Waukesha diversion, with conditions, moved closer to approval, but...

[Updated at 3:22 p.m.] An advisory body this morning representing eight Great Lakes US states and two Canadian provinces moved Waukesha's precedent-setting application for a diversion of water to the region's final decision-makers - - the eight US governors only - - with a number of conditions I outlined in a posting yesterday.

Basically, the advisory body cut the physical area to which Waukesha could ship the water, reduced the  volume of water which can be diverted, requires Waukesha to do some water quality monitoring and testing along its waste water return route in the Root River through Franklin and Racine, and would further limit new groundwater pumping in the Lake Michigan watershed that could negate the net benefit to the watershed which Waukesha and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources have said would result when Waukesha substitutes lake water for its current deep-well, aquifer-depleting water pumping.

The recommendation, through an amendment by Minnesota. also grants "any Party" - - presumably a Compact member - - the right to intervene in subsequent, diversion-related actions. In early posts, I had used the word "citizens," thus likely overstating who had this access.

The advisory body's website is here.

Groups opposing the diversion had this to say:

“We are pleased that the Regional Body agreed with us that Waukesha’s proposal as submitted does not meet the requirements of the Great Lakes Compact and is recommending modifications to its proposal. But we are disappointed that the Regional Body did not completely reject Waukesha’s flawed diversion proposal. We need to carefully examine the conditions that the Regional Body has recommended to determine if they uphold the letter and spirit of the Great Lakes Compact. When complete, we will forward our assessment to the jurisdictions and the Regional Compact Council, which is scheduled to meet on June 21 or 22.” 

Curiously, Minnesota's representative, citing the need for more study, abstained from voting on the recommendations. It is unclear how much time Minnesota needs to get its remaining questions answered, or precisely what those questions are, or whether the abstention is a signal that Minnesota's Governor will cast an eventual "no" vote at the Governors' final decision-making meeting in a few weeks.

Minnesotans overwhelmingly opposed the diversion application - - as did people across the entire Great Lakes region. In the thousands, by a ration of 99:1 against.

The application's review and approval vote are governed under a 2008 US/Canadian Compact incorporated into US law.

Under that law, any "no" vote from a US Great Lakes Governor would kill the application - - but would not rule out a revised application, additional reviewes, etc.

It is also not clear how the Great Lakes governors will guarantee their several diversion conditions will be met or enforced - - a real question given that this is the first diversion application to go through the process - - and given the DNR's passive approach these days to enforcement, the Walker administration's proven disdain for regulation in the public interest, and the current Attorney General's newly-disclosed disinterest in water protections long guaranteed in Wisconsin law and included in the Wisconsin Constitution.

Remember that Walker is beholden to developers, and cheering Realtors before whom he signed a wetlands-filling bill - - and has been since the early hours of his administration in 2011- - in fact, here's a fresh wetland filling close to Waukesha's city borders enabled by Walker's anti-environmental agenda - - and remember, too, that Waukesha County routinely gives him his biggest trove of votes.

And I find it hard to believe that the boundary limitations of the reach of the proposed diversion's conditions will limit Waukesha's growth to the city's current borders.

The agreement does put a geographical limit on Waukesha's distribution of diverted water, but not necessarily to the future expansion of its city borders - - borders which were expanded freely over the years as developers brought annexations to the city even though everyone knew that the city had water supply issues that someday had to be addressed.

I would not be surprised if growth-happy, annexation-adoring Waukesha does not find a way to keep growing and serving developers with the blessing of the Walker administration (including the Legislature, the DNR, and/or the Public Service Commission) - - or through a regional water authority - - remember that 2007 development? - - a water supplying concept endorsed a few years ago by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Commission - -  a leading supporter of Lake Michigan diversions, plural - - and the agency that created without a public hearing and barely a whisper of initial public disclosure the expanded service territory map that essentially was thrown out by the diversion application's reviewers.

Could Waukesha still access nearby shallow well water through annexations or other means to separately serve newly acquired territory with non-Lake Michigan diverted water - - thus capturing more neighboring property's service charges, tax revenues and development potential.

In other words, the diversion application as recommended for final approval - - as I read it - - limits where Waukesha can send Great Lakes water, but does not create a hard-and-fast city border and growth boundary which can still be expanded creatively.

Side question - - how did the neighboring and smaller Town of Waukesha like being treated by the City of Waukesha and the regional planning commission for the let six years like a well-heeled-consultant-hiring, election-roiled-in-or-out-of-the-application ping pong ball?

