Media in southeastern Wisconsin are replete with coverage of the Waukesha water diversion issue. Laurel Walker of the Journal Sentinel weighs in, for example, here.
And certainly the issue is local, and what we think of as regional:
Can Waukesha find a willing partner to sell it water diverted from Lake Michigan - - Milwaukee, Oak Creek or Racine - - so there is delivery if Waukesha's formal diversion application is approved?
Will the DNR browbeat the Town of Waukesha in to the City's diversion application?
How expensive will the plan become if Milwaukee is not the suppler, and can a negotiation between Milwaukee and Waukesha get started despite conditions Waukesha and the DNR have rejected, at least for now?
But remember that there are other audiences and decision-makers farther away, and they are extremely important in the final analysis - - in fact, can make or break the application.
For Waukesha to receive the diversion, all eight Great Lakes governors must give their approval, and Canadian provincial leaders along with First Nation officials there are permitted input, though not a vote, as the Great Lakes are a shared resource held in trust, with no owner.
This much larger regional review - - beyond the border at 124th St. or the authority of the DNR - - is where critical issues like Waukesha's plan to return the water as treated, wastewater, or Waukesha's interest in sending water beyond its current borders to four smaller municipalities gets sticky.
And where the DNR's support for the wider distribution - - hung on the very thin reed of mapping decisions by SEWRPC, an advisory regional planning body run by unelected officials - - could easily raise eyebrows, and worse, in the other states.
The Waukesha application is the precedent-setter under a 2008 statutory Compact, and all the reviewers in the others states, and in Canada, are likely to follow every word and comma in the submission.
And in the DNR's processes and findings, too, because when the application goes out for the wider review, it goes with the DNR seal of approval, too.
A few years ago, the DNR sent out a smaller diversion request on behalf of New Berlin to the other Great Lakes states and Canadian regulators for an informal, courtesy review - - a different set of standards applied - - and some tough comments delayed final approval.
You can read some of that, here, and factor that history into what lies ahead as Waukesha and the DNR make decisions that will be vetted by regulatory reviewers from Minnesota to New York to Canada with the poewr to say "yes" or "no."
And all must say "yes" for Waukesha to move forward.
Blog Archive
Popular Posts
-
Environmental Justice in Action is featuring blog information about Green Zones. It was written by a member of the organization California E...
-
As someone who's been writing about the issue for years (samples from 2009 , 2010 , 2011 , and earlier this year ,) I am happy to see th...
-
His Dad didn't get any government handouts as a child back then, so a pox on everyone put out of work today in the Bushwacked economy ...
-
What a cheesy ploy to get people to watch The Country Club Reality Show, when the real magic comes later when the "New," or 'H...
-
There are many famous quotes explaining the goodness and pain with which the medical team treat sufferers. While these the medical team ar...
-
Root of the problem? Well, perhaps one of many. Read on. The City of Waukesha would be required by a governing multi-state Compact to return...
-
There is this line at the bottom of the news release web page . I did not make it up. Last Revised: Saturday, December 30, 1899
-
Here's what was most-read here last week. Thanks to the readers. Walker Uses Dictatorial Powers To Further Cut Teac... Apr 20, 2012 Ste...
-
Scott Walker's political fortunes are wilting under the weight of his absurd pledge to create 250,000 jobs in Wisconsin in four years - ...
-
MSNBC has been smart to hire GOP strategist Steve Schmidt. He just delivered a stunning denunciation of the "ludicrous" GOP positi...