10th Annual State of the State's Environment Report
Earth Day 2002
Introduction and Summary
Each Earth Day Clean Wisconsin releases its annual State of the State's Environment Report. The report focuses on some of the most important policy decisions and activities over the past year that affect Wisconsin's natural resources and public health. The report documents the high and low points in policy decisions or other actions that affect Wisconsin's environment.
After documenting the high and low points for the environment, the report makes an assessment on the overall state of the state's environment, again particularly in light of policy events since last year's Earth Day. This year the report finds that the state of the state's environment is:
FOR SALE
Money often drives environmental policies or stands in the way of them. Even with thousands of individuals testifying or contacting their legislators to take a stand to protect the environment, decisions continue to be made that reflect another type of influence, money. This report provides examples of how Wisconsin's environment is being sold out beneath us.
Low Points:
1. The Republican Assembly's budget repair bill;
2. PSC's authorization of a high voltage transmission line across northern Wisconsin
3. The DNR's failure to include buffer strips in the new polluted runoff program;
4. The application by Wisconsin Electric Co.'s to build three new coal power plants in Oak Creek
High Points:
1. The court victory over Perrier
2. The legislature's new law to protect wetlands by closing the federal loophole on developing isolated wetlands.
3. Ashley Furniture was denied special exemption to fill in a wetland
Low Points
1. The Assembly Republican budget repair bill � Money talks and nowhere does it talk louder than in the halls of the state Capitol. The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign has done a good job of documenting the obscene sums of money flowing from special interest lobby groups to law makers in hopes of passing or stopping their most or least favorite bills. The Assembly Republican leadership has demonstrated a disturbing knack for converting those dollars into policies that reduce environmental protection. Their attack on the DNR's water program, reinvention of the Ashley furniture wetlands loophole and elimination of the newly created energy efficiency fund in this year's budget repair bill is consistent with this pattern.
2. The Duluth�Weston Transmission Line � While utilities don't make financial contributions directly to members of the Public Service Commission (PSC), they did contribute heavily to former Governor Tommy Thompson who appointed all three of our current Commissioners. Last fall, the PSC authorized permit applications from Wisconsin Public Service Corporation to build a 250 mile high-voltage transmission line across northern Wisconsin. They granted the permit despite the conclusion of their own Environmental Impact Statement that this would be the most environmentally destructive of six alternative routes and despite the existence less costly alternatives. Wisconsin' s Environmental Decade, SOUL and CUB have filed a lawsuit to overturn the decision.
3. DNR's failure to use buffer strips � Recently written regulations to curb polluted runoff from farm fields and city streets convert a voluntary program to an enforceable one but leave out the most useful practice�buffer strips. Here again, money has been the focal point, though not in the usual sense. In this case the DNR's main reason for omitting buffer strips was that they could jeopardize $240 million, a concern everyone shared. Once that concern was addressed in a compromise to phase in buffer strips, the DNR still wouldn't budge.
4. Wis. Electric's New Coal Plants � Utilities make money when they invest money. Building five power plants is a much bigger investment than building one, or than increasing energy efficiency, for that matter. Coal power plants are by far the biggest sources of air pollution in Wisconsin producing smog, acid rain, toxic fish, global warming and premature death. Wisconsin Electric's plans to build three new coal plants at the site of an existing plant in Oak Creek are all about money. Our concern is that the costs of health impacts and environmental degradation from increased global warming, mercury and other toxic emissions are not being fully accounted for. Over the next year a heated debate over the coal plants will take place at the Public Service Commission to determine if further reliance on the dirtiest fuel is best for Wisconsin's electric generation future.
High Points
1. The court victory over Perrier: The bottled drinking water giant Perrier made the most literal attempt to put Wisconsin's environment up for sale when they proposed tapping central Wisconsin springs for a bottling plant. Not surprisingly, local citizens organized swiftly and defended Wisconsin's buried treasure (groundwater) vociferously. Still it looked bleak when the DNR approved a permit for Perrier to pump 700,000 gallons per day, 12 months a year from Big Springs in Adams County. But local groups prevailed in a law suit against the DNR challenging their decision to not write an Environmental Impact Statement on the project. The judge agreed with the citizens and told the DNR to do their assessment over.
