A petroleum refinery in Louisiana. Last week, a federal appeals court ruled that Wisconsin doesn't need to comply with stricter air quality rules to decrease smog in three southeastern Wisconsin counties. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

A federal appeals court has ruled that the state of Wisconsin and businesses operating in certain parts of southeastern Wisconsin will not be required to meet more stringent air quality standards for ozone pollution — giving state regulators and industry a reprieve from what they say were “costly and burdensome requirements.”

On Friday, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the state’s request to temporarily postpone a rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. Late last year, the EPA reclassified areas of Milwaukee, Kenosha and Sheboygan counties as being in “serious nonattainment” of the agency’s 2015 ozone standards. In February, the state filed a lawsuit for the review of the EPA finding. 

The enforcement of the EPA standard would have forced the state to revise its plan for complying with national air quality standards under the Clean Air Act, and hundreds of businesses would have had to assess if their existing permits need to be renewed or revised. The state complained that these measures would have cost the Department of Natural Resources and the state’s businesses millions of dollars when most of the ozone pollution over the areas is caused elsewhere and settles over southeast Wisconsin after drifting across Lake Michigan. 

Environmental groups have said that even if Wisconsin’s industries aren’t creating most of the ozone pollution, the businesses have a duty to work to protect the health and well-being of the state’s residents. In 2018, Clean Wisconsin sued the EPA to force the agency to declare the three southeastern Wisconsin counties aren’t complying with federal air quality rules. 

Ozone pollution, also known as smog, occurs most often in the summer when air pollution from vehicle exhaust and industrial processes reacts with sunlight. The pollution can be harmful to people’s respiratory systems. 

“The fact that southeastern Wisconsin has been reclassified as in serious nonattainment for ozone means that residents of those counties are at higher risk of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and Wisconsin should be implementing all possible policies and strategies to reduce ozone pollution to protect public health,” Clean Wisconsin attorney Katie Nekola said in a statement to Wisconsin Public Radio. 

But business groups and the state have argued the costs are too high for a problem that doesn’t start in Wisconsin. DNR analysis has found that less than 10% of the ozone pollution in the state is caused by Wisconsin industry. 

The state Department of Justice said in its lawsuit that the “change triggers costly permit requirements, complex regulations, and stringent emissions offset mandates,” which could create $4 million in added costs for the state and cost an estimated 382 businesses between $1 million and $6.9 million.

Scott Manley, a lobbyist for Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, said the court’s Friday order grants relief from the “crushing and job-killing ozone regulations.” 

“Data from both the DNR and EPA indicate that the vast majority of ozone pollution in eastern Wisconsin is caused by emissions originating from outside our state borders,” Manley said in a statement. “It’s unfair to punish Wisconsin businesses for pollution they didn’t create, and [the] order is the first step toward righting this wrong.”

Duck on the Menominee River | Laina G. Stebbins

State agencies are warning Wisconsinites to limit the amount of ducks that they eat, or to avoid certain birds entirely, due to PFAS contamination. Waterfowl harvested around Green Bay were shown to have high levels of the man-made “forever chemicals,” which persist in the environment forever and have been linked to several chronic diseases including cancers. 

The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Department of Health Services (DHS) are advising people not to eat mallards from around lower Green Bay from Longtail Point to Point au Sable, and south of the mouth of the Fox River. Additionally, mallards and wood ducks living around Green Bay from the city of Marinette across to Sturgeon Bay should not be consumed frequently — no more more often than once per month for mallards and only one meal per week for wood ducks. 

Back in 2022 levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), another man-made chemical, in waterfowl led to similar advisories in lower Green Bay. Further assessments found concentrations of PFAS in breast muscle tissue, according to a DNR press release. In 2023 and 2024, more samples were taken from ducks, with all samples taken during July and August when the birds were most likely to represent local breeding populations. Those efforts revealed elevated levels of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), which is a type of PFAS, in the breast muscles of the birds. The inquiry suggested that both adult and juvenile ducks in lower Green Bay have higher concentrations of PFOS than in the northern portion of the bay. 

