Underwood Creek As Wastewater Conduit Needs Profound Waukesha Study, DNR Says

In its application for a Lake Michigan diversion, the City of Waukesha proposes dumping most of its treated wastewater into Underwood Creek in Wauwatosa as a cut-rate return route to Lake Michigan - - cheaper, say than a pipeline to the lake or to the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District.

And had claimed that the Underwood Creek scheme would have no adverse impacts.

In its recent letter to Waukesha citing deficiencies and raising numerous questions about the diversion application - - full text at this link - -  the Department of Natural Resources asked for substantial additional information about the return flow proposal.

"The list is organized by the statutory standards contained in s. 281.346, Wis. Stats. The statutory standard is listed first followed by the additional information that is required. Standard: s. 281.346(4)(f)4., Wis. Stats. “No water from outside the Great Lakes basin will be returned to the source watershed unless all of the following apply: a. The returned water is from a water supply or wastewater treatment system that combines water from inside and outside the Great Lakes basin. b. The returned water will be treated to meet applicable permit requirements under s. 283.31 and to prevent the introduction of invasive species into the Great Lakes basin and the department has approved the permit under s. 283.31. c. If the water is returned through a structure on the bed of a navigable water, the structure is designed and will be operated to meet the applicable permit requirements under s. 30.12 and the department has approved the permit under s. 30.12.”

RF6. Please be aware that there are new water quality standards that may impact the wastewater discharge permit limits. The new standards include thermal and phosphorus requirements.

RF7. Provide conceptual plans for the outfall structure. Please be aware that aeration will be required at the outfall to ensure adequate dissolved oxygen. The costs associated with aeration should be included in the project costs.

RF8. Provide the hydrologic and hydraulic models demonstrating that the return flow and outfall structure will not increase the regional flood elevations by 0.01 feet or more. Please explain whether the model included the surcharge discharge onto the flows used in HEC-RAS model or if they modified a HSPF continuous simulation model. Which hydrology and hydraulics models were used as the “base model”?

RF9. Provide documentation of a willing riparian property owner at the proposed location(s) of the outfall(s). The documentation should be in the form of a signed letter or similar document stating that the riparian is willing to be a co-applicant with the City of Waukesha for the proposed outfall structure.

RF10. Identify the potential vectors or opportunities for introducing or spreading invasive species and viruses (e.g., Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS)). What best management practices will be employed to either prevent the introduction or the spread of any identified species or viruses? Please include all aspects of the project including construction and ongoing operation.

Standard: s. 281.346(4)(f)4m., Wis. Stats. “If water will be returned to the source watershed through a stream tributary to one of the Great Lakes, the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the receiving water under subd. 3. will be protected and sustained as required under ss. 30.12, 281.15, and 283.31, considering the state of the receiving water before the proposal is implemented and considering both low and high flow conditions and potential adverse impacts due to changes in temperature and nutrient loadings.

RF11. On page 9 of Appendix H to the application, the information references modeling that shows a decrease in Chlorophyll A, even though phosphorus levels increase. Do the adjusted model’s Chlorophyll A levels pertain only to planktonic algae, or does it account for periphyton communities as well? If they do not apply to the periphyton community, please provide a prediction of the increase or decrease in the periphyton community biomass of Underwood Creek and the Menomonee River due to increased nutrient loadings.

RF12. On page 7 of Appendix G to the application, the indicator fish species is identified as Northern pike. Why was the Northern pike chosen as the indicator species for Underwood Creek? Also, what is the source for stating the average maximum swimming speed for Northern pike?

RF13. What are the expected impacts of the discharge on the different individual fish species in Underwood Creek? What are the expected impacts of the changes in discharge on the different individual fish species in the Fox River?

RF14. The proposed discharge to Underwood Creek is a substantial increase over the current base flow conditions. In addition, the change in discharge volumes to the Fox River could also have a substantial impact. What are the changes in flashiness to both Underwood Creek and the Fox River from the proposed discharge plan? That is, what are the relative rates of change in discharge—daily and seasonally, during summer and spring critical times. How will this flashiness impact habitat development, invertebrates, and fish? (See David B. Baker, R. Peter Richards, Timothy T. Loftus, and Jack W. Kramer, A New Flashiness Index: Characteristics and Applications to Midwestern Rivers and Streams, Journal of the American Water Resources Association, April 2004 for more information.)

RF15. Provide a reference to the scientific literature, study results, or expertise that was used to conclude that the proposed discharge to Underwood Creek will result in habitat improvement and overall benefits to fish and invertebrate communities.

RF16. Appendix G to the application mentions that the increased flows from the discharge will not significantly contribute to sediment transport (page 6 of 8). However, Appendix L (page 7) states:

“These increases will have a negligible effect on the hydraulic and geomorphic conditions in the creek, but the increase in flow is expected to benefit the habitat within the creek during baseflow periods by reducing the extent to which fine sediments fill the coarse sediment substrate (embeddedness), providing deeper pools and riffles for more functional fish passage, and providing more wetted perimeter to support a greater benthic community.” If the embeddedness is reduced due to the increase in the base flow, that means that sediment is carried and deposited somewhere, which seems contrary to the statement that the discharge will not significantly contribute to sediment transport. Please explain this perceived contradiction.

Standards: s. 281.346(4)(f)5., Wis. Stats. “The diversion will result in no significant adverse individual impacts or cumulative impacts to the quantity or quality of the waters of the Great Lakes basin or to water dependent natural resources, including cumulative impacts that might result due to any precedent-setting aspects of the proposed diversion, based upon a determination that the proposed diversion will not have any significant adverse impacts on the sustainable management of the waters of the Great Lakes basin.”; s. 281.346(4)(f)7., Wis. Stats. “The diversion will be in compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws and interstate and international agreements, including the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909.”

RF17. Provide more information on the expected adverse environmental impacts including the nature and extent of impacts to wildlife, endangered resources, and natural communities, whether these impacts are permanent or temporary, and whether they can be mitigated.

(For questions on this request, please contact Shari Koslowsky at (608) 261-4382)"

Xoff Has Advice For Feingold Media Adviser

'Stop flapping your gums.'

GOP Disregards The Needy, OWN Steps In

One Wisconsin Now will raise money and plenty of awareness at an alternative inaugural event.

Pretty imaginative.

Wisconsin Still An Obesity Growth Area, Dunkin' Donuts Discovers

36 new restaurants coming.

Really.

Waukesha Water Expansion On DNR, Environmentalists' Radar

I've been writing for months that the City of Waukesha's plan to extend Lake Michigan water service to portions of neighboring communities like Pewaukee, and the Towns of Waukesha and Genesee presented problems - - among others - - for the city's water diversion application, long-range planning and relationships with governing bodies near and far.

I think it's the application's weakest link.

In fact, the smaller, more rural Town is already in court with the City over water issues; a belief by town residents that officials there did not adequately represent the Town's in its water rights struggle with the City recently led to the recall and replacement of two town board members.

More here.

The Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission provided on request, and without public review, the expanded service territory map for Waukesha's diversion application - - adding 80% to Waukesha's current service territory land mass - - therefore setting the stage for annexations, hookups and water rate impacts in the Town and other municipalities that may or may not be welcomed.

As I asked in a June 7th posting about the other communities' inclusion in the application and water service plan:

"Should their residents be given the chance to debate it? Ask Waukesha officials questions about it? Publicly?

Note that a separate plan by the City of Waukesha to annex land in the Town of Waukesha for a a new round of shallow wells already sparked a recall of Town of Waukesha board members, so water supply issues between and among Waukesha County neighbors are closely-followed.

And given the plan to distribute water into portions of these three municipalities, is this sentence from the application accurate:

"A Lake Michigan supply for the City is sustainable, protective of public health, and results in more effective management, and improvement, of the waters and water dependent natural resources of the Great Lakes Basin."

