Feed aggregator

No formal review of the application from the City of Waukesha for a Great Lakes diversion has yet begun, according to the website established by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to track the application's status.
The application was endorsed by the Waukesha Common Council in April, then edited by Waukesha Water Utility and City Attorney officials before being submitted in June to the DNR, which tabled it pending receipt of additional information it sought from Waukesha.
The DNR is still assessing that added material - - the application, the DNR's review process and other relevant documentation are also on the DNR site.
Waukesha is applying for water under the 2008 Great Lakes Compact; Wisconsin and all seven other Great Lakes states would have to approve the application, with consultation and input also obtained - - but not a vote - - from two Canadian provinces that also border the Great Lakes before the application plan could be implemented.
The application has been analyzed and criticized by a coalition of environmental organizations: that analysis is here. Other references, here.
So it's not a quick or simple undertaking - - and Waukesha has agreed in writing to meet a June, 2018 legal deadline for the provision of water to its customers that complies with Federal quality standards.
Some Waukesha water from deep wells must be filtered and blended with water from separate, shallow wells to remove naturally-occurring radium - - a process Waukesha wants to end by switching to a Lake Michigan supply.
Waukesha believes Lake Michigan water supplied by the City of Milwaukee is its best option and estimates that such a plan would cost $164 million.
Among the many answered questions:
Would water supplied by Oak Creek or Racine be less or more expensive than a City of Milwaukee supply?
Will Waukesha's plan to send its treated wastewater back to Lake Michigan via Underwood Creek and the Menomonee River - - and not through a pipeline directly to the lake or to the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District - - pass an environmental review in Wisconsin, and perhaps in other states concerned about the overall health of the Great Lakes basin?
Does Waukesha have additional and viable alternatives to a Lake Michigan diversion that will meet the Federal water quality standards?
Can Waukesha clear the multitude of legal, political and environmental hurdles the application faces - - in Waukesha, in Southeastern Wisconsin, at the DNR and across the Great Lakes both in the US and Canada - - by the June, 2018 deadline?
Some of these questions may produce answers if the DNR opens its formal application review, and if and when Waukesha or the DNR releases the Oak Creek and Racine cost information.
Those estimates are believed to have been made, though Waukesha has said for competitive and negotiating reasons it intends to keep them confidential.
Milwaukee is working on a separate compilation of cost estimates covering potential Milwaukee, Racine and Oak Creek supplies - - all part of what will influence contract and negotiations should they get underway if the DNR review proceeds.
And finally, will Milwaukee and Waukesha, should the application be approved by all eight states - - and if with Milwaukee is the preferred supplier- - be able to reach a deal for water that a) meshes Milwaukee's interest in a broad agreement tying water to a comprehensive social and economic issues package, with b) objections to that kind of a broader plan already stated by a number of leading Waukesha officials?
Complicated? You bet.
Was the Lake Michigan option the right choice by Waukesha?
The application is the first of its kind, all parties are in uncharted waters, and at this point there are more questions than answers.

Facing dim economic headlines and a bleak forecast for the upcoming midterm elections, President Obama visited Laborfest Monday at the Summerfest grounds, where he rolled out a $50 billion program to rebuild roads, railways and runways. Here is a transcript of the President's speech:

Some of the UK's rarest bumblebees are at risk of becoming extinct as a result of inbreeding, research suggests.

Scientists are concerned that exposure to chemicals used in non-stick frying pans could raise cholesterol levels in children after finding a link.

Too few UK cancer patients are receiving state-of-the-art radiotherapy care, experts from Cancer Research UK say.

Criminals have managed to clone prepayment meter keys in order to make money by offering discounted credit to customers.

Retail sales rose in August, partly thanks to strong sales of children's clothing ahead of the new school year, figures suggest.

The International Atomic Energy Agency says Iran has hindered its investigations by repeatedly objecting to its choice of inspectors.

For Mark Concannon, fantasy football isn't his cup of tea. But he wishes your team luck, anyway.

A study suggests climate change is not responsible for civil wars in Africa, challenging widely held assumptions.

Teams in Guatemala resume rescue work following devasting mudslides which have killed at least 44 people.

Plans to change the way MPs are elected to Parliament survive their first Commons hurdle - despite criticism from Tory MPs.

Former Liverpool and Lyon boss Gerard Houllier is set to be appointed as Aston Villa's new manager on Wednesday, BBC Sport understands.

» Plan, yet to be fully laid out, would devote billions to 4,000 miles of new railways, in addition to roads, air traffic, and transit. Congressional approval is unlikely to be easy.

President Obama, at least, is not yet willing to give up on his Administration’s hope to eventually connect 80% of the American population to intercity rail service. After committing $8 billion to such services a year and a half ago during negotiations for the stimulus, the President announced today that he would campaign to devote $50 billion to an improved transportation system, including more spending on high-speed rail, road maintenance, local transit, and better runways. Any such program would require Congressional approval before moving forward.

The Administration’s new proposal seems to be an attempt to accomplish the goals of a new transportation bill without actually passing reauthorization legislation. The previous bill expired in 2009; spending is now being determined year-to-year and being partially sponsored by general income tax revenues, rather than being determined over a six-year period being sponsored entirely by fuel tax revenues, as was until recently the modus operandi.

The federal government currently spends about $50 billion annually on all forms of transportation.