Anyway - - the Governors have yet to cast their votes. Minnesota's path is unclear. Litigation over the advisory body's recommendations, or the states' final voting, is also unpredictable.

So stay tuned.

MN, MI want more public interest/clout in Waukesha diversion plan

There are some interesting developments in the ongoing vetting by US and Canadian Great Lakes reviewers of Waukesha's precedent-setting application - - the reviewers' website is here - - for a diversion of water from Lake Michigan and its return as treated water via the Root River and the Racine Harbor.

I'd felt the reviewers' evolving "findings" were not strong on enforcement of a possible diversion agreement at the very time that GOP Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel had just given GOP legislators formal advice that undermined long-standing water access and quality protections guaranteed in the Wisconsin Constitution.

And while GOP Gov. Scott Walker had been for years weakening environmental enforcement and state water stewardship responsibilities and actions in favor of special interests across the state.

And while he has cut Wisconsin Department of Natural Resource science staff, and reduced enforcement actions in favor of so-called voluntary self-enforcement by 'regulated' businesses instituted by the "chamber of commerce mentality" leadership he placed intentionally atop the agency which .

All of which is well-known in Wisconsin, and also noted nationally.

Which is why I'd asked in a recent blog posting how the other Great Lakes states would entrust management to Walker, et al, of a first-of-its-kind diversion from the world's largest supply of fresh surface water which is owned as a public trust by eight Great Lakes states.

Now I don't want to get raise false hopes - - and I still think that Waukesha and the DNR gave short shrift to non-diversion alternatives - - but it may be that some of the other states' reviewers are in fact listening to the 11,000 commenters who weighed in 99:1 against the diversion, and have grasped that a diversion of Great Lakes water, if it is to be approved for a Wisconsin community, has to be tied to written requirements under a guiding 2008 US/Canadian water management Compact which flow directly from the Walker/Schimel disregard for public water rights.

*  First of all, the reviewers in early meetings trim back Waukesha's roughly 10-million-gallon-per-day maximum average diversion request to about 8.2 million gallons by deleting nearly all of a so-called expanded service territory which included acreage in parts of several of Waukesha's neighboring municipalities which had not asked for diverted water.

Even though Waukesha and the DNR had long argued that it was permissible to rope those communities into the application without their say-so.

In other words, the reviewers were saying no diverted water for sprawl, or for communities which never applied for it, or expressed a need for it, or had in place the kind of water conservation planning required, regardless of the WI DNR's thumbs-up.

* Now the reviewers are looking at two proposed, publicly-spirited amendments by other states' representatives to the proposed findings upon which a final "yes" or "no" vote by the eight US Great Lakes governors would be based.

One proposed amendment - - link here - - is a proposal from Michigan. It notes that because the diversion plan guarantees the creation of a net benefit for the Lake Michigan watershed, the finding should include an assignment to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources that it "should use all of its legal authority" to prevent any groundwater withdrawals in the Lake Michigan watershed "that would reduce that benefit."

My personal observation: this amendment could be a counter to the Schimel argument that Wisconsin - - and this is where Walker and the Legislature are definitely headed - -  should make easier to operate new high-capacity wells for mega-daires or mines or other developments without taking into account the cumulative effects downstream.

Because any nine-year-old Wisconsin boy or girl with a fishing pole knows that too much water taken out of the ground upstream or that is allowed to flow back downstream from an industrial-scale dairy has a lot to with whether there are fish to catch or - - as data show - - clean water back home to drink.

Additionally, one close observer of the process said Waukesha seemed to know the contents of Schimel's ruling before it hit the media - - and that filtered out among some attending the reviewers' last round of meetings in Chicago - - indicating a close political connection that did not bode well for Great Lakes water stewardship and which could have fed the belief that stronger water protections were needed in the reviewers'  findings if a diversion agreement were to move towards approval.

Another proposed amendment to findings - - link here - - is a proposal from Minnesota. It would give "any Party" the right "to initiate actions to compel compliance" with of any part of the diversion agreement. That would address the lack of enforcement language in the reviewers' findings and boost the public's enforcement opportunities.

All of which puts more "public" and "trust" in the Public Trust Doctrine.

I can't say if these amendments will be approved by the reviewers, and later by the Governors, nor do I know how Walker, Schimel, Waukesha and Wisconsin's DNR reviewers will react to them.