Are we talking about a supply for the City, or a regional supply for and from the City - - with potential political and economic ramifications for growth and costs in a multi-municipality area?

Additionally, should those communities have a say in which city - - Oak Creek, Racine or Milwaukee - - the City of Waukesha would select if the application receives diversion approvals from all eight Great Lakes states?

It may be that those additional communities like the plan, in which case a vote by their governing bodies should be easy to obtain.

Unless some residents do not want to be hooked up.

But is anyone going to ask them?"

Looks to me like the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, in its preliminary, 49 detailed question areas for the City of Waukesha about the diversion application, wants those other communities brought into the process - - but how is that going to unfold since they have been left out of the loop so far?

And why didn't SEWRPC or the City of Waukesha do that from the outset?


Here's what the DNR told the City of Waukesha to do on this matter, and it's no simple feat:

"Although the City has included a water supply service area plan in its application for Lake Michigan water supply, several deficiencies have been identified in the plan.

Specific information requests related to the statutory water supply service area plan requirements are itemized below.

Standards: Public review and comment of a proposed water supply service area plan [s. 281.348(3)(b)1, Wis. Stats.;, and approval of a plan by the governing body of each city, village, and town whose public water supply is addressed by the plan before the plan is submitted to the department. [s. 281.348(3)(b)2, Wis. Stats.]. .

WS1. Document the public participation process conducted for the proposed water supply service area plan.

Also, you’ll need to provide evidence that the governing bodies of the towns of Waukesha, Genesee, and any other city, village or town addressed by the plan have approved the Water Supply Service Area Plan prior to re- submittal."

And let's not forget that the expanded service territory raises another fundamental issue:

Should water be diverted from the Great Lakes, under the strict exceptions spelled out in the Great Lakes Compact of 2008, to assist one community's growth and sprawl?

In a recent interview on WUWM-FM, Daniel Duchniak, the Waukesha Water Utility general manager and principal advocate for the diversion application, said the expanded service territory map was only a planning tool but acknowledged that the expansion was part of the reason Waukesha was asking in its application to divert a lot more water than it currently uses.

That assumption was challenged by a Milwaukee water expert - - a further indication that the service territory issue in its totality makes the application problematic.

From the interview:

"Duchniak says Waukesha’s future water needs must be included in its strategy.

On a map, he points to the city’s current 22-square mile service area. Waukesha’s water application folds in 17 additional miles, primarily situated beyond the city’s southern and western perimeter.

Duchniak says because there could be growth in that area, Waukesha is requesting in its Great Lakes application, more than twice as much water as the eight million gallons it currently uses each day.

“I’m not here to dictate whether someone can or cannot dev their property – that’s not my job. My job is to plan for the future and what could potentially happen and then we’ll let the leaders of the city determine how and what develops,” Duchniak says.

Folding “growth” into the application worries Peter McAvoy. He says its not in keeping with the Great Lakes Compact..

McAvoy says.

McAvoy belongs to a coalition of environmental conservation organizations determined to see the Great Lakes Compact implemented “to the letter” in Wisconsin.

He hopes the DNR review process fills in what he calls fundamental gaps in the application.

“What we’re asking for is a side-by-side comparison between all the alternatives to that we, you all, can reasonably make a decision about what is reasonable and what isn’t,” McAvoy says."

See why I said the expansion was the application's weakest link?

This is what I said about it in a July 1 posting:

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.

 

Bill Sell Does The Roads/Rail Math

Nicely-done and displayed.

More calculations, here.

Waukesha About To Enter Year Twenty-Six Of Water Compliance Studies

Talk about water and money over the dam...

Same for the money it was spending in 1983 to undermine the validity of the federal radium standard, which has led the city to find, and ponder, a radium-free water supply.

And missed opportunities?

For goodness sakes - - Waukesha could have resolved its radium problem if it had spent between $4 and $6 million on water treatment technology in 1988, according to this Milwaukee Sentinel story.

Fast-forward to the present, where Waukesha is looking at a minimum estimated cost of $164 million to bring in Lake Michigan water to finally comply under the terms of a legal settlement - - its 1980's scheming and fighting having failed - - with the radium standard, and has spent at least $1 million since 2005 on studies and preparation of an application for the diversion that has been on hold at the DNR since May, and about which the DNR is raising a mountain of complex and costly questions.

Waukesha's Water Plan Problems Are Self-Inflicted

Call them Waukesha's missed opportunities - - all the public submissions of concerns from environmental organizations (they do work with water law and policy experts, you know) that could have improved the city's Lake Michigan diversion application and avoided some of the Department of Natural Resource's continuing and devastatingly-detailed concerns.

[I will publish the text of a lengthy letter from the DNR to the City about the application's deficiencies, Monday, right below this posting.]

(You can follow the DNR's procedural approach, initial evaluation and communications with Waukesha about the application at the agency's dedicated and very nicely-organized diversion website.)

As to those missed opportunities offered by environmental organizations - - dismissively called a "special interest" by Waukesha Common Council President Paul Ybarra - - I've catalogued a few of them for your perusal here.

Also: before the Waukesha Common Council approved the application in April, I offered this observation in a March posting:

"Several citizens and representatives from three environmental organizations - - Midwest Environmental Advocates - - a public interest law firm - - Milwaukee Riverkeeper, and the Waukesha County Environmental Action League raised detailed and substantive concerns and questions about the pending draft application, but Waukesha officials, while welcoming the comments, did not appear particularly moved by the observations and the commenters' criticisms.

Including suggestions that the application was fundamentally flawed under terms of the all-important Great Lakes Compact...

While Waukesha says it is still taking comments and doing studies and planning more meetings and expects multiple reviews before there are irrevocable decisions, it feels like the city is already...locking in a precedent-setting quest for Great Lakes water though any one of seven other states' Governors could nix the whole thing.

Will Waukesha slow itself down, and get its application right, or fully compare and explore every alternative on the table?

It sure doesn't feel that way."

And in a July 7th posting, I quoted from a June 8th DNR letter to Waukesha Mayor Jeff Scrima that indicated where the DNR wanted the city's application improved - -  and which we now can see was a precursor to what the DNR told Waukesha last week in 49 lengthy and often multi-layered questions that it wants the city to answer, and add to the application.

Said the DNR five months ago:

"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."

So I ask again:

Will Waukesha slow itself down, and get its application right, and fully compare and explore every alternative on the table - - and perhaps listen to its critics who have been saying much the same thing since 2009?

It sure doesn't feel that way.

The DNR Has 49 Question Areas About Waukesha's Water Diversion Plan: Hold On To Your Hat

In several recent postings (one, here), I made reference to the detailed request for information from the City of Waukesha by the Department of Natural Resources to cure "deficiencies" that the DNR has found in the city's Lake Michigan water diversion application.

Rather than put up another link, I am posting below the full text of the letter, and you can decide whether Waukesha's Common Council in April prematurely voted to approve the application and send it on to the DNR for review.

Note that the letter contained issues Waukesha and the DNR were to discuss at a meeting on November 18th, but was canceled by Waukesha because it didn't didn't want environmental organization representatives  - - a "special interest,"it claimed, to attend as observers.

If the application eventually passes muster at the DNR - - and that will include public hearings and the completion of an Environmental Impact Statement down the road - - the other seven Great Lakes states each then get a crack at posing their own questions, too.

All I'll say is that I worked for the Mayors of Milwaukee and Madison for 13 years, and the same amount of time as a reporter and editor at the Milwaukee Journal and Journal Sentinel working on government stories, and never saw a letter from one Wisconsin unit of government to another quite like this one.