PFAS chemicals were first developed as part of U.S. government nuclear and atomic weapons research during the Manhattan Project. After the project ended private companies, particularly DuPont, began researching the compounds for commercial use. Over the subsequent decades, PFAS was used in products including  non-stick Teflon pans, fast food wrappers, and firefighting foam. The chemicals do not degrade in the environment, nor within the body, and have been linked to cancers and other chronic diseases. 

The DNR tracks PFAS consumption advisories spanning multiple species including deer, fish and waterfowl. On Sept. 4, deer and fish advisories for PFAS were issued for the Town of Stella and surrounding waterbodies in Oneida County. All fish in the Moen Lake Chain were included in a “do not eat” advisory due to PFAS contamination, and a similar warning was distributed against the consumption of deer liver near the Town of Stella.

Members of the public attend a hearing over Enbridge Line 5. (Photo courtesy of Devon Young Cupery)

An administrative law judge in Madison heard arguments Wednesday in a case contesting Wisconsin’s approval of Enbridge’s proposed Line 5 pipeline reroute. Members of the  public testified, followed by an expert witness in geology and hydrology, who questioned aspects of the reroute plan. 

The lawsuit, brought by Clean Wisconsin and Midwest Environmental Advocates (on behalf of the Sierra Club of Wisconsin, the League of Woman Voters of Wisconsin and 350 Wisconsin), challenges permits allowing the Canadian oil company to move forward with rerouting the Line 5 pipeline around the Bad River reservation in northern Wisconsin. Wednesday’s hearing followed the opening day of testimony in Ashland and was one of a series of hearings  scheduled through early October. The Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa is challenging Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources permits for a Line 5 reroute, which was designed to fix a legal problem with the existing pipeline after a federal court found that it trespasses on tribal land. Attorneys for the Band, environmental groups and Enbridge testified at the hearing. 

Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline has been a polarizing issue, with one side arguing that it’s crucial for energy independence and jobs in Wisconsin, while the other points to a history of leaky and ruptured Enbridge pipelines causing ecological damage, a national need to transition away from fossil fuels, and the company’s years-long trespass on the Bad River Band’s sovereign land. 

Public testimony Wednesday drew  people from both sides of the debate. “The loss of Line 5 would have devastating impacts on the propane industry,” said Connor Kaeb, an associate manager with GROWMARK, which Kaeb said is Wisconsin’s fifth largest provider of propane. Kaeb stressed that farmers and northern Wisconsin communities depend on affordable and easily accessible propane. Shutting down Line 5 could cause “immense strain on the entire propane system in the region,” he said. 

Tabitha Faber, who spoke against the pipeline, said that the reroute would cross more than 100 waterways, and that even though it avoids the Bad River Band’s reservation, that the pipeline remains in the Bad River watershed, continuing to endanger the Band’s natural resources. Faber recalled visiting sites along the reroute path and seeing bald eagles and wood turtle  habitats. Faber also said that the pipeline’s construction and operation could wash invasive species into new and sensitive habitats, including within the Bad River reservation. Steve Boas, a Madison resident, also spoke against the project, calling the more than 70-year-old pipeline “an accident waiting to happen.” 

The American Petroleum Institute called the relocation project “essential to maintaining Wisconsin’s energy reliability.” The Institute claimed that rerouting Line 5 will create more than 700 jobs, adding that the pipeline has heated homes and businesses, aided agriculture and enabled transportation for decades “without any issue.” In contrast, Third Act Wisconsin — a group of older Americans concerned about climate and democracy — echoed concerns that Line 5 would threaten high-quality wetlands, the Bad River watershed as a whole and even Lake Superior.

Access to clean water is a crucial asset for Wisconsin, environmental groups testified. Tourism generates $378 million in Bayfield, Ashland, Douglas, and Iron counties, while also supporting 2,846 jobs, all in the area near Line 5, according to Clean Wisconsin. 

“For decades, the Bad River Band has been sounding the alarm about the unprecedented risks posed by Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline,” Ellen Ferwerda, who leads Third Act Wisconsin’s work on Line 5, said in a statement. Despite “a myriad of scientists, economists, environmental groups, and citizens” who’ve spoken out against the pipeline, “the DNR summarily dismissed these concerns and issued a permit allowing Enbridge to begin construction of a reroute around the Bad River Reservation.” 

