Congress is looking to roll back state animal welfare laws as it wrangles over reauthorization of the federal farm bill.

The farm bill, which Congress generally reworks every five years, includes money and federal rules for food assistance programs, farm subsidies, and other ag-related programs.

A pending version of the legislation includes the Save Our Bacon Act, which would block states from regulating the raising of livestock. The measure takes direct aim at California’s Proposition 12, which requires farms to meet specific standards providing animals freedom of movement, cage-free confinement and minimum floor space.

A key component of California’s law effectively bans hog sow farms from using gestation crates — pens so small that mother pigs can’t even turn around. Currently, at least 15 states ban battery cages for egg-laying hens, gestation crates for sows or veal crates for calves.

California’s law includes protections for egg-laying hens, but the current farm bill proposal that Congress is considering specifically excludes them.

The California law also bars retailers from selling meats raised in other states that don’t meet the state’s standards. Opponents say that provision places a heavy burden on producers across the country who must meet different standards for different markets.

“This legislation will stop out-of-touch activists — who don’t know the first thing about farming — from dictating how Iowa farmers do their job,” U.S. Rep. Ashley Hinson, an Iowa Republican, said when introducing the Save Our Bacon Act last year.

But supporters of the California law say consumers increasingly demand higher animal welfare standards. They note that farmers outside of California are free to ignore the law — if they choose not to sell into the nation’s most populous state.

A spokesperson for the California Department of Food and Agriculture, which enforces Proposition 12 regulations, said the agency could not comment on pending legislation.

California Assemblywoman Esmeralda Soria, the Democratic chair of the agriculture committee, said voters “spoke clearly” when more than 62% approved the 2018 ballot measure.

“Taking Prop 12 away now, would create long term uncertainty and disruption to California meat and egg production,” Soria said in a statement. “We can do better for California agriculture, and for the millions of people who rely on stable and affordable food systems.”

Following an unsuccessful legal challenge to Proposition 12 by pork producers, lawmakers and ag interests have been pushing for years for federal action to block similar laws. While a similar anti-Proposition 12 measure was introduced in 2023 farm bill negotiations, the effort has gained some momentum after receiving bipartisan support in the U.S. House of Representatives, which approved the farm bill legislation by a 224-200 vote in late April. It’s now the subject of Senate negotiations.

The yearslong debate over agricultural regulations has inflamed tensions between states and the feds over who should regulate various sectors of the economy, mirroring ongoing debates about artificial intelligence and online prediction markets.

An issue of state autonomy

Most of the focus has centered on California, which has the world’s fourth largest economy. But opponents say the congressional proposal could upend hundreds of state laws and regulations.

An analysis by Harvard Law School’s Animal Law and Policy Clinic concluded that the Save Our Bacon Act could affect more than 600 state agricultural regulations, including seafood labeling requirements, food safety regulations and state restrictions aimed at preventing the spread of pests and diseases, such as the New World screwworm.

“Congress would be overturning the results of democratic elections and devaluing animal welfare investments made by livestock producers across the country,” researchers wrote, noting it would take years for regulators and courts to sort out implementation of the legal change, creating years of uncertainty for regulators, consumers and producers.

Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller said he doesn’t agree with California’s mandates but said he would “defend to my dying day California’s right to self-determination.”

In an interview, Miller said Proposition 12 has driven up the price of eggs and pork. But he said the Constitution’s 10th Amendment clearly endows states with such power by reserving for the states those powers not delegated to the federal government.

“It is what it is,” he said. “I’m ready to move on and accept Prop 12.”

Miller, who recently lost the Republican primary for reelection, said producers who have poured millions into revamping their operations to ensure more space for animals would be “up a creek without a paddle” if the law is blocked by Congress.

“They spent all that money for nothing if that happens,” he said.

Proponents say consumers are already demanding higher standards.

“No one is mandated to sell in California, and I think that’s a really important piece of this. This is all market driven, and so there are other options,” said Alicia Prygoski, strategic legislative affairs manager for the Animal Legal Defense Fund, a nonprofit advocating for animal protections.

Prygoski characterized Proposition 12 as a “common sense, reasonable measure” that allows animals the freedom to move and exhibit natural behaviors. She rejected arguments that such animal welfare laws create a burdensome patchwork of regulations for farmers, noting that states already have a variety of ag rules regarding animal imports, noxious weed transportation and zoonotic diseases.

‘We care a lot about our animals’

Trish Cook, who raises about 40,000 pigs per year on her family’s Iowa farm, said large-scale swine operations like hers rely on scientific guidance from groups such as the American Veterinary Medical Association and American Association of Swine Veterinarians.

Cook is a board member of the Iowa Pork Producers and the National Pork Producers Council, the latter of which unsuccessfully sued to block California’s Proposition 12. In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision upheld California’s rules.

In April, the organization and the American Farm Bureau Federation wrote to congressional leaders arguing that Proposition 12 has created uncertainty across rural America, especially on small and medium-size farms that can’t afford to retrofit barns. The letter was signed by nearly 400 agricultural groups.

The issue is particularly relevant in Iowa, by far the nation’s largest pork producer with nearly one-third of American hogs raised there.

Cook said most pig farmers she knows are not producing Proposition 12-compliant pork because California’s demand is being met. But, she said, Congress must protect farmers before more states pass different rules and regulations.

“I do still feel like it’s really important that we get a fix for things like Prop 12, because this is just the beginning,” she said.

Cook said consumers across the country should have access to her pork products without following “arbitrary” rules created by state ballot measures. As an example, she cited the California requirement that each sow have access to 24 square feet of usable floor space. That footage allows the sow to turn around completely within its pen.

“If you didn’t enjoy raising pigs, you wouldn’t be in the business,” she said. “So we care a lot about our animals, we care about taking care of them, having them in the best facilities, and being comfortable with the climate that we provide them.”

Some producers, though, say they are troubled by the confinement systems commonly used in industrial agriculture.

“Keeping a 500-pound gestating sow in a metal crate where she can’t ever turn around for the vast majority of her adult life is simply not good animal husbandry,” said Alicia LaPorte, senior director of communications and impact at Niman Ranch, a national network of hundreds of farms producing what they call humanely raised meat.

Although Niman’s 500 hog farms have always been crate free, LaPorte said they have spent time and money ensuring compliance with California’s Proposition 12. She said the proposed legislation in Congress would pull the rug out from under family farmers who played by the rules and made huge investments to comply.

“They are actively devaluing these investments, disrupting stable markets and putting forward-thinking family farms at financial risk,” she said.

By moving away from confinement to more humane practices like group housing, LaPorte said producers can see increased profitability through improved sow health, lower stress and higher conception rates. And growing demand for such products pushed laws like Proposition 12 in the first place.

“The consumer drove the change,” she said, “and policy secured the marketplace.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. 

The state of Wisconsin and Tyco Fire Products have reached a settlement agreement to help clean up the environment and provide clean drinking water in Marinette, where the company’s actions have caused PFAS contamination in the city water supply. 

Under the settlement, Tyco agreed to pay $10 million into the state’s PFAS remediation trust fund, provide clean drinking water to residents in the affected area and work with the Department of Natural Resources to clean up the contamination. The agreement concludes a lawsuit filed by the state Department of Justice against Tyco in 2022 in which the state accused Tyco of failing to notify the state of the PFAS discharge and then failing to properly remediate the pollution. 

A separate legal action in which the state sued the manufacturers of products containing PFAS, including Tyco, is still pending. 

Officials on Thursday celebrated the settlement as a historic first for the state in its efforts to hold polluters accountable for the PFAS pollution that has affected communities across Wisconsin. 

“Today is a historic and important milestone in our fight to make sure every Wisconsinite has access to clean and safe drinking water, whether they live in Marinette or Stella or on French Island or anywhere in between,” Gov. Tony Evers said in a statement. “While today is an important victory, we know our work cannot stop. For the folks in Marinette, this day has been a long time coming, but we know that for so many families and communities across our state, dealing with PFAS pollution is still a daily reality. Here in Wisconsin, we must keep working to tackle PFAS head-on, and that includes continuing to hold PFAS polluters accountable for the damage they’ve caused and are causing across our state.”

PFAS are a group of manmade chemical compounds commonly called “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down in the body or environment. They’ve been used in household goods such as non-stick pans and fast food wrappers, as well as certain kinds of firefighting foam. PFAS have been connected to health problems, including birth defects and certain types of cancer. 

The settlement marks another action by the state this year to address the state’s PFAS problems. In April, Evers signed into law a bill that will release $125 million to help communities test for and clean up PFAS contamination in the local water. 

The enactment of that law ended a multi-year legislative saga to reach bipartisan agreement on how to best structure the clean up programs and who should be held responsible for the pollution. 

“Municipalities like Marinette and Peshtigo have waited far too long for this day to come. Now, the work begins to turn this settlement into relief for pollution victims,” Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Gillett), the PFAS law’s main author, said in a statement. “Now, every single dollar from the Tyco settlement will go into the PFAS Trust Fund and be used to support affected victims and communities.”

But clean water advocates in the area said in a Thursday evening press release they’re disappointed in the settlement — mostly due to the state’s agreement to reduce the area for which Tyco is being held responsible. SOH20, a Marinette-based group that has pushed for better protections of PFAS-affected communities across the state, said that the boundaries the state agreed to means that 80 households with contaminated private wells won’t get the support they need.

“Safe drinking water should never become a competition between contaminated communities,” said SOH2O. “By placing these funds into a statewide PFAS trust fund, impacted residents across Wisconsin are now forced to compete against one another for limited resources, despite all communities being equally deserving of clean, safe drinking water.”

This report has been updated with a statement from SOH20 in Marinette.

The world’s largest meat and dairy companies, many of which operate in Wisconsin, have made hundreds of claims that their practices are sustainable and promises of future climate protection initiatives. But a report released last month in the journal PLOS Climate found that hardly any of those claims are legitimate. 

The report, authored by researchers at the University of Miami, assessed publicly made environmental claims and promises of the 33 largest meat and dairy companies in the world. The corporations assessed in the report includes companies with Wisconsin operations such as Saputo Cheese, Tyson Foods, JBS, Hormel Foods, Dairy Farmers of America and Nestle. 

Since 2021, the corporations made 1,233 environmental claims but, according to the report, 98% of those claims can be called “greenwashing” because they were made without supporting evidence. Only three of the claims were backed with actual peer reviewed studies. 

“This study is consistent with what we have experienced: big claims, big promises, but little in the way of quantifiable improvement in environmental quality,” said George Kraft, the former Director of the Center for Watershed Science and Education at UW-Extension and UW-Stevens Point who now sits on the science council of Wisconsin’s Greenfire. 

The report’s authors argue that it’s important to assess the claims of these companies because corporate meat and dairy operations cause a huge proportion of global greenhouse gas emissions. 

“Meat and dairy companies, which produce disproportionate amounts of pollution relative to other kinds of foods, have prioritized climate change in their sustainability initiatives,” the report states. “They make many promises and provide very little supporting evidence. Like the fossil fuel industry, which has used greenwashing over the last several decades to delay meaningful climate action, the meat and dairy industry may be misleading consumers and investors regarding whether and to what extent they are addressing environmental impacts, including climate change, with even less time to spare.” 

In Wisconsin, economic forces have for decades pushed the state’s dairy industry to get bigger. Hundreds of factory dairy farms are now permitted to operate in the state, putting more cows on more concentrated plots of land while the state’s corporate dairy interests fight at the local and state level to prevent government regulation. 

Tara Greiman, the Wisconsin Farmers Union’s director of conservation and stewardship, told the Wisconsin Examiner that corporate agriculture has been the dominant force in the industry for the last 50 years and the effect of that control on the environment is clear. 

“They can say as much as they want, ‘look at all of our promises, look at what good stewards we are,’ but the fact of the matter is that our groundwater quality is depleting in the sectors that they control, our ecological habitat diversity depleting, we are losing farmers at the same time,” she said. “There’s other economic factors, but speaking in terms of just the climate measurements, they’re not doing a good job.” 

Earlier this month, the environmental organization Clean Wisconsin released a report outlining the steps Wisconsin’s agricultural industry will need to take to help the state achieve its climate emissions goals. The research found that reducing nitrogen fertilizer use, reducing the amount of acreage used for corn-based ethanol production, practices such as no-till and cover crops, better livestock management and the planting of perennials instead of commodity crops would help put Wisconsin on the right track. 