Here is the text:

December 2, 2010

Paul R. Ybarra Common Council President, City of Waukesha Waukesha, WI 53188
Subject: City of Waukesha Great Lakes Water Diversion Application Dear Mr. Ybarra:

Secretary Frank has asked me to follow up with you regarding the City of Waukesha application for a diversion of Great Lakes water. In light of the fact that the meeting scheduled for November 18th did not take place, this letter is intended to provide the city with more detail about the questions that have been generated by our staff’s initial review of the city’s application.

The department is committed to an independent, thorough and transparent review of the application under the standards and requirements of the Great Lakes Compact and the State’s implementing statutes and administrative codes.    The facts that provide the basis for analysis of the relevant scientific, engineering, environmental, and financial issues are by their nature detailed and highly technical.

We trust that the questions set forth in this letter will provide guidance to the city as you gather the information the department is requesting. It is important that we have this information so that we can thoroughly analyze the City of Waukesha’s diversion application against the standards required by law.

The questions and additional information needed are organized according to three main topic areas of the application: return flow issues; issues associated with water supply alternatives; and issues associated with water conservation and efficiency requirements.

Within each area, a Compact standard or requirement of the State’s implementing statutes or administrative codes is listed, followed by questions or comments related to the City’s need to comply with the specific standard or requirement.

A.    Issues Related to Return Flow Alternatives

Contact: Kristy Rogers, Kristy.Rogers@Wisconsin.gov, 608-266-9254

Standards: s. 281.346(4)(e)1.c., Wis. Stats. “The proposal maximizes the amount of water withdrawn from the Great Lakes basin that will be returned to the source watershed and minimizes the amount of water from outside the Great Lakes basin that will be returned to the source watershed.”; s. 281.346(4)(f)3., Wis. Stats. “An amount of water equal to the amount of water withdrawn from the Great Lakes basin will be returned to the source watershed, less an allowance for consumptive use.”

RF1. How much water will the Waukesha wastewater treatment plant continue to receive from the Mississippi Basin? Provide a table and graph showing the daily volumes of wastewater received from other communities/areas that will not receive Lake Michigan water for the years 2007-2010, and include information on any proposed increased or decreased flows from these areas.

RF2. Provide a table and graph showing how the proposed return flow management plan would have worked for 2005 and 2008 based on the actual daily flows during those years. How much water would have been returned to Underwood Creek versus the Fox River?

RF3. Provide the conceptual plans for the physical components that will be used for changing the effluent flow between the two discharge points.

RF4. What specific criteria will be used to decide when and how much water will be returned to the Fox River versus Underwood Creek? (E.g., No flow will be discharged when the flow in Underwood Creek is X (amount) based upon a measurement at Y (location)?, etc.)

Standard: s. 281.346(4)(f)3m., Wis. Stats. “The place at which the water is returned to the source watershed is as close as practicable to the place at which the water is withdrawn, unless the applicant demonstrates that returning the water at that place is one of the following: a. Not economically feasible. b. Not environmentally sound. c. Not in the interest of public health.”

RF5. For each proposed water supply alternative, provide an analysis showing a return flow option that complies with the above standard. The current application only includes an analysis for the Milwaukee water supply alternative. In addition, the current application only provides information showing that returning the water to Underwood Creek is the least cost alternative but does not demonstrate that it is not economically feasible, not environmentally sound, or not in the interest of public health to return the water to Lake Michigan as close as practicable to the withdrawal site.

To analyze the economic feasibility of the various return flow options, you should evaluate the financial effects of these options on both water supply and wastewater ratepayers. The utility should prepare rate studies for the various return flow options using procedures that are consistent with current state and local rate setting practices.

These studies should evaluate the water and wastewater rate impacts to the average residential customer, and other representative customers, under several of the proposed financing and operational scenarios for the project (E.g., under a project financed and operated wholly by the water utility; under a project financed in part through grants or other non-water utility sources; under a scenario where portions of the operation are turned over to the wastewater utility for operation after construction, etc.).

You will likely need to retain a rate consultant to assist in this evaluation. Please contact Kristy Rogers to discuss your proposed plan prior to conducting the requested analysis for economic feasibility.

The following is a list of the additional information that is required for the review of the return flow portion of your application.

The list is organized by the statutory standards contained in s. 281.346, Wis. Stats. The statutory standard is listed first followed by the additional information that is required.

Standard: s. 281.346(4)(f)4., Wis. Stats. “No water from outside the Great Lakes basin will be returned to the source watershed unless all of the following apply: a. The returned water is from a water supply or wastewater treatment system that combines water from inside and outside the Great Lakes basin. b. The returned water will be treated to meet applicable permit requirements under s. 283.31 and to prevent the introduction of invasive species into the Great Lakes basin and the department has approved the permit under s. 283.31. c. If the water is returned through a structure on the bed of a navigable water, the structure is designed and will be operated to meet the applicable permit requirements under s. 30.12 and the department has approved the permit under s. 30.12.”

RF6. Please be aware that there are new water quality standards that may impact the wastewater discharge permit limits. The new standards include thermal and phosphorus requirements.

RF7. Provide conceptual plans for the outfall structure. Please be aware that aeration will be required at the outfall to ensure adequate dissolved oxygen. The costs associated with aeration should be included in the project costs.

RF8. Provide the hydrologic and hydraulic models demonstrating that the return flow and outfall structure will not increase the regional flood elevations by 0.01 feet or more. Please explain whether the model included the surcharge discharge onto the flows used in HEC-RAS model or if they modified a HSPF continuous simulation model. Which hydrology and hydraulics models were used as the “base model”?

RF9. Provide documentation of a willing riparian property owner at the proposed location(s) of the outfall(s). The documentation should be in the form of a signed letter or similar document stating that the riparian is willing to be a co-applicant with the City of Waukesha for the proposed outfall structure.

RF10. Identify the potential vectors or opportunities for introducing or spreading invasive species and viruses (e.g., Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS)). What best management practices will be employed to either prevent the introduction or the spread of any identified species or viruses? Please include all aspects of the project including construction and ongoing operation.

Standard: s. 281.346(4)(f)4m., Wis. Stats. “If water will be returned to the source watershed through a stream tributary to one of the Great Lakes, the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the receiving water under subd. 3. will be protected and sustained as required under ss. 30.12, 281.15, and 283.31, considering the state of the receiving water before the proposal is implemented and considering both low and high flow conditions and potential adverse impacts due to changes in temperature and nutrient loadings.

RF11. On page 9 of Appendix H to the application, the information references modeling that shows a decrease in Chlorophyll A, even though phosphorus levels increase. Do the adjusted model’s Chlorophyll A levels pertain only to planktonic algae, or does it account for periphyton communities as well? If they do not apply to the periphyton community, please provide a prediction of the increase or decrease in the periphyton community biomass of Underwood Creek and the Menomonee River due to increased nutrient loadings.

RF12. On page 7 of Appendix G to the application, the indicator fish species is identified as Northern pike. Why was the Northern pike chosen as the indicator species for Underwood Creek? Also, what is the source for stating the average maximum swimming speed for Northern pike?

RF13. What are the expected impacts of the discharge on the different individual fish species in Underwood Creek? What are the expected impacts of the changes in discharge on the different individual fish species in the Fox River?

RF14. The proposed discharge to Underwood Creek is a substantial increase over the current base flow conditions. In addition, the change in discharge volumes to the Fox River could also have a substantial impact. What are the changes in flashiness to both Underwood Creek and the Fox River from the proposed discharge plan? That is, what are the relative rates of change in discharge—daily and seasonally, during summer and spring critical times. How will this flashiness impact habitat development, invertebrates, and fish? (See David B. Baker, R. Peter Richards, Timothy T. Loftus, and Jack W. Kramer, A New Flashiness Index: Characteristics and Applications to Midwestern Rivers and Streams, Journal of the American Water Resources Association, April 2004 for more information.)