“It feels like the Bad River Band is being punished for standing up for their legal right to protect the watershed their culture and livelihood has relied on for centuries,” she added. Julia Issacs, co-facilitator of Third Act Wisconsin, said in a statement that “we should be decommissioning old and dangerous pipelines, not investing in new fossil fuel infrastructure.” 

Most of Wednesday’s hearing was dedicated to grilling William Joseph Bonin, a licensed senior geologist with Midwest Geological Consultants. He produced a report in May 2025 that pushed back on assessments made by experts from the DNR and Enbridge. 

Bonin raised a multitude of concerns, particularly around how construction of the pipeline could affect springs, aquifers and groundwater. He pointed to the presence of glacial sediments, which make it difficult to predict how water flow could be affected. Bonin recalled one 2018 project in Minnesota, where a gas pipeline was installed along a roadway near adjacent springs. The springs disappeared, and then other springs showed up in a parking lot on a private property, he said. Springs and aquifers that help feed nearby wetlands and other adjacent habitats could be affected by pipeline construction, he testified, and cutting trenches to construct the pipeline could also lead to increased erosion.

Bonin said the risk of aquifer breaches is higher than what had been assessed, and questioned how the presence of already fractured rock layers could be altered by the use of blasting in constructing the reroute. He also pointed to the possibility of “thermal impacts” to waterways, including high-quality trout streams which are sensitive to temperature changes. “Blasting is going to have a larger impact than the expert reports discussed and the reason for that is the already fractured bedrock was not taken into consideration in the reports,” Bonin said. “The effects of blasts, especially on fracture networks, may be permanent,” he added.  “The basted rock is never going to be restored.” This, in turn, could have a ripple effect on how water moves and behaves in the ground around the pipeline reroute, he testified. 

Attorneys representing the DNR and Enbridge took turns cross-examining Bonin. They discussed knowledge gaps Bonin had regarding the wetland aspects of the permits, and argued that methods like blasting and trenching are very common construction practices for all sorts of projects from pipelines to roads.  Enbridge’s attorney pointed out that, while  Bonin has reviewed and analyzed the effects of blasting, Bonin himself has not worked in the field. 

Another hearing in Madison is scheduled for Friday, Sept. 12, at the Hill Farms State Office Building. On Sept. 15 and 19, there will be  hearings in Ashland at the Northwood Technical College Conference Center, followed by more hearings in Madison on Sept. 22, Sept. 26, Sept. 29 and Oct. 3. 

A researcher surveys wild rice on the Pine River. (Wisconsin SEA Grant)

The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) announced that this year’s wild rice crop yield in northern Wisconsin is low, continuing a pattern of lower yields over recent years. Wild rice crops have been affected by heavy rainfall and powerful storms this year, contributing to an 18% decline in the wild rice crop compared to last year.

“The 2025 season has brought a mix of conditions, including several notable storm systems,” said Kathy Smith, Ganawandang manoomin (which means she who takes care of wild rice), with the Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission. “A fast-moving windstorm in mid-June produced widespread wind damage and heavy rainfall across the upper Midwest. In late June, some areas saw 6-7 inches of rain in a short period, contributing to temporary high-water levels on seepage lakes.”

Using satellite-facilitated remote sensing technology, the commission was able to determine the 18% decline in the wild rice crop. A DNR press release notes that these technologies do not provide insights into local wild rice production, bed densities, or seed production. Early scouting reports help fill in the gaps, showing a “mixed bag of production,” the agency stated,  “with some top-producing lakes seeing declines in the crop from last year, while others appear to be rebounding.” 

Wild rice harvesting is open to all Wisconsin residents with a wild rice harvester license. The crop provides nutritious, naturally grown food to people across the upper Midwest. Wild rice also holds an important cultural place for indigenous tribal communities. Around late August through mid-September, the rice reaches maturity. Jason Fleener, a DNR wetland habitat specialist, stresses that it’s important to wait to harvest the rice until it falls with relatively gentle strokes or knocks from  ricing sticks. If no rice falls, then it’s best to wait a few more days before attempting to harvest. 