But I interpret the amendments as endorsements for the people's ultimate ownership of the Great Lakes, and for the Public Trust Doctrine which has long-elevated the primacy of the public's benefit from all the waters of the Great Lakes.

Walkerites add to their 'little' wetland fillings

Before we look at the latest example, let's read again the historic warning against so-called small Wisconsin water losses - - a concept so foundational to sane public interest water management that the Wisconsin Supreme Court used it to anchor a ruling still cited by the Wisconsin DNR which Walker is systematically destroying:

"A little fill here and there may seem to be nothing to become excited about. But one fill, though comparatively inconsequential, may lead to another, and another, and before long a great body may be eaten away until it may no longer exist. Our navigable waters are a precious natural heritage, once gone, they disappear forever," wrote the Wisconsin State Supreme Court justices in their opinion resolving Hixon v. PSC.(2)

And which the corporate-obedient Wi Attorney General Brad Schimel is trying to undo through an advisory opinion sought by the corporate-obedient GOP Assembly Speaker Robin Vos.

Now remember that immediately upon his January, 2011 swearing-in, Gov. Walker administratively suspended a wetland filling permit review by the DNR on behalf of a campaign contributor:

Gov. Scott Walker signed a bill Friday that would allow a developer to construct a retail center favored by the Green Bay Packers on a wetland near Lambeau Field.  

Walker introduced the legislation in January at the request of the developer after planning had slowed for a Bass Pro Shops, or another retailer, for a store at Highway 41 and Lombardi Ave. in Ashwaubenon, a suburb of Green Bay. 

Now after more bills to ease development in wetlands have been proposed and promoted by insiders who bragged about it and then signed in front of the special interests which will benefit, file away this fresh example that has its roots in Walker's campaign against the Wisconsin environment:

A proposal by Steinhafels Furniture to fill wetland areas to make way for the company's continued expansion has been given the green light by the city's plan commission.

Special interests would bleed Wisconsinites for road tolls

So an out-of-state toll-road operators' trade association is urging Wisconsin policy-makers to deal with "slashed budgets" - - with no responsibility assigned - - and get Bucky on the toll-road bandwagon.

Infrastructure deterioration in Wisconsin — due largely to slashed budgets — affects almost every industry and motorist in the state. 

Do these self-interested tool-beneficiaries know what's happening right now in Wisconsin?

This is a state where people making the minimum wage are locked by Scott Walker into the federal minimum of $7.25/hr.

Where poverty is at a 30-year high.

This is the state where Walker - - the incumbent gubernatorial friend of in-state road-builders - - has already presided over the nation's deepest loss of middle-class incomes and where residents pay huge premiums for routine medical car compared to other states.

From what pockets of disposable income are those tolls to be paid?

And shed no crocodile tears for Wisconsin's Department of Transportation and its alleged budget woes.

This is the agency which has been caught by a federal judge having prepared to waste $140 million on an expansion of Highway 23.

And wants to spend more than $1 billion to expand I-94 instead of dedicating what funding it has to repair a state road system allowed to deteriorate because contractors make more money laying concrete than patching it.

The icing on the cake: Walker vetoed from the last budget a legislative call for an audit of state highway spending.

Give road-builders and their political protectors more money to spend, especially from a dedicated revenue stream and we'll have more unfilled potholes, cancelled buses and fewer trains.

WI water regulation retreat a red flag for Waukesha diversion enforcement

[Updated from 5/14, 5:06 p.m.] When it comes to the oversight role which diversion reviewers from eight Great Lakes states expect the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to play in the implementation of Waukesha's precedent-setting application for Great Lakes water, let's look for guidance at the difference between "shall" and "should."

First - - some background.


One key to the kind of regulatory state-level oversight to be expected from Wisconsin on this potentially-precedent setting Great Lakes diversion, its return flow prescription through the Root River and Racine, and all the environmental issues in between was signaled when GOP Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel - - previously Waukesha County's elected, GOP District Attorney - - and deeply wedded to big business and special interests - - said last week in a formal, anti-conservation opinion that a unanimous, 7-0 Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling known as the Lake Beulah decision did not give the Department of Natural Resources the authority to regulate the downstream, cumulative impacts and water quality of high-capacity well siting and operations.

That was a win at the expense of the public's rights to clean and accessible water held in trust by government for the crowd which Schimel and Gov. Walker serves - - corporate farms and animal feeding operations, among other big water users - - and a signal that Wisconsin is no longer in the business of tough water regulation with the public interest in mind.. 