RF15. Provide a reference to the scientific literature, study results, or expertise that was used to conclude that the proposed discharge to Underwood Creek will result in habitat improvement and overall benefits to fish and invertebrate communities.

RF16. Appendix G to the application mentions that the increased flows from the discharge will not significantly contribute to sediment transport (page 6 of 8). However, Appendix L (page 7) states:

“These increases will have a negligible effect on the hydraulic and geomorphic conditions in the creek, but the increase in flow is expected to benefit the habitat within the creek during baseflow periods by reducing the extent to which fine sediments fill the coarse sediment substrate (embeddedness), providing deeper pools and riffles for more functional fish passage, and providing more wetted perimeter to support a greater benthic community.” If the embeddedness is reduced due to the increase in the base flow, that means that sediment is carried and deposited somewhere, which seems contrary to the statement that the discharge will not significantly contribute to sediment transport. Please explain this perceived contradiction.

Standards: s. 281.346(4)(f)5., Wis. Stats. “The diversion will result in no significant adverse individual impacts or cumulative impacts to the quantity or quality of the waters of the Great Lakes basin or to water dependent natural resources, including cumulative impacts that might result due to any precedent-setting aspects of the proposed diversion, based upon a determination that the proposed diversion will not have any significant adverse impacts on the sustainable management of the waters of the Great Lakes basin.”; s. 281.346(4)(f)7., Wis. Stats. “The diversion will be in compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws and interstate and international agreements, including the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909.”

RF17. Provide more information on the expected adverse environmental impacts including the nature and extent of impacts to wildlife, endangered resources, and natural communities, whether these impacts are permanent or temporary, and whether they can be mitigated.

(For questions on this request, please contact Shari Koslowsky at (608) 261-4382)

RF18. Provide a relative comparison of wildlife, natural community, and endangered resource impacts among the various supply and return flow pipeline routes.

RF19. How much of the alternative return flow pipeline routes would share corridors with existing utilities?

RF20. Provide a description of the aquatic and benthic communities at the proposed Lake Michigan outfall.

RF21. Re: Appendix N, 3.3.2 (Page 3-5): Provide a description of the relative occurrence of any of these communities along the various supply and return flow routes.

RF22. Re: Appendix N, Page 3-8, Paragraph 1. A historical occurrence should only be excluded if suitable habitat no longer exists. Does suitable habitat for these species exist in the affected areas? Please name the “alternative corridor” referred to in the last sentence of paragraph 1.

RF23. Please be aware that at this time in the process, it is unknown whether or not an incidental take permit will be needed for any of the alternatives. Consultation is ongoing and includes, but is not necessarily limited to, impacts to species in Vernon Marsh and rare fish species in the affected waterways.

RF24. Please be aware that you will need to complete a practicable alternatives analysis pursuant to NR 103 for all proposed wetland impacts as part of your formal Waterway and Wetland permit application for the project. The alternatives analysis may have an impact on the water supply and return flow pipeline routes or the methods for installing the pipelines.

Other:

RF25. Provide one additional color copy of the application and environmental impact report. RF26. Provide a copy of the comments that you have received from MMSD concerning return flow to Underwood Creek. RF27. Please be aware that the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission will need to review any changes in effluent discharge and amend the Regional Water Quality Management Plan as appropriate prior to the Department’s final approval of any needed wastewater facility plans.

B.    Issues Related to Water Supply Alternatives

Contact: Dino Tsoris, Constantine.Tsoris@Wisconsin.gov, 608-267-4581
The department has conducted a limited review of the water supply provisions of the City’s application and the “Water Supply Service Area Plan for the City of Waukesha” submitted as part of the application for Lake Michigan water.

The department reviewed the plan in reference to s. 281.346 (4), Stats., and s. 281.348, Stats. The City should ensure that they submit a water supply service area plan that complies with all of the requirements in s. 281.348 including:

1) identification of water supply options that are based on a cost- effectiveness analysis of regional and individual water supply and conservation alternatives; 2) a delineated water supply service area; 3) forecast populations and water demand projections; 4) an assessment of environmental impacts of implementing the water supply alternatives;
5) an analysis of how the plan is consistent with comprehensive and other planning processes; and 6) a public participation process, including review and comment, for a proposed water supply service area plan.

Although the City has included a water supply service area plan in its application for Lake Michigan water supply, several deficiencies have been identified in the plan.

Specific information requests related to the statutory water supply service area plan requirements are itemized below.

Standards: Public review and comment of a proposed water supply service area plan [s. 281.348(3)(b)1, Wis. Stats.;, and approval of a plan by the governing body of each city, village, and town whose public water supply is addressed by the plan before the plan is submitted to the department. [s. 281.348(3)(b)2, Wis. Stats.]. .

WS1. Document the public participation process conducted for the proposed water supply service area plan. Also, you’ll need to provide evidence that the governing bodies of the towns of Waukesha, Genesee, and any other city, village or town addressed by the plan have approved the Water Supply Service Area Plan prior to re- submittal.

Standard: An analysis of how the plan supports and is consistent with any applicable comprehensive plans, as defined in s. 66.1001(1)(a), and applicable approved areawide water quality management plans under s. 283.83, [s. 281.348(3)(c)8, Wis. Stats.].

WS2. Provide an analysis of how the water supply service area plan is consistent with any approved comprehensive plans. Document how the plan is consistent with key elements of comprehensive planning, including: utilities and community facilities; housing; land use; natural resources; economic development; and implementation.

WS3. The water supply service area plan should also describe how the water supply service area plan is consistent with any approved applicable areawide water quality management plan under s. 283.83, Wis. Stats., and ch. NR 121, Wis. Admin. Code.

Specifically, describe how the water supply service area plan is consistent with the goals and objectives of the sewer service area plan and areawide water quality management plan; describe how the water supply service area plan is consistent with any specific plan recommendations in the sewer service area plan or water quality management plan including issues related to wastewater infrastructure and effluent.

Standard: Identification of the options for supplying water in the area for the period covered by the plan that are approvable under other applicable statutes and rules and that are cost-effective based upon a cost-effectiveness analysis of regional and water conservation alternatives. [s. 281.348(3)(c)4, Wis. Stats.]

The following is a list of the additional information that is required for the review of the water supply alternatives portion of your application. The list is organized by the statutory standards contained in s. 281.346, Wis. Stats. The statutory standard is listed first followed by the additional information that is required.

WS4. Provide an analysis of water conservation alternatives that includes all appropriate water conservation and efficiency measures (CEMs) and include a cost-effectiveness analysis of the CEMs for each water supply alternative. Also provide documentation that the water conservation alternatives analysis complies with ch. NR 852 Water Conservation and Water Use Efficiency. (See Section ‘C’ “Issues Related to Water Conservation & Efficiency” below).

Standard: There is no reasonable water supply alternative within the watershed in which the community is located, including conservation of the existing water supplies as determined under par. (g). [s.
281.346(4)(e)1d].

WS5. Provide additional, detailed information describing the method used to determine the percentage of water demand offset by water conservation (i.e., the selected 10 percent average day demand reduction that has been factored into the water demand forecasts).
Standard: Environmental Impact Report, City of Waukesha Water Supply. Compilation of public comments. [s. 281.348(3)(b)1, Wis. Stats.]

WS6. The environmental impact report for the City of Waukesha Water Supply states on page xviii that four public meetings have been held in 2010, including one meeting in a surrounding community and that "a compilation of comments received from the 2010 meetings and other public involvement processes will be provided to the department under separate submittal". Please submit the comments to the department for review.

