×
New Waukesha Mayor Jeff Scrima isn’t backing down from his claim that Waukesha doesn’t need Lake Michigan water in the coming years.
The DNR has halted its review of Waukesha’s application for Lake Michigan water because so many questions were unanswered (or not addressed).
Scrima has refused to sign onto a letter to demonstrate unity among Waukesha decision-makers.
Instead, the mayor has sent a letter to DNR Secretary Matt Frank, explaining why he’s still holding out for a local source of water:
Here’s a choice excerpt:
Today’s JS article goes through the different in-basin options facing Waukesha, with Water Utility manager Dan Duchniak shooting down most of them as being too expensive.
However, we don’t really know the full costs of diverting water to Waukesha, so it’s sort of hard to compare them.
Cost can factor into the “reasonable supply” definition. But it won’t be the determining factor in approval of Waukesha’s application. Yes, costs need to be spelled out, as does the service area, which is sort of obscured in the application, if you ask me.
Here’s more from Jim Rowen at the Political Environment on the latest twists in the drama: the role of lobbyists and the town vs. city of Waukesha divide.
The DNR has halted its review of Waukesha’s application for Lake Michigan water because so many questions were unanswered (or not addressed).
Scrima has refused to sign onto a letter to demonstrate unity among Waukesha decision-makers.
Instead, the mayor has sent a letter to DNR Secretary Matt Frank, explaining why he’s still holding out for a local source of water:
Here’s a choice excerpt:
While much has been made of my push to have our city consider all viable water supply options before settling on just onea Lake Michigan diversion of waterthe deficiencies outlined in your letter are significant and confirm that our city’s water utility needs to objectively and openly consider all reasonable options. It is my understanding that the Department expects to be provided with a detailed analysis of all reasonable water supply alternatives, including a combination of shallow and deep aquifer water appropriately treated, along with more meaningful water conservation measures. The combination of these measures, along with the further exploration of the capturing and recycling of rain water, could reduce our overall water supply needs thereby making Waukesha less dependent on costly outside sources of water.
The citizens of our great city need to know upfront what the trust cost of all reasonable water supply alternatives areincluding the detailed cost estimates for Oak Creek and Racinebefore we can make an informed decision on what is in our city’s best long term interest In addition, because our expanded water service territory as outlines in the Application includes parts of Pewaukee, Genesee and the Town of Waukesha, we would also be wise to gather public input on that before we proceed.
I believe it is my responsibility as Mayor, in keeping with my obligation of transparency to the city’s residents, to be sure that every reasonable alternative has been thoroughly examined before moving ahead with an application.
Today’s JS article goes through the different in-basin options facing Waukesha, with Water Utility manager Dan Duchniak shooting down most of them as being too expensive.
However, we don’t really know the full costs of diverting water to Waukesha, so it’s sort of hard to compare them.
Cost can factor into the “reasonable supply” definition. But it won’t be the determining factor in approval of Waukesha’s application. Yes, costs need to be spelled out, as does the service area, which is sort of obscured in the application, if you ask me.
Here’s more from Jim Rowen at the Political Environment on the latest twists in the drama: the role of lobbyists and the town vs. city of Waukesha divide.