Chelsea Chandler, Clean Wisconsin’s climate, energy and air program director, told the Examiner the fact that corporate agribusiness feels the need to make sustainability claims is a first step. She said that sometimes companies are intentionally “overstating the benefits” of a practice, lack enough data or are extrapolating too much across different parts of the world. Still, the discussion can lead to helpful action and the adoption of scientifically backed solutions. 

Clean Wisconsin’s climate solutions roadmap can help, Chandler said,  “because it’s based on the latest science, it’s tailored specifically to Wisconsin, and it’s checking some of those claims that are overstated when it comes to the climate impacts.” 

Chandler hopes that providing good information will affect investment and support, “whether that’s coming from private companies who are trying to improve their sustainability in their operations, or if that’s coming from governments through different kinds of incentive mechanisms and channeling those into the things that are really having an impact” 

Both Chandler and Greiman said that deliberate choices built the food system we have today and it will take deliberate choices to build something more sustainable. 

“We need a new food system. Growing corn, even if you’re doing no-till, even if you’re cover-cropping after it, if you’re only growing corn and soybeans, it’s not a regenerative system. Full stop,” Greiman said. “We have to have new markets, otherwise we’re just rearranging deck chairs, and the research is saying this.” 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Hearing backlash from residents, cities and counties across the country in recent weeks have blocked planned data centers amid concerns over rising electricity prices and environmental harms.

The local actions come as state lawmakers also are looking to limit or repeal the incentives for the centers, which are sprawling campuses of computer servers that store and transmit the data behind apps and websites.

Supporters of the pauses say cities need rules before projects arrive, especially to answer residential concerns about electricity use, energy costs and nuisance issues. Industry supporters argue data centers bring jobs and tax revenue and are an essential part of the nation’s digital infrastructure. They warn that communities that block data centers are sacrificing those benefits.

The Denver City Council this month unanimously approved a one-year moratorium on data centers, halting new zoning permits and site development plans while the city drafts rules for future projects. In April, Oklahoma City approved a similar moratorium that will be in effect until the end of this year, or until the city updates its zoning code. Tulsa, Oklahoma, also approved a temporary stop on new data center construction, though major projects already in the pipeline will be allowed to proceed.

Smaller communities are taking similar steps.

In Illinois, both Bloomington and Normal earlier this month approved six-month moratoriums, and Morgan County took the same action in April. In Michigan, Huron County this week approved a three-year moratorium, joining roughly 20 other Michigan communities that have paused data center construction.

In Georgia, Camden County enacted a six-month moratorium earlier this month, becoming the first community on the state’s coast to do so. And a cluster of counties in North Carolina have hit pause, including Chatham County in February and Orange County (which includes Chapel Hill) in April.

But not all cities are souring on data centers: Cheyenne, Wyoming, this week opted not to proceed with a one-year moratorium after a lengthy public hearing.

A study released at the end of 2024 by researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimated U.S. data centers used about 4.4% of U.S. electricity in 2023, with projected use rising to between 6.7% and 12% by 2028.

A March Gallup poll found that seven in 10 Americans would oppose the nearby construction of data centers for artificial intelligence (AI), higher than the 53% of respondents who said they would oppose living near a nuclear power plant.

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org

Southern states are bracing for a potential invasion of the New World screwworm that could disrupt livestock markets and raise already high meat prices.

So far, the parasite has yet to land in the United States, but it has been spreading across Mexico and Central America. Previously eradicated from the United States in the 1960s, the fly can infest livestock, pets, wildlife and in rare cases, humans. The parasites are named for their larvae, which burrow into living flesh like a screw, causing severe tissue damage and sometimes death.

With multiple cases reported within 100 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border, the federal government has already banned the import of live cattle from Mexico, compounding the shortage of domestic beef. State and federal officials also have created new monitoring, testing and quarantine protocols even as the feds put in place measures to sterilize millions of flies — including a $750 million new facility that will produce sterile flies.

“It’s going to be very challenging, I think, at this point to keep it out of the United States,” said Dr. Samantha Holeck, state veterinarian with the New Mexico Livestock Board, which regulates the livestock industry.

Beef prices are already at record highs, with federal data showing the average price of ground beef at $6.90 per pound this month. That’s a 77% increase since January 2020, when ground beef stood at $3.89 per pound, Yahoo Finance reported.

Years of drought, increased operating costs and other supply disruptions have pushed ranchers to liquidate their herds to the smallest level in 75 years, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation. Despite the drop in supply, demand remains strong, which has pushed many ranchers to feed cattle to record-high weights.

Beef prices are unlikely to fall, because it takes time to grow herds and increase production, said David Anderson, professor and extension specialist in livestock and food product marketing at Texas A&M University. He said beef producers appear well prepared to fight a domestic screwworm invasion, which many view as an inevitability.

“I think we will re-eradicate it. I think it just depends on how much time it takes us to do that,” he said.

But the market has already been disrupted by the ban on live Mexican cattle imports, which traditionally occupy American pastures and feedlots before going to slaughter.

“We certainly are feeling the consequences of our policy response to fears of screwworms,” he said.

‘A long-term response’

Last week, the New Mexico Department of Agriculture launched a new website in collaboration with several agencies to provide a single source of information about the New World screwworm, including how to identify infestations, protect people and animals, and report suspected cases.

As screwworm approaches New Mexico, agencies focus on outreach with few details on broader response

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has approved emergency use of several medications for prevention and treatment of the parasite. Those include ivermectin, the drug that many people hoarded for off-label use during the coronavirus pandemic, even though the U.S. Food and Drug Administration did not approve its use for the virus. But Holeck said ranchers must be careful about starting preventive medications too early and overusing them.

“While it’s important that we have these medications, we need to be very judicious about how we use them, because we don’t want to create resistance to these medications and then have them become ineffective,” Holeck said.

The fly larvae (maggots) can burrow into the flesh of living animals through wounds as small as a tick bite or in body openings such as the eyes or nose. About the size of a common housefly, the adult screwworm fly has orange eyes, a metallic blue or green body, and three dark stripes along the back.

Holeck said ranchers will need to keep close watch over newborn calves with exposed umbilical cords. They may also have to rethink branding and tagging operations in the case of an infestation, because those wounds can provide an entry for the pests.

New Mexico has distributed test kits to every county extension office for producers and the general public who suspect cases. Holeck said the state has already performed about 30 tests — all were negative.

She noted that the last infestation took more than a decade for American and Mexican officials to eradicate.

“It’s not going to be a quick fix,” she said. “It’s going to be a long-term response, and it’s going to require everybody to work together to help get control of it.”

‘We’re going to get infested’

To combat the screwworm, the federal government plans to breed sterile male flies and then release them into areas with established populations. The sterilized males will mate with females, which will then lay unfertilized eggs. With females mating only once in their lifespan, officials say this method progressively reduces and eliminates the fly population.

USDA just broke ground on a $750 million sterile fly facility in Edinburg, Texas, that aims to produce up to 300 million sterile flies per week when it opens next year. The agency has also invested in sterile fly facilities in Mexico and Panama.

But Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller said those plants won’t produce enough sterile flies to eradicate the parasites.

“We’re going to get infested,” he said. “There’s no doubt about it. And USDA knows that. They’ve already distributed test kits to ranchers and farmers and veterinarians and wildlife personnel up and down the Rio Grande.”

“It wouldn’t surprise me if we had a case today,” he said earlier this month.

Miller said ranchers should have no trouble accessing effective drugs like ivermectin, which he said he still personally takes each week.

He expects the screwworm to cause temporary fluctuations in livestock markets as ranchers treat and quarantine affected herds. Texas is by far the nation’s leading beef producer, with more than 12.5 million cattle. For now, he expects an outbreak to affect animals in a few counties along the Southern border.

“Now, if the whole state of Texas gets infected, that’s a lot,” he said.

In the case of an outbreak, USDA has created monitoring, reporting and quarantine protocols for animals. But because the disease does not create food safety concerns, the agency will not stop any movement of animal products, including meat.

But the infestation could ripple to other animal products, livestock and even pets, officials warn. 

While ranchers can hold back cattle during an outbreak, dairies may face immediate losses during infections, according to the University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources. 

“Dairy cows produce milk every day that must be processed immediately — if a farm is quarantined or a plant shuts down, milk spoils quickly and has to be dumped,” said Daniela Bruno, a dairy adviser with University of California Cooperative Extension.

She said producers should review their insurance coverage and bolster biosecurity against threats such as screwworm and avian flu, which has reemerged in California dairies.

The federal government and states have been preparing for months.

On a February trip to the Rio Grande Valley with Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins said, “We are as prepared as we could possibly be.” In March, the secretary told Oklahoma Farm Report that the agency had predicted an invasion into Texas as early as last summer, but she acknowledged the ongoing risk.

“There’s no question, when you look at the heat maps, that it is in large proportion moving up,” she said of the screwworm.

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. 

Vermont became the first state to ban the use of the highly toxic herbicide paraquat after Republican Gov. Phil Scott signed Democratic-sponsored legislation this week. 

Vermont’s new law bans the sale or use of paraquat without explicit approval from the secretary of agriculture. Widely used to control weeds in major crops across the country, that chemical is linked to Parkinson’s disease.

More than a dozen states have recently introduced legislation to ban or limit the use of paraquat, according to The Council of State Governments. 

“With Vermont leading the way, states across the country now have a clear path to end the use of one of the most toxic herbicides still on the market,” Geoff Horsfield, legislative director for the Environmental Working Group, said in a news release. “This is a turning point in the effort to protect public health from a chemical that has been tied to devastating neurological harm.”

The nonprofit research and advocacy organization has been pushing for an end of paraquat use, which is banned in more than 70 countries.

Lawmakers in nearby New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania are also considering paraquat bans. And bills to ban or limit its use have been proposed in Hawaii, Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Utah, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says paraquat is one of the nation’s most widely used herbicides. But because of its inherent risks, only certified individuals may apply the herbicide and the agency warns against using it near home gardens, schools, parks, golf courses or playgrounds.

“Paraquat is highly toxic,” EPA’s website says. “One small sip can be fatal and there is no antidote.” 

Contact to the skin, swallowing or breathing the herbicide can cause lung damage, heart failure, kidney failure and has been linked to certain cancers. 

Agricultural giant Syngenta has faced thousands of lawsuits from people claiming the company did not warn consumers of the dangers of its weedkiller Gramoxone, whose key ingredient is paraquat. 

In March, Syngenta announced it would end global production of paraquat by the end of June. 

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

Proponents of ethanol, including lawmakers from corn-growing states, say year-round sales of a gasoline blend containing 15% of the biofuel would give consumers a less expensive alternative to fill their gas tanks, boost energy supplies and benefit agricultural interests.

So why hasn’t Congress allowed it?

There’s credible skepticism about those claims — and opposition from the strange bedfellows of environmental advocates and lawmakers from states where oil production and refining are major industries. As a result, expanding the availability of E15, as the blend is called, has become a congressional brawl with no predictable result.

The outcome of this debate, which will continue in June when Congress returns from its Memorial Day recess, largely depends on whether the push for year-round E15 use can get 60 U.S. Senate votes after the U.S. House this month passed legislation allowing it and the White House has signaled its support.

“I don’t know if it can get 60, to be honest with you,” Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican from West Virginia, said in an interview.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune offered some hope. 

“We’re looking at ways to move it,” he told reporters. “We have people here who represent states that also have refineries, and that’s a factor in this conversation.”

Iran war boosts support

Federal regulations have restricted E15 from being sold from June 1 to Sept. 15 because of its effects on air quality.

But the turmoil triggered by the war in Iran has been an important boost to Congress’ efforts to pass year-round E15 legislation. 

AAA reported that the national average for a gallon of regular gasoline cost $4.55 a gallon Friday, up from $3.20 a year earlier.

The Environmental Protection Agency issued waivers this year to allow extended sales of the blend. E15, often sold at gas stations as Unleaded 88, will be widely available this summer as “the result of ongoing issues in the Middle East, among other events,” EPA said in a statement. 

‘Unique agreement’

One’s view of the issue “depends on which study you look at,” Senate Agriculture Chairman John Boozman, an Arkansas Republican, said in an interview.

On one side is a historically influential coalition of agricultural, retail and petroleum interests.

“This legislation reflects a unique area of agreement across the fuel and agriculture supply chain,” organizations representing those industries said in a May 11 letter.