At this time, it is not clear how much enthusiasm the Congress holds for what is being portrayed as a second stimulus, nor how much can actually be built with the money, which would be invested over a period of six years though mostly at the front end. Neither the House nor the Senate, both under Democratic control but threatened in this fall’s elections by increasingly popular anti-spending Republicans, seem particularly thrilled about the idea of voting for a new government program. Few specifics of the proposal have been revealed, other than that the Administration is again promoting its idea for a national infrastructure bank, a program it has had in mind since assuming office in early 2009.

Nor has the President addressed the all-consuming question of how many jobs this program will produce. Despite the fact that there is evidence that investment in public transportation operations is one of the most effective ways to get people back to work, what little has been said about this new spending seems to indicate that it would only go to capital investments. Funding will not be debt-based, the President said, though the exact mechanism to raise the needed dollars has yet to be worked out.

Mr. Obama’s framework, he claimed today, would result in the renovation of 150,000 miles of existing roadways, the construction of 4,000 miles of new railways, and the rehabilitation of 150 miles of runways. Evidently, money is also to be earmarked for the public transit New Starts program, which funds major expansion programs, usually in the form of rail rapid transit. The exact distribution of funds has not been addressed, nor has a decision-making process about worthy projects been established.

The proposal, though certainly a refreshing move from an Administration that over the last few months had threatened a “freeze” on spending, may simply not go far enough to produce effective change, especially for the national high-speed rail program. Even if all the money were spent on fast trains, the majority of money would have to be devoted to just one corridor: the California High-Speed project, which is in need of $20 to $30 billion in federal funds to be completed, depending on the level of private investment pinpointed. As things stand, with the $50 billion to be spread out between all modes in the transportation system, far less will actually be spent on any one mode. This means that smaller, incremental projects are likely to be the biggest beneficiaries here.

Mr. Obama, mimicking what has become standard industry commentary, suggested again that a national infrastructure bank be created to fund transportation projects. It’s a problematic concept from a variety of perspectives, including the fact that unless it is used purely on projects that make money in the long term (generally not rail or transit), it isn’t actually a new funding source, it’s just a different way of distributing existing money.

This second stimulus could be structured to include what the Administration is calling a “long-term framework” for national transportation policy, arguably vital for a country that lacks true goals for the future of its mobility system. Mr. Obama stated his desire to put high-speed rail “on an equal footing” with the rest of the transportation system. The program would also consolidate 100 transportation programs, supposedly with the goal of streamlining operations in the Department of Transportation, a move that was suggested by House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar (D-MN) more than a year ago.

Instead of relying on a transportation reauthorization bill to accomplish a change in policy, the Congress may have an opportunity to promote similar goals if it moves forward with the passage of this bill. For those promoting alternatives to an automobile-centric transportation network, that may be a good thing, since this program will not rely on an increase in the gas tax to fund new spending, arguably a necessary change if we are to accept the fact that the current user fee model for funding is not only obsolete but inappropriate for today’s needs.

Most importantly, though, despite its optimism Mr. Obama’s proposal is coming at the exactly wrong time from a political perspective. Democrats have been slow to embrace significant spending even on transportation, arguably a matter that is of bipartisan interest. Why will they do so now? And if they do, will they choose to advance the policies the President has suggested are most important to him, like high-speed rail and transit, or will they attempt to placate suburban and rural interests with more highway spending?

Update: As commenter Jim points out, the Administration may be suggesting this proposal as the transportation bill reauthorization itself, which would add a total of $175 billion over the next six years, not just $50 billion. Whether that is true remains to be seen — we have yet to see the actual plan.

Now, Andy Noble, Brent Goodsell and Opiated Black celebrate the seventh anniversary of The Get Down funk and soul dance party on Saturday, Sept. 11 at 10 p.m. at The Mad Planet.

Emmerdale wins three prizes at the TV Choice Awards, with EastEnders taking the prize for best soap in its 25th anniversary year.

Getting the pork out of highway-building is probably impossible, given its centerpiece in the economy - - a point reiterated in the President's address in Milwaukee today - - but a rationalized process that includes rail and other transportation projects funded by an infrastructure bank is a good organizational change.
I loved the administration's commitment in his Labor Day speech to a national passenger rail system; jobs and growth for Milwaukee will be and already are the local outcomes - - white-collar as well as construction and equipment assembly- - and that point needs to be emphasized throughout the campaign.
If Walker or Neumann campaign against rail, that needs to be framed for what it is - - opposition to good jobs and meaningful growth in Milwaukee and Wisconsin - - including rail-induced development, worker paychecks, business services, and tax-base - - that would be lost to neighboring states if the high-speed train, an Amtrak upgrade, is blocked between Chicago and Madison.
Chicago is going to be hub for a regional train network that will offer connections for medium-length travel, on wi-fi equipped cars, that will be a boon to business and vacation travelers.
Not everyone has car, or wants to drive, for example, from Milwaukee to St. Paul, or St. Louis to Madison, with intermediate stops, airline cancellations or various issues or stresses with highway driving over several hundred miles or more.
Obama's plan will keep road-building at a very high pace, so the highway lobby and its allies in both parties, in all legislators, have nothing to fear from the train alternative getting some funding.

A father speaks of his shock after his eight-year-old son picked up a pipe bomb in a school playground in Antrim.

Read down the comments until you get to - Sep 05, 2010 5:24 PM - - when Xoff brings the historical context.

Boom! Too funny.

Severe disruption is expected on London Underground as the first workers begin a 24-hour strike.