New survey shows mixed feelings on water issues

A new survey of nearly 400 residents of the Milwaukee, Kinnickinnic, and Menomonee River watersheds shows opinions are mixed on the role of government and the impacts of individual actions on protecting the region’s water resources.

The survey, designed and analyzed by the Public Policy Forum and commissioned by 1000 Friends of Wisconsin, also shows that citizens rank “the quality of water in the inland lakes, rivers, and streams in southeastern Wisconsin” an average of 3.3 on a scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 representing “extremely poor” and 5 representing “excellent”), and that sewer overflows and flooding are considered to be the top two water problems for the region during the next decade.

Respondents also view many government actions to protect water resources as at least somewhat effective, but split on whether the best governing body for water resource management is the state or a regional water district.

The most striking finding is that, in general, most respondents feel that the actions of individuals are not likely to have a big impact on water conservation or water quality. Yet, when asked about specific actions individuals might take in these areas, most are seen as being at least somewhat effective. In addition, when asked about their own actions, most respondents indicate they have taken action, or would be willing to do so, to protect the region's water resources.

A complete analysis of the survey can be found on the Forum's website.

The survey was funded by the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program and The Joyce Foundation of Chicago, with additional support from the Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc. and American Rivers. The Research Brief was underwritten by Badger Meter.

The People Speak: Citizens' Views on Energy Policy

Most area residents are at least somewhat concerned about increases in energy costs and, accordingly, most say they have taken steps to conserve energy. That’s according to the latest People Speak poll of 395 residents of Southeast Wisconsin, which also shows that most citizens in the region are willing to pay more for fuel efficient cars, appliances, and homes, and that most support certain tax incentives to conserve energy or lessen reliance on non-renewable energy sources.

The latest People Speak is the fourth edition of this regional tracking poll, which is a partnership between the Public Policy Forum, UWM's Center for Urban Initiatives and Research, and The Business Journal Serving Greater Milwaukee. Over the past six months there has been a sharp increase in the percentage of respondents who feel jobs and economic development are the most important issues facing the region. The environment ranks low as a concern for most citizens, as it has in each of the previous People Speak polls.

Despite the low priority placed on environmental issues, citizens are concerned about energy costs and climate change. These concerns are echoed in the actions most citizens report taking to conserve energy, including purchasing energy-efficient light bulbs, turning down the air or heat at home, and buying energy-efficient appliances. Fewer respondents report reducing their driving by walking or bicycling more often, and a very small percentage of respondents say they carpool or take public transit.

Overall, citizens' concerns about cost and climate change are also reflected in their support for energy conservation policies such as tax incentives or benefits to individuals and businesses for conservation, requirements that cars be more fuel efficient, and requiring utility companies and business to use more alternative, renewable energy sources. There is less support building a new nuclear energy plant in Wisconsin. Reducing the speed limit and establishing a utility surcharge for exceeding monthly household energy-use limits are not supported.

For the complete People Speak poll results, as well as analysis of the results, visit the poll's homepage.

Conference casts Wisconsin as uniquely engaged with water issues

Last week’s “Water and People” conference presented by the Marquette University Law School underscored the importance of water to Wisconsin in terms of a natural resource, an economic development driver, and a commodity to be regulated and potentially traded. Numerous speakers described Wisconsin residents as being far ahead of other areas in understanding water’s importance and influence on quality of life.

Where water issues intersect with policy issues, Wisconsin’s abundance of water was identified as both a positive and a negative. Having so much water, which is priced relatively cheaply, may discourage some from realizing the need for conservation, taxes, regulatory policies, and relative equity in water distribution. This contrasts with public debates about oil and other energy sources, where scarcity and high prices generate concerned consumers, interest in conservation, and a multitude of regulations. Dr. Jame Schaefer, a professor of theology at Marquette University, did caution against viewing water as a commodity or resource, however, stressing that it has intrinsic worth beyond its usefulness.

As Wisconsin positions itself to emerge as a leader in freshwater technologies, the division between environmental concerns and economic development was identified by some conference panelists as a false dichotomy. Art Harrington, a partner at the Godfrey and Kahn law firm, said that a main challenge is not necessarily having regulations, but uncertainty about what regulations will be. He called for clear guidance from government on what water policy will be 15 years in the future, since certainty contributes to economic opportunity and investment.