2. The legislature's new law to protect wetlands closed the federal loophole on developing isolated wetlands: The unanticipated decision by the Supreme Court in the SWANCC case left thousands of "isolated" wetlands (unattached to a major body of water) unprotected. The decision came in early January 2001. Concerned citizens responded by placing thousands of calls to legislators and eventually, over seventy statewide and local organizations signed a letter calling on the legislature to restore protection to Wisconsin's isolated wetlands. In response to the public pressure, Governor Scott McCallum appointed a focus group to prepare a bi-partisan bill that would restore the protection to isolated wetlands. The compromise bill was passed unanimously and on May 7, 2001 Wisconsin Act 6 was signed into law.
3. Ashley Furniture gets no special exemption: Due to back-door dealings, the 1999-2001 Sate Budget included a provision that gave Ashley Furniture Industries permission to expand into a fifteen acre wetland adjacent to their property and the Trempealeau River. The Thompson Administration, which signed the budget, received $31,000 from Ashley owners and executives. Five environmental groups responded quickly by filing a lawsuit against Ashley Furniture Industries in Trempealeau County Circuit Court alleging that the provision was unconstitutional because it referred to a private interest which did not have statewide implications. The court ruled in favor of the environment and democracy; Wisconsin set a strong precedent that the state budget is no place for special interest exemptions.
Low Point: Public Service Commission Approves Transmission Line
Background
In late 1999, two utilities (Minnesota Power and the Wisconsin Public Service Corporation of Green Bay) applied for a permit to build a 250-mile long, 150-foot wide, 345-kilovolt transmission line from Duluth, Minnesota to Wausau, Wisconsin. This line, known as the Arrowhead-Weston transmission line, would cut through 11 counties and countless farms and homesteads. This proposal sparked a great deal of concern and anger among homeowners and other northern Wisconsin residents. Many people are worried that private property will be condemned and seized and public property sold in order to build the line. Others worry that property values and tourism will decrease because of the line. In addition to its human impacts, the transmission line will further fragment already damaged wildlife habitats, and will likely cause an increase of air pollution from coal plants that will likely supply power to the line. Furthermore, this transmission line is likely to bring in power from a hydroelectric project in Manitoba that has caused great human rights violations and environmental damage.
During the hearing process, thousands of Wisconsin residents, primarily from northern Wisconsin, turned out to testify against the line. Concerned citizens formed Save Our Unique Lands (SOUL), a group dedicated to preventing the transmission line. Three groups, the Environmental Decade, Citizens Utility Board and SOUL, intervened in the hearing process in opposition to the line. The public hearing process generated thousands of pages of transcribed testimony. Expert witnesses provided by the parties opposed to the transmission line provided alternatives to the transmission line. The Environmental Impact Statement written by the PSC staff showed that, among eight alternative routes, the line proposed by the utilities had the greatest environmental impact in 9 of 11 categories.
What Happened This Year: "Public" Service Commissioners Ignore
Public
On August 17, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC), the agency responsible for Wisconsin's utilities, announced its long-awaited ruling on the Arrowhead-Weston Transmission Line. With one small change, the three member commission approved the route proposed by the utilities.
This decision did not come as a surprise to opponents of the transmission line but it still was a great disappointment. The complete and utter failure of the PSC to consider the potential environmental, economic and social damage of the line, as well as the many viable alternatives to the line was deplorable. In fact, throughout the process, the three members of the PSC were noticeably absent from the public hearings, creating a disrespectful contrast with the high level of public participation.
Letting the public down, the Public Service Commission failed to evaluate alternatives to the transmission line. The Wisconsin Public Service Corporation and Minnesota Power were required to submit alternatives to their preferred route. Although these alternatives received a precursory examination, no substantive evaluation was conducted of alterative routes. And no consideration was offered to non-transmission line alternatives submitted by the opposing parties in the case. Expert witnesses for transmission line opponents pointed out that Wisconsin's electrical needs can be met using already permitted new generation sources in state. However, the PSC ignored this point in its final ruling.