Standards: Water Supply Alternatives Evaluation “Reasonable water supply alternative” means a water supply alternative that is similar in cost to, and as environmentally sustainable and protective of public health as, the proposed new or increased diversion and that does not have greater adverse environmental impacts than the new or increased diversion. [s.281.346(1)(ps), Wis. Stats.]; and Identification of the options for supplying water in the area covered by the plan that are approvable under other applicable statutes and rules and that are cost-effective based upon cost-effectiveness analysis of regional and individual water supply and conservation alternatives [ss. 281.348(3)(c)4 and 281.346(4)(e)1d, Wis. Stats.]

The application for a new or increased diversion requires that the applicant evaluate all water supply alternatives within the basin in which the community is located, provide information that shows the community is without adequate supplies of potable water, and provide information to the department that demonstrates that there is no reasonable water supply alternative within the basin where the community is located.

The application report documents the elimination of several water supply alternatives. However, additional information must be provided to demonstrate that no reasonable water supply alternative exists within the Mississippi basin. Additional information must be provided related to each of the following water supply alternatives:

Unconfined Deep Aquifer

WS7. Additional information is required to determine whether the unconfined deep aquifer is a viable technical water supply alternative for the City of Waukesha. The 2002 Future Water Supply Study states that the unconfined deep sandstone aquifer is a sustainable and adequate water supply. The 2002 Study also indicates that the unconfined aquifer is a cost-effective option.

Further, the 2002 Study states that two area municipal systems, Oconomowoc and Dousman, have wells that maintain static water levels in the unconfined sandstone aquifer with well depths within 100 ft of ground surface. The 2002 Future Water Supply study states "the aquifer is thinner in this area, generally less than 1,000 feet, but the capacity in the wells is relatively high, generally over 1,000 gpm, due to the ample recharge and high permeability of the sandstone". The 2002 study also states that "water levels are not declining significantly in this area in spite of a large drawdown in the confined portion of the aquifer."

Primary rejection of the unconfined deep water aquifer to the west as an alternative (as stated in the Water Supply Service Area Plan) relates to the alleged potential for legal challenges that would expose the City of Waukesha to potential damage claims from lake area homeowners and municipalities.
Updated cost information must be provided for this alternative.

Also, provide additional information describing what the sustainable water yields from the unconfined deep aquifer would be as a potential water source for the City of Waukesha. What type of well network could be established? Provide information describing sustainable pumping rates from each well.

Silurian Dolomite Aquifer

WS8. Although the Silurian dolomite is dense and has limits to storing and transmitting water, several municipalities have been successful in identifying areas within fractured zones of the dolomite aquifer that have resulted in producing wells with acceptable water yields.

The 2002 Future Water Supply Study states that the probability of obtaining a reasonable well yield from the fractured Silurian dolomite aquifer occurs when the aquifer is at least 150 - 200 feet thick. The study also states that there area several municipalities in the area with wells producing from intervals of the fractured dolomite aquifer at a rate of 1,400 gpm, although capacities of 500 - 700 gpm are more common.

There are areas in the northeast portion the City of Waukesha and areas southeast of the City of Waukesha where the dolomite aquifer is at least 200 feet thick.

Describe in greater detail the degree to which the areas to the northeast and southeast have been assessed for potential well locations. Also, provide any geophysical data that has been collected identifying any fractured zones in the Silurian dolomite.

Shallow Aquifers, Groundwater Model

WS9. The shallow aquifer and Fox River alluvium alternative has been modeled to identify drawdown effects and environmental impacts based on the groundwater modeling study "Results of Groundwater Modeling Study Shallow Groundwater Source, Fox River & Vernon Marsh Area" March 2010. The groundwater model indicates a large drawdown in areas of the northeast portion of the Vernon Marsh Wildlife Area and a one foot drawdown identified in a large portion of the northern third of the Vernon Marsh Wildlife Area.

Provide in greater detail the natural community and habitat changes and impacts to wildlife and endangered resources to the Vernon Marsh Wildlife Area due to groundwater withdrawals from the shallow aquifer. Also provide an analysis that describes any potential mitigation actions that could lessen the impacts to the Vernon Marsh Wildlife Area.

Additional information may be requested after a more detailed review of the reported drawdown effects and environmental impacts based on the March 2010 groundwater modeling study.

Combinations of Water Source Alternatives (Deep Aquifer, Shallow Aquifers, Fox River Alluvium, Quarries, and the deep unconfined aquifer

WS10. With respect to the technical and cost-effectiveness evaluation of the multiple water source alternative described in the Draft Technical Memorandum, "Review of Water Supply Alternatives", attached to the letter from the City of Waukesha dated July 27, 2010, additional information will need to be provided to the department.
How were the percentages of water supply from each water source determined? Has a maximum sustainable pumping rate been determined for each water source alternative in relation to minimal environmental impacts?

While the Draft Technical Memorandum states that the total cost of the Multiple Water Supply Alternative uses the same criteria as the Application, there is no specific cost associated with each multiple water source presented in the memorandum.

Please identify the costs associated with each water source that combine to make up the total cost represented in Table 1 of the Technical Memorandum. Are there other combinations of water sources that can be considered as part of a multiple water source alternatives analysis (e.g., different pumping rates of water sources or other sources not included in the alternative, such as the Silurian dolomite aquifer or river bank inducement)?

Shallow Aquifer, River Bank Inducement

WS11. The viability of riverbank inducement as a means to augment groundwater supplies in southeastern Wisconsin is being studied by Douglas Cherkauer, Professor Emeritus, UW-Milwaukee; Timothy J. Grundl, Professor, UW-Milwaukee; and Daniel Feinstein, Scientist, USGS. The City should be prepared to evaluate the riverbank inducement alternative based on the technical application and cost-effectiveness of implementing the alternative as a potential water supply for the City of Waukesha.

Lake Michigan Alternative

WS12. Additional information is necessary regarding costs associated with obtaining Lake Michigan water supply from Milwaukee, Oak Creek and Racine. A significant consideration for the City of Waukesha in future negotiations with both the City of Oak Creek and Racine will be the potential need for both cities to request an increased withdrawal to meet the long-term water demands for a Waukesha diversion.

The need for an increased withdrawal would subject the City of Oak Creek or Racine to mandatory water conservation measures specified in ch. NR 852, Water Conservation and Water Use Efficiency. An increase in withdrawal would also subject the City of Oak Creek or Racine to the Compact’s state decision-making standard.

The cities of Oak Creek and Racine should be notified of the likely or potential need for an increased withdrawal along with the associated state decision-making standard and mandatory water conservation and efficiency requirements.

Lake Michigan Alternative

WS13. The application contains no estimate of "sunk costs" or "one time" payments to Milwaukee, Oak Creek or Racine. The City of Waukesha has stated that the sunk costs are included as "contingency" costs in the May 2010 Waukesha Diversion Application. Please present the "sunk" or "one time" costs as a separate, specific cost item in the application.

Lake Michigan Alternative

WS14. The City of Waukesha will need access to utility rights-of-way to construct portions of both the water supply and return pipelines along areas owned or controlled by other public utilities [e.g. WE Energies and American Transmission Company (ATC)].

Provide information that documents that the City has obtained approval or will be able to obtain approval from the other utilities to access their rights-of-way to install pipeline.

Also provide a description of how much of the alternative pipeline routes would share corridors with existing utilities and provide more detailed cost estimates related to construction in the corridors and, if applicable, the relocation of existing utility equipment. For example, if there are any known areas where there are physical restrictions (e.g. power & natural gas lines or limited access areas) to installation of the water supply pipelines, specifically identify those areas and describe how the pipelines would be installed in those areas.

Provide information estimating the costs to install the pipeline where physical constraints are present and where the need for unique trenching or construction actions will be necessary.