“While our industries do not always see eye to eye, we are united in the belief that these policy reforms provide needed certainty, preserve consumer choice, and support agriculture and energy economies alike,” they said.

The Renewable Fuels Association says E15 has been “fully approved for use in cars, pickups, vans and other light-duty vehicles” made after 2000.

Consumers can save 10 to 30 cents a gallon compared to 87-octane regular gasoline, industry members say. In Pennsylvania last weekend, Unleaded 88 was in some cases selling for 50 cents a gallon less.

The E15 critics

Many environmental groups maintain production of ethanol costs more than regular gasoline, and those costs are passed on to consumers not only at the pump, but in various agricultural products.

“Expanding ethanol sales is a shortsighted approach that ignores the environmental costs of industrial agriculture,” said Patrick Drupp, Sierra Club’s director of climate policy.

He said much of the corn used to produce E15 is grown in Midwestern states “already facing severe aquifer depletion and water shortages, and expanding ethanol production would only intensify the strain on their water supplies, farmland, and ecosystems.”

Eight environmental groups wrote an open letter May 8, concerned that “We should not commit additional land, resources, or taxpayer dollars to policies that undermine our climate goals, strain our natural systems, and increase costs for American families.”

The groups, which include the World Resources Institute and the Sierra Club, countered the notion that consumers would benefit.

“Production expenses for corn ethanol typically exceed those of gasoline, except during periods of unusually high oil prices—and even then, ethanol prices tend to rise in tandem with global energy markets,” they said.

That would mean even higher prices not only for fuel but for food, the organizations wrote.

One analysis that takes neither side is the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which said in a May 12 analysis that because E15 needs separate or specialized tanks and pumps, “retailers wanting to sell E15 would confront the additional expense of installing new equipment.”

And, it said, “some refiners will incur additional costs as they adjust their refinery processes to produce the appropriate gasoline to be blended into E15.” 

What will Congress do?

The congressional coalitions for and against year-round E15 are as unusual as the outside groups supporting and opposing it.

The House’s  218-203 vote on May 13 saw 122 Republicans, 95 Democrats and one independent voting yes, while 113 Republicans and 90 Democrats voted no.

The yes coalition largely united rural lawmakers with more urban members who see the change as helping consumers.

“This debate is about much more than fuel,” Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, an Iowa Republican, said. “Agriculture is hurting right now,” 

Joining her was New Jersey’s Rep. Frank Pallone, the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

The bill “lowers prices for American drivers, supports farmers, and fosters investment in cleaner transportation fuel,” he said.

On the other side was Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas. 

“If we need to do something to support farmers, let’s have a direct conversation about it. Expanding E15 is just the wrong direction to go,” he said.

The same sort of party split looms in the Senate.

After the House vote, Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., who’s fought for the change for years, hailed the approval as “a major step toward securing stability and certainty for American producers and consumers – without any government mandates.” 

Thune, of South Dakota, has been sympathetic to year-round E15. 

At a news conference this week he called E15 “a way of creating additional demand for agricultural commodities in this country and creating additional supply when it comes to fuels.

“And when that happens, at least in my part of the country, that means that when you buy ethanol at the pump, it’s significantly lower in price,” he said.

He faces a powerful skeptic in the Senate: Majority Whip John Barrasso of Wyoming, the Senate’s second-ranking Republican..

“Congress is currently discussing new mandates – mandates that would force more and more ethanol into our fuels,” he said in a Senate floor speech the day after the House vote.

“I oppose the year-round E15 mandate,” he said. “I oppose it because it hurts small oil refineries and all of the people who work at them.”

Small refineries

There are about 30 small refineries across the country, usually in inland areas, and about half could face problems under the House bill.

Small refineries are those that produce less than 75,000 barrels of oil per day, compared to 300,000 barrels or more at larger facilities. 

The small refineries can petition for an EPA exemption from the annual renewable fuel obligations based on “disproportionate economic hardship.”

For 2025, there were 33 exemption petitions filed.  Approximately 17 of those facilities would be ineligible under the proposed legislation because they are owned by companies with more than one refinery. Instead of focusing on the single facility, the bill requires aggregation of all facilities together.

The House bill would allow a 75% exemption instead of the current full exemption. It could also reduce the number of small refineries currently eligible for an exemption by half. 

Most small refineries would find themselves operationally constrained without the ability to receive exemptions, as they would have to use much of their cash flow to comply with the annual mandates, said Peter Whitfield, partner at Sidley Austin, a law firm that represents the Small Refineries of America, in an interview

Many senators want assurances small refineries won’t be hurt. 

“I’m interested in the small refinery piece,” Capito said.

That concern is yet another reason, at the moment, Capito said she is doubtful the House bill could get the 60 votes needed in the Senate.

A Bayfield County judge has issued a partial stay against the permits allowing Enbridge to construct its reroute of the Line 5 pipeline across northern Wisconsin. The stay only applies to construction at four waterway crossings. 

The Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, along with a group of environmental and civic organizations, filed the lawsuit in Iron County Circuit Court against Enbridge’s construction permit in February after an administrative law judge had previously upheld the Department of Natural Resource’s decision to grant the permits. 

Enbridge is being forced to reroute the pipeline, which has crossed the state for decades, after a federal judge ruled in 2022 that it illegally crossed Bad River tribal land. The tribe and allied groups have opposed the reroute, arguing it still poses a threat to local waterways and Lake Superior while infringing on the tribe’s treaty rights to access public land. 

In his ruling, issued Friday, Judge John Anderson wrote that the tribe must clear a high legal bar to be granted a stay because the administrative trial process already established the basic facts of the case. Comparing his role to that of an appellate court assessing a circuit court ruling, he wrote that he can’t give the petitioners an opportunity to a “fresh opportunity to relitigate those contested issues and facts” of the case. 

“Considering the deference the Court must give the ALJ regarding its factual findings, it is very difficult to issue a full stay of permits primarily because petitioners disagree with the ALJ’s findings,” he wrote. 

But he found that the administrative law judge had misinterpreted a previous case upon which Enbridge argued it had the right to conduct construction across waterways without permission from the person who owns the “riparian” area near those waterways. 

“These are highly sensitive areas, not only for Bad River, which relies on these waters, but also for all the citizens of this state,” he wrote. “The Bad River and its headwaters and tributaries are a unique and special place.  On this narrow legal issue, the irreparable harm near this waterway which cannot easily be rectified by other means or remedied at law is weighed against the need to show a strong likelihood of success.”

Anderson found that Enbridge will be required to obtain additional permits for its construction at the four waterways. 

After the ruling, John Petoskey, the tribe’s attorney, said the halt to construction will protect the tribe from immediate harm. 

“I’m relieved to have this partial construction freeze protecting the Band from further immediate harm,” said Earthjustice Senior Associate Attorney John Petoskey. “We trust the Court will agree that Wisconsin’s unlawful permitting decisions — which have ultimately put northern Wisconsin wetlands, waterways, and tribal nations at existential risk — deserve serious legal scrutiny.”

Enbridge spokesperson Juli Kellner said in a statement that the company is in the process of obtaining DNR permits to work on the relevant waterways, that the permits include conditions to mitigate environmental damage and that the ruling won’t delay construction. 

“State permits include 250 conditions and mitigation plans which avoid, minimize, monitor, and remedy environmental impacts,” she said. “Line 5 is critical energy infrastructure serving 10 refineries and propane production facilities — and continues to operate safely and reliably delivering critical, affordable energy to the Midwest and Great Lakes regions.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Desperate to get a handle on rising property insurance costs driven by natural disasters, some state lawmakers are opening up a new line of attack in the effort to force oil companies to bear the cost of climate change effects. 

In three states, Democratic lawmakers introduced bills this session that would allow insurance companies or state attorneys general to take action against oil companies to offset the rising costs of insurance. 

While none of the measures became law this session, they signal the increasing urgency in states where wildfires, floods and other disasters have driven up the cost of insurance premiums and led some insurers to stop writing new policies. 

The proposals follow other state-led efforts to demand payment from fossil fuel producers for the mounting damages caused by climate change. States and municipalities have filed more than three dozen lawsuits over the industry’s role in the climate crisis, claiming companies violated a variety of laws, including consumer protection, public nuisance, failure to warn, fraud and racketeering.

Meanwhile, a handful of states have passed or introduced “climate Superfund” bills that use attribution science — a new field of research — to calculate the cost of disasters and charge fossil fuel companies for their role in causing them. 

Those efforts have drawn fierce opposition and legal challenges from oil companies and conservative groups. 

Now, some Democrats are using a similar premise to try to put large oil companies on the hook for the fast-growing insurance crisis. 

In many states, property insurance costs have skyrocketed as insurance companies have paid out increasing claims for wildfires, hurricanes and floods. Some insurers have stopped writing policies in certain areas. 

California and some other places have seen a surge of new policies on state-backed “last resort” insurance plans after residents failed to find coverage on the private market. California’s program, known as the FAIR Plan, was hit with billions in losses and sought a massive rate hike following the Los Angeles wildfires in 2025. 

A bill in California would empower the state attorney general to sue fossil fuel companies to recover insurance costs. That measure failed to advance out of committee last month, with Republicans and some Democrats expressing concerns about fuel prices among other issues. 

A bill in Hawaii would allow insurance companies to seek damages from fossil fuel companies for their role in causing disasters worsened by climate change. Any proceeds gathered from actions against polluters would be factored into insurance rates. 

The bill passed both the House and Senate, but failed to advance when a conference committee ran out of time before a deadline earlier this month, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported. 

“[T]he largest oil and gas corporations, who knowingly contributed to the drought conditions that made the Maui fires worse, pay nothing while continuing to rake in billions of dollars in profit every year,” Democratic state Sen. Jarrett Keohokalole wrote in a Honolulu Civil Beat op-ed. “Hawaiʻi taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill for Big Oil’s deception.”

Meanwhile, a similar bill in New York, allowing both insurance companies and the state attorney general to take action against oil companies over insurance costs, has been introduced but has not yet had a hearing in committee.

As with all legislation targeting the fossil fuel industry, the insurance bills have encountered fierce opposition and powerful lobbying campaigns. If enacted, the proposals would undoubtedly face lawsuits. Fossil fuel companies have long argued that they extracted and sold their products while following a suite of federal regulations, insulating them from state claims of harm. 

States have countered that the companies knew about the dangers of climate change but lied to the public, noting the successful campaign to hold tobacco companies accountable for deception even though their products were sold legally. 

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.

All three members of the Public Service Commission criticized the lack of transparency from Meta and Alliant Energy during a meeting Thursday in which the body approved a contract for the social media giant to obtain power for its planned data center in Beaver Dam. 

Meta is in the process of spending more than $1 billion to construct a hyperscale data center campus that, when completed, would use six to eight times more power than the city of Beaver Dam’s current energy load. 

Like similar massive data center projects across the state, Meta’s Beaver Dam project has drawn opposition from local residents. For months, the project was shrouded in secrecy with Meta operating under the name Degas LLC. Opponents have complained about the lack of openness, the massive use of energy and the impact the construction and operation of the center could have on the community. 

PSC Chair Summer Strand said in her opening remarks she didn’t understand “why it needed to be this difficult” to achieve a transparent process. 

“To me, transparency is not a cliche, feel good, bare minimum, check the box concept,” Strand said. “If there’s one takeaway from our discussion and decisions today I want it to be clear that, whether you’re a large load customer coming into Wisconsin for the first time, or regulated entity familiar with our process, transparency — and by that I mean actual and real transparency — is the foundational expectation and a necessity.”

Commissioner Kristy Nieto said in her opening remarks Thursday morning that the case is one of the “most consequential” decisions the PSC has seen. 

“It bears repeating, existing Wisconsin customers should not pay a single cent to subsidize the service of data centers, not now and not decades from now,” Nieto said. “This means these very large customers must bear the full cost of the infrastructure required to serve them — generation, transmission and distribution — and that those costs must be fully and transparently assigned.” 

The three members of the commission lamented the redactions that had initially been made to the documents submitted in the case — which were later removed after objections from outside parties including members of the public, Clean Wisconsin and the Citizens Utility Board. 

The commissioners also decided that moving forward, hyperscale data centers constructed within Alliant’s territory must pay for and receive energy through a standardized tariff, rather than a one-off contract negotiated without public scrutiny. Late last month, the PSC made a similar ruling for large customers in WE Energies territory. 

