Lautenschlager grandstands, taxpayers pay

Bruce Murphy must be psychic.

His online column for Milwaukee Magazine this week hits two topics -- "The Incredible Success of the Deep Tunnel" and "Is Peg Lautenschlager Dead Meat?"

The next day, AG Lautenschlager, looking for a headline, filed a lawsuit against MMSD, the sewerage district everybody loves to hate, falsely claiming that MMSD had violated its state permit because of sewage overflows.

She may not have gotten the reaction she expected. Even some of the right-wingers like Republican radio host Jeff Wagner -- who detests MMSD -- wondered aloud whether it makes sense for the state to file this suit.

You see, the state Dept. of Justice, which Lautenschlager heads, will pay the costs for prosecuting the case. But it's really Wisconsin taxpayers, of course, who foot the bill.

MMSD is a public body. The cost of its legal defense will be paid by -- you guessed it -- the taxpayers.

If Lautenschlager wins the case, she's asking MMSD to be fined. You know who will pay the fine, of course -- the taxpayers.

And she wants MMSD to spend more money, apparently, than the $900-million in capital expenditures already on the drawing board. And who will pay for any added projects? Need I say it? The taxpayers.

Lautenschlager tried to distinguish between the 28 communities served by MMSD and MMSD itself, saying she wasn't suing those communities, just the district. It is, of course, the taxpayers of those 28 communities who will pay the bill for her lawsuit against MMSD.

She hasn't made any friends with local officials, including a number of promiment Democrats like West Allis Mayor Jeannette Bell, who chairs MMSD, and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, whose mayoral campaign included a pledge to clean up MMSD.

They think she's grandstanding at taxpayer expense. And they're right.

---

(I should disclose that I am a former MMSD commissioner,where I learned the first rule of sanitary engineering: Shit flows downhill.)

---

UPDATE: In a strong letter to Lautenschlager, Barrett asks her to put up or shut up, basically, although he puts it more diplomatically in asking her to explain just what it is she would like MMSD to do and how much it might cost, pointing out that the money already being spent by "hard-working taxpayers . . . is not pocket change."

From the letter:

I’d like to commend you and your staff for the reasonable approach that has been taken with the twenty-eight Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District communities. I believe that working cooperatively with all parties toward a sensible and pragmatic settlement is in the best interest of taxpayers.

My reaction to your announced legal action against the MMSD and its 1.1 million customers is just the opposite. Quite frankly, I am disappointed.

In 2002, the MMSD entered into a court sanctioned stipulation that resulted in a $900 million tab for taxpayers. That agreement was approved by the Attorney General’s Office, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. There is little doubt that capital investments had to be made to improve the performance of the regional sewer system. At the end of 2005, more than $570 million in public funds will have been spent. Work on the remaining projects will be completed by 2010. Nine hundred million dollars is not pocket change. It comes from hard-working citizens who don’t hold most government agencies, or higher taxes for that matter, in high regard.

I have asked the MMSD Commissioners to hold a special meeting on Monday, November 7th. I asked for this meeting because I was not happy with the Commission’s action to increase the MMSD’s 2006 capital budget an additional 2%. And while I understand MMSD’s need to keep pace with meeting the stipulated demands, I want to reduce costs.

In order for the Commission to accurately plan for 2006 and beyond, please provide my office and the MMSD the specific actions and/or projects you feel are necessary for the MMSD to undertake in order to satisfy the compliance issues you have raised at your press conferences. I also would like to see all costs associated with those actions and/or projects.

In addition, please provide my office and the MMSD, a detailed account of what MMSD actions and/or capital projects your office has found to be delinquent in meeting the 2002 stipulation. This would include actions and/or projects the MMSD has completed, that are currently being undertaken, and those actions and/or projects that are planned.

As you are aware, there are one hundred twenty-three MMSD capital projects included in the District’s 2006 budget. It may be in the MMSD’s interest not to fund those projects if you are planning on expanding the scope and costs of any or all of those items. I assume that you would agree that you have a responsibility to MMSD and its ratepayers to inform them of the financial impacts of your action.

Thank you for your immediate attention to this request. I look forward to reviewing your information prior to the November 7th MMSD Commission meeting.