Looking Ahead: The Northwoods Fights Back
Despite the go-ahead from the PSC, the Arrowhead-Weston transmission line has already run into a major snag. In late January, the utilities requested permission from the Douglas County Board to survey and conduct environmental tests on public land as a preliminary step in the construction of the power line. Two days later, the County Board unanimously voted to deny the utilities access to county land. At the same time, the committees placed a freeze on the sale of public property along the path of the line. Although utilities can legally condemn private property through eminent domain, they cannot do the same with public property. Douglas County, as well as many other counties in Wisconsin, has passed a resolution against the Arrowhead-Weston Transmission line.
This move has stopped progress on the transmission line, at least for the moment. Negotiations between the county and the utilities will take place, but it may become necessary to develop a new route for the line. The project may have to go through the approval process all over again. In the meantime, lawsuits have been filed by WED, CUB and SOUL challenging the Commission's decision to permit the line.
For more information, call Keith Reopelle or Claire Schmidt at (608) 251-7020.
High Point: Closing the Federal Loophole on Developing Isolated Wetlands.
Background
On January 9, 2001 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision stating that "the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does not have jurisdiction over isolated, non-navigable wetlands." This unforeseen Supreme Court ruling suggested that all isolated wetlands, those not attached to a river or lake, would not be protected by the federal government. Losing federal protection placed hundreds of thousands of acres of Wisconsin wetlands at risk as they became open to development.
What Happened This Year
The Wisconsin State Senate quickly responded in bi-partisan fashion to the lack of protection for Wisconsin's isolated wetlands by passing legislation (SB 37) which "plugged the gap" created by the Supreme Court Decision.Unfortunately, this legislation was not well received in the Assembly as the bill languished in the Environment Committee for five weeks without a hearing on the proposed bill. Concerned citizens responded by placing thousands of calls to legislators and eventually, over seventy statewide and local organizations signed a letter calling on the legislature to restore protection to Wisconsin's isolated wetlands. In response to the public pressure, Governor Scott McCallum appointed a focus group to prepare a bi-partisan bill that would restore the protection to isolated wetlands. The compromise bill was passed unanimously and on May 7, 2001 Wisconsin Act 6 was signed into law.
Looking Ahead
Jurisdiction over isolated wetlands has now been given to the DNR and in the process, protection for all of the wetlands in the state has been secured. Wisconsin once again took the lead in environmental conservation, as it was the first state to pass legislation to restore protection for isolated wetlands following the Supreme Court decision. This legislation sets a precedent for future court decisions that may influence environmental conservation: the citizens of Wisconsin will respond quickly and will not allow politics to prevail over wetland protection.
High Point: Lawsuit Against Perrier Prevails
Background
In 1999, Perrier Corporation announced intentions to site a drinking water bottling operation near springs at the headwaters of the Mecan River in Waushara County. The Mecan is a high quality trout stream and numerous existing and newly formed (Friends of the Mecan) conservation groups rallied in vocal opposition to the water bottling giant. Perrier packed up and moved south to a new site at Big Springs just east of the Wisconsin Dells in Adams County. Although Big Springs is less pristine than the Mecan, local citizens again feared that the proposal to pump 700,000 gallons per day, 12 months of the year would adversely affect local lakes, streams and groundwater aquifers. Newly formed groups including Savin New Haven, Concerned Citizens of Newport and Water Keepers of Wisconsin joined Trout Unlimited, the River Alliance of Wisconsin and other groups and municipalities in fighting Perrier in Adams County.
Perrier applied to the DNR for a high capacity water supply well permit at the Big Springs site. The DNR lacks the legal authority to deny the permit based on environmental impacts. However, the DNR entered into an agreement with Perrier in which both parties agreed to do field tests to analyze the potential impact on Big Spring creek and other nearby waters, and the DNR agreed to conduct an Environmental Analysis (EA) under the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA). The field tests were conducted in the fall of 2000.The DNR subsequently wrote an EA in which they determined that a more thorough review in the form of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not needed.