C.    Issues Related to Water Conservation & Efficiency

Contact: Steven Elmore, Steve.Elmore@Wisconsin.gov, 608-264-9246

The Water Conservation and Protection Plan (as approved by Waukesha Water Utility, March 2006) submitted with the diversion application, and pp. 2-7 through 2-12 of the May 2010 document “Application for Lake Michigan Water Supply” were reviewed for compliance with the Compact’s water conservation planning requirements as applied to diversion requests from communities within straddling counties. Although the department will complete a more detailed review of these documents, the department must—at a minimum—have the following items before beginning that more detailed review of the water conservation related provisions of the diversion application.

Standard: Persons applying for a new or increased diversion regulated under s. 281.346 (4) (c), (d), and (e), Stats. are categorized into Tier 3. [s. NR 852.02 (3), Wis. Admin. Code]. Note: NR 852 will be published on January 1, 2011; but a copy is available from the DNR’ s web page.

CE1. The City must demonstrate and document compliance with the Tier 3 water conservation and water use efficiency requirements contained in ch. NR 852. More specific comments are enumerated below.

Standard: All persons identified in Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 shall submit with the application for a new or increased withdrawal, diversion, or water loss approval all of the following: (1) A water conservation plan meeting the requirements of s. NR 852.07. (2) Written documentation showing that the person has implemented or completed the CEMs in Table 1 that do not require retrofitting, as applicable for each water use sector. [ss. NR 852.04 (1) and (2), Wis. Admin. Code]

CE2. Water conservation and efficiency measures (CEMs) contained in s. NR 852.04 (2) (Table 1) should be implemented and documentation provided with the diversion application.

CE3. A Water Conservation Plan that complies with s. NR 852.07 and describes conservation and efficiency measures that have been and will be implemented should be submitted to the department for review.

The Water Conservation Plan should address how conservation and efficiency measures will apply now and in the future for water users in the entire Water Supply Service Area, including those not currently receiving water from the Waukesha Water Utility. Water conservation and efficiency measures that need particular attention in this section are PWS-1, Water Audit (including results of the audit).

Standard: Persons identified in Tier 2 and Tier 3 shall complete the elements specified in s. NR 852.04 and the elements specified under either sub. (2) or (3). NR 852.05 (2) A person identified in Tier 2 or Tier 3 shall implement all CEMs identified in Table 2 for the applicable water use sector that do not require retrofitting, except those CEMs that are not cost-effective or environmentally sound and economically feasible, as determined by an analysis conducted by the applicant pursuant to s. NR 852.09 or s. NR 852.10, and approved by the department. (5) For persons applying for a new or increased diversion, the person shall implement the CEMs identified under sub. (1) prior to submitting an application. [s. NR 852.05 and s. NR 852.05 (2) and s. NR 852.05 (5), Wis. Admin. Code]

CE4. CEMs contained in s. NR 852.05 (2) (Table 2) should be implemented and documented in the Water Conservation Plan provided with the diversion application. Water conservation and efficiency measures that The following is a list of the additional information that is required for the review of the water conservation requirements for your application.

The list is organized by the statutory standards contained in s. 281.346, Wis. Stats., and specific regulatory requirements of Ch. NR 852, Wis. Admin. Code—set to be published on January 1, 2011 need particular attention in this section are: PWS-R1, Distribution System Pressure Management; PWS-R2, Residential Demand Management Program; PWS-R3, Commercial and Industrial Demand Management Program; and PWS-R4, Water Reuse (including the results of an analysis that was used to determine feasible options that were implemented).

Standard: In addition to the required elements specified in s. NR 852.04 and s. NR 852.05, persons identified in Tier 3 should conduct the appropriate analysis pursuant to s. NR 852.09 or s. NR 852.10 to identify additional CEMs that are cost effective or environmentally sound and economically feasible and implement the identified CEMs following the applicable timeframes under s. NR 852.05 (2) and (3). [s. NR 852.06 (1), Wis. Admin. Code]

CE5. The City should document its analysis to identify cost-effective or environmentally sound and economically feasible conservation and efficiency measures and provide that documentation to the department with the application. For example, the Alliance for Water Efficiency tool may be a good methodology to conduct this analysis, although other tools or methods of analysis may be used.

Documentation of the implementation of the conservation and efficiency measures identified through this analysis should also be delivered to the department.

Standard: Persons applying for a new or increased diversion shall also document the efficient use and conservation of existing water supplies by providing an analysis of community water use over the past 5 years, at a minimum.

The analysis shall quantitatively describe water use through time and how it has changed with the implementation of CEMs. The analysis shall include quantitative calculations of water use including but not limited to, the ratio of peak daily demand to average daily demand and per capita residential water use. [s. NR 852.06 (2), Wis. Admin. Code]

CE6. A quantitative description of water use by the Waukesha Water Utility and its customers for the past 5 years (at a minimum) should be provided. The analysis should show how implemented CEMs have affected water use.

The analysis should include quantitative calculations of water use, including but not limited to the ratio of peak daily demand to average daily demand and per capita residential water use. All residential water use should be included in this analysis, both single family and multifamily dwellings. The analysis should quantitatively account for the loss of industrial customers, weather variability, and economic considerations in addition to any other identified factors that may have affected withdrawal amounts.

Standard: Documentation of the implementation of the CEMs set forth in s. NR 852.04 (2) and a description of any other existing conservation, efficiency, and reuse measures, including when they were implemented. [s. NR 852.07 (2)(c), Wis. Admin. Code]

CE7. Documentation of prior implementation of Public Water Supply Sector CEMs in Table 1 and Table 2 will need to be included in the Water Conservation Plan. Additional cost effective measures identified by the cost effectiveness analysis, or the analysis of environmental soundness and economic feasibility of measures should be included in the plan along with an implementation timeline.

Standard: A person identified in Tier 3 shall implement CEMs selected from Table 2 in par. (a), the Optional CEM list in s. NR 852.08 (2), or other CEMs as proposed by the applicant and approved by the department, which can be shown to reduce water use or increase water reuse or efficiency by 10 percent, in accordance with ss. NR 852.05 (3) (a) and (b). [s. NR 852.05 (3), Wis. Admin. Code]

CE8. If a 10% reduction option is selected as allowed by this section, additional documentation and a defensible analysis of water use for the most recent complete year should be submitted. Water use and water use intensity should be adjusted to account for unique facility, economic, or weather variability. The water use or water use intensity from the most recent complete year of water use will be the basis of a 10% reduction calculation. The 10% reduction should be in addition to any reduction in water use or increase in water reuse or efficiency achieved through implementing the CEMs set forth in s. NR 852.04 (2) and should not be included in the calculated percent reduction.

The City must select conservation and efficiency measures that can show by way of documentation to reduce water use by 10%, and these measures should be implemented prior to submitting an application.

Please contact Kristy Rogers, Dino Tsoris, or Steve Elmore if you have questions related to requests for additional information listed above. We are also available to meet to discuss any aspects of the application or the items we have identified above.

While we intended this initial review of the application to be as comprehensive as possible, we anticipate that there will be additional information that we will need as we continue our evaluation of the city’s application materials under the Great Lakes Compact standards. We look forward to working cooperatively with the city as we work through the application process.

Sincerely,

Bruce Baker, Administrator Water Division

Cc:  Matt Frank, DNR Secretary Jeff Scrima, City of Waukesha Mayor Dan Duchniak, Waukesha Water Utility Manager Jill Jonas, DG/5 Eric Ebersberger, DG/5

Comment Nails Waukesha's Great Lakes Water Diversion Dilemna

I posted a report about the Department of Natural Resources continuing concerns with the City of Waukesha's troubled and stalled Lake Michigan diversion application - - the agency last week sent Waukesha ten jaw-dropping pages of requests for additional fiscal, legal, and scientific explanations, plans, data, citations, charts, studies, comparisons. - - and it looks like the DNR is telling Waukesha that what its Common Council approved in April after long and expensive preparation needs a do-over.

