Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Bill would undo wetlands law

GOP measure would limit the state’s oversight

- LEE BERGQUIST

In 2001, Republican and Democratic lawmakers in Wisconsin rushed into action after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling and became the first state in the nation to approve protection­s for a class of land known as isolated wetlands.

They include thousands of acres of potholes, woodland depression­s and other parcels that do not connect to interstate waterways.

Now, a bill being circulated by Republican lawmakers who control the Legislatur­e would undo the law by taking away the authority of the Department of Natural Resources to assess the ecological impact of such land before it could be developed.

Supporters say that the 2001 law — passed by a Republican-controlled Assembly and a Democratic-controlled Senate — has been a roadblock for property owners and the constructi­on industry to develop what is viewed by some as marginal land.

It follows other Republican-backed wetlands bills that have been passed since 2011 under GOP control in Madison.

The legislatio­n would require parties building on such lands to replace, or mitigate, with new wetlands at a ratio of 1.2 acres for every 1 acre lost. But it would no longer require an environmen­tal review from the DNR.

Generally, state law requires parties to avoid or minimize disturbanc­e of wetlands because of the important role they play in the environmen­t.

A sponsor, Assembly Majority Leader Jim Steineke (R-Kaukauna), said the bill would strike a balance between protecting and restoring wetlands and removing what supporters see as an economic impediment.

“The vast majority of those wetlands, you would never assume they were wetlands,” Steineke said.

He described empty lots that have been deemed wetlands as well as farm fields with depression­s from tractors that are off-limits for developmen­t because they retain rainwater.

But environmen­talists led by the Wisconsin Wetlands Associatio­n say the measure, if passed, places up to 1 million acres of wetlands in jeopardy. The DNR estimates that Wisconsin has about 5.3 million acres of wetlands that remain on the landscape.

Erin O’Brien, the wetlands associatio­n's policy director, said the claims of those who view isolated wetlands as marginal ignore the critical functions they serve for flood control and wildlife habitat, including nesting for waterfowl.

“The bill is not about balance, but about throwing all protection­s out the window,” O’Brien said.

It comes after passage of $3 billion in financial incentives this month for Foxconn Technology Group, which included environmen­tal exemptions including for wetlands for the Taiwan-based maker of liquid crystal display equipment.

Foxconn was not a precipitat­ing factor, Steineke said. Instead, it was driven by business groups and Republican­s' long-standing concerns that the law was blocking developmen­t in some cases.

He noted Wisconsin is one of the few states that regulates isolated wetlands.

Wisconsin's regulation started after a ruling in January 2001 by the federal high court that said clean water laws did not give the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers authority over wetlands that did not connect to a stream or a river. The Corps has the authority to regulate wetlands linked to such waterways.

The ruling prompted lawmakers from both parties to act to protect isolated waterways.

Then-Gov. Scott McCallum, a Republican, signed the bill a few months later after a coalition of 72 national, state and local organizati­ons that represente­d more than 320,000 citizens wrote lawmakers urging passage of the bill, according to a report by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel at the time.

“This is without a doubt the marquee issue of the spring session, probably the entire session,” said then-Rep. Neal Kedzie (R-Elkhorn), who was chairman of the Assembly environmen­tal committee.

The contrast between the 2001’s action and this fall's effort highlights the sentiments of many Republican­s in the Legislatur­e today who lean toward less environmen­tal regulation.

Said Steineke: “I can’t speak for their intent. But I can speak for the fallout. All we are talking about is making a more efficient system for landowners.”

 ??  ?? Steineke
Steineke

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States