As Wisconsin had been for decades when it led the region and country in science-based water policy.

And given that the DNR has intentionally cut back on inspections and enforcement actions since Walker installed his infamous "chamber of commerce mentality" atop the agency;

And given that the DNR is also already tolerating groundwater pollution in Wisconsin drinking water near large animal feeding operations - - even after a judge wanted that drinking water quality regulated;

Let's ask why should anyone or any institution, including the other Great Lakes states, believe for one second that the DNR will be directed by Walker or Schimel or the GOP-led Legislature to enforce even the weak standards which could soon 'regulate' a Waukesha diversion of Great Lakes water as laid out in a set of eased "findings' by regional diversion application reviewers?

Here is the reviewers' website, and let's note or qn example already posted at this blog of some watering down by the reviewers of Wisconsin's oversight obligations should the diversion win subsequent approval from all eight Great Lakes states governors.

The Governors meet next month to make their decision - - all eight Great Lakes governors must vote "yes" for Waukesha's $207 million diversion plan to be implemented.

Now note in the most recent, May 11th version of the reviewers' draft findings that the DNR "should" do some things - - but the reviewers are not firmly assigning specific oversight duties with the term "shall."

For example, from the latest version of the reviewers'  findings document:

5. As a condition of the recommendation of the Diversion, WDNR should use all of its available legal authority [regarding] any other groundwater withdrawals within the Recommended Diversion Area.

Bottom line - - greater power is defaulted to the regulated party - - Waukesha - - and not to the regulators in the WI DNR, or in the other states where the reviewers seem eager to wash their hands of the tough-regulator title.

Begging the question: what the heck was all that work on the 2008 agreement under which this diversion is being sought if the reviewers appear so compliant right out of the gate?

Not convinced?

Take a look back at the first, April 27 draft findings, where reviewers recommended that the DNR carry out certain oversight duties through the affirmative directive "shall."

That language - - below - - is no longer in the latest version of the findings. 

It is gone without a hint of authorship or editing  - - gone, in part, thanks to the Waukesha-based Wisconsin Attorney General's oh-so-timely release of his advisory opinion negating the relevancy of the Lake Beulah decision and its protection of downstream, public water rights.

Believe me - - and I say this as a person who worked in state and local governments for many years - - everyone knows the difference between the affirmative "shall" and the 'Gee, I did my best, but...' wiggle room- laden "should."

From the April 27th draft:

9. Pursuant to the holdings of the Lake Beulah decision, WDNR shall consider its public trust duties implicated by any water supply well permit application within the Southeast Wisconsin Groundwater Management Area and conduct any necessary environmental evaluations required to prevent such impacts.
   
10. WDNR shall use all of its available legal authority to prevent any new wells for Public Water Supply Purposes within the Southeast Wisconsin Groundwater Management Area that would result in the withdrawal of radium-contaminated groundwater and the dispersion of that radium throughout the environment. Pursuant to the holdings of the Lake Beulah decision, WDNR shall consider its public trust duties implicated by any water supply well permit application within the Southeast Wisconsin Groundwater Management Area and conduct any necessary environmental evaluations required to prevent such impacts. 

Profs rebut, fact-check Walker - - who couldn't care less

[Updated with a new Walker whopper Friday, 5/13 and another update Saturday, 5/14  Read on...] 

This excellent critique of Scott Walker's know-nothing, out-of-bounds and grossly ideologically attack on UW faculty, the teaching profession and our public universities' legacies would rattle most people if their statements and motives had been exposed as thoroughly shallow and deceitful - - but years of Scott Walker manipulations and distortions, and false narratives from justifying Act 10 to demolishing the Wisconsin Idea to requiring Voter photo ID to failing at job growth to mandating drug tests for the unemployed and poor to verbalizing two-faced presidential campaign plans to repeatedly making less-than-truthful, flat-out false and pants-on-fire dishonest statement-after-statement documented by PolitiFact on a range of issues prove that Walker has no interest in or dedication to facts.

He is consumed only by career opportunism.

And winning the next election - - for donors and holding power - - as their puppet and proxy.

In other words, in Walkerspeak, so what if the UW system is eroding as a direct result of his policies, with national media watching?

The End of Research in Wisconsin

And if Walker reads a subsequent piece by yet another UW professor who is resigning and moving from her liberal arts faculty position and the UW flagship school in liberal Madison - - he'll no doubt say, 'mission accomplished.' 