Despite the codification of many water use policies in the Great Lakes Compact, some water issues are still up for debate. Maureen Taylor, Executive Director of the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization, cast water as a human rights issue, noting that 42,000 Detroit households had their water shut off in one year. The conference also explored questions such as: Who should have access to water and to whom does water belong? Who should pay for water and how should it be priced? As southeast Wisconsin moves forward in conservation, regulation, and entrepreneurship, we have the potential to break new ground in answering these questions within the context of their environmental, economic and ethical implications.

Stay tuned for the results of the Forum's latest People Speak Poll, conducted in conjunction with the Center for Urban Initiatives and Research at UW-Milwaukee and The Business Journal, which probes public opinion on various water issues in the region. The poll results will be released in The Business Journal on March 12.

Regional identity could help Great Lakes cities leverage their assets

We’ve all heard of the brain drain—that powerful vacuum sucking all of the college-educated young professionals out of cities like Milwaukee. More recent reporting suggests that many who leave later return to the Milwaukee area. What do these returned brain drainers like myself have to say about their beloved but struggling Midwestern cities? Detroit’s Sarah Szurpicki and Abby Wilson of Pittsburgh have the answer. After stints in New York City and South Africa, the duo returned to their hometowns to co-found GLUE (Great Lakes Urban Exchange), an organization seeking to bolster regional identity among older industrial cities.

GLUE just completed its second annual conference in Milwaukee, featuring an inspirational mix of post-boomer urbanites from rust-belt cities like Buffalo and Cleveland sharing ideas about urban renewal, the green economy, sustainability, transit, community journalism and more. Following tours of the Growing Power urban farm, Menomonee Valley’s sustainable redevelopment, and the Great Lakes Water Institute, I’m still on a high from hearing so many people call Milwaukee a beautiful and impressive city. One participant from St. Louis commented, only partially joking, that he was now deciding between Paris and Milwaukee for his honeymoon.

If that didn’t warm my Milwaukee-loving heart enough, there was also serious information about how the Midwest can leverage its assets to compete in the post-industrial economy (covered locally here and here). Conference speaker Richard Longworth, senior fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, first laid out some bad news: the Midwest has in some ways lost its embrace of change and its former knack for innovation and creativity. Moreover, independent-minded Midwesterners are not accustomed to working across borders to create regional, shared solutions. No Midwestern university teaches even one course on the Midwest. Fragmented efforts, such as the fact that each state has its own separate bioscience organization, lead to duplication and competition. Longworth didn’t mince words. “The good news is this era is so new. The bad news,” he said, “is that so much of the Midwest is already behind.”

The advantages that Great Lakes cities share include having existing infrastructure and appealing street grids, a density that can support development, an intense work ethic, access to bioscience raw materials, and, of course, plentiful fresh water. Opportunities exist if the region plays its cards right, in industries of the future such as clean water technology, bioscience, nanotechnology, green industry, and transit.

But how can the Midwest and its Great Lakes cities maximize assets? Multiple speakers at the GLUE conference stressed the need for regional planning and geographic unity (as did this recent local editorial), what Longworth characterized as a need for a Midwestern Marshall Plan. Tom Wolfe of the Northeast Midwest Institute described how sustainability should be a principle criterion for the distribution of federal dollars. Kate Rube of Smart Growth America showed how current zoning and land growth laws need to be revised because they often make “smart growth” sustainable development illegal. John Austin of the New Economy Institute highlighted affirmative, targeted immigration policies as a promising strategy for bringing innovation back to the Midwest, an especially important approach for Midwestern cities that are losing population.

The winds of change blowing off the lake appear to suggest that Great Lakes cities would do well to adopt an open attitude toward regionalism, the new green economy, and the feedback of young professionals who are reversing the brain drain in their post-industrial Midwestern cities and beginning to speak with a unified voice through organizations like Great Lakes Urban Exchange.

Lake Michigan wind could power Milwaukee

As recently reported in the Daily Reporter, the Washington Post, and Jim Rowen's The Political Environment blog - the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin has initiated a study "assessing the wind power generation potential of the Great Lakes."

Offshore wind farms are not the stuff of science fiction. In fact, I see them twice a year when I fly into Copenhagen, Denmark to visit my girlfriend's family. From the air they look like tiny white specks set against a giant blue canvass. From land, they look much the same. For those who dislike the idea of huge turbines obstructing their lake views, the fact that from the shore such turbines are nearly invisible might be a relief.

