×
I was pretty surprised by the Department of Natural Resources’ lack of enthusiasm for the city of Waukesha’s request to purchase Lake Michigan water under the terms of the Great Lakes Water Compact.
Seems the DNR doesn’t think that Waukesha’s application is completeincluding, most damning, whether Lake Michigan water truly is the only viable option for the city.
In a letter to Waukesha Mayor Jeff Scrima, DNR Secretary Matt Frank wrote:
What’s more, Secretary Frank said the application didn’t include a return flow option for each withdrawal source (Milwaukee, Oak Creek or Racine); didn’t include enough detail in its cost analysis; may not have received all of the necessary approvals from city government; and didn’t include a $5,000 filing fee.
So there you go.
Waukesha’s application is undergoing much scrutiny because it’s the first request for Lake Michigan water under the Great Lakes Compact. That’s why it’s so important to get this thing right. If the DNR had just rubber-stamped the application and sent it on to the compact partners with these deficiencies, then other states could submit equally weak applications for water in the future.
The DNR just did Waukesha a huge favor, if you ask me. It’s easier to revise the application at this point in the process than to have to do it when other states are looking for reasons to reject it.
It’s also fascinating from a political perspective, and the politics of this thing have been scrambled. On one side you’ve got Lake Michigan water advocates, pushing for an easy way to ensure a sustainable water source while meeting the 2018 deadline for radium removal. These folks include the head of the Water Utility, Dan Duchniak, as well as the former mayor, Larry Nelson. Nelson, who just happens to be a Democrat, was voted out of office this spring.
His successor, Jeff Scrima, has openly questioned whether Waukesha needs Lake Michigan water. It seemed to rouse anti-Milwaukee sentiment during the campaign; whether that’s what swept him into office is another thing.
Since becoming mayor, Scrima has continued to question the Lake Michigan request although he’s tried to make nice with the pro-diversion folks and Milwaukee. Sometimes, at least.
Environmental groups also questioned Waukesha’s application, saying it hadn’t proved that Lake Michigan water was the best alternativebetter than a combination of radium removal, increased conservation and using existing groundwater sources. They also questioned the return flow scenarios, as well as the cost estimates.
I just got off the phone with Melissa Malott, water program director for Clean Wisconsin, who agreed with the DNR’s decision to send the application back to Waukesha.
“The application was so poorly done,” Malott said.
Clean Wisconsin sent out a press statement hailing the DNR’s decision, saying that the DNR recognized the “monumental importance of ensuring this is a thorough and complete application.”
Midwest Environmental Advocates also praised the DNR’s decision:
Seems the DNR doesn’t think that Waukesha’s application is completeincluding, most damning, whether Lake Michigan water truly is the only viable option for the city.
In a letter to Waukesha Mayor Jeff Scrima, DNR Secretary Matt Frank wrote:
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 publically [sic] 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.
What’s more, Secretary Frank said the application didn’t include a return flow option for each withdrawal source (Milwaukee, Oak Creek or Racine); didn’t include enough detail in its cost analysis; may not have received all of the necessary approvals from city government; and didn’t include a $5,000 filing fee.
So there you go.
Waukesha’s application is undergoing much scrutiny because it’s the first request for Lake Michigan water under the Great Lakes Compact. That’s why it’s so important to get this thing right. If the DNR had just rubber-stamped the application and sent it on to the compact partners with these deficiencies, then other states could submit equally weak applications for water in the future.
The DNR just did Waukesha a huge favor, if you ask me. It’s easier to revise the application at this point in the process than to have to do it when other states are looking for reasons to reject it.
It’s also fascinating from a political perspective, and the politics of this thing have been scrambled. On one side you’ve got Lake Michigan water advocates, pushing for an easy way to ensure a sustainable water source while meeting the 2018 deadline for radium removal. These folks include the head of the Water Utility, Dan Duchniak, as well as the former mayor, Larry Nelson. Nelson, who just happens to be a Democrat, was voted out of office this spring.
His successor, Jeff Scrima, has openly questioned whether Waukesha needs Lake Michigan water. It seemed to rouse anti-Milwaukee sentiment during the campaign; whether that’s what swept him into office is another thing.
Since becoming mayor, Scrima has continued to question the Lake Michigan request although he’s tried to make nice with the pro-diversion folks and Milwaukee. Sometimes, at least.
Environmental groups also questioned Waukesha’s application, saying it hadn’t proved that Lake Michigan water was the best alternativebetter than a combination of radium removal, increased conservation and using existing groundwater sources. They also questioned the return flow scenarios, as well as the cost estimates.
I just got off the phone with Melissa Malott, water program director for Clean Wisconsin, who agreed with the DNR’s decision to send the application back to Waukesha.
“The application was so poorly done,” Malott said.
Clean Wisconsin sent out a press statement hailing the DNR’s decision, saying that the DNR recognized the “monumental importance of ensuring this is a thorough and complete application.”
Midwest Environmental Advocates also praised the DNR’s decision:
“The Wisconsin DNR is clearly taking its responsibilities under the Great Lakes Compact seriously and committing to a meaningful review process,” states Jodi Habush Sinykin, Of Counsel for Midwest Environmental Advocates. “Given what is at stake and the precedent that the application will set for the entire Great Lakes region, we commend the Department for ensuring that the City of Waukesha takes the time needed to do it right, which must include a comprehensive analysis of Waukesha’s manifold water supply options as well as the detailed cost estimates, city approvals and return flow information found missing from the application.”
Here's Jim Rowen's take on the matter at the Political Environment:
Is there a Plan B?
Combining radium treatment, plus conservation and new shallow wells - - regardless of what the rest of Waukesha County's political and business establishment thinks?
And isn't it time to pay more attention to what the environmental groups' coalition has been saying - - that the application had serious deficiencies along the lines cited by the DNR.
Let me post again what the Waukesha Environmental Action League (WEAL), for example, suggested the Common Council consider in April before it basically rubber-stamped what the DNR now say falls far short of a complete and comprehensive application.
Will the faction of Waukesha's city government that pushed the application so hard now take this advice?