After all, the far right has been forever angry at the UW Madison over its liberal reputation, and its key position within the city, so now they are in a position to weaken both the university and the city, and are doing so systematically.

[Update] And less than two hours after I posted this site,, PolitiFact weighed in against a Walker attack on the UW system and UW-M in particular with a harsh, "Pants-on-Fire" finding:

Charging that the ratio of students to faculty at UW-Milwaukee is shrinking, Walker said the school has "2.8 students per faculty" member, "tied for second-lowest in its history since 1994." 

But Walker cited the wrong statistic. 

In fact, UW-Milwaukee has 29 students for every professor, associate professor and assistant professor -- and that ratio has been growing, not shrinking, since 1994.
For a statement that is false and ridiculous, our rating is Pants on Fire.

And Saturday:

Leaving UW: Reduced funding, politics force fond faculty to say farewell

WI deer disease spreads, as does Walker distraction strategy

You can bet Scott Walker will attack the UW and any other target of opportunity for headlines that distract attention from his administration's failure to stem the spread of chronic wasting disease (CWD) through the Wisconsin deer herd - - and Walker's rural base counties:

Gov. Scott Walker on Friday announced six steps to heighten efforts in Wisconsin to curtail the spread of chronic wasting disease… 

According to DNR records, 9.4% of deer tested in Wisconsin in 2015 were CWD-positive, the highest rate since the disease was discovered in the state in 2002. The agency also tested the fewest animals in 2015 since 2002. Forty-one of the state's 72 counties are now considered CWD-affected by the DNR.

Despite WI water quality setbacks, optimism

There was an inspiring program Tuesday evening in Milwaukee hosted by the public interest law firm Midwest Environmental Advocates, (MEA), to salute several Wisconsin water champions and raise awareness of the accelerating risks to state waters and the public's water rights.

UW-Madison Law School Professor Emeritus and MEA founding board president Arlen Christenson was recognized at the event for a lifetime of work to preserve the people's rights to Wisconsin waters - - our common basic resource and birthright that are held in trust for the public by state government.

That right to water in Wisconsin and the state's obligatory role as the people's water trustee now under attack by special interests and their ideological friends in all three branches of state government are little-known and under-appreciated, but they pre-date statehood and are embedded in the Wisconsin Constitution.

Read all about it before the "chamber of commerce mentality" leadership installed atop the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources by Scott Walker makes that information on the DNR's Public Trust Doctrine webpage go away.

Don't laugh: The DNR after Walker's election did that with much of the climate change information and links posted during the Doyle years.

MEA videotaped the Tuesday water program and I will post a link to the evening's  informative talks when it becomes available, but until then I am pleased to share with readers the heart of a concise and powerful talk about the state of the state's water by Gordon Stevenson, the MEA board secretary and one of the evening's preliminary speakers.

Stevenson, an engineer, worked at the DNR for 26 years before retiring in 2011. 

After reading the key paragraphs in his short talk, below, I will list links to some of the documents and realities which Stevenson referenced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"During the transition between Governor Doyle and Governor Walker, I retired from a quarter century career with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. I now realize that I worked for the DNR during "the good old days." For the majority of my career, water policy decisions were based on the strong bond between law and science, the people in charge of making those decisions had conservation and environmental protection credentials, and my colleagues and I shared the belief that Wisconsin's true and sustaining wealth is its clean water.

"Much of that is now changed at DNR. Wisconsin DNR's water quality permit program has been found seriously deficient by the US Environmental Protection Agency. DNR is failing to protect downstream water from upstream pollution sources, they are allowing already impaired water bodies to get worse and they are suppressing the public's ability to challenge water quality permit decisions.

"Wisconsin DNR's authority to protect Wisconsin's water resources is delegated from EPA. Under the delegation agreement, DNR is obligated to administer the federal Clean Water Act. DNR is not doing so. On behalf of 16 Wisconsin citizens, Midwest Environmental Advocates has filed a Citizens Petition for Corrective Action with the US Environmental Protection agency to correct these deficiencies. The petition seeks to restore the credible water quality protection program that we once had in this state.

"We're arriving at an important crossroads in Wisconsin. We have our own version of Flint, Michigan in Kewaunee County where citizens cannot drink the water and we have our own version of the Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone. A dead zone now also exists in Green Bay that runs from the City of Green Bay all the way up to Marinette.