[I will post the text of the letter Monday.]

Then a short comment showed up that broke through with great clarity:

It's worth re-posting:

"When one reads the DNR letter to Waukesha three things seem certain, no stone will be left unturned, a diversion application is going to cost significantly more than the water utility budgeted (with no predictable outcome), and the cost of a diversion and return flow, or becoming part of MMSD as suggest by the DNR and rejected for consideration by the utility, will likely be significantly more expensive than anticipated.

One would have to believe that rather than continuing the application process, which will likely ultimately conclude that several alternative conceptual plans for a local source of water will have less of an environmental impact and cost less to construct and operate, Waukesha needs to consider all it's options before proceeding further."

Let's Be Honest: The DNR Is Suggesting To Waukesha A Diversion Do-Over

The more I read the Department of Natural Resource's long, detailed, multi-leveled letter to Waukesha about its Lake Michigan water diversion application - - details and commentary, here - - the more I think that the DNR is basically telling Waukesha where and how to rewrite it.

So what have Waukesha water customers been paying for all these months and years as its water utility and consultants have been drafting and touting the document and its production and planning processes?

The DNR's concerns echo issues raised nearly two years ago by environmental organizations.

Raised publicly.

More than once.

Summarized and linked here.

Referenced again here.

And submitted in writing to the Waukesha Water Utility in 2009 - - eventually producing answers - - but apparently without enough incorporation into the diversion application to pass an initial review by the DNR.

That tells me that Waukesha is now paying a price for a severe case of "not-invented here" syndrome.

And now the DNR is burning up staff time to do what the city and water utility should have been doing more effectively a long time ago?

Remember when you were in college, and had a blue book to complete as a final exam - - but drew a blank? Then remembered some one's advice: "Fill in something!"

This time, the exam cam back with an "F", or at best, an incomplete.

Sounds to me as if the Waukesha diversion drafters and proponents did not reach out widely enough for opinion and critiques and substantive advice - - clearly available - - before rushing its application to a Common Council vote in April, and that 'get-something/anything-to-the-DNR' approach is now being proven insufficient and no-doubt costly.

Wisconsin Roads Remain Safer For Motorists, Deadlier For Motorcyclists

And deadlier for pedestrians and bicyclists.

I've been tracking this for a while; motorcyclist deaths this year running about 30% above 2009's rate.

Also, based on WisDOT data supplied to me by email earlier this year,  the previous five-year average for motorcycle driver fatalities is 93.4, including:

92 in 2005, 93 in 2006, 110 in 2007, 88 in 2008 and 84 in 2009 - - so the 2010 fatality total through the end of November already exceeds the five-year  average, and has reversed what had been a downward trend since 2007, when the state's death toll for motorcycle drivers reached 110, an all-time high.

From WisDOT--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Weekly fatality report

As of November 28, 2010

Fatalities
November 2010 fatalities*	37
October 2010 fatalities*	55
September 2010 fatalities*	59
2010 year-to-date fatalities*	519
2010 year-to-date fatal accidents*	477
2009 year-end fatalities	542
2009 year-end fatal accidents	488

Five-year fatal trend comparison
	(Year-to-date)
							2005-2009
	2010*	2009	2008	2007	2006	2005	Average
Fatal accidents	477	449	496	611	606	635	559
Fatalities	519	499	538	690	656	730	623

Fatalities by role
	(Year-to-date)
	2010*	2009
Bicyclists	9	7
Drivers	260	281
Motorcycle-drivers	97	76
Motorcycle-passengers	7	8
Passengers	96	93
Pedestrians	49	32
Unknown	1	2
Total	519	499

*All 2010 data shown is preliminary
Data source: WisDOT-DMV Accident Records database

The figures shown represent traffic fatalities occurring on public traffic ways in Wisconsin reported to the Division of Motor Vehicles-Accident Records Unit as of the date shown at the top of the page. A traffic fatality is reported when death occurs within 30 days (of the accident) as a result of injuries received in the accident. Traffic fatalities are not considered officially reported until the Wisconsin Division of Motor Vehicles-Accident Records Unit has been notified by the investigating law enforcement officer or agency.

If you have questions or need further information, contact us at:

• E-mail: traffic-accidents.dmv@dot.state.wi.us
• Telephone: (608) 266-9288 or (608) 267-1847
• Fax: (608) 261-8201
• Write to the address below:

Accident Records Unit
4802 Sheboygan Ave., Room 804
P.O. Box 7919
Madison, WI 53707-7919

John Gurda's Rail Logic Probably Lost On Scott Walker

The problem is, and will continue to be, that a talk-radio obeisant ideologue like Scott Walker lacks the intellectual curiosity and political courage to think through and reconsider a position.

Regrettably, a thoughtful historian will lose the immediate argument with a stubborn and cocky politician every time, with the longer-term fix costing more money but without replacing or recouping squandered opportunities.

We'll find out more than once in the next four Walker years that truculent chippiness - - "The Madison-to-Milwaukee train is dead" - - might be a good talk radio or Tea Party-inspired stump speech style, but doesn't elevate Wisconsin or help make substantial public policy.

Train Line Operating Costs Falling; Walker Still Says "No"

Lowered-operating cost estimates for the train line between Milwaukee and Madison?

Gov.-elect and train-basher Scott Walker still says "no."

Because it was never about money. The minuscule state operating contribution for the federally-funded train pales in comparison to the billions Walker is fine with pouring into various interstate expansions from Madison to the Dells, and throughout SE Wisconsin and even replacing, as is, the Hoan Bridge, though WisDOT thinks that cost at $250 million is unjustified given less-expensive alternatives available.

For talk radio-driven Republicans like Walker, rail is vote-getting anti-city political code.

And opposing it while praising and spending billions on highways serves to pamper Republican special interests, like the road-builders, the oil companies, and car-centered suburbanites.

DNR Raises Host Of Questions - - Some Sound Familiar - - About Waukesha's Water Application

No wonder Waukesha didn't want observers in the November 18 meeting it canceled with the DNR: The DNR is raising substantial questions about the city's Lake Michigan water diversion application - - and some echo observations made by environmental groups over the last 18 months.

Details from the DNR, here, in a ten-page letter with multiple and substantive questions on each page in basic subject areas. Many of the dozens of questions call for detailed submissions, plans, graphs, charts, etc.

[I will post the full text of the letter Monday.]

Given that the application was a couple of years in drafting, one wonders how at this stage there could be questions so basic and detailed.

The DNR is still labeling the application "deficient" (see DNR website, EIS process button, top)?

The Great Lakes, Others, Are Warming

Our waters are warming along with the air, and the Great Lakes at "statistically significant" rates, says a study in The New York Times.

These are realities that can lead to greater rates of evaporation and rainfall - - with obvious consequences.

No Surprise: Waukesha Wins At SEWRPC

It took five years, requests from organizations like Waukesha County and $1 million - - about a quarter of which was diverted to SEWRPC in 2004 from deed registration fees from Milwaukee County to get it all financed and finished - - but the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission finally approved at its Wednesday meeting a set of water supply recommendations that include piping Lake Michigan water to Waukesha.

Waukesha is hailing the SEWRPC action, but take that with a grain of salt, as I'll explain.

SEWRPC is also recommending that Waukesha be allowed to ship some of the diverted water to a new service territory that is 80% larger in acreage than what it supplies now - - and it will need all the new customers it can get to help finance the possible diversion, should it happen, as it carries a minimum estimated cost of $164 million.

