This Act has been highly controversial - hence the title of this blog: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. (Photo credit)
The Good
According to Paul G. Kent and Jordan K. Lamb of Wisconsin Lawyer, Act 118 was devised to address certain goals (Full publication):
- Develop a uniform and comprehensive state system for reviewing and potentially permitting activities in all wetlands, regardless of whether they are subject to federal jurisdiction or just state jurisdiction;
- Develop a system of state permits that more closely corresponds to federal permits, including the use of "general permits";
- Use a process for reviewing and potentially granting approvals that is consistent with the process used for permitting activities in and near navigable waters under Wis. Stat. chapter 30;
- Provide greater clarity in the permit standards and require the DNR to consider a holistic "net-gain" analysis of the environmental impacts of a project; and
- Allow for greater consideration of wetland mitigation measures to address effects on wetlands.
General Permits were also introduced to Wisconsin under this Act. This was implicated to make Wisconsin's laws more parallel with federal law for water discharges and the filling of wetlands. It imposes size-based wetlands permits which can be streamlined on a much faster pace (30 day approval) then having to go through the process described above. However, if you don't qualify under the general permits, one can apply for individual permits. (DNR Permits) The General permits are authorized by the DNR without being subject to "public hearings or a detailed case-by-case basis" as noted in Kent's and Lamb's dissection of Act 118. Individual permits are subject to further scrutiny before being approved.
The "net-gain" or otherwise called "Net Environmental Impact" is closely tied into both the new mitigation and practicable alternatives allowing the DNR much more flexibility when dealing with wetland decisions.
Mitigation of wetlands was non-existent before Act 118 and it sort of reminds me of the Clean Development Mechanism ("CDM") in the Kyoto Protocol (Annex I must build green technology in developing nations in exchange for carbon credits). Basically, the DNR will allow wetlands to accept nasty discharge OR be filled in so as long as new wetlands are created in its place: For every 1 acre of wetlands filled/ruined; 1.2 acres of wetlands must be established or enhanced to compensate for the loss, thus creating the (eventual) "net-gain".
Practicable alternatives takes the scope of the project and attempts to balance out economic benefit, necessity to build, and environmental impacts to determine if the project should be moved to a non-wetland location or remain as-is.
That is what I was able to deduce from the various articles I reviewed which moves me to the next subheading:
The Bad - Let the controversy commence!
This particular Act has been meticulously reviewed and commented on by various non-state actors, including the NGO I previously introduced: Wisconsin Wetlands Association.
Linda H. Bochert of Micheal Best & Friedrich LLP did a great job at capturing sentiments from both sides of the argument in her assessment in The National Law Review (Link to full article):
From the Governor, upon signing the bill:
“Preserving and protecting Wisconsin’s valuable natural resources while encouraging sustainable economic growth is an important task,” said Governor Scott Walker. “The bill I signed into law today balances these two interests and reforms the way the state regulates wetlands. I am confident this pro-growth, pro-environmental law will allow the state to protect our resources while providing a pathway to economic development. I would like to thank State Senator Neal Kedzie and Representative Jeff Mursau for providing leadership on this issue.”
From the Wisconsin Wetlands Association (2/29/12 press release):
“This bill passed without the endorsement of a single leader from the wetland professional community or any major statewide sportsmen's or environmental group,” said Executive Director Tracy Hames. “People need jobs, but they need wetlands too,” he added, “that is if they want flood protection, clean water, and more and better ducks.”Hames also emphasized that Wisconsin citizens could no longer rely on the state to protect the wetlands in their community. “It’s now up to the people of the state to get involved, speak up, and look out for the wetlands where they live."
From Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (2/15/12 press release):
Wetland regulation reforms that passed the state Senate early today will protect the environment, foster expanded wetlands, and promote job creation, WMC said Wednesday. “The wetland reforms are common sense legislation that will protect our environment while promoting job creation,” said Scott Manley, WMC director of environmental policy.
From 77th Assembly District Democrat State Representative Brett Hulsey (2/29/12 press release):
The Governor signed Senate Bill 368, called the “Flood our Families Act” because it will increase flood risks to Wisconsin families, home and business owners.
“The Flood our Families Act means more Wisconsin homes and families will be at risk from flooding,” said State Rep. Brett Hulsey. “Allowing more people to build in wetlands today creates more flood victims and disaster costs tomorrow.”
From the Dairy Business Association (DBA) (2/29/12 press release):
DBA praises Governor Scott Walker for signing Senate Bill 368, commonly referred to as the Wetlands Bill. This new law streamlines the wetland permitting process for dairy farmers expanding their operation by creating statutory timelines and allowing better use of wetland mitigation.
“This new law greatly enhances the wetlands permitting program by providing dairy producers consistency, and assures that the environment will remain protected while growing Wisconsin’s $26.5 billion dollar industry,” commented Laurie Fischer, DBA Executive Director. “In the past, wetland permits have taken years to obtain, resulting in lost business opportunities and jobs for the State of Wisconsin.”
- The State: signing and passing legislation.
- Various NGOs: opposing and protesting new regulations.
- State representatives: also opposing the Act.
- Agricultural entities: approving the Act.
- DNR: issuing permits and enforcing regulations.
- Homeowners/people impacted: Where do you stand on these changes?
Now that General Permits are automatically approved after 30 days, wetlands have been removed from the statutory list "Areas of Special Natural Resource Interest - ASNRI", and the mitigation aspects don't always force wetland creation where wetlands are lost, we can move towards the ugly aspect of this Act.
The Ugly
Case Study: Open Pit Mining in the Penokee Hills/Bad River Watershed - Iron County, Wisconsin.
Check out what my actor, Wisconsin Wetlands Association's involvement is on this project: Go WWA!
Maureen Matesuwic and Barbara With put together a comprehensive timeline of events regarding this destructive mining project HERE. Our lovely governor, Scott Walker and Bill Williams (President of Gogebic Taconite) worked together on both wetlands and mining reform bills for their own special interests. Once the wetlands were removed from ASNRI, streamlining the 30 day General Permits, and allowing questionable mitigation practices, wetlands barely have a leg to stand on for protection. Not to mention all of the other negative impacts to the groundwater, flora and fauna, or how it affects the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians. Check out their video in protest to this mining project:
The devastation created to the land, water, and wetlands is catastrophic and the jobs created do not even come close to being an economic benefit to our state, resources, flora, fauna, or citizens. GTac has been going back and forth on whether to proceed, but at least for now, more scientific research is being done on that area before this project has commenced. Wisconsin Public Radio - More Research Please!
LINKS GALORE!
The National Law Review | Bochert of Michael Best & Friedrich LLPDo Created Wetlands Replace the Wetlands that are Destroyed?
UPDATE Timeline of Shame: How a Mining Company Got State and Local Governments to Allow Destruction of Wetlands
The facts about Wisconsin wetlands | Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Wisconsin Eye Conference 2011
First off I have to say that I love the title for this post, it's definitely I good way to look at environmental issues. After reading your post it brought back to mind something that I actually learned in one of my other classes when my professor was talking about just how hard it is to get laws and policies into place to protect wetlands. One policy that he told us about was that only wetlands that are non-seasonal are protected, but the problem being in a place like Wisconsin not many are non-seasonal so having that policy in place isn't something that really works here. I find your topic on wetland conservation very interesting simply because it amazes me how many people really don't understand how important wetlands are to an ecosystem, so I find it interesting to hear about people out there that are really trying to change that.
ReplyDelete