Based on the EA the DNR set a pumping rate and issued a permit for Perrier's high capacity well in September of 2000. Meanwhile, the Adams County Board passed a resolution, by a vote of 14 to 3, opposing any large-scale extraction of spring water at or near Big Springs. Concerned Citizens of Newport (CCN), represented by Glenn Stoddard of Garvey and Stoddard, and the Ho-Chunk Nation, represented by Melissa Scanlan of Midwest Environmental Advocates (MEA), filed separate lawsuits challenging the DNR's decision to issue the permit. The lawsuit argued that the DNR should have written an EIS, and that they failed to fully involve the public in the EA process and decision on the permit.
What Happened This Year
On April 11 of this year, Acting Columbia County Circuit Judge Richard Wright ruled that the DNR's EA process was flawed and did not fully involve the public and was, therefore, in violation of WEPA. He further found that the DNR's record in the proceeding is inadequate and that "the DNR's decision not to prepare an EIS is unreasonable." Based on this ruling the judge ordered the DNR to reassess all potential environmental impacts of the proposal and to provide for full public input and participation as required under WEPA. The DNR must draft a new EA and make a new determination as to whether a full EIS is needed. "We consider this a big victory," said attorney Glenn Stoddard. "This sends a message to Perrier," he said. The group's ultimate goal is to convince Perrier not to exercise its permit and withdraw its application.
Looking Ahead
For the time being, Perrier has shifted its focus to the state of Michigan where it has secured the necessary permits and is moving forward with the construction of a bottling plant after meeting stiff opposition in Wisconsin. However, they still have the option of revisiting the Big Springs site. The Perrier debate has highlighted a glaring deficiency in groundwater protection laws. Under current law, the DNR can only deny a permit for a high capacity well if it finds the well will affect an existing municipal (public water supply) well. They have no authority to deny a permit for damage a proposed well might cause to the flow of lakes, rivers, wetlands or any other environmental impact, no matter how severe. In the last legislative session a number of bills were drafted and introduced to correct this problem. None of them passed however. While there is a great deal of agreement around regulating the bottled water industry and its impacts on Wisconsin waters, the policy raises many questions about other water uses, for example high capacity wells for agricultural irrigation. Some of the proposals to date would only regulate wells for pumping water for sale. Others would create a more comprehensive policy that addresses all potential uses detrimental to natural waterways. Environmental groups are more interested in a comprehensive policy. This issue is sure to be raised again in next year's legislative session. For more information contact the River Alliance of Wisconsin (257-9799) or Concerned Citizens of Newport at (608) 253-7266.
Low Point: The Assembly Republican Budget Repair Bill
Background
A slowed economy has meant decreased revenues, adding up to a 1.1 billion deficit in the state budget.
What Happened This Year
In response, Governor McCallum introduced a budget repair bill and called a special session of the legislature to work on this bill. In March, the Republican lead Assembly got the first shot at it and passed a version of the budget bill that would probably make Aldo Leopold spin in his grave. Among the more egregious cuts imposed by Assembly Republican Leaders were:
1) nearly $700,000 in DNR water protection funds, in addition to the $800,000 the Governor proposed cutting, which was in addition to $2 million the legislature cut from this program in last year's budget;
2) $62 million in energy conservation and efficiency funds. This funding, the Public Benefits Program, was just established two years ago in response to a 60% drop in utility funding of energy conservation programs;
3) $15 million in bonding for the Stewardship Fund. This is money used to purchase lands for wildlife habitat protection, state parks and other natural areas;
4) 3.6 positions for the statewide recycling program as well as removing the mandates for municipalities to conduct recycling programs.