Harvesting immature beds can negatively affect the overall harvest, as well as the long-term sustainability of the rice. Besides climate effects, human activity such as boating (which creates waves that uproot growing rice plants) can also harm the crop.

Cows at a Dunn County dairy farm. (Photo by Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)

A Wisconsin Court of Appeals on Wednesday ruled that the state Department of Natural Resources has the authority to require that factory farms obtain water pollution permits, affirming a previous Calumet County court decision. 

Two groups representing Wisconsin’s factory farms, known as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, filed the lawsuit in 2023, arguing that the state did not have the authority to require permits under the DNR’s Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) program. The program requires any entity that discharges pollution into the state’s waterways to obtain a permit. 

The lobbying groups, Venture Dairy Cooperative and the Wisconsin Dairy Alliance, are themselves led by factory farm operators who have been cited by the DNR for contaminating the state’s water through manure spills. Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the state’s largest business lobby, has also been involved in the lawsuit. 

State law requires an application for a WPDES permit must be made within 90 days of becoming a factory farm or expanding. The permits last for five years before they must be renewed. CAFOs — factory farms with more than 1,000 “animal units,” which is equivalent to about 700 milking cows — are also required to submit plans to the DNR for how they intend to manage the manure created on the farm. 

Over the last two decades, the number of CAFOs operating in Wisconsin has more than doubled, creating an increasing amount of manure that sits in lagoons, gets spread onto fields and potentially runs off into local waterways. 

If a manure spill occurs, the permit requires the owner to notify the agency and is responsible for the cleanup. The permits also need to be reapproved whenever an operation is planning to expand and every permit application is subject to a public comment period. 

A manure spill can cause harmful substances such as nitrates, E. coli and phosphorus to enter the state’s ground and surface waters — potentially making drinking water dangerous to consume and causing fish to die. 

Four years ago, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the DNR had the authority to use the WPDES permits to impose conditions on factory farms as a way to control their environmental effects. In recent years, WMC has filed several lawsuits seeking to weaken the DNR’s authority and undermine its ability to regulate water pollution across the state. 

The lawsuit argued that having to comply with the “time-consuming, costly process” of obtaining a permit that imposes “substantial costs and regulatory burdens” on the farms, is against the law because of two previous federal court decisions in 2005 and 2011 about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s own permit requirements for polluters.

On Wednesday, the District II Court of Appeals, which covers 12 counties in southeastern Wisconsin, found that the DNR does have the authority to create the rules the dairy groups challenged. 

“The challenged rules do not exceed the DNR’s statutory authority and do not conflict with state law,” the three judge panel, controlled by a conservative majority, wrote.

After the decision, advocates for the environment and smaller farms said it would help the state protect water quality. 

“This decision is a win for every rural community that depends on clean water,” Wisconsin Farmers Union President Darin Von Ruden said in a statement. “Family farmers understand that stewardship of the land and water is key to long-term success. Ensuring that large livestock operations follow commonsense permitting rules protects our shared resources and the future of farming in Wisconsin.”

“These large operations can produce as much waste as a small city, and the state must be able to monitor and control how, where, and in what quantities manure is stored and spread on the landscape,” said Clean Wisconsin attorney Evan Feinauer. “That’s why for nearly 40 years, the DNR has required large CAFOs to have permits to limit this dangerous pollution. Allowing large dairies to sidestep oversight would have been catastrophic for water protection in our state.”

Dozens of people packed into a room at Northwood Technical College in Ashland for the first day of hearings in a case challenging the DNR's decision to approve a permit for the reroute of the Line 5 oil pipeline. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

In more than five hours of public testimony on Tuesday in Ashland, the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa’s case began against a planned extension of the Canadian energy company Enbridge’s Line 5 oil pipeline through northern Wisconsin. 

For decades, Line 5 has run from Canada across northern Wisconsin, through the Bad River reservation. In 2023 a federal judge ordered that the pipeline’s section on the reservation be shut down. Since 2020, Enbridge has been working on a plan to reroute the pipeline, which runs from far northwest Wisconsin 645 miles into Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, under the Straits of Mackinac and across the U.S. border into Canada near Detroit. It transports about 23 million gallons of crude oil and natural gas liquids daily.

