakes states.

Which is pretty much what the environmental groups have been saying all along - - but which Waukesha officials and other advocates for the application are not taking to heart. They prefer the political fight, but isolating Scrima does not repair the application or lead it to a friendlier reception in the seven other states.

Take a look at this portion of the seven pages of comments (the full text is posted at the Waukesha Environmental Action League homepage) sent to the Waukesha officials March 26th, and note that the comments cite the position of a larger coalition of groups who were raising the alarm in writing in September, 2009::

"In a follow-up letter to the City of Waukesha and Utility dated September 19, 2009, Attorney Jodi Habush-Sinykin of the [Coalition] outlined several issues considered to be outstanding, including, but not limited to:

the need for a more comprehensive evaluation of Waukesha’s water supply options and potential service area mindful of the Compact’s “no reasonable alternative” provision;

the need for a thorough, side-by-side analysis of potential return flow options to accompany the respective water supply options identified by Waukesha to date;

the value of Waukesha proactively committing to an Environmental Analysis protocol as a tried and true means of addressing both potential opposition and uncertain regulatory guidance given that any application for a diversion of this nature will comprise a major action under WEPA;

the importance of providing a meaningful opportunity for the public and other stakeholders to be heard in the public participation process.

The first two bullet points remain unaddressed in the diversion application of January 2010.

At the (Great Lakes) regional review level, in order to establish the credibility needed for seven gubernatorial approvals, a successful diversion application will need to build a good case, cite or include base studies, and make reasoned arguments that are supported within the document. Other Great Lakes states, even those following Wisconsin issues, haven't been living and breathing a Waukesha diversion.

The City of Waukesha and the WWU must begin at the beginning with this application, including a brief narrative of the EPA ruling on non-compliant radium levels and subsequent lawsuits. Without this, other states will wonder what led up to the WI DNR’s consent decree of 2008, or perhaps assume erroneously that the compliance order was the originating event for the application. We understand that this may be unpleasant, but without context, the application will fail to establish the need for a new water source, if the case can be made.

In many respects, our concerns and comments have changed little since WEAL first formulated a series of questions for the City of Waukesha Common Council in February of 2006. We observe the following:

The City’s draft application does not meet the Great Lakes Compact’s diversion exception standard to exhaust all “reasonable water supply alternatives within [its own] basin . . . including conservation of existing water supplies” as a condition of making application for an exemption to the Compact’s ban on diversions:

Many of the earlier (14) alternatives were dismissed as “too expensive,” “too political,” or “not implementable.” The City will have to do better to describe just how costs were estimated and compared, what details were analyzed, and how that conclusion was drawn. It could be said, without too much of a stretch, that a Lake Michigan diversion option represents all of those things and more. Furthermore, in eliminating 12 of these alternatives, the City relies on a 2002 Water Supply Plan that is nearly a decade old. Has anything else changed in a decade? Costs certainly have increased. What assumptions are going into the numbers that lead the City to assert that a Lake Michigan diversion is the least costly option? No party can make that determination until the City releases cost breakdowns to the public.

WEAL remains skeptical about any alternative that was dismissed due to its being “too expensive” without being updated and reanalyzed. WEAL continues to call on the City to show its work in making projections and cost estimates (broken down, not in a single sum) in a side-by-side comparison of all options and combinations thereof."

That's WEAL and other groups talking: Not...Mayor...Scrima - - who has spoken. Here, for example.

Sorry for that, but don't you see?

Scrima has indeed balked at endorsing the application, but the DNR has raised significant objections to its content, and detailed critiques have been in the hands of Waukesha since September, forwarded by - - gasp!! - - local environmentalists.

Ozaukee County Board Embarrasses Itself

It weirdly apologizes for another body's support of an Arizona boycott in the wake of that state's controversial 'papers-please' immigration law - - that's bad enough - - but many supervisors took a powder and didn't even vote.

Man, oh man: that's hardly leadership.

Take a tough vote, one way or the other: that's the job.

But don't walk away.

Unless you're leaving for good.

Climate Scientists Better At Data Than PR

Good data, poor communications.

Can we all apologize to these abused scientists, and move on?

There are serious climate and energy issues getting worse (see, BP, Gulf of Mexic0), no thanks to the climate change deniers who hoaxed and undermined the Copenhagen summit with their allegations - - cynical and hollow - - about climategate (sic).

Steele Rusts

Michael Steele is one of the best things the Dems have going right now.

Another Win For Wind Power, Wisconsin Jobs

Every one of these contracts is good for Wisconsin and clean air.

For the alternative, Google - - BP: Gulf of Mexico.

Press Releases Are A Poor Excuse For Governance

Legislators Plale and Sinicki asking that rail money be tapped and spent on bridge repairs known dam*-well that these federal rail grant funds cannot be shifted around like substituting fries for mashed potatoes on a diner menu, but it will sound to some of their constituents as if the officials are actually doing something.