Cutting the Public Benefits Fund is not only bad environmental policy; it is also bad fiscal policy. The irony here is that these dollars being used for energy conservation programs for home owners and businesses save Wisconsin citizens and businesses a great deal of money. In fact, each dollar invested in energy conservation usually pays back about three dollars to the home owner or business that made the investment. So the effect of cutting the Public Benefits Fund is taking money directly out of the pocket of Wisconsin citizens, all in the name of campaign rhetoric.
Slashing the Stewardship Fund also makes no discernable sense. All of this money is future bonding so it will do nothing to help balance the budget in the next biennium. Another area the Republican caucus took aim at is the water protection programs within the DNR. These programs have been targeted to such an extent that entire programs, such as the animal waste program, may be turned over to the EPA because they cannot be effectively administered by the DNR.
The Senate caucus has overturned most (all of those mentioned here), if not all, of the environmental policy damage done by the Assembly Republicans in the Senate version of the budget bill. If you are interested in any of the specifics of these issues and wonder how they faired, or what the Governor's ability to affect the final outcome is, please call us at (608) 251-7020.
High Point: Ashley Furniture Gets No Special Exemption
The biennial state budget passed by the state legislature and signed into law by Governor Tommy Thompson contained a provision which gave Ashley Furniture Industries permission to expand into a fifteen acre wetland adjacent to their property and the Trempealeau River. Prior to the passage of the 1999-2001 budget, Ashley had requested a permit to fill the fifteen acre wetland, but the DNR had denied the request citing the quality of the wetland habitat as well as its integral role as a "flood buffer" in the floodplain. The original budget provision was removed by the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee but was re-inserted into the budget package during closed conference committee meetings prior to the approval of the biennial budget by the legislature.
Five environmental groups responded quickly by filing a lawsuit against Ashley Furniture Industries in Trempealeau County Circuit Court alleging that the provision was unconstitutional because it referred to a private interest which did not have statewide implications. The Thompson administration defended the budget provision stating that the 280,000 square foot warehouse would prove to be vital to the state's economy. Ashley Furniture Industries' owners and top executives also donated more than $31,000 to Governor Thompson's re-election campaign.
The Trempealeau County Circuit Court ruled against Ashley Furniture Industries stating that "the law was a private bill, without statewide application, and it does not directly affect the general interest in a healthy state economy." Also, the provision, deemed a local bill, was not expressed in the title of the legislation as required by the state constitution. This ruling helped to protect citizens from back room budget deals in which campaign contributions may lead to the relaxation of environmental regulations and the sneaking of private bills into the budget. Allowing a company an exemption from DNR regulations would set a terrible precedent, whereas this ruling sets the precedent that legislators should engage in open and public debates concerning the fate of Wisconsin's wetlands. Environmental groups now search the biennial budget for "private bills" and will remain vigilant; Wisconsin's wetlands are not for sale!
Looking Ahead
Unfortunately, it looks as though Ashley will get their exemption from the legislature.
Low Point: Wisconsin Electric's Proposed New Coal Power Plants.
Background
The future of clean air in Southeast Wisconsin took a beating this year when Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO) filed their application for "Power the Future", a broad-reaching plan that includes building new power plants and upgrading transmission. Because WEPCO's plan only guarantees the retirement of one small coal-burning power plant and will mean a net increase in harmful air pollutants like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury and carbon dioxide, WEPCO's PTF plan has been given the nickname "Pollute the Future".
Why is WEPCO proposing new coal plants? While there are a number of answers to this question, the real answer is that building coal plants means a higher rate of return to the company.Even though coal plants bring more air pollution into Southeastern Wisconsin, WEPCO wants to build coal so they can make more money.
As part of the PTF plan, WEPCO will build two new pulverized coal plants in Oak Creek. Pulverized coal technology involves crushing coal into a fine powder burning it, which is basically the same technology that has been in use for over 50 years. Also part of PTF is one coal gasification plant, where solid coal is processed to a gas that is burned. The plant ends up being divided into two basic parts: a chemical plant to gasify the coal and a combined cycle turbine to burn the gas. A coal gasification plant produces substantially less air pollution but still involves coal mining, transportation and other solid waste issues.