Under the PSC order, Alliant will have to develop a tariff that applies for any data centers using more than 100 megawatts of energy. The Meta campus is expected to use 220 megawatts. 

“This is not going to be the last data center contract we see from this utility, and I will say Alliant needs standard guidelines and rules for its data center customers,” Nieto said. “A clear public tariff would create consistent, transparent rates and rules for future data centers, instead of handling each one through separate, confidential negotiations.”

While Alliant was ordered to develop a tariff rate for large customers, the PSC on Thursday approved the contract negotiated between Meta and Alliant with some modifications meant to insulate regular customers from bearing the costs of Meta’s energy use and any related infrastructure upgrades by Alliant. Nieto said denying the agreement while the tariff rate is developed would have allowed Meta to operate for up to a year without any guardrails, an outcome she said didn’t think would benefit anyone.

Brett Korte, a staff attorney with Clean Wisconsin, said the PSC putting a halt to the development of a case-by-case patchwork of data center energy deals in Alliant’s territory — which covers parts of more than a dozen Wisconsin counties — will protect Wisconsinites.

“Tariffs create a consistent, transparent framework that helps protect the public interest,” Korte said in a statement. “Without them, Wisconsin risks a patchwork system where costs and responsibilities are unclear and potentially shifted onto other utility customers.”

After the meeting, consumer advocacy and environmental groups were complimentary of the PSC’s actions.

“Today, the Public Service Commission highlighted the importance of transparency and oversight: accountability is a must, and it cannot be bypassed,” Britnie Remer, organizing director of climate advocacy group 350 Wisconsin. “The Commission also recognized that protecting Wisconsinites from subsidizing billion-dollar data centers needs to be front and center when it comes to these massive projects. With more data center proposals inevitable, requiring tariff filings in the future will ensure large energy customers pay for their costs, not our families and small businesses.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Early last month, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources announced a deal to add 100 acres to  Devil’s Lake State Park, expanding recreational opportunities at one of the DNR’s most popular properties. The move also calls attention to the dwindling life of the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship grant program that made the acquisition possible. 

The nearly 40-year-old stewardship grant program has long been a bipartisan success story, allowing the purchase and protection of hundreds of thousands of acres of land across the state. 

Growing opposition to the program within a subset of the Republicans in control of both chambers of the state Legislature — stemming from a combination of antagonism toward land conservation and concerns about the property tax base of Northwoods communities — stymied multiple legislative efforts to re-authorize the program beyond its set expiration at the end of June. 

The Devil’s Lake purchase marks what could be one of the last major actions of the stewardship grant program, which has allocated more than $1.2 billion to conserve more than 700,000 acres of Wisconsin land over its lifetime. 

The program had about $5.5 million remaining as of early April, according to DNR spokesperson Molly Meister. That money is divided into a number of categories, with $2.9 million earmarked for acquiring general easements — agreements with landowners that conserve and protect the land without transferring ownership — and $1.3 million set aside for general land acquisitions. Another $666,667 is meant for acquiring easements specifically for the Ice Age Trail, plus $8,333 for Ice Age Trail land acquisitions. An additional $600,000 is set aside for acquiring land for county forests. 

Meister told the Wisconsin Examiner in an email that the money set aside for the DNR to acquire land itself is expected to be fully used by the time the program expires, while the money set aside for easements will largely be used, but the exact amount is dependent on the agency finding interested landowners. 

“We are currently negotiating with landowners who have expressed a willing interest in selling their land to the department and anticipate all Stewardship general fee acquisition funds to be encumbered before the end of June,” she said.  Easement acquisitions, Ice Age Trail (both fee and easement), and County Forest acquisition is a similar process, but as you have noted, depends on willing landowners looking to acquire an easement versus an outright purchase in the remaining months. We expect a significant amount, but not all, of these funds will be encumbered before the end of June.”

While the program is set to expire, there are ongoing Knowles-Nelson projects around the state that have already been funded through the grant program yet won’t be completed for a few years. Meister said that program staff will close out those active projects before moving to other jobs within the DNR. The rest of the agency has also faced significant cutbacks in recent decades, due to budget constraints and Republican opposition to environmental protection initiatives. 

“It will take several years to close out currently active projects. Staff will continue to work on finishing up these projects,” Meister said. “After these projects are closed out, DNR staff will continue working on other department priorities. Over the past 20 years, we have lost over 500 FTE positions, so there is always more work to do.”

David Grusznski, the Milwaukee programs director for The Conservation Fund, the land conservation non-profit that facilitated the DNR’s purchase of the Devil’s Lake property, told the Examiner that through the stewardship program, the DNR has often been able to function as the last piece of the funding puzzle for projects that conserve land and provide access to that land for the public. 

“It’s very rare that one pot of money funds an entire acquisition, so money is always being leveraged with other people’s money,” he said. “So without the state stewardship funding being able to bring in a portion of that money, we, a lot of partners, are going to be unable to leverage federal dollars, state, city or county dollars that may be available. And we’re going to have to really rely pretty heavily on private fundraising, which is going to be extremely difficult.”

Now, he said, non-profits and land trusts across the state are coming to terms with the pending loss — which will push planned projects years into the future while putting organizations across the state in direct competition over the same pot of private philanthropy money. 

“I think this is all really just starting to set in with a lot of people across the state,” Grusznski said, “as far as the money is not there — what do we do?”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A new effort to force states to affirm the Trump administration’s views on DEI, transgender athletes and immigration when signing contracts with the U.S. Forest Service is threatening millions of dollars in wildfire grant funding and fire reduction projects on federal lands.

Some liberal states can’t sign the documents because the policies clash with state law, forestry experts say.

Already, at least one state is reporting that the new rules have stalled work to reduce wildfire risk and assist with projects on national forest lands. Other states say the requirements are so vague that they don’t know how to follow them. And some timber industry leaders believe the standoff could cut into their revenues.

“We’re kind of at an impasse,” said Washington State Forester George Geissler. “It’s already starting to slow down or shut down work.”

The update to the requirements governing federal partnerships comes even as many Western states brace for a brutal wildfire season, following a winter that brought record high temperatures and a paltry snowpack.

On Dec. 31, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins with little fanfare issued new general terms and conditions governing partnerships for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Spelled out in dozens of pages of fine print are new restrictions that require partner organizations to pledge compliance with President Donald Trump’s executive orders.

The new conditions apply to all USDA agencies, but the department hasn’t yet said whether it will enforce them for food assistance programs.

The agency, in a news release announcing the changes, framed the new terms as an effort to streamline regulations, protect national security and “eliminate radical left ideology.”

The Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service did not grant Stateline interview requests.

At the Forest Service, which is housed within USDA, the new policy applies to a wide range of grants and contracts aimed at reducing wildfire risk, restoring forest health and boosting timber production.

Forestry veterans say the new conditions have created an impasse with some Democratic-led states.

“It is significantly disruptive,” said Robert Bonnie, who served as undersecretary of agriculture for natural resources and environment during the Obama administration. “It’s clearly targeted at Democratic states and Democratic partners.”

A coalition of 20 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit in March, claiming that the restrictions are unlawful. The lawsuit has largely focused on federal food assistance programs provided by the agency, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and the Women, Infants, and Children Nutrition Program.

In an April court filing, Rollins said the new conditions had not yet been applied to food assistance programs, and that the agency had not made a “final decision” to cut off nutrition funding for states that don’t comply.

Forest Service programs

But the policy is already having an impact on some programs managed by the Forest Service.

Washington state has been unable to issue the latest round of Community Wildfire Defense Grants, a federal program that helps neighborhoods and towns reduce fuels and fortify homes in wildfire-prone areas.

Geissler, the state forester, said roughly 10 communities in Washington were set to receive large grants under the program, but the federal funding has been held up by the state’s refusal to sign the new terms and conditions.

“This is another example of the federal administration cutting off its nose to spite its face,” said David Perk, coordinator of the Washington State Lands Working Group, a coalition that weighs in on state forestry policies. “To add the additional layer of denying wildfire funding, that’s insult to injury.”

The stalemate also threatens work that the U.S. Forest Service increasingly relies on states and other partners to do in national forests. The agency has leaned heavily on tools, such as the Good Neighbor Authority, that enable state agencies to carry out wildfire mitigation, restoration and timber projects on federal lands. Many observers believe the recently announced Forest Service reorganization signals that states will play an even bigger role in the years ahead.

But now those partnerships are in jeopardy. According to Geissler, Washington state can’t sign new Good Neighbor Authority agreements due to the new conditions.

“We’re trying to sign off on agreements for another chunk of work, and we can’t get it signed,” he said. “If you are looking for work to be done by the state on federal lands, we’re not doing it. If we’re not able to sign, both sides lose.”

Washington state has spent millions of dollars on projects to reduce wildfire risk and improve forest health on national forest lands. With the new ideology requirements, the feds are essentially turning away free help, said Bonnie, the former natural resources official. That’s especially damaging, he noted, because Trump’s cuts to the Forest Service’s workforce and budget have further diminished what the agency can accomplish on its own.

The Trump administration is “damaging their own constituents,” he said. “There are a lot of conservative voters in rural Washington who want to see partnerships that reduce the probability of extreme wildfire. This will stop that. It makes absolutely no sense.”

Washington state is still working on Forest Service projects signed under previous agreements. But without new agreements, work on the ground could stall in six to eight months, Geissler said.

State responses

Nearly 20 state forestry officials contacted by Stateline did not respond or declined interview requests, citing the ongoing litigation and the need to maintain a working relationship with the Forest Service.

But one timber industry leader said Oregon was facing similar disruptions that prevented the state from signing new agreements with the Forest Service.

“This will lead to reduced revenues for (state forestry agencies),” Nick Smith, public affairs director with the American Forest Resource Council, a timber industry group, said in an email to Stateline. “As partners, our industry will be impacted if it disrupts or cancels current or future timber sales under these contracts.”

While most state forestry officials have been unwilling to publicly comment about the situation, several have filed legal declarations in support of the multistate lawsuit challenging the new terms and conditions.

Scott Bowen, director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, wrote in a declaration that his agency has more than $87 million from active grants with the Forest Service. Those grants cover wildfire response, forest health, invasive species, urban tree canopy and revegetation, among other issues.

“If these funds were withheld, DNR would have to shut down critical capabilities to assist rural communities with fire preparedness and response,” Bowen wrote.

Bowen added that the Forest Service has already said one program, a grant to protect environmentally important forests from being converted to a nonforest use, will be subject to the new terms and conditions.

In the lawsuit, many state officials said that the new compliance requirements are so vague that they’re nearly impossible to follow. Several of the legal declarations note that the new conditions do not explain what it means to “promote gender ideology,” a practice the Department of Agriculture now seeks to ban.

Many states also objected to the agency’s requirement that no one in the country illegally obtain “taxpayer-funded benefits.” Josh Kurtz, secretary of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, noted in a declaration that it would be impossible to confirm that grants to reduce wildfire risk, expand urban tree canopy and improve forest health do not benefit Marylanders who lack legal immigration status.

Kevin Hood, executive director of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, a nonprofit that advocates for public employees, said the new terms are aimed at directing a greater share of federal funding to Trump’s political allies.

“You’re going to see a bifurcation where you’ll have red states getting grants and blue states won’t,” he said.

‘More questions than answers’

In March, the National Association of State Foresters sent a letter to Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz expressing concerns about the new terms and conditions. Jason Hartman, the group’s president and the state forester of Kansas, described a chaotic situation.

“To date, the (Forest Service) has not provided adequate guidance or interpretation of the new (terms and conditions),” he wrote. “National-level meetings between State Foresters and the Forest Service have resulted in more questions than answers. State Foresters around the country have been given differing instructions and interpretations in different geographic locations.”

Hartman noted at least one instance in which a timber sale totaling 80 million board feet was held up by the new conditions. (That’s enough to build roughly 5,000 homes.) He asked the Forest Service to delay the effective date of the new conditions until the agency could provide more clarity.

He also outlined another set of issues causing problems for states. One major complication, he said, is the requirement that states receive federal approval before issuing any subawards or contracts. That has created a massive bureaucratic hassle, he wrote, in “direct conflict” with the Forest Service’s reliance on state partnerships to cut red tape.

The new terms also require environmental reviews for projects to be completed before partnership agreements can be signed. But Hartman noted that states often assist in those very environmental reviews, which they won’t be able to do if they can’t sign the agreements first.