A group by the name of Radial Wind plans to erect 390 turbines in the water's of Lake Michigan. The group's website, freshly posted in 2008, claims that "Radial Wind Farm will be the largest supply of offshore wind energy in the world" generating 1,950 megawatts of electricity for customers in Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan (for context, Wisconsin's largest wind farm currently under development measures will produce 145 megawatts). The Radial Wind Farm would be located in the Mid-Lake Plateau region of Lake Michigan - a former island in the middle of Lake Michigan which lies directly east of Milwaukee at "at depths less than 90 meters and extends upward to minimum depths of 40-60 meters at three localities." Again, according to the website, the nearest turbine to Wisconsin's coast would be approximately 18 miles east of Milwaukee. That would be far enough away to be invisible to onlookers from the Milwaukee shore. It should be noted that the Radial Wind project has yet to be formally proposed or publicly vetted.

One inherent advantage to turbine siting on lakes versus on land is the fact that smooth lake surfaces fuel steady winds. A 2004 report entitled, "Lake Michigan Offshore Wind Resource Assessment," which was partially funded by Wisconsin's Focus on Energy program, found the Mid-Lake Plateau region to be an "excellent offshore wind resource" with steady 20mph winds and the energy potential of the site "in excess of 10,000 megawatts."

Tapping Lake Michigan's wind energy could be one way for the Milwaukee region to bolster its economic competitiveness. With "green" quickly replacing "silicon" as the holy-grail of economic development, such a vast well of untapped clean energy would seem to be a priceless commodity in a low-carbon future. The role that this could play in recruiting industry and business could be substantial if businesses are able to offset carbon emissions with carbon-credits from their consumption of clean energy derived from Milwaukee wind. Of course, the flip-side of this argument is that clean energy could lure "dirty" industries not unlike the 2003 decision by Alcoa to construct a $1.1 billion aluminum smelter in pristine, carbon-free, Iceland. Beyond recruitment, the construction of such a large offshore wind farm could spur job-creation in Wisconsin's nascent wind manufacturing industry (Tower Tech Systems, Magnetek, Cooper Power Systems, and American Superconductor).

The technology to erect wind turbines in the relatively deep waters of Lake Michigan's Mid-Lake Plateau has yet to arrive. However, developers seem to believe that this is both a money-making and environmentally friendly proposition. Will Wisconsin citizens and government regulators agree?
************************************************************************************
Update: Since the posting of this blog, an article covering the above story has appeared on the front page of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Water solution in Brown County. Really?

Recently, the Business Journal ran an article highlighting a just-completed 65-mile, $80 million pipeline that delivers fresh Lake Michigan water to the suburbs of Brown County from Manitowoc, WI. In the article, the Business Journal states that "what happened in Brown County could serve as a prototype for southeast Wisconsin," implying that the Milwaukee region could learn something from Brown County in addressing the water demand in its suburban communities.

Based on previous reporting in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (JS), this implication is puzzling. The JS article reports that instead of utilizing the existing City of Green Bay pipeline, an entirely separate pipeline had to be constructed because negotiations broke down between the city and its suburbs.

How can the construction of redundant infrastructure - two parallel pipelines stretching from Lake Michigan to Brown County) - be good public policy?

In addition to the apparent fiscal inefficiencies of the Manitowoc/Brown County pipeline, this project may have also cost the Green Bay region a chance at building regional trust, goodwill and cooperation. So state the major players in the pipeline negotiations...

From the suburbs: "Think of the old days, when people fought over water out West. Those days are still here. It just boggles the mind that you can't get people to cooperate on something as basic as water."

From the city: "This was a failure of business, a failure of government, a failure of the media. A failure by everybody. We're taking $20 million to $100 million out of the Brown County economy . . . for no other reason than we can't get along."

From the suburbs: "We all went into this with the idea that we had a regional problem and we were going to come out of this with a regional solution. Unfortunately, it didn't work out that way."

From the city: "It (the pipeline) puts a dollar figure on urban-suburban hate."

These statements from those close to the negotiations question whether this $80 expenditure should be hailed as a prototype for regional cooperation.

It looks as though the Milwaukee Common Council may have been following this debate closely, as they have decided, instead, to negotiate with their thirsty suburban neighbors. Here's hoping these negotiations don't also end up placing a dollar figure on urban-suburban hate. I'll drink to that.

