 |
 |
 |
||
 |
|
|
||
|
||||
 |
|||||
|
7/19/2006 Water Diversions Need Public Oversight By Steve Branca The column below reflects the views of the author, and these opinions are neither endorsed nor supported by WisOpinion.com. The sneak attack on Lake Michigan water by New Berlin casts a bright light on a little-discussed, but crucial, element of the Great Lakes water debate: exactly what is the process to be used to apply for diversion permits, evaluation standards for those applications, and the public input and oversight of this process. It should have been impossible for New Berlin to apply for, and DNR to make a decision on, a diversion request without any public knowledge, much less input. As long as the newspapers (advertising base), and the regional planning commission (political base), have their suburban agendas, it is critical to develop a transparent process overseen by citizens, that documents need, requires prior conservation efforts, and assesses alternatives. This oversight should be provided by a citizen-appointed board. Credible voices with a broader view, and the opportunity to be heard, are sorely needed. When a newspaper article uses the phrases “radium-laced well water” and “radium-contaminated well system” in adjacent sentences, we can’t rely on them for accurate information. Responsible reporting would not allow the reader to infer that New Berlin citizens were drinking radium. They aren’t. New Berlin has to purify their water just like everyone else. Where is the reporting on what New Berlin has done to find or conserve water ? Why isn’t anyone questioning why New Berlin waited until the last minute to try to meet a deadline they’ve know about for years? And why, at that point, they chose the most extreme measure available? A proper public review process would bring all those issues to the fore in full view of the public. There must be public notice requirements, comment periods, and hearings like any other important public decision. Heck, a zoning change for a single lot is subject to more public scrutiny than New Berlin’s diversion request! These processes were developed to keep government accountable and credible to the people it serves. Documenting need for Lake Michigan water doesn’t require anything particularly difficult. In fact, all communities should be doing their homework whether they want Great Lakes water or not. Water is that important. Here are some elements of such a conservation plan: · inventory existing and future water supplies, not including Great Lakes water, · detailed analysis of current water usage by the applicant, · detailed projection of future water use, · conservation plan that indicates specific conservation measures and amount of water saved by each, · schedule for adopting and implementing the plan, and · a method for evaluation progress on each goal. Only after this plan is followed and it is certified by the applicant that reasonable water needs cannot be met by existing sources and conservation methods, should an application for diversion be accepted. Plan requirements and standards should be codified in the legislation establishing a citizen oversight and review mechanism, and defining responsibilities for all relevant parties. There should be no more stealth requests and stealth reviews. No more requests for diversion of Lake Michigan water should be accepted for review until a sound public process is in place. Temporary or expedient methods cloaked in secrecy too easily become permanent shortcuts. If suburban communities think that basic good government practice is threatening to their aims, then there is something wrong with their aims and they will do their citizens no good by pursuing them. Steve Branca is a consultant in sustainable development, and formerly with The Johnson Foundation in Racine. |
|