Wyoming State Forester Kelly Norris also noted that issue in an email to Stateline, saying she expected the Forest Service to update the environmental review section soon.

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.

The fate of most of the beagles held at Ridglan Farms took a turn Thursday, when animal welfare groups Center for a Humane Economy and Big Dog Ranch Rescue announced they had reached an agreement with the Dane County dog breeder and research facility to buy 1,500 of the beagles. The dogs will be transferred to the groups  for rehabilitation and adoption. Ridglan Farms, which both breeds beagles for testing and maintains its own biomedical research facility, has been embroiled in controversy following multiple recent attempts by animal rights activists to breach the facility and free the beagles held inside. 

“This is a moment to celebrate that 1,500 dogs will soon know only the kindness of the most caring people and will be treated for the rest of their lives like little kings and queens,” said Wayne Pacelle, president of the Center for a Humane Economy, at a press conference Thursday. “This life-saving project comes as we also charge ahead with our work to wind down the archaic and inhumane era of animal testing and embrace innovative 21st century strategies that do not harm and deliver more palliatives and cures to people.” 

Amy Good of the Dane County Humane Society said during the press conference that the Humane Society will stage 500 of the dogs. At least 50 of the dogs will be up for adoption in Dane County in the coming weeks, Good said. Another 300 dogs will go to Big Dog Ranch Rescue in Florida and Alabama. A nationwide network of partner organizations will help take in the remaining dogs.

During the press conference, Pacelle said that “Ridglan, to my vantage point, looks like it’s winding down operations.” In order to comply with a deal with prosecutors to avoid penalties for violations of Wisconsin animal cruelty laws, Ridglan is required to discontinue its beagle breeding program by July 1. The deal was established last year, after a judge found that probable cause existed that animal cruelty violations had occurred at Ridglan, and appointed a special prosecutor to oversee the case. 

Animal rights activists have accused Ridglan of housing the beagles under inhumane conditions, and of subjecting them to painful experiments and procedures — including the removal of eyelids — without anesthesia. In March, a group of activists arrived at Ridglan and, using tools, breached its perimeter fence, and managed to enter one of the buildings housing beagles. The group managed to get 22 beagles out of the facility, eight of which were seized by law enforcement and returned to the farm. The activists argued that because Ridglan was in violation of animal cruelty laws, they had a right to rescue the beagles. 

About a month after the first action, a larger group numbering hundreds of people returned to Ridglan Farms but were confronted by law enforcement using rubber bullets and tear gas. Several people were injured and one man lost teeth during a beating by police, activists said. Activists filed a civil lawsuit over the use of force against the Dane County Sheriff’s Office. A lead organizer of the rescue operation, Wayne Hsiung of California, and three others were arrested and charged with felony burglary stemming from  the first break-in. 

While the recent dramatic actions and clashes with police garnered  national media attention, tensions over Ridglan had been brewing for years. 

Shannon Keith, founder and president of the Beagle Freedom Project, said that negotiations to get the 1,500 beagles out of Ridglan and into safe homes had been in the works for a long time. “We have built the infrastructure to not only rescue these dogs, but to give them full lives beyond the laboratory system,” Keith said in a statement Thursday. “Every one of these dogs will be treated as an individual deserving of care, healing, and a home.”

Eilene Ribbens, executive director of the Wisconsin Puppy Mill Project, and Pam McCloud Smith, executive director of the Dane County Humane Society, praised the deal to rehome the dogs. “We are proud to stand with the national organizations to help bring these dogs to safety,” said Ribbens. 

“This effort reflects the strength of collaboration across the animal welfare community,” said McCloud Smith. “Our focus is on ensuring these dogs receive the care, stability, and support they need to begin their new lives.” 

The dogs being taken from Ridglan have never been outdoors or seen grass, the animal welfare groups said. People who adopt the dogs will need to be patient with them and understand that each dog will need time to adjust. 

Pacelle said that the effectiveness of animal testing for human medicine and products is being increasingly questioned in the scientific community, and said that Ridglan’s practices are outdated. Pacelle said that, “the only way that we’re going to solve this problem is if the United States takes the next set of steps to defund grant-making to research institutions and others that are using beagles, and primates, and other animals.” 

On Wednesday, Congressman Mark Pocan added language to an amendment in the House Appropriations Committee markup of the agricultural funding bill for the 2027 fiscal year. The language would require the U.S. Department of Agriculture to review federal licenses of breeders that have lost their equivalent state-level breeding license, and to take action if it becomes clear that they are no longer eligible for a federal license. The amendment was directly inspired by Ridglan, which maintained a relationship with the federal government despite the controversy surrounding its facility, and its violations of state law. 

“If a breeder is turning in their state license due to code violations, the USDA should at least take a look to see if they should be allowed to continue to have this privilege,” said Pocan. “And this situation is so nonpartisan that even Lara Trump and Laura Loomer have spoken out against what’s happening at Ridglan Farms.”

Lead animal rights organizer appears in court

A day before the announcement that 1,500 of the approximately 2,000 beagles housed at Ridglan would be released, Hsiung appeared in Dane County Circuit Court in Madison. “They have threatened these dogs with violence,” said Hsiung, standing outside the courthouse surrounded by supporters and press on Wednesday. “This should’ve been resolved more than 10 years ago.” 

Hsiung and others who were involved in the actions at Ridglan have repeatedly condemned local and state government in Wisconsin for allowing the facility to operate despite years of reported concerns. “It shouldn’t be private citizens who have to step up,” said Hsiung, who claimed that the families involved in Ridglan’s operation are well connected to local politicians. “It makes a big difference that the story is getting out.”

A judge found enough evidence to continue a criminal case against Hsiung during the  preliminary hearing on charges related to the March break-in. He was represented by attorneys Benjamin Carraway and Kristin Schrank. Prosecutor Mattew Moeser sat at the opposite table, calling only a single Dane County Sheriff detective — Leslie Keith —  to the stand as a witness. Court Commissioner Brian Asmus presided over the hearing. 

Keith recalled that early on the morning of March 15, dispatchers began receiving 911 calls both from Ridglan employees saying people were entering the facility, and from the activists themselves calling to report animal abuse. Officers arrived from Mt. Horeb, not far from Blue Mounds where the beagle breeding facility is located, and began questioning people and telling them to stop. Several activists were walking around the facility, carrying beagles or attempting to get into more of the buildings. 

Moeser played body camera footage from the officers, which Carraway objected to, saying that they’d only been given the video a few seconds before the hearing began and hadn’t been able to review it. The court commissioner allowed the video to be played. “I will put you in handcuffs right now,” an officer yelled at some of the activists. “Everbody stop!” Many of the activists were dressed in white biohazard suits. Hsiung was filmed talking to the officers, describing himself as “a lawyer on site” with a “judicial opinion” regarding Ridglan. “Why are you stopping people from seeing what’s happening?” one person yelled in the body camera footage. 

Moeser also played social media videos posted by Hsiung and drone footage showing the activists entering Ridglan. The prosecutor emphasized that the group was breaking into and burglarizing the facility, and ultimately stole more than 20 dogs worth $2,000 each. 

Carraway’s attempts to question Detective Keith were repeatedly interrupted by objections by Moeser, which were sustained by the court commissioner. Carraway wasn’t allowed to ask whether law enforcement were already aware of animal cruelty reports at Ridglan. His mention of the surgical removal of beagles’ eyelids was struck down. Carraway also wasn’t allowed to ask why the activists chose to wear the biohazard suits, as well as other questions. “Any defense is not relevant at a preliminary hearing,” the commissioner told Carraway from the bench.

The hearing ended in a debate about bail conditions which had been set by the same court commissioner. Among other things, Hsiung is prohibited from contacting other co-defendants who were charged in the March break-in. Carraway argued that this was unreasonable because Hsiung intends to represent himself at some point, and would need to be able to communicate with co-defendants as witnesses. 

Hsiung was also banished from all of Dane County, which Carraway said was a First Amendment violation and could be satisfied with a simple banishment from Blue Mounds and Ridglan. Hsiung is an organizer and is regularly involved in protests and demonstrations in Wisconsin and Dane County, Carraway said. The commissioner opted to keep the no-contact for co-defendants, but loosened the banishment from Dane County, conceding that it was overly broad.

This article has been edited to clarify that Congressman Mark Pocan added language to an  amendment to the agricultural funding bill for the 2027 fiscal year. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Four Republican members of Congress, including gubernatorial frontrunner Tom Tiffany, have introduced a bill that would exempt vehicles in southeast Wisconsin from federally mandated emissions testing. 

The bill was introduced by U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Janesville) and co-sponsored by Reps. Glenn Grothman, Scott Fitzgerald and Tiffany. Tiffany, the only member whose district does not include the affected area of Milwaukee, Kenosha, Ozaukee, Racine, Sheboygan, Washington and Waukesha counties, also brought the issue up on the campaign trail late last month. 

Seven Wisconsin counties, including Milwaukee, are designated ozone nonattainment areas by the EPA under the Clean Air Act, which subjects vehicle owners in the area to additional regulations such as biennial emissions testing. Federal law allows a state to apply for the waiver if it can prove air pollution originates from out-of-state. 

The bill authors point to a Department of Natural Resources report that showed 10% of the ozone measured in the area comes from Wisconsin while more than a third of it comes across Lake Michigan from Illinois and Indiana. 

“Because of outdated federal rules, hundreds of thousands of Wisconsin drivers in seven counties are forced to complete emissions tests every two years just to renew their registration,” Tiffany said in a statement. “Wisconsin families should not be punished with costly and time-consuming mandates because of pollution drifting in from Illinois and Indiana.”

Studies have shown the highest sources of ozone in the region come from the urban centers of Chicago and Milwaukee.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A Dane County judge dismissed a lawsuit from 15 Wisconsin children who had challenged laws they argued made climate change worse and violated their constitutional rights. 

The lawsuit was filed in August by the groups Our Children’s Trust and Midwest Environmental Advocates against the state Public Service Commission and Legislature. 

The suit argued that state lawmakers have made a number of declarations that the state’s energy production should be decarbonized and the greenhouse gas emissions of that production should be reduced, but state laws prevent that from happening. 

The state’s law for siting power plants requires that the state Public Service Commission determine that “[t]he proposed facility will not have undue adverse impact on other environmental values such as, but not limited to, ecological balance, public health and welfare, historic sites, geological formations, the aesthetics of land and water and recreational use.” However the law also prohibits the PSC from considering air pollution, including from greenhouse gas emissions, in that determination. 

Additionally, the state set a goal in 2005 that 10% of Wisconsin’s energy come from renewable sources by 2015. That goal was met in 2013. However, now that the goal has been met, state law treats it as a ceiling on renewable energy the PSC can require.

In a decision issued last week, Judge Julie Genovese said she’s sympathetic to the children’s argument but that the lawsuit was asking her to weigh in on a fundamentally political, not legal, question. 

“While the court is sympathetic to the youths and admires their willingness to access the courts in their quest to protect the planet, I conclude that the case must be dismissed because environmental policy is a nonjusticiable political question,” she wrote. 

Attorneys for the Legislature had also argued that the children didn’t have standing to bring the case, pointing to a federal court decision in a similar case in California. 

But in other states similar cases have had more success. A group of Montana children successfully sued to protect their right to a clean environment in 2024. 

Tony Wilkin Gibart, MEA’s executive director, told Wisconsin Public Radio he believes there’s a strong case for the ruling to be appealed. 

“Youth plaintiffs are frustrated,” he said. “They’re also incredibly determined and have expressed a lot of resolve to continue this fight.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Trump administration’s recently announced plans to radically restructure the U.S. Forest Service have raised concerns among advocates that forest land across Wisconsin and the Upper Midwest could suffer. 

The plan, announced late last month, will relocate the agency’s head office from Washington D.C. to Salt Lake City while closing regional offices and research stations across the country. In Wisconsin, the changes are expected to affect about 250 employees across the agency’s offices in Madison and Milwaukee and smaller stations spread across the state. 

Research stations in Prairie du Chien and Wisconsin Rapids are being evaluated for closure while the Madison office has been selected to serve as the state office covering Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri and Wisconsin. 

These proposed changes come to an agency that has already seen staff attrition over the past year due to the Trump administration’s efforts to severely reduce the size of the federal government. Last year, Wisconsin saw a 19% attrition rate in its U.S. Department of Agriculture staffing level, which includes the forest service. 