The proposed new route would move the pipeline upstream of the reservation, which tribal members have argued doesn’t alleviate the environmental risks the pipeline poses to them. 

Tuesday’s hearing was the opening day of testimony in the tribe’s case against the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ decision to grant permits for the Line 5 reroute. The case was argued before the Wisconsin Department of Administration’s Division of Hearings and Appeals, which gives parties the ability to challenge regulatory decisions by state agencies. Four weeks of hearings are scheduled in both Ashland and Madison. The final decision by DHA can be appealed to a state circuit court. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is also weighing its own permit decision on the reroute. That decision is appealable through the federal court system. 

Before the hearing started Tuesday a line of people wound through the parking lot of Northwood Technical College. At the start of the day, the hearing room was packed, with an overflow crowd  forced to watch a livestream from an auxiliary room. 

Many of the people in attendance wore t-shirts stating “Support Line 5” or representing area unions. Tribal activists grumbled that Enbridge had chartered a bus to bring in supporters. 

The pipeline reroute has already sparked hours of public comment and thousands of written comments. The DNR’s initial permit decision drew more than 32,000 written comments and an Army Corps of Engineers hearing on its permit decision in May drew two days of additional public input. 

The day began with opening statements from the tribe’s attorneys, Clean Wisconsin — a non-profit environmental organization which has intervened in the case — and the DNR. 

DNR attorney Michael Kowalkowski said that the department is confident the project will not result in “adverse” effects to the environment or local water after one of the “most comprehensive environmental reviews” in agency history. 

But Stefanie Tsosie, an attorney for the tribe, said the proposed reroute “is not a solution.” She noted that the hearings were occurring as the wild rice harvesting season in the region begins. Wild rice is an important piece of the tribe’s culture and the wetland habitats the rice is a part of are a crucial layer of defense for the area’s waterways — including Lake Superior — against pollution from runoff and flooding. Tsosie said any errors in construction or accidents after the pipeline is operational could irreversibly damage the wild rice. 

“The band is here taking a stand,” Tsosie said, because if an oil spill occurs and the environment is harmed, “the band has nowhere else to go.”

Evan Feinauer, an attorney for Clean Wisconsin, said the project poses far too much environmental risk for the DNR’s permit approval to stand, adding that a “spill of any meaningful size would be catastrophic” to the Lake Superior watershed. 

While many opponents of Line 5 did testify, a large majority of the comments came from supporters of the project. Supporters of the project argued that they believe Enbridge’s plans do enough to protect the environment while providing an economic boost to the region and hundreds of construction jobs. 

Even though the pipeline carries oil and natural gas from Canada through the U.S. and back into Canada, many area residents testified that shutting down the pipeline could raise their own energy prices and make it harder to obtain the propane they use to heat their homes. 

The project “will generate direct economic activity, it will create 700 union construction jobs, stimulate local spending and provide contracts for businesses,” said Anna Rademacher, a representative of the regional economic development organization Area Partnership for Economic Expansion.

While the hearing Tuesday drew hours of public testimony, the meat of the case is yet to come with the parties bringing their arguments for and against the DNR’s permit decision in later court dates. 

After the hearing, Tsosie told the Wisconsin Examiner the hearings Tuesday were a good baseline before the substantive parts of the case are heard.

“Obviously this is still really a contentious issue,” she said. “There are people who we saw today speak very passionately about protecting the water resources and protecting the area, and we saw people who we’ve seen before talk about the economic impacts. But this proceeding, the contested case proceeding, we’re really looking at the permit details, we’re looking at the evidence, we’re looking at baseline data, and so I think this is a good setup, but we still have four weeks of the case left.”

The case is set to continue in Madison Sept. 3 with additional public testimony. The beginning of the parties’ arguments is scheduled to begin Sept. 4.

A PFAS advisory sign along Starkweather Creek. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

Now that work on the state budget is complete, environmental groups and residents of communities affected by PFAS contamination believe progress can still be made on getting money out the door to help remediate water pollution across the state. 