"While I am alarmed, I am also encouraged . We are pleased to report that more than 70 people like me, DNR retirees, along with other credible scientist and partners have signed on to support the Petition for Corrective Action along with our original 16 Wisconsin citizen clients. And the number of people supporting the petition is growing daily.

"But in a larger sense. I am even more encouraged that so many Wisconsin citizens believe like I do: that water policy decisions should be based on the strong bond between law and science, that the people in charge of making water quality decisions should have the credentials to do so, and that Wisconsin's true and sustaining wealth is its clean water."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a link to the Citizens Petition for Corrective Action.

Here is a link to the letter of support Stevenson referenced.

Here is a link to a story about the Kewaunee County water contamination.

Here is a link to the Green Bay dead zone.

More jobs losses in WI defining Walker's 'right direction'

Add Joy Global to losses at Oscar Mayer and Caterpillar.

Is there a new statue coming of Miss Forward with her fingers crossed behind her back?

Will there be any blowback on Scott-No-250,000-new-jobs-Walker?

Remember that broken promise? Plenty of us do, as does PolitiFact:

Gov. Scott Walker fell short when it came to his top 2010 campaign promise -- that the state would add 250,000 private-sector jobs in his first term... 

State employers added an estimated 53,400 jobs in 2014, pushing the total for his four-year term to 146,795. That's about 59 percent of the total Walker promised as a candidate...

We declared the jobs Promise Broken in September 2014, when it became clear that it would be mathematically impossible to achieve the promise. 

Though Walker had repeatedly pledged it across the state, and even in Illinois:

SPRINGFIELD, IL (WTAQ) - Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker told an Illinois business conference today that quote, “like a rocket, you’ll see businesses hiring” after the June fifth recall election...

In Wisconsin, 'certainty' = spin about GOP agendas, favors

Let's have a meditation on the word "certainty" in Wisconsin these days, and especially in its role as th linchpin connecting a self-interested corporate sector and the lackeys they have installed atop and throughout all three branches of government and its oversight agencies  - - like the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission and others originally established decades ago to serve the people and protect their rights.

When you see "certainty" in a GOP news release these days, or in Scott Walker utterance, or underlying a room-service/corporate demand on government, turn on your b.s. detector and break out your shovel to scrape away the propagandistic camouflage and find the truth that has been papered over or word-smithed away at your expense.

And along the way through this post ask yourself why people who needed available Medicaid funding, or who live a near huge animal feeding operation poisoning residential wells, or state transit users bereft of options, or people with difficulties obtaining now-mandatory voter ID's are not accorded the same certainty about their rights and needs by this administration.

But let's back up a bit.

It was just eight months ago that Wisconsin's major corporate organizations called in all their chits with an already compliant state legislature and demanded, in writing, that it rewrite state law and reinterpret the Wisconsin Constitution to give private interests more unregulated access to waters in Wisconsin which are held in trust for the public by the government:

The hand-delivered memo, its bold-faced language and the weighty array of powerful logos at the top tell the story:

An urgent communication to all Wisconsin legislators 

We are at a crossroads. It is imperative that the legislature assert its authority and bring certainty and sanity to the regulation of new and existing high capacity wells in Wisconsin.  

The key word "certainty was also put out there strategically by the dairy industry - - Commentary: Wisconsin Needs Certainty on High-Capacity Wells 

GOP Assembly Speaker Robin Vos got the message, fired off a request for an advisory opinion to fellow Republican Attorney General and corporate captive Brad Schimel, and yesterday Schimel followed through.

Pesky uncertainties, removed, as I wrote Monday and Tuesday:

As predicted, WI AG endorses public waters' giveaway

So now the Legislature is enabled with Schimel's blessing to write bills for Scott Walker's signature that will give Big Ag, industrial-scale animal feeding operations, sand mines, and multiple developers more freedom to pump groundwater for their narrow private interests at the expense of the capacity in nearby rivers, streams and lakes, and of downstream users, anglers, boaters, and the general public.

"Certainty" - - with  its companion buzzword "uncertainty" - - is the default, all-purpose verbiage rationalization that can lavish praise - - as one special interest said of Schimel's ruling - - 

Paul Zimmerman, executive director of government relations for the Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation, said the opinion "provides greater certainty and clarity for everyone..." 

- - or can embellish agendas or camouflage failures and facts - - but all parties on the right have got the same playbook and will use the word even if it begins to look less like a substantive label and more like a politician's tic or spinmeister's predictable punchline. 