PPF Pearl: The Oil of the 21st Century

Southeastern Wisconsin’s water is in the news this fall – as a commodity coveted in the west, as a weapon in the regional conflicts over development, as a potential asset to improve our economic competitiveness, and today again as a diminishing resource in Lake Michigan. All of this makes it worthwhile to revisit the findings of the Forum’s water study that concluded last year.

Our research drew some important conclusions about water resource management. We reported the following:

“Unlike counties and villages, water knows no boundaries, making management of this asset extremely complex…We face urgent problems, such as dropping water tables and deteriorating quality. Jurisdictional overlaps, policy gaps, and lack of information hamper solutions. Leaders must think strategically and regionally about managing water resources.”

Our advisory panel called for an integrated water strategy that recognizes the relationship between surface waters and groundwater, one that addresses quality and quantity, links to other types of planning and is grounded in scientific data that might ultimately lead to a “no-net loss” concept of replenishing the water we use.

The attention our water draws will increase dramatically as we get deeper into the 21st century, and the news will continue to underscore the importance of our behaving regionally and strategically. The urgency of cooperation in Southeastern Wisconsin – and within the larger Great Lakes region -- seems to be accelerating.

Dispatch from Denver: One City’s Efforts to Combat Climate Change

As a research organization focused on local issues, the Public Policy Forum hasn’t taken up the issue of climate policy, but perhaps we should. The City of Boulder, Colorado, has determined that climate change is a local issue, and has instituted a comprehensive Climate Action Plan.

Boulder’s efforts began in 2002 when the city council endorsed the Kyoto Protocol and adopted the goal of reducing carbon emissions to 7% less than 1990 levels by 2012. (This equates to a 19% reduction from 2005 levels.) The next year the city manager used $100,000 of his contingency fund to conduct an emissions inventory, which found that 54% of the carbon emissions from Boulder were due to electricity use, 15% from natural gas use, 27% from vehicle fuel, and 4% from escaping landfill gases. The decision was made to create a Climate Action Plan to outline greenhouse gas reduction programs the city would promote, support, or implement. In 2004 and 2005, $258,000 was appropriated in each year for planning. These appropriations came from an increase in the tax charged to private trash collectors. As the planning process came to an end and some small programs were put in place, the city council had to determine how to fund the comprehensive plan and the implementation of large scale programs.

The result of the debate was a proposed tax on energy use, dubbed the carbon tax. Because of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) provision in Colorado’s constitution, the new tax had to be approved by the voters, which it was in November 2006 by a 60-40 margin. The carbon tax is used to fund staff to develop and implement emission reduction programs and to conduct public education. The tax applies to all energy users, both residential and commercial, but does not apply to vehicle fuels (which are taxed by the state) or to use of renewable energy sources such as wind or solar power. The tax is expected to bring in about $1 million per year until it sunsets in 2012, at which time the city hopes to have met its emission reduction goal. The tax is estimated to add about 1% to a homeowner’s energy bill, or about $16 per year per household. The local utility collects the tax and partners with the city in programming and public education efforts.

It should be noted that “carbon tax” may be a misnomer, as it is not a tax designed to act as an incentive to reduce energy use. It is, in reality, an excise tax on energy consumption and is not designed to tax at a high enough rate to change consumer behavior. It is designed as a new revenue stream to fund new city programs under the Climate Action Plan. However, the city council endorsed the carbon tax nomenclature in order to make a more explicit connection in consumers’ mind between energy use and carbon emissions.

The current programs funded by the carbon tax include:

Reduction of residential emissions

• Home weatherization for low-income residents
• Residential energy audits at low or no cost to homeowners
• Door-to-door public education campaigns
• Multi-family unit energy and water conservation audits (As home to the University of Colorado, Boulder has a large student population and half of its residential units are rentals.)
• Compact fluorescent light bulb give-aways
• Energy STAR certification and labeling

Commercial

• Trade ally network for credit trading under the Chicago Climate Exchange
• Energy conservation training for contractors and property managers
• Rebates
• Energy and lighting design assistance

Among other things, the plan also calls for municipal use of solar energy, solar rebates for homeowners, dedicated capacity on transmission lines for renewable energy, and decreasing vehicle miles and/or emissions. Currently under discussion is whether to renew the utility’s franchise when it expires or to have the municipality act as the utility, buying power on the open market.