Electioneering...pandering...the same old same old.

Road-building has gotten virtually all Wisconsin's transportation (sic) budgeting forever: there is no relationship between fixing the Hoan and planning high speed rail.

Would they be asking for a rail repair from highway construction dollars if the circumstances were reversed?

I didn't think so.

No wonder Sen. Jeff Plale has drawn a Democratic primary contender in County Supervisor Chris Larson.

Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley Fighting For Climate/Energy Bill

Leadership!

Kagan's Real Value

I'm sure that she'll bide her time and honor all the Court's protocols, but at some point Elena Kagan will demonstrate that she is equal to and can surpass heavyweights John Roberts or Antonin Scalia in argumentative depth.

Journal Sentinel Describes Mayor Scrima's Isolation, But There's More...

There is little doubt that the new Mayor of Waukesha has run into a solid wall of institutional opposition over his objections to and questions about the city's application for Lake Michigan water.

The business community and other elements of the city government are all four-square in favor of the application.

What is getting less attention is this question:

Why did the state Department of Natural Resources send back the application?

Was it simply because Scrima doesn't like it?

No.

Take a look at the DNR's letter and you will that the agency cited financial and substantive deficiencies in the document. That initial rejection presumably would have happened if Mayor Nelson were still in office, correct?

We'll see how the DNR responds to the question of whether, or to what degree, political considerations (Scrima v. others ) or technical/environmental/scientific and legal matters drove the agency's action - - which is what Scrima has asked the DNR to clarify.

Not a bad question.

[Here also is one link to several relevant documents]

And don't forget that the DNR's substantive questions mirror those raised months ago by environmental groups, as I indicated here.

O'Donnell Park Probe Seems To Be Carefully Underway, Carefully Reported

They'll get to the cause, or causes, and the contributing factors. Nothing less can be tolerated.

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Waukesha Should Have Taken Application Critiques To Heart

Waukesha's Common Council, former Mayor Nelson and the city's Water Utility preferred the inside game when they wrote and edited the Lake Michigan diversion application while barely paying even lip service to environmental, civic and conservation groups that had been raising fundamental issues over the application's content and direction.

Compare this one group's critique, for example, or this coalition's, with the objections raised by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources when it turned back the application as incomplete and deficient.

Hubris and the 'not-invented-here' syndrome make for poor planning, dubious policy-making and wasteful governance.

Waukesha Water Officials Still Resisting Transparency

I've documented prior instances where Waukesha's water planners embrace confidentiality even though public spending (local Waukesha dollars, plus state regulatory work far in excess of the $5,000 application fee, and possible federal grants) and environmental consequences are at the foundation of the push for Great Lakes water.

Through an application that needs the approval of eight states in very public forums and reviews with very public procedures established in laws and an international agreement.

These days, it's called transparency.

A summary of Waukesha's historical disregard for sunlight in its water supply planning is here.

But there they go again:

A letter somewhere between policy explanation and political apology the Waukesha Water Utility unsuccessfully asked Waukesha Mayor Jeff Scrima to sign last week contained this language:

"With regards to the details on the cost of Lake Michigan supply alternatives, the Water Utility Commission and Common Council are concerned about providing the detailed information as it relates to the City’s negotiating position with the potential water suppliers. The city would also like to note that the Legislature rejected proposed language that would have required a negotiated agreement or identification of a single supplier. Based on that input, Utility staff was advised to present the detailed cost for the preferred alternative. The reason the Milwaukee Water supply with return flow to Underwood Creek is the preferred alternative is that it is composed of the shortest conveyance system. The other alternatives require additional infrastructure and therefore are more costly. Dan Duchniak has discussed these issues with Eric Ebersberger, who will research the potential of providing additional information to the DNR on a confidential basis until a final agreement is negotiated with a water supplier."

Scrima, however, took a pretty different position in a letter to the DNR that he did sign.

Score one for transparency, regardless of what you think about water supplies or political infighting:

"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."

So list support for transparency between the Mayor and political Establishment as one of the differences in how a new water supply should be pursued.

Monday, July 5, 2010

Starbucks Promoting Recyclables

Progress.

Dueling Waukesha Water Documents Surfaced Last Week And Are Compiled Below

The struggle over political supremacy and water planning control in the City of Waukesha led to dueling documents that surfaced in the run-up to July 4th, so in case anyone missed reading and filing them, here they are:

1. Mayor Jeff Scrima's July 2nd letter to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources;

2. His letter responded to this letter to him from the DNR, putting the City's application for Lake Michigan water on hold, pending clarifications and submission of data to correct defects.