Here are more examples that should remind you to certainly be on your guard when the far-right in Wisconsin says that is governing in your interest - - with certainty:

*  Walker called a special session to create jobs:

The one thing that I hear more than anything else is that employers and workers want a sense of certainty.  That is the main goal of this special session – to create as much certainty as we can for employers and workers at the state level so that they can create jobs.

*  But when the job creation stalled, he needed a scapegoat: 

There was a lot of uncertainty, particularly for small businesses, I know having held listening sessions all around this state, small business owners more than anything want certainty, they didn’t see that around the Capitol last year so that was one of the biggest challenges out there.

*  A mantra he repeated in Illinois:

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker told an Illinois business conference today that quote, “like a rocket, you’ll see businesses hiring” after the June fifth recall election – which he predicted he would win....During a question-and-answer period, Rockford business owner Skip Trotter asked about the one thing Wisconsin did to turn the state around. Walker replied quote, “Reform our fiscal space. The best thing we can do for government is provide stability, certainty.” 

* A mantra fed back by GOP Majority Leader and Walker water-carrier  Vos:

RACINE – Once June 5 hits and Gov. Scott Walker is securely re-elected, “our economy is going to take off like a rocket,” state Rep. Robin Vos, R-Rochester, said Monday during a meeting with The Journal Times Editorial Board.

 ...Republicans said there needs to be certainty for businesses in order to give them the confidence to expand going forward. 

“If you would talk to any business person, the one thing they always want is certainty and we have given them anything but,” Vos said. 

Once Walker wins the recall, Vos said employers will be able to look ahead and know what the next two years will look like.

* "Certainty" was everywhere in the debate over the iron mining bill.

*  In fact, the bill - - written with the help of the one company it was supposed to help, and which was later exposed as having secretly routed $700,000 to Walker's recall campaign, - - had the word "certainty in its title:

That's why both labor and industry are supporting Senate Bill 349, the Regulatory Certainty Act.

PauseCurrent Tim

* Tort reform benefited, says the WMC:

“These reforms will add certainty, fairness and predictability to our legal system,” said James A. Buchen, WMC vice president of government relations. 

“Governor Walker and all of the legislative supporters of these new laws deserve tremendous thanks and praise because these reforms will improve our business climate.”

* As did growth, the WMC added:

Wisconsin’s business climate and job prospects will improve in the wake of Governor Scott Walker signing a no-tax-hike state budget that dramatically reduces income taxes for Wisconsin manufacturing, WMC said Sunday. 

“Governor Walker and legislative Republicans deserve tremendous credit for making tough decisions to balance the state budget without raising taxes,” said Kurt R. Bauer, President/CEO of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce. “The budget provides greater certainty for business executives and that should encourage job growth.”

* But "certainty" bit Vos on voter fraud, said PolitiFact:

...he said with "certainty" that there was fraud. Based on the information publicly available now, we rate his claim False.

*  A Walker lieutenant used the term to justify refusing federal Medicaid funding:

"Governor Walker should be applauded for putting forth a healthcare reform that gives certainty to how we're going to deal with this issue," says Committee Chair Senator Alberta Darling (R-8^th Senate District).  

* And to justify more tax credits, with the bonus buzzword "flexibility" in the news release title and "streamlining" in the text - - a talking point trifecta:

“Signing this legislation makes Wisconsin’s business climate even more attractive by offering job creators flexibility in incentives for them to grow, expand, and create jobs,” Governor Walker said.  “Small business owners crave stability, and we are providing this certainty to them through our dedication to growing the economy, streamlining regulations, and investing in worker training.”

"Uncertainty" was fed back dutifully with streamlining references in buzzword salad by WI DNR Secretary Stepp:

...we're looking at real cost savings to Wisconsin businesses by helping reduce regulatory uncertainty, providing proactive support of job creation and providing permitting and regulatory assistance," said Stepp. 

* Fed back also by special interests to state highway planners:

 Businesses need more certainty in order to make rational business decisions. The uncertainty surrounding Verona Road Stage 2 construction question creates an unfriendly business environment for all concerned locally and on a statewide basis.

We urge you to advocate for a package of fees, taxes, and bonding to complete this vital though burdensome road construction in our communities.