Since the last biennial budget was passed, $125 million in funds meant to help with cleaning up contamination of water from PFAS has been sitting untouched with no legislative mechanism for getting that money out to communities.

PFAS, a family of man-made chemical compounds known as “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down in the environment, have been connected to cancer and other diseases. The chemicals have been used in products such as firefighting foam and household goods such as non-stick pans and fast food wrappers. Communities across the state have found PFAS contamination in their water. 

During the last legislative session, early hopes of compromise crumbled after Democrats and Republicans failed to reach agreement on a provision aimed at protecting “innocent landowners” from being subject to enforcement actions for PFAS contamination under the state’s toxic spills law by the Department of Natural Resources. 

Republicans, including the bill’s author, Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto) argued the bill had to include language that protected people who have PFAS contamination on their property through no fault of their own. Democrats said the language in the bill defining innocent landowners was so broad that it would exempt property owners responsible for pollution from being held responsible. 

Ultimately, Gov. Tony Evers vetoed the bill. 

Wimberger and Rep. Tim Mursau (R-Crivitz) authored legislation this year to get the $125 million earmarked for PFAS remediation out the door. 

Sara Walling, Clean Wisconsin’s water and agriculture program director, says she’s “hopeful” that discussions between the Republican bill authors, Evers and affected residents have been productive. 

“There is opportunity now I think that the budget is done for Wimberger and others, of course, to pay attention, put a little energy into this, and really sit down and hash out the provisions in there, and get to a point that there’s something hopefully that we can all live with, and that will get the money to impacted communities and private well owners and all the things that the money is intended to be used for,” Walling says. 

While people see progress being made, there are still objections to the legislation. Wimberger and Mursau have proposed two bills, one of which exempts certain groups of people from enforcement under the spills law. 

Exempting ‘innocent landowners’

The exemptions include anyone who spread biosolids or wastewater contaminated with PFAS onto a field while in compliance with a DNR permit; owns land on which contaminated biosolids were spread under a permit; a fire department, public airport or municipality that used PFAS-contaminated firefighting foam to train for or respond to emergencies; solid waste disposal facilities that accepted PFAS and anyone that owns, leases, manages, or contracts for property on which PFAS has moved through the groundwater (unless they caused the contamination on another piece of property). 

Earlier this year, Evers suggested he’d support exempting farmers and residents from being held financially responsible for cleaning up PFAS contamination if they unknowingly caused it by spreading contaminated biosolids. 

But Walling says she’d like to see that language tightened further to make sure it does not create a loophole for responsible parties. 

“The provisions that are laid on that out there now just provide far too big of a loophole for who would be considered an innocent landowner in the current bill language,” she said. “And we really want to see that tightened so that truly innocent landowners, the passive receivers, the farmers out there who unknowingly were accepting municipal biosolids … those are the innocent landowners that I know that the authors are trying to protect.” 

What’s an allowable level of PFAS?

The other bill creates the mechanisms and grant programs through which the $125 million would be awarded to affected communities. 

Doug Oitzinger is the former mayor and a current city councilmember of Marinette and a founder of a group of community members fighting to clean up PFAS pollution in his area from the manufacture of fire suppression technologies by Tyco/Johnson Controls. 

Oitzinger says he’s wary of a provision in the bill that exempts private property owners who don’t qualify as innocent landowners from enforcement under the spills law unless the level of PFAS present violates an existing state or federal standard. The federal government doesn’t regulate groundwater and for years the state Department of Natural Resources has been unable to promulgate an administrative rule that sets the allowable amount of PFAS in groundwater. 

The DNR failed once because of a deadlocked vote on the state Natural Resources Board and a second time because the proposed rule had a potential economic impact greater than $10 million and therefore required approval of the full Legislature under a law known as the REINS Act. 

The DNR is currently working on the economic impact analysis of another proposed groundwater standard. Oitzinger says he’s doubtful that proposal will stay clear of the REINS Act. So, he says, he’s working with Mursau to include a groundwater standard in the bill. 

The most significant amendment Oitzinger is fighