Steve,

Where do you get your information that the federal dollars won't pay for the project unless it is Milwaukee? That's seemingly incorrect information unless you have details otherwise?

Mr. Edlund, in essence the Waukesha Common Council has always and will always vote for the least expensive option short of sacrificing public safety. A long term permanent solution from Lake Michigan trumps the temporary fix of filtration on our deep wells plus adding numerous shallow wells in our neighbors' back yards followed still in 30 years by an attempt to buy Great Lakes water, which then, people will say we should have done in the first place. (And you should know as a School Board Member that revenue limits have nothing to do with utility rate charges.) The studies are done and the numbers are in, we can't conserve our way out of this problem - even without Milwaukee - the cheapest option in the long run is Great Lakes water.

@Mr Furrer,
When you state "least expensive option", are you referring to capital costs or rates for consumers? And"even without Milwaukee", without speculating can you please provide your sources?

My sources (see below comment)? Read the Great Lakes Application - http://www.ci.waukesha.wi.us/982 -
I know you have, you just disagree with the conclusions. Okay, you're entitled to your option just not your own facts.
What's my secret inside dope for saying that the City Council is looking for the best deal? It's no secret that the Common Council members are our neighbors who care about our City, nobody has a monopoly on that. I believe they are going to gather the facts, consult with their constituents, and then vote their conscience, same as you would. But we can't vote for resources we don't have. The water under our feet is disappearing. How to best structure that cost on behalf of the rate payers is the question they've been grappling with for over a decade. The chickens have come home to roost. The radium issue just moved the timeline forward. It's simple but expensive both in money and political willpower. It comes down too - pay now or pay now and more later. If we ultimately pay more in the long run by not getting Great Lakes water it won't be the first time we've saddled the next generation with problems we didn't want to solve ourselves.

@ Paul,
Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, you're dealing with outdated info. Since the Milwaukee deal isn't going to happen the potential $50 million in Army Corp of Engineering funds is dead.
The info submitted to the Public Service Commission
http://psc.wi.gov/apps40/dockets/content/detail.aspx?dockt_id=6240-WR-107
states that the next cheapest option is Oak Creek with a Underwood Creek return at $261 million. That's $97 million more than Milwaukee plus the loss of the potential $50 million which Milwaukee will want their hands on. Add to the O&M cost the cost of purchasing the water from Oak Creek.
There is only 1 local option more expensive than Oak Creek at $350 million, but the water is free for all local options.
There's even options the utility hasn't looked at.
Like it or not, all these options available to Waukesha will be examined by the Council of Great Lakes Governors and how can they not tell us to come back when when have no other options. It's not our decision. How much more will we raise water rates on chasing a pot of liquid gold? Wasted money could be spent on fixing the problem we have now - a court ordered mandate. Keep in mind , Paul that the water rates didn't go up 27% on apartments, businesses, and industry. They eclipsed 30% and this is the first of 4 proposed increases. The longer the council prolongs the pursuit of Lake Michigan water, the greater the deterrent to live and do business in the City of Waukesha.

Mr Edlund, one talked about grant is not the only Federal money that exists. Many people feel that the Federal Government is in part responsible for our problem via the EPA's radium level ruling and as such the Federal Government can help fund a solution. I'm not embarrassed to have our leaders ask. This rate increase is a done deal now but the larger questions remain. I'm willing to wait for negotiations and the application process to finish. With respect to costs, the longer we wait at expending our deep well filtration project (if deigned Lake Michigan water) the cheaper it will be. It cost money to operate these filters (I know it costs money to buy Lake Michigan water too so if you ask me we don't switch anything until the last minute anyway.) Who knows, if we are forced to continue on local water resources maybe in 20 years (when our water runs low) Milwaukee will be back at the table as the shortest distance to the Lake. But my guess is that even decades hence "Milwaukee" will still be used here as a dirty word to score political points much the same way that "Waukesha" is used there for the same.

Drive through the wealthy areas. Their green lawns and 5 figure landscaping indicate they don't share your concern.

Agreed, I have a neighbor that says to hell with the watering restrictions of what days to water and puts his sprinkler out every day. Easy to tell which properties adhere to those rules. I feel better knowing I'm doing what I can to conserve.

@KKM
Good for you. You and many others demonstrate that water conservation is much more than toilet rebates. This is a big fear of the water utility. Less water sold means less revenue. Water from Milwaukee, Oak Creek, or Racine will certainly mean an abundant supply at a very high cost to the community and certainly dwindling revenue with less water sold. Local sources will encourage conservation.
We have many more options than a Great Lakes Diversion.