Proponents of the reorganization say that moving the headquarters out west will bring decision-makers closer to the majority of the public lands managed by the agency. However, through a combination of logging activity in the Upper Midwest, New England and southeastern states, more timber is harvested each year in states east of the Mississippi River. 

But opponents have pointed out that Salt Lake City is the epicenter of the growing anti-public lands movement within the Republican Party. U.S. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) has worked to sell off millions of acres of federally owned land while the state of Utah has sued the federal government over its ownership of millions of acres of land in the state. 

The advocacy infrastructure surrounding the anti-public lands movement has at times worked to influence environmental policy in Wisconsin. 

In the large scope of the Forest Service’s public lands portfolio, Wisconsin’s Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest is just a drop in the bucket. But the existence of the national forest in the Northwoods makes the federal government the largest landowner in Wisconsin. 

The Trump administration has explicitly worked to make it easier for extractive industries such as logging and mining to work on public lands. Green Light Metals, a Canadian company, has conducted exploratory drilling on national forest land in Taylor County. Last week, Congress voted to allow mining in the Superior National Forest on the edge of  Minnesota’s Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.

Environmental advocates and union representatives of Forest Service employees say that sweeping changes to the agency could have dramatic repercussions for the rural communities where agency employees often work and could do irreparable damage to the forests themselves and the scientific research conducted at Forest Service stations. 

Howard Learner, president of the Environmental Law and Policy Center, said the plan was clearly an effort to undermine the Forest Service’s ability to conduct research while supercharging the extraction of resources from the country’s public forests. 

“The Trump administration’s effort to take apart, as an effective matter, the U.S. Forest Service is deplorable,” Learner said. “The U.S. Forest Service needs to do a job making sure that its forests, the vast lands across our country that are our national forests, are protected and managed.” 

He noted that the agency is currently proposing one of its largest timber sales ever in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, which ELPC is working to stop, and that it’s much harder for regulators to protect the country’s forests if they’re based in a far-away office.

Several people from the National Federation of Federal Employees, which represents many forest service staff members, said the changes were coming to an already demoralized group of staff members while noting that the biggest harm would be felt by the rural areas where the national forests are located.

“Most Forest Service offices are in very rural, poor communities, so if these people are forced to move to Salt Lake, that could be two or three, good paying, middle-class jobs taken out of Rhinelander or wherever they may be sitting,” said Warner Vanderheul, president of union’s Forest Service council.

Steven Gutierrez, a business representative in the federal workers union’s  land management division, said that staff members will be divided between those who can’t take any more meddling from the White House and those who stick it out in an effort to do what they can to defend the forests. 

“There’s a lot that are standing strong in solidarity right now, and saying ‘I’m going to hold the line to protect democracy,’” Gutierrez said. “And that just by being a civil servant and being a Forest Service employee, that’s their way of standing up against this tyranny that’s happening from this administration.” 

But, he said, others will leave and the risk from those departures is the end to all sorts of research projects. 

“Now programs get shut down because there’s no one there anymore,” he said. “That research, that institutional knowledge, gets lost because now nobody’s there to do it. Nobody knows what anybody was working on.” 

Jenny Van Sickle, a spokesperson for the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, said she’s concerned about the drain of expertise from Wisconsin. 

“Moving these regional models to state-based models really complicates and piecemeals out decision-making with these arbitrary borders,” she said. “All of these waterways are connected. All of these forests are connected. So a comprehensive approach to management is vital.” 

She said that an organization such as the fish and wildlife commission can help supplement the research done by the Forest Service, but not fully replace it. She noted that the commission has recently worked with the agency to study American marten habitat, wild rice and tribal climate adaptation. Vanderheul said that Forest Service research conducted in Wisconsin has helped produce recyclable glue on U.S. postage stamps and less breakable bats used by Major League Baseball teams. 

“A massive reduction in the workforce and professionals that have dedicated their lives to research and protecting these ecological systems is concerning,” Van Sickle said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Nearly one-fifth of Americans relied on drinking water systems with elevated and potentially dangerous levels of nitrate in recent years, according to a new study released Thursday.

The nonprofit Environmental Working Group examined test data collected by water systems across the country between 2021 and 2023, the most recent data available. 

Water systems serving more than 3 million people exceeded the federal safety limit of 10 milligrams per liter over the three years, the research and advocacy organization found.

The analysis also found that thousands of water systems serving more than 62 million people reported nitrate levels above 3 milligrams per liter at least once during those years, which indicates human-caused drinking-water contamination. 

Researchers are increasingly questioning whether the federal threshold should be lowered as more studies find links between even low levels of nitrate consumption and cancer and birth defects. Federal law limits nitrate levels in drinking water because of its association with blue-baby syndrome. 

Nitrate is a natural component of soil, but has become a growing problem for drinking water systems because of crop farming’s use of nitrogen fertilizers and runoff of nitrogen-rich manure from livestock operations.

States with big agricultural industries recorded more reports of elevated nitrate levels. In fact, the report found that 64% of all water systems that recorded nitrate levels at or above the legal limit were in just five states: California, Texas, Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma. 

But Anne Schechinger, the organization’s senior director of agriculture and climate research who authored the report, said the issue affects urban and rural areas alike.

“A lot of people have this idea that this issue is just a rural issue for small towns near farms. But we found with this analysis that that is not just the case,” she told Stateline. “Based on how watersheds work, you can live very far from a farm and still be drinking water contaminated with nitrate.”

The analysis relies on public records obtained from public drinking water systems in every state except New Hampshire, where data was not provided, she said. In addition to its report, the Environmental Working Group created a map showing community water systems with elevated nitrate levels across the country.

Elevated nitrate levels have befuddled water providers across the country for years. Not only are they expensive to remove from drinking water supplies, but nitrate levels can fluctuate with the seasons as heavy rains can quickly push remnants of fertilizer or manure into streams and rivers. 

Iowa’s largest water provider last year asked residents to refrain from watering lawns, filling pools and washing cars as its nitrate removal system struggled to keep up with elevated levels. 

Des Moines is home to one of the largest nitrate removal systems in the world, which costs about $16,000 per day to operate, officials said. Smaller communities that rely on groundwater have been forced to dig deeper wells, Schechinger said.

Climate change is further fueling the problem: Agriculture is a major driver of greenhouse gas emission. The heavy rainfalls and prolonged droughts from more extreme weather worsen nitrate runoff into lakes, rivers and groundwater. 

“We know those climate conditions are going to make this problem worse,” Schechinger said. “And that’s likely to cost us all more and also (raise) more concerns for our health.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) held a public information hearing on four permit applications by Enbridge for streambank erosion control on the 41-mile reroute of Line 5, a light crude oil and natural gas pipeline. The 16 people who spoke all voiced opposition, either specifically to the permits or to the reroute itself, and many cast aspersions on the Canadian pipeline corporation.

In addition to ongoing legal challenges, the four permits are among the last hurdles in Wisconsin that Enbridge needs to clear to reroute its pipeline around the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians Reservation, which borders Lake Superior.

Enbridge is under a court order that has been stayed in a federal appeals court to remove the existing Line 5 pipeline from the reservation by June. The Bad River Band has rejected several offers from Enbridge to keep the line on the reservation, and after Enbridge was ordered to remove the line from the reservation, the Band redirected its opposition to the reroute, arguing that it poses an environmental threat to its watershed.

Enbridge is seeking four streambank erosion-control permits for four waterways in Ashland County: an unnamed tributary to the Brunsweiler River, Beartrap Creek, Bay City Creek, and Little Beartrap Creek.

Joe McGaver of Enbridge Environment Projects detailed the work proposed for each of the four sites. He noted that Lake Superior Consulting identified the erosion issues, and the measures to address them are intended to “stabilize the streambanks and prevent continued erosion” below the ordinary high-water marks.

He also noted that Enbridge and the riparian landowners — those owning the land along the waterways — are “co-applicants” and also “co-permittees.”

At a recent Bayfield County Court hearing on April 16 requesting a stay of ongoing work on the reroute, pending a judicial review of approved permits, lawyers representing Bad River and environmental groups contended that under state statute only the riparian owner can seek a permit for modification of the shoreline. But the legal counsel for the DNR responded that it was its practice to use “co-applicants” in similar projects.

Comments

Ashley Guardado of Hempstead, New York, representing Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network, urged the DNR to deny the four permits because they would jeopardize the waterways and the “pristine ecosystems that depend on them.”

“Approving these permits would also enable construction activities that pose long-term risks to water quality, habitat, and the broader watershed,” she said, and noted beyond the local creeks and river, the larger concern is the Great Lakes, which hold 20% of the world’s fresh water.

“So I urge you to consider what it really means to jeopardize these waterways and the ecosystems at both a local and a global level, be it encroaching on the tribal sovereignty and the rights of Indigenous nations that are within this territory to exacerbating the climate crisis and deepening our dependence on fossil fuels that move us only further away from the just transition that Wisconsin, the United States and the world very urgently need,” she said.

Gracie Waukechon, a Wisconsin resident, said the DNR shouldn’t approve the permits out of concern for the environment, and also because Enbridge isn’t legally qualified to seek the permits regarding riparian ownership and Enbridge’s history of environmental damage, including the 2010 crude oil spill of nearly 1 million gallons into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan.

Skylar Harris, representing Midwest Environmental Advocates (MEA), said her organization would submit detailed written objections to the specific permit application, but addressed the DNR’s interpretation of Wisconsin’s Public Trust Doctrine.

“Riparian ownership language in Section 30.12 of the Wisconsin statutes was created in 1949 pursuant to the public trust doctrine to give landowners the ability to live along navigable waters and engage in limited construction activity that would improve navigation or protect the property from erosion and other hazards,” she said. “Because the Legislature was trying to limit the types of construction that could occur in navigable waters, non-riparians were explicitly excluded from permit eligibility. Enbridge has filed these applications for project permits, which is a non-riparian claiming that easements and co-applicant agreements with landowners are sufficient to get around the clear statutory prohibition against construction by non-riparians.”

She said the DNR supports Enbridge’s position and had “tentatively” made the determination to grant the permits, which, she said, would be “a blatant violation of explicit statutory mandates and a violation of the public’s constitutional right to use and enjoy Wisconsin’s navigable waters,” and would set a precedent for other commercial development and environmental damage.

Jadine Sonoda of Madison said Enbridge had raised concerns for Wisconsin because of issues during its Line 3 construction in Minnesota, where it had pierced an aquifer in Northern Minnesota and had agreed to a $2.8 million legal settlement.

Matthew Bourke of Michigan wondered if the DNR investigated any concerns raised in prior hearings, and he questioned why Enbridge had been allowed to pursue permits when it had been found to be trespassing on the Bad River reservations, and a court case in Michigan is challenging the closing of a section of the pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Patricia Hale, an attorney from Antigo also argued Enbridge didn’t have a right for the permits.  

“This is not their (Enbridge) property,” she said of the waterway banks, adding that Enbridge shouldn’t be allowed to request permits based on the easement, because the public has voiced its opposition to Enbridge’s latest permit application for a Line 5 reroute.

Joe Bates, a Bad River tribal elder from Odanah, said Enbridge is endangering Wisconsin waterways by operating a pipeline originally built in 1953.

“This reroute also violates our treaty of 1854,” said Bates. “It (1854 treaty) guarantees us a permanent homeland.”

Bates said the reroute would surround the reservation, requiring members to seek permission from Enbridge to cross it to gather, hunt, or fish in the ceded territories, lands off the reservation where tribal members have rights to pursue resources. At the April 16 court hearing, legal counsel for Enbridge said the corporation would allow permission to tribal members to cross its pipeline for those who have a legal reason to do so. 

“I urge you to please deny permits to Enbridge,” said Bates.

Jennifer Boulley, a Bad River member living in Washburn, also noted that just that morning the US Supreme Court ruled the case in Michigan regarding Line 5 under the Straits of Mackinac will stay in a state of Michigan court and not a federal court as Enbridge had requested.

“Were just hoping that the DNR will continue to listen to the people and not the money, so we can save this water for future generations,” she said.

RJ Claire of Ashland County said the focus of the hearing is on specific technical issues, but she encouraged the DNR to consider a broader perspective on potential harm and environmental impact, and she accused the DNR of being complicit in enabling Enbridge to commit “violence” against the environment.