* Fed back about funding to special interests by big-picture state highway planners, closing a loop:

• Provides 5 years of funding certainty 

* "Certainty also showed up to spin UW system cuts:

The governor has said the block grant mechanism would provide the system with more financial certainty and more autonomy would help the system run better. 

* And even in a bill to knock a potential rival to GOP Senate Majority Leader Fitzgerald off the ballot, as he explained:

Despite the talking points from opponents of this measure, this bill does not prevent any individual from running for office. It simply adds county executives to the list of elected officials who are already prohibited by Wisconsin’s constitution from serving simultaneously in the legislature, and in doing so prevents conflicts of interest and provides certainty to voters.” 

OK - - you get the picture. And when I was done with all this research, it occurred to me that I could have started by putting the word "certainty" in the search box on Walker's press release web page, where I found 33 examples. 

Read with certainty.

As predicted, WI AG endorses public waters' giveaway

[Updated from 1:44 p.m. Tuesday, 5/10] Now look for blatantly pro-corporate legislation to land on the desk of our pro-corporate Governor to implement a pro-corporate opinion from Wisconsin's pro-corporate Attorney General that will eventually be affirmed by our pro-corporate State Supreme Court that says our pro-corporate Department of Natural Resources legally cannot regulate water withdrawals and their downstream and neighboring quality in the public interest - - as the State Constitution has long mandated.

An action coordinated by the corporate interests running the State Capitol these days and predicted on this blog last week.

And predicted, for years, as this 2013 post indicates:

Ultimate GOP Environmental Target In Wisconsin Is The Public Trust Doctrine

There is a principle in state law and history known as the Public Trust Doctrine. Though awkwardly titled, it's crucial to Wisconsin's appeal by guaranteeing everyone here the right to access and enjoy all waters in the state. 

The Public Trust Doctrine dates to the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 - - long before Wisconsin statehood - - and is etched as Article IX in the Wisconsin State Constitution. 

You can read about it on a DNR website, here. 

But this basic Wisconsin birthright remains under continuous assault by Gov. Walker, Republican legislators, business groups and even short-sighted judges. 

And you don't have to be a water expert of political scientist to see that removing the Public Trust Doctrine from the state constitution, or watering it down to insignificance is atop the GOP's conservative and anti-conservation agenda.

How much documentation and how many links would you like? Here are more than a dozen more, and there are scores more through the blog index, upper left corner:

Growing concerns over Wisconsin's groundwater crisis 

So, Bucky, the manure shall flow - -

- - and not just in legislation.

And goodbye, clean Wisconsin - - water and politics, too.

Walker blows off state debt payment

Try this monetary 'policy'

 with your mortgage holder - - but tell the banker you're moving in the right direction - - and see how far Walkernomics gets you:

Walker administration delays $101 million debt payment

Why should Great Lakes governors trust Walker's WI DNR?

Why on earth would the Great Lakes governors trust the State of Wisconsin to monitor and implement a precedent-setting diversion of water and all the conservation and waste-water requirements that will accompany it when Wisconsin under under Scott Walker and in thrall to big business is showing further contempt for water quality and public access rights which have been part of the region's law dating to the Northwest Ordinance of 1787?

Waukesha's proposed Lake Michigan diversion cut again...

Waukesha's proposal has been further trimmed by deleting some of the more obvious sprawl zones outside of the city's boundaries from a potential Lake Michigan supply, but advisory reviewers meeting in Chicago today seem hell-bent to wash their hands of a stringent analysis and recommend a Great Lakes diversion to the final decision-making regional governors that will reward decades of earlier annexations that helped lead the city to draw too deeply from its groundwater.

We'll also see if the Wisconsin DNR, which has long agreed with the city that all the sprawl zones in an expanded service territory beyond Waukesha's city limits - -  including areas which had never asked for a diversion - - had to be sent some of the diverted water under state law.

Waukesha's application had asked for permission to divert a daily maximum of 10.1 million gallons and the reviewers are recommending 8.2 million gallons.

The city's current daily usage is about 6 million gallons.

Years ago, the city asked Gov. Jim Doyle to declare Waukesha already eligible for a 24 million gallon daily maximum diversion, but that request, made confidentially, went nowhere.

So - - the question now is: Do Waukesha and the state swallow the repeatedly=trimmed back recommendation, or head to court and risk negating the historic, 2008 US/Canadian agreement - - and the long-term health of the world's largest supply of fresh water on our warming planet - - under which Waukesha was allowed to seek a diversion as an exception to a diversion ban?

Stay tuned.