3. The delay had led the Waukesha Water Utility - - prime mover in the application's drafting - - to draft this letter to the DNR for Scrima's signature, which he declined to sign and send as the Utility had wanted.

4. A July 1 op-ed about this power struggle that Scrima had published in the Waukesha Freeman.

I have been chronicling this political and procedural morass for some time: One entry here.

Thought For The Day

"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."

- - Edward Abbey

(With thanks to John Nichols, "The Sky's The Limit: A Defense Of The Earth," W. W. Norton, 1990.)

Also see.

Waukesha's Water Utility And Commission; Accountable To Whom?

As I disclose beneath my blog's title, I've worked as the senior staffer to the Mayors of Madison and Milwaukee.

And been around government in other positions, and also as an independent writer, then columnist, reporter, editor, and now a writer again, with a blog.

More than 40 years, all told - - about which I have two observations.

1. I'm getting old.

2. And never have I seen an unelected branch of a government in Wisconsin get away with such unrestrained and self-defined freedom- - at the expense of a Mayor (and mind you, I concede to a soft spot for the people who take on those jobs) - - as has been carried out by Waukesha's Water Utility Commission and staff on behalf of an application for Lake Michigan water the Utility's staff drafted.

The staff reports to the Commission, and the Commission, with a long-time chairman reports to the rest of Waukesha's government, but as this newspaper account indicates, the Commission and staff are also bluntly dictating - - and publicly - - to the city's new Mayor.

It's unimaginable that the Mayors for whom I worked would put up with that.

I have had a good relationship with the utility's staff though I have been a thorn in its side with Open Records requests, blog posts and articles dating back to my discovery in its files that there had been two confidential requests by Waukesha to Governor Jim Doyle (and set aside) in 2006 for a back-door Lake Michigan diversion approval.

But I continue to be amazed that the Water Utility Commission and staff keep charging ahead with the Lake Michigan diversion as they see fit, including:

* Trying to bludgeon the Mayor into line - - though he is resisting.

* Continuing to assert that crucial cost data in the application will remain confidential.

* Refusing to provide to the public an easy-to-follow guide to changes in the diversion application that were inserted after it was approved in April by the Common Council.

* Saying they would not send the edited application back for a public, Council review.

Will the Commission and staff take that same position when it completes more editing sought by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources?

Maybe the tradition in Waukesha is that the Commission is virtually autonomous, and that tits power arises in part from its revenue-producing ability, along with something approaching a monopoly on information and data gathered by consultants the utility can finance from rate collections without spending taxpayer dollars.

You tell me: how does a commission acquire so much power?

And why has the rest of the city government ceded it?

Sunday, July 4, 2010

McCain's Odd Self-Assessing Suggestion To Michael Steele

It's like asking Tony Hayward to assess his ability to lead BP.

We Need To Apologize To The Oil Companies

How dare we consider changing the rules and imposing taxes on the industry?

Fighting Words: Town Of Waukesha Recall A Primer On The Politics Of Water

As I've written here before, there are two Waukeshas that border each other: the more -populous City and more rural Town.

Both have water concerns and their current internal and mutual struggles indicate how dicey the issues can get.

It's well-known that the City is proposing to move off its deep wells to a Lake Michigan supply.

And in the short-term, sink five shallow wells in the Town through eminent domain aimed at a water-rich piece of land called the Lathers property.

That has the Town upset, and citizens have initiated recall elections against two Town supervisors for allegedly not fighting the shallow well plan.

Thus, the opponents say, lining up more with the City than the Town.

If that's not contentious enough for you, consider this:

The City's Lake Michigan diversion plan application, without input from the Town, will expand the City's water supply system into parts of the Town - - which could encourage building, traffic, taxpayer-paid service demands and loss of open space in the Town.

Annexations could follow, turning some Town residents into City residents, which some Town residents tell me they fear.

Some Town residents believe that being added to the City's water supply area will eventually, one way or another, force them onto City water, at greater per-gallon costs - - so while you would think the Town would like the Lake Michigan plan because it would decrease the need for the Lathers wells, it doesn't necessarily work out that way.

And no one has asked Town residents for their opinion of the Lake Michigan plan - - a matter I have raised on my blog that adds to the political weakness of the application..

The bottom line: When it comes to water, you better include everyone in the decision-making.

Transparency should be the constant.

And if a Town is involved, double these admonitions, because no where are water rights more sacrosanct and defended than in the relatively rural, conservation-minded Wisconsin towns.

Note that the Town of Waukesha recall effort has turned to the Internet, as this was the July 4th message:

Save Our Town of Waukesha, LLC

Greetings!

HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY!

We wish you and your family a happy 4th of July!

We value our independence and celebrate the rights our forefathers

put in place for us on this day and everyday.

As you celebrate remember an important day is just around the corner, vote a week from Tuesday, July 13th.