“Again and again and again and again, tribal members have been expressing to the rest of us that what’s happening right now is an act of violence,” she said. “The DNR is participating in enabling the violence of Enbridge. Who among you is willing to start breaking that pattern? Again, I know this is a technical hearing, but I think it’s really, really, really, really important and crucial that we are looking at this in a holistic way. Because I would argue that from when we focus on the technical parts, that’s a form of just dismissing the violence that is occurring.”

Melanie Conners, a Bad Rivers member who said she lived near Bad River and the Kakagon Sloughs, a wetland that has received international recognition due to its environmental niche and wild rice bed for the band, read a definition from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of “environmental justice” as “fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people, regardless of color, race, national origin or income, with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement and environmental law, regulations and policies.”

She questioned why Bad River members had to “bear the weight” of potential oil contamination.

“It’s Bad River tribal members who will be directly impacted,” she said, and added, “I harvest rice every year to sustain my family. How are you allowing this? This is environmental racism. Enbridge cannot guarantee that it will not contaminate our waters, our Kakagon Slough.”

Additional comments will be accepted until  May 2. Comments should be either emailed to macaulay.haller@wisconsin.gov or left via voice message at (608) 347-0240 or sent by mail to Macaulay Haller, 101 S. Webster Street, Madison,  53707-7921.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

This story was produced by Grist and co-published with States Newsroom. It is  part of the Grist series Vital Signs, exploring the ways climate change affects your health. This reporting initiative is made possible thanks to support from the Wellcome Trust.

Bailey Magers and Sunil Kumar cut strange figures on Pensacola Beach. Bags of disinfectant solution surrounded them on the white sand; their gloved hands juggled test tubes while layers of rubber and plastic shielded their skin from the elements. As the two organized their seawater samples on the popular Florida beach last August, an older woman wearing a swimsuit walked over to ask what they were doing.

“We’re just actively monitoring water quality,” they told her, but she pressed on.

“Are you looking for that flesh-eating bacteria?”

“We’re looking into it,” they replied, hoping not to frighten her. The woman turned back toward the ocean, her curiosity satisfied. As she walked away, Kumar noticed that she had scrapes and bruises on her body. A few minutes later, he watched her step into the waves. He shook off a chill and returned to the task at hand. 

Magers and Kumar study a bacteria called Vibrio, part of a lineage of ancient marine species that likely emerged sometime around the Paleozoic Era. Enormous, shallow seas flooded the massive, interconnected supercontinents that constituted the Earth’s landmass at the time, and complex marine ecosystems developed that thrived in these temperate, freshly-formed bodies of water. Researchers think there are more than 70 Vibrio species in the environment today, hundreds of millions of years later. The organisms float in warm, brackish water, attaching themselves to plankton and algae and accumulating in prolific water-filtering species like clams and oysters. 

A small number of Vibrio species can sicken and even kill. In worst-case scenarios, a person who has been exposed to the most dangerous of them — by swimming in brackish water with an open wound or ingesting a piece of raw shellfish that is contaminated with the tasteless and odorless toxin — may find themselves with only hours before the flesh on one or more extremities starts to bruise, swell, and decay. Without the quick aid of powerful antibiotics, septic shock can set in and lead to death. Anyone can get infected, though it is much more likely in people who have liver disease or are immunocompromised, elderly, or diabetic.

Climate change is making the world’s oceans, which have absorbed more than 90 percent of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gas emissions, more hospitable to Vibrio. Research shows that temperature and salinity are the largest predictors of how widespread Vibrio bacteria are. As water temperatures rise, so does the concentration of Vibrio in seawater — boosting the risk of infection for beachgoers and shellfish consumers. The bacteria start getting active in water temperatures above 60 degrees Fahrenheit and multiply rapidly as coastal waters warm throughout the summer. In recent years, scientists have documented Vibrio expanding into places that were once too cold to support the bacteria, pushing as far north along the U.S. East Coast as Maine and appearing with more prevalence in temperate seas around the world. 

Vibriosis infections in general are the leading cause of shellfish-related illness in the U.S. They have increased “more than any other illness caused by a pathogen in the U.S. food supply” since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC, started keeping tabs on such illnesses in 1996, according to a 2019 analysis by the International Association for Food Protection. The report attributed the precipitous rise to a “perfect storm” of factors that include climate change, food handling practices, expanding globalization, a patchwork of regulatory oversight, and improved diagnosis. 

On their conspicuous expeditions to Pensacola and other Sunshine State beaches, Magers and Kumar are trying to understand where, and when, harmful Vibrio species are present across the state. The research they’re doing is part of an ongoing effort by a laboratory at the University of Florida to create a Vibrio early warning system for the eastern United States — a program that can alert public health departments to high Vibrio concentrations in any given area a month in advance. How many limbs would be saved, Magers wonders, if doctors and nurses could be warned ahead of time that their emergency rooms would soon see an uptick in these chronically underdiagnosed infections? 

The work serves more than one purpose: As Vibrio bacteria spread north into cooler waters, they serve as a first warning signal of changing marine conditions — giving researchers a heads-up that the familiar composition of marine species in their local waters may be starting to shift. In Europe’s Baltic Sea, for example, a spike in Vibrio infections in July 2014 closely mirrored a heatwave that rapidly warmed the shallow sea. The incident showed researchers that Vibrio spikes herald unusually warm marine conditions — and they have since been utilized as barometers for ocean heatwaves and sea-surface warming patterns, not just food safety.

“We see Vibrio as the indicator for climate change,” said Kyle Brumfield, a microbiologist at the University of Maryland who has been studying the bacteria for a decade. “We can use the presence of Vibrio and Vibrio cases as a proxy for water health in general.”

The CDC estimates that about 80,000 cases of vibriosis occur in the U.S. every year, resulting in about 100 deaths. Of those 80,000 cases, most are caused by a Vibrio called parahaemolyticus, which most commonly results in gastroenteritis, or food poisoning. The vast majority of the deaths, however, are caused by a type of Vibrio called vulnificus — the Latin word for “wound-making.”

Vulnificus is so potent it can squeeze through a pinhole-sized cut in the skin and lead to death in just 24 hours. In the last five years, the CDC registered 429 such vulnificus cases, plus 136 foodborne cases. But even though foodborne cases are less numerous, the patients that contract vulnificus by eating contaminated shellfish are more likely to die than those infected via open wounds. Thirteen percent of those nonfoodborne cases died, compared to 32 percent of people who got the infection from eating seafood. Most cases occur in the Gulf and Atlantic coastal regions.

As far as infectious diseases go, vulnificus is exceedingly rare: The CDC reports between 150 and 200 cases a year. The sexually-transmitted disease chlamydia, by comparison, one of the most common bacterial infections in the U.S., infects northward of 1.5 million Americans annually. But vulnificus’ astonishing speed and high fatality rate — 15 to 50 percent, depending on the health of the person exposed and the route of infection — makes it a unique public health threat, particularly as climate change grows its pathways of exposure. 

Vulnificus is not the kind of pathogen you’d want behaving erratically, but that’s exactly what it’s been doing since the late 2010s. Across the Eastern Seaboard, local and federal health officials have been reporting “unusual increases” in vulnificus prevalence — jagged spikes in infections that appear to correspond to extreme weather events like hurricanes and marine heatwaves.

In 2022 and 2024, years when the brackish water that Vibrio bacteria thrive in was pushed inland by major hurricanes, Florida’s public health department reported 17 and 19 deaths, respectively, linked to vulnificus exposure via open wounds. North Carolina, New York, and Connecticut also saw small clusters of infections during a record-breaking heatwave in the summer of 2023. “As coastal water temperatures increase,” the CDC warned in its investigation of those outbreaks, “V. vulnificus infections are expected to become more common.”

A 2023 study that analyzed a 30-year database of confirmed vulnificus infections from outdoor recreation along the U.S. Gulf and Atlantic coasts found the northern boundary of infections has moved north by a rate of 30 miles per year since 1998. The study noted that “V. vulnificus infections may expand their current range to encompass major population centers around New York,” and that annual case numbers may double as temperatures rise and America’s elderly population grows. 

“In the 1980s, Vibrio abundance would increase in the late spring and stay high through the summer and drop in the middle of October,” Brumfield, who conducts research on Vibrio in Maryland, said. “Now … we can pretty much find them almost year-round.”

Two ways to get infected

Just how worried we should be about the changing dynamics of Vibrio bacteria depends on who you ask and what you read. The gruesome and fast-acting nature of the vulnificus infection makes it enticing fodder for local and national news media, fueling a spree of terrifying reports every time a new severe infection or death surfaces. “Virginia dad wades in calf-high water, dies 2 weeks later of flesh-eating bacteria that ‘ravaged’ his legs,” read a recent headline in People magazine. “2 dead after eating oysters, contracting flesh-eating bacteria, officials say,” per a 2025 web story about two deaths linked to oyster consumption in Louisiana and Florida. Like many others in their mold, neither story mentions how rare the bacteria are. 

The press is bad news for some in the seafood industry, which does not welcome a national conversation about the rise in vibriosis cases, vulnificus in particular. Shellfish farmers and industry representatives that Grist spoke to in Florida and New York argued media attention on the safety of their products is unwarranted. “‘Flesh-eating bacteria,’” said Leslie Sturmer, a researcher who works for the University of Florida’s shellfish aquaculture extension program and consults with the shellfish industry on research and regulation — “the media loves it.”

Paul McCormick, an oyster farmer in Long Island who sells 750,000 oysters a year, thinks all press is bad press. “Even if the title of your article says ‘New York oysters are the safest oysters in the universe,’” he told me on the phone from his office in East Moriches in January, “you’ve already created a problem.”

In unrefrigerated oysters left out in warm conditions, Vibrio bacteria reproduce every 20 minutes. But in 2010, states began deploying strict protocols known as “Vibrio control plans,” which require harvesters to rapidly cool their catch onboard and then refrigerate it at a shellfish processing facility within a set number of hours. The measures have proven effective at stopping the growth of Vibrio in harvested shellfish and preventing disease.  

The fact that infections can happen in one of two ways — shellfish consumption and seawater exposure — makes it easy to shift blame and point fingers. Consumers have more control over how much exposure they have to Vibrio than they have with E. coli, for example. A person with a kidney condition can choose not to eat oysters on the half shell. E. Coli, often found in raw vegetables, is far tricker to avoid. Likewise, someone with an open wound can opt not to bathe in brackish waters if they are aware of the risks lurking in the surf.

For shellfish industry representatives, personal responsibility is the primary way to bring caseloads down. “The person is the risk,” said Sturmer. “Not the climate, not the water, not the bacteria.” Implicitly, this appears to be the government’s position as well: There is currently no numerical threshold at which state public health agencies will “shut down” a beach for outdoor recreation, though states will issue public advisories and, very rarely, close beaches if they happen to find high levels of Vibrio in the water.

But that perspective doesn’t account for the rapid marine changes brought on by climate change, the patchiness of vibriosis awareness, and the fact that Americans often make personal decisions that are at odds with their own health and safety.

The shellfishers Grist spoke to fully acknowledged the research underpinning Vibrio’s spread. McCormick studied environmental science in college, and Sturmer is running her own climate experiments in a laboratory in the fishing town of Cedar Key, Florida, putting different kinds of clams and oysters through heat stress tests to determine which species are best equipped to weather the decades ahead. Marine mollusks are uniquely threatened by rising ocean temperatures, ocean acidification, and sea level rise, issues that can lead to thin shells, low crop yields, and mass die-offs on farms. A detailed understanding of climate science, in other words, is good business for those who make their living fishing.

The problem, according to Sturmer, is that shellfishers have been unfairly singled out for a health issue that doesn’t affect most consumers and is more often contracted by ocean bathing rather than raw oyster consumption. While beaches stay open even when Vibrio bacteria are present in the water and lead to infections, a small number of foodborne vibriosis cases can trigger state closures of shellfish harvesting areas and product recalls. The National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science noted that these precautions “erode consumer confidence and likely decrease sales.” 

The panic that ensues after media reports of Vibrio infections has a similar effect: A 2024 study asked more than 350 shellfish consumers in Rhode Island — a state that relies heavily on its shellfish industry, particularly in summer months when people vacation along the coastline — to bid on entrees of raw oysters and clams. After showing study participants a real newspaper article about a 2015 Vibrio outbreak linked to an oyster farm in Massachusetts, the researchers reported that the news had a “significant negative impact” on participants’ willingness to bid on oysters. It had a depressive effect on clam sales, too.