WEPCO will also shut down the small pulverized coal plant in Port Washington and replace it with two natural gas plants. On the surface, this looks like a positive step forward, but how far? The two gas plants will be considered intermediate load plants instead of base load plants, meaning WEPCO will rely on the new and old coal to supply the bulk of electricity to Southeastern WI. WEPCO could seize the opportunity to produce significantly more electricity from a much cleaner source, natural gas, but the company would rather protect the bottom line and use the old coal plants to keep the lights on.
Of all the electricity used in Wisconsin, from in-state and imported sources, 79% is derived from burning coal. This dependency on such a dirty fuel source costs us all. The following is a list of four major air pollutants and the associated impacts, for which power plants are the largest source in Wisconsin:
· 35 %t of nitrogen oxide emissions, the main precursor to ground level ozone/smog. During an average summer, ozone smog in Wisconsin sends more than 4,000 people to the emergency room in respiratory distress and causes 150,000 asthma attacks.
· 80 % of sulfur dioxide emissions, which causes fine particle pollution (soot) and acid rain. Each year, fine particles from coal-burning power plants are responsible for 448 premature deaths and 9,340 asthma attacks in Wisconsin.
· 40 % of mercury emissions, which contaminate game fish. Every lake and river in the state is on a health advisory because of mercury contamination.
· 47 % of carbon dioxide emissions, the primary global warming gas.
Building more coal plants means more of these pollutants, as well as more pollutants like acid gases, heavy metals like arsenic, and much more.
Looking Ahead
The Public Service Commission will be holding at least two sets of hearings over the course of the rest of the year to get public input on the proposed power plants. A decision on whether to permit the three coal power plants proposed by Wisconsin Electric will likely come about this time next year. Public hearings will be held in the Oak Creek area south of Milwaukee. The Town of Caledonia and the village of Oak Creek are both very concerned about environmental and economic impacts of the plants and would be good contacts if you have concerns or questions.A local grassroots group has been organized called Citizens for Responsible Power (CRP); they will also be involved in the debate. You can contact Steve Bulik (262-639-1260) with CRP or the Environmental Decade at 608-251-7020 to get more involved.
Low Point: The DNR's Failure to Include Buffer Strips in the New
Polluted Runoff Regulations
A three year effort to draft new regulations to control polluted runoff from farm fields and city streets signals an important step in Wisconsin's polluted runoff reduction efforts. However, a glaring gap in the program is the absence of any requirement for buffer strips one of the most effective practices for controlling polluted runoff from agricultural fields. The rules do include the standards and requirements for limiting direct runoff of animal waste from feedlots and manure storage facilities, a standard for applying nutrients to farm fields and standards for construction site erosion. All standards, including any buffer strip standard, would only be enforceable if 70% to 90% cost sharing is available to farmers. Buffer strips are one of the most effective ways to reduce sediment and nutrient loading into streams. A side benefit of buffer strips is that they provide wildlife habitat in crucial steam corridors.
At one point last year there was agreement on the part of virtually all stakeholders, including the Farm Bureau, that buffer strips should be included in the rules. However, they were removed from the rules partially in response to concerns that a mandatory buffer strip provision would jeopardize $240 million Wisconsin is expected to receive from the federal government under the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). CREP money can also be used for buffer strips but is completely voluntary. Environmental groups proposed a compromise to protect the CREP funding which would apply the buffer strip requirement initially only to those counties (there are 21) not eligible for CREP and phase it in after CREP funding runs out in those counties that are CREP eligible. Environmental groups also tried to negotiate with the Farm Bureau and offered to restrict even the phase in of buffer strips to those watersheds where buffer strips are most needed. By that time the Farm Bureau had done a 180 degree turn on the issue and has been lobbying the Natural Resources Board to resist any efforts to include buffer strips. Those lobbying efforts have been quite successful, as you can imagine, since one of the board members, Dan Paulson, is the Chairman of the Farm Bureau's Board of Directors.