Waukesha will build up the SEWRPC water report adopted Wednesday as some sort of imperative etched in stone, a directive to water regulators in Wisconsin - - who are still sitting on the city's diversion application paperwork and labeling it after eight months, "deficient" - - and a message also to the other Great Lakes states, when, in fact, the water study recommendations, like all SEWRPC findings, are recommendations only.

And can be ignored - - like its recommendations for ag land  or environmental corridor preservation in Waukesha County and elsewhere.

As SEWRPC Executive Director Emeritus Kurt Bauer - - chairman also of the water advisory committee - - himself recounted in a 2007 posting on this blog when discussing the loss of open space SEWRPC had recommended in the region for preservation.

From my interview with him in that posting:

"Pabst Farms was at one time in a prime agricultural area. If the [SEWRPC] Regional Land Use Plan had been followed, it [Pabst Farms] would not have been given over for development...it should have been kept in agricultural, open use."

And as to agriculture in Waukesha County, which Bauer said was a worldwide cattle provider as late as the 1960's?

"Agriculture is pretty much gone there," he said.

Bauer said the key to containing sprawl is land use decision-making at the front end of the planning and development processes because "land use is the key to all these problems that we don't address" - - but he said that residential developers across the region continue to convert open land, with commercial and industrial land following.

"The containment of sprawl: [SEWRPC] has been preaching against it for forty years, but it's crying in the wilderness."

"Pabst Farms is a big change. You can see it," Bauer said.

"But a lot of these changes occur in small increments. What do the Chinese say? 'It's the death by a thousand cuts.'"

Anti- Earmarks Tea Partiers Nail Down $1 billion In...Earmarks

Hypocrites.

Or just another iteration of anti-welfare Republicans bringing home corporate welfare for big business.

Business Editor Notes Various Rail Pressures On Walker

Steve Jagler's piece at OnMilwaukee.com is a good read.

And I agree with Jagler that if Walker does a flip on rail, talk radio hosts would do 50,000 watt meltdowns.

But is there something in the works less than a full flip for Walker?

There has been speculation about a possible, partial, cut-Madison-from-the-rail-line/Walker-face-saving- 'deal' being bandied about for weeks, so despite statements from Walker about the train being dead in Wisconsin, and messages from the feds about quickly sending Wisconsin's high-speed rail funding to a more hospitable state, the final chapter in this messy political story has not yet been written.

Regional Cooperation? Derailing Wisconsin Train Will Hurt Minnesota

Scott Walker's bullheadedness about killing high speed rail to mollify the talk radio squawkers is not going over well with our neighbors to the Northwest.

More Reporting On Business Leaders' Flight From Rail Plan They Supported

Good summary in The Daily Reporter.

Noted earlier, also, here.

I Wonder Which Bailed-Out Corporations Also Donated To Small-Government Candidates?

The Washington Post discloses once-secret Fed assistance to businesses beyond banks, and GM  - -  including Harley-Davidson.

Walker's Inauguration Will Make Zero Charitable Donations

Breaking with tradition, Scott Walker and the GOP will keep all proceeds from his inauguration festivities.

Forget that compassionate conservatism stuff.

Here are the details.

Hat tip, Wisconsin Dems.

One More Question About SEWRPC's Annual Private Club Dinner: Do Public Meeting Rules Apply?

SEWRPC has acknowledged that it is again holding at public expense an annual dinner for itself and invited guests at the University Club.

As blogger Gretchen Schuldt asked last year, does this event need a public meeting notice, and is it indeed a public meeting?

Put another way, can a public commission's governing body and senior staff have a regularly scheduled private meeting just after their annual meeting is adjourned a few blocks away?

Last year, a quorum or majority - - two-thirds of the 21-member commission attended - - and in the explanation (below) of the event provided by SEWRPC, it sounds to me as if SEWRPC activities and personnel will be central to the discussions even if no formal votes are taken:

STATEMENT REGARDING COMMISSION AWARDS DINNER
FOLLOWING ITS DECEMBER 1, 2010 ANNUAL MEETING

David L. Stroik, SEWRPC Chairman

The dinner which follows the Commission meeting is an awards dinner and gathering for SEWRPC Commissioners. The dinner will be held at the University Club, near the War Memorial Center, which is the location of the Commission Annual Meeting. The dinner honors the service of those Commissioners who have left the Commission in 2010 and those Commissioners who have served the Commission for 10 years and 25 years. The dinner helps build relationships and understanding among the Commissioners from the Region’s seven counties. The dinner is attended by current SEWRPC Commissioners, former Commissioners who left the Commission in 2010, and select SEWRPC staff--Executive Director, Executive Secretary, and Executive Director Emeritus.

Commissioners spend many hours reading and reviewing reports, directing and advising staff, meeting and consulting with local officials from their Counties, and attending Commission, Commission Advisory Committee and other Commission-related meetings including public meetings and hearings. Their only compensation is $50 per Commission meeting, which many decline.

Public Agency Will Again Treat Itself To A Taxpayer-Paid Dinner At Private Club Dinner

The other day I posted an item about this Thursday's meeting of the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, and wondered whether the agency would hold its annual private club soiree for commissioners, selected staff and consultants as it has done in past years.

SEWRPC represents seven counties. Its members are appointed, and its budget is entirely composed of taxpayer funds.

The dinners are held at the private University Club on the lower east side of Milwaukee near the Lakefront.

After several requests for information by email, SEWRPC Executive Director Ken Yunker Tuesday afternoon confirmed that the dinner would be held - - "See attached. Expected cost is under $1000,  the same as last year. "

Last year's dinner cost $995.47, a cost acknowledged last after inquiries that I made.

My take on the matter is that certainly in a recession, and at an agency which has laid people off, spending $1,000  in that fashion - - other annual dinners, according to Yunker, have been more expensive - - is a wasteful and gratuitous exercise.

Getting the dinner bill under $1,000 by less than $5 isn't the point.

Commissioners, many of whom are public officials or people otherwise in influential positions, do not need a thank-you perk, regardless of whether it's a nice thing to do or not.

The money involved comes from taxpayers who have no say in the agency's budgeting.

The perks of Commission service are already substantial: Commissioners help decide where and how millions of dollars in transportation funds are spent, and they play a role in how regional economic, housing, water, communications and related policies are researched, framed and implemented.

Either the Governor, a County Executive or County Board must approve a Commissioner's six-year term, with frequent re-appointments,  so there is plenty of status and substance to job.

Yunker included this attached statement signed by SEWRPC Board Chairman David Stroik by way of further explanation:

STATEMENT REGARDING COMMISSION AWARDS DINNER
FOLLOWING ITS DECEMBER 1, 2010 ANNUAL MEETING

David L. Stroik, SEWRPC Chairman

The dinner which follows the Commission meeting is an awards dinner and gathering for SEWRPC Commissioners. The dinner will be held at the University Club, near the War Memorial Center, which is the location of the Commission Annual Meeting. The dinner honors the service of those Commissioners who have left the Commission in 2010 and those Commissioners who have served the Commission for 10 years and 25 years. The dinner helps build relationships and understanding among the Commissioners from the Region’s seven counties. The dinner is attended by current SEWRPC Commissioners, former Commissioners who left the Commission in 2010, and select SEWRPC staff--Executive Director, Executive Secretary, and Executive Director Emeritus.

Commissioners spend many hours reading and reviewing reports, directing and advising staff, meeting and consulting with local officials from their Counties, and attending Commission, Commission Advisory Committee and other Commission-related meetings including public meetings and hearings. Their only compensation is $50 per Commission meeting, which many decline.

DLS/KRY/dad
DOCS01-154731-v1-2010 Statement Re Comm Awards Dinner-1