“You should really be out there beating the drum on botulism or salmonella or E. Coli,” Sturmer told me on a recent visit to her lab in Cedar Key. “Why worry about [vulnificus] when the number of cases are so minimal?” Sturmer is quick to point out that even the term “flesh-eating bacteria” is a misnomer. She’s right, in a sense: The bacteria doesn’t “eat” tissue; it destroys it. But it’s hard to say whether someone who has survived a bout of necrotizing fasciitis, the medical term for what vulnificus does to the flesh, would care to dispute the difference.

Protecting consumers from being sickened by the deadly bacteria isn’t as simple as trusting people with underlying medical conditions not to eat shellfish. Americans consume 2.5 billion oysters every year, half of which are eaten raw. Vibrio infections, which most often resemble food poisoning, are still underreported and underrecognized, even among individuals who are most at risk of developing a severe infection. Vulnificus infections are also underreported, but much less so than other Vibrio-related infections because they often require a hospital or emergency room visit. 

“I’ve cared for many people with salmonella infections and water-borne infectious processes, but this is the one that is likely the most serious,” said Norman Beatty, an associate professor at the University of Florida College of Medicine who is also a practicing infectious disease doctor in Gainesville, and has seen limbs and lives lost to vulnificus. 

Identifying coastal areas most at risk

When it comes to preventing Vibrio infections, the work Magers and Kumar are doing could take some of the onus off of individual responsibility. The researchers are identifying which parts of the eastern U.S. coastline will be most risky for overall vibriosis infections, and vulnificus specifically, as waters warm. Alongside a group of microbiologists from the University of Maryland, including Brumfield, the scientists have developed a computer model that can predict how high the vibriosis risk will be in any given coastal county on the Gulf or East coasts a month in advance. The team trained their model by pairing the CDC’s count of Vibrio-related foodborne and waterborne illnesses from 1997 to 2019 with satellite data that measures the conditions that fuel Vibrio growth, such as water temperature and salinity. 

The system is far from perfect. When the model was first trained and evaluated, it was only 23 percent precise in pinpointing high-risk counties, meaning just one in four of the counties the program labeled as high-risk actually ended up seeing a vibriosis case in a given month. But it was very good at determining which counties were low-risk, capturing those regions with 99 percent precision. And it improved over time as the quality of the data they fed it got better. When they had the model do a test run on data collected by the Florida Department of Public Health from 2020 to 2024, 72 percent of total cases occurred in counties the tool flagged as high-risk for vibriosis. 

Perhaps most significantly, the model was especially adept at predicting high-risk counties ahead of Hurricanes Helene and Milton in 2024 — more than 80 percent of the vibriosis cases that occurred in Florida in the aftermath of those hurricanes were reported in counties the model had already flagged as high-risk. 

The tool is geared toward predicting water-borne infections, but it may also provide useful information to the shellfishing industry, though the system isn’t a replacement for the established protocols farmers already use — protocols that have proven to be effective, particularly in states that are aggressive about enforcing them. What the new tool could do, however, is supplement those Vibrio control plans, especially when an upcoming weather pattern deviates from the historical norm — something that has been happening a lot lately.

States currently use a rolling five-year average illness rate to calculate how many minutes or hours harvested shellfish can stay on a boat before moving into indoor refrigeration. In February, for example, Florida shellfishers have to get their oysters into refrigeration by 5 p.m. on the day of harvest. In July, they have no more than two hours, or they have to cool their catch in ice slurries on board. But these timetables don’t account for sudden temperature anomalies.

“It’s going to be 80 degrees this week in Alabama,” Andy DePaola, a Gulf Coast oyster farmer, told me in February. “Yet I can keep my oysters out for, like, 14 hours, because the rolling five-year average is 20 degrees less than that anomaly.” (DePaola is also a microbiologist who worked on Vibrio at the FDA for the better part of 40 years, and is the author of the 2019 analysis that diagnosed the “perfect storm” for Vibrio spread.)

But the shellfish industry doesn’t appear enthusiastic about the idea of assigning counties a risk category based on Vibrio prevalence. Vibrio researchers, by their own admission, haven’t done a good job of reaching out to shellfishers to find out how such a tool would work best for them. At an August meeting of the Delaware Bay Section of the ​​New Jersey Shellfisheries Council last year, the director of a shellfish research laboratory brought up the idea of using Vibrio predictive models to “determine optimal days to harvest to reduce the transfer of infection to humans.” A lengthy discussion ensued. The consensus, ultimately, was that the model was a bad idea, and could be “used against the industry.”

Not all shellfishers are dead set against the kind of work Magers and Kumar are doing. “If Vibrio is an indicator of global warming, then that’s just an unfortunate bad luck scene for us,” McCormick, the Long Island oysterman, said. But it’s hard for him to see what relevance that research has to an industry that already has its own methods of controlling Vibrio. “In my mind that exists in one realm and the safety of our oysters is a whole different thing.”

As we move deeper into the 21st century, however, those two realms will have more overlap. If countries keep up their current pace of greenhouse gas emissions, most coastal communities along the East Coast will be environmentally primed for vibriosis outbreaks during peak summer months by midcentury. It won’t be a question of if there will be more vibriosis cases — it will be a matter of how to manage them. That’s the scenario Magers and Kumar are preparing for.

“In 30, 40, 100 years, these models won’t even matter because the risk is so high,” said Magers, the lead author of the predictive modeling study. “When it gets to that point, it would probably be a different kind of modeling strategy where we’d be modeling case numbers instead of infection risk.” 

---

Know the facts about Vibrio, a bacteria found in coastal waters and raw oysters

Stay informed about your risk level as you enjoy fresh shellfish and beach trips this summer. 

By Lyndsey Gilpin

This story was produced by Grist and co-published with States Newsroom.

What is Vibrio? 

Vibrio is a type of bacteria that has been around for hundreds of millions of years; researchers have identified more than 70 species. These species are mostly harmless, but some can cause infection. The bacteria thrive in warm, brackish (slightly salty) water such as estuaries and bays, attaching themselves to plankton and algae and accumulating in prolific water-filtering species like clams and oysters. Serious infections typically happen either through exposure to an open wound in saltwater or, more rarely, ingestion of raw shellfish that contain the bacteria. 

The concentration of Vibrio in coastal waterways is higher from May through October, when temperatures are warmer. Most U.S. cases are in the Gulf and Atlantic coastal regions. Vibrio is tasteless and odorless. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC, estimates that about 80,000 cases of vibriosis (an infection caused by the Vibrio bacteria) occur in the U.S. every year, resulting in about 100 deaths. Florida has the highest number of cases, with about 20 percent reported from the Indian River Lagoon region, a popular recreation destination on the Atlantic Coast. 

What happens if you come into contact with Vibrio?

Most people are not at risk of developing illness, or they may have only mild symptoms. However, those with compromised immune systems can develop life-threatening infections. 

The majority of the 80,000 annual U.S. cases are caused by a Vibrio called parahaemolyticus, which most often infects people via the raw seafood they eat and usually leads to gastroenteritis, or food poisoning. The symptoms may include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach cramps, fever and chills, weakness, fatigue, and headache. 

A different type of Vibrio, vulnificus, is much less common, but can cause severe illness. The infected wound may be red, swollen, and painful, or you may develop mild gastrointestinal issues such as watery diarrhea, stomach cramps, or vomiting. Symptoms typically appear within 12 to 24 hours and can last up to seven days. Healthy people tend to fight off the infection on their own. But if flesh on one or more extremities to bruise, swell, and decay, or symptoms of sepsis occur, it is a medical emergency. Vulnificus can squeeze through a pinhole-sized cut in the skin and lead to death in just 24 hours. This severe infection is rare, but it has a 15 to 50 percent fatality rate; the vast majority of the 100 annual deaths are from this strain. A severe vulnificus infection is much more likely in people who have liver disease or are immunocompromised, elderly, or diabetic.

How concerned should I be — and how do I stay safe? 

You don’t necessarily need to avoid oyster bars or cancel your beach trip, but you should know how to stay informed and take precautions. Here are a few ways to do so:

• Be aware that there are many fearmongering headlines about flesh-eating bacteria, despite vulnificus being one of the rarest forms of Vibrio exposure. Vibrio doesn’t attack random healthy flesh — there must be exposure through an open wound (a break in the skin) or it must be ingested, most often through raw shellfish. People who get sick often have underlying health conditions. 
• If you don’t feel well after eating raw seafood or swimming in brackish water, don’t wait — go to the doctor. Some medical professionals, particularly those in areas where the bacteria hasn’t historically infected people, don’t know what vibriosis is. Advocate for yourself — ask for a test. 
• If you have liver disease, your risk is much higher than the general population’s. Keep an eye out for public health advisories from state and local health officials and avoid swimming in ocean water with an open wound or consuming raw shellfish in warm months. Note that ocean temperatures, especially along the lower Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, have been elevated outside the typical seasonal range in some recent years.
• Be aware when eating raw shellfish, particularly raw oysters. It’s best to be confident that the shellfish was refrigerated and stored in compliance with government standards. The vast majority of foodborne Vibrio cases lead to food poisoning. (Food poisoning from bacteria is always a risk when eating uncooked shellfish and many other foods like salads or deli meat.)

How is climate change affecting Vibrio?

Climate change is making the world’s oceans, which have absorbed more than 90 percent of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gas emissions, more hospitable to Vibrio. The bacteria start getting active in temperatures above 60 degrees Fahrenheit and multiply rapidly as waters warm throughout the summer. Vibrio is expanding into places that were once too cold to support it, farther north on the U.S. East coast and in other temperate seas around the world. As it spreads, it serves as a first warning signal of changing marine conditions.

What’s being done to address Vibrio?

There’s a lot of research happening to better understand the risks these bacteria pose under changing environmental conditions: A group of microbiologists at the University of Maryland, alongside other scientists, have developed a computer model that can predict how high the risk of vibriosis will be in any given coastal county in the eastern U.S. a month in advance. The team trained its model, which is still under development, by pairing the CDC’s count of Vibrio-related foodborne and waterborne illnesses from 1997 to 2019 with satellite data that measures the conditions that fuel Vibrio growth, such as water temperature and salinity. It’s far from perfect, but it’s improving. And it was especially adept at predicting high-risk counties ahead of hurricanes Helene and Milton in 2024 — more than 80 percent of the vibriosis cases that occurred in Florida in the aftermath of those hurricanes were reported in counties the model had already flagged as high-risk. 

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday handed Michigan’s Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel a victory, offering a unanimous decision that laid to rest a yearslong debate over whether her case to shut down Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline should be heard in state or federal court. 

In an 14-page opinion penned by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court held that Enbridge had missed its 30-day window to have the case removed to federal court, with the Canadian energy company making its request 887 days after receiving Nessel’s initial complaint. 

The company’s Line 5 pipeline has been a long-running concern for tribal nations and environmentalists in the region, with Nessel calling it a “ticking time bomb” for the Great Lakes.

Running from northwestern Wisconsin into Sarnia, Ontario, the 645-mile long pipeline passes through Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, with a four-mile segment of dual pipelines running through the Straits of Mackinac, where Lake Huron and Lake Michigan meet. The pipeline carries up to 23 million gallons of crude oil and natural gas liquids through the straits each day.

“Today’s decision honors the truth that the Straits of Mackinac are not a bargaining chip and reaffirms what Tribal Nations have always known – we have the right and the responsibility to protect the Great Lakes,” Bay Mills Indian Community President Whitney Gravelle said in a statement. “The Supreme Court saw through Enbridge’s delay tactics and upheld the rule of law. This is a victory for our waters, our treaty rights, and the next seven generations who depend on the Great Lakes for life itself.”

In an emailed statement, Enbridge spokesperson Ryan Duffy noted that Nessel’s case has been stayed, awaiting the results of an appeal in another court case, which Enbridge filed against Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and the director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources after they revoked the company’s easement to operate Line 5 in the Straits of Mackinac.

The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan in December ruled that the move was unenforceable, with the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992 preempting states from placing safety regulations on interstate pipelines. Whitmer has appealed the decision.

“Setting aside the procedural decision, the fact remains that the safety of Line 5 is regulated exclusively by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,” Duffy said, noting that the agency has not identified any safety issues that would warrant its shutdown.