If you have any questions about the election or the issues we would be happy to help, go to the following link: www.saveourtown.info

and send an email or call through the 'Contact Us' page.

Get involved, talk to your neighbors and friends, make a difference!

Sincerely,

Save Our Town Constituent Committee

www.saveourtown.info

Waukesha Mayor Jeff Scrima's Freeman Op-Ed: A Repeat Version Below

An earlier posting may not be showing up on some screens, so try this one:

Little Red Riding Hood was too easily fooled. The wolf in disguise didn’t have her best interest at heart.

Whose interests are being served by the present discussions about Waukesha water? Whose pockets are being lined? Whose wallets are being tapped? Whose future is being secured?

Let’s examine the facts.

The lobbying group “Sustainable Water Supply Coalition” (the same group that ran the full page ads in the Freeman newspaper before the election) recently convinced Waukesha County Chamber of Commerce to rally a petition. The petition, as well as their survey, is designed to push the City of Waukesha Common Council towards Lake Michigan water.

Whose interests are being served here?

City of Waukesha residents need to be aware that the same lobbying group, the “Sustainable Water Supply Coalition,” also supports “creating rate-free water districts for business development in the City of Milwaukee as a creative manner to attract new business… further positioning Milwaukee as an innovative and resource-ready location for business growth” (Letter from Sustainable Water Supply Coalition to the Milwaukee 7, dated February 5, 2010). In other words, while this lobbying group is pushing for the City of Waukesha to purchase Lake Michigan water, they are also pushing for a way to create and help pay for “rate-free districts for business development in the City of Milwaukee.”

Moreover, this lobbying group promotes the “sustainable use of the deep sandstone aquifer so the current elevation of the drawdown is optimally raised. Such efforts will preserve the opportunity for sandstone aquifer-reliant communities to continue to rely on this needed water source for long-term supply.” (also in the Letter from Sustainable Water Supply Coalition to the Milwaukee 7, dated February 5, 2010). Translation: if the City of Waukesha connects to Milwaukee water and goes off the deep sandstone aquifer, more water will remain in the deep sandstone aquifer to supply other communities.

It would seem that they want Waukesha residents to abdicate their future water to Milwaukee so as to reduce the cost of water for the rest of Waukesha County. Whose interests are being served here?

Milwaukee and Waukesha County, not the City of Waukesha and its residents.

Questions

If the City of Waukesha connects to Milwaukee water and water rates soar in the City of Waukesha, will this be an incentive for residents and business to remain or come to the City of Waukesha, or will they move into the rest of Waukesha County where property tax and water rates are less expensive?

Will the “Sustainable Water Supply Coalition,” the Waukesha County Chamber of Commerce, or Waukesha County Government help the City of Waukesha residents and businesses pay for their higher water rates?

If Oak Creek and Racine water sources are truly financially viable options, why doesn’t the City of Waukesha Common Council and Water Utility release these cost estimates to the public?

Remember recent history and connect the dots, don’t be fooled.

The current Application for Great Lakes Water specifically “assumes connection to Milwaukee’s water system” (page 4-29).
Milwaukee Aldermen sent me a letter of concern three days after the election about the water issue.
Waukesha Water Utility is paying lobbying group Martin Schreiber and Associates, Inc. $12,800 per month, who in turn is hiring former Milwaukee Alderman Mike D’Amato to give counsel on the City of Waukesha’s future water source.
The “Sustainable Water Supply Coalition” and Waukesha County Chamber of Commerce join forces to lobby the City of Waukesha Council to promote interests outside of the City of Waukesha, namely Waukesha County and the City of Milwaukee.
Again, it will be the City of Waukesha residents and businesses that will be paying the higher water bills.

Note that under current normal operations, the City of Waukesha Water Utility is providing radium compliant water to its customers. The Application for Great Lakes Water also provides two alternative non-Lake Michigan water solutions.

It is only by having the citizens and businesses in the City of Waukesha well-informed and involved will we be able to move forward with responsibility and accountability.

It’s best not to be fooled by wolves in grandmother’s clothing.

Saturday, July 3, 2010

Climate Change In Wisconsin: The Data

I'm impressed with the statistics gathered in this blog.

More Dirty Air Along The Lakefront

Advisory for Ozone (Orange)

Start Time:	3:00 PM CST Saturday, July 3, 2010
End Time:	11:00 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)

Manage Your DNR Subscriptions:
Add new subscriptions, delete subscriptions, and manage your profile.

If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please contact support@govdelivery.com. Other inquiries can be directed to the DNR.

Waukesha Mayor In A Freeman Op-Ed

Below is the text of an op-ed on the current Waukesha water and political situation written by Mayor Jeff Scrima [Note also that I will repost this, as some readers report they cannot see the version directly below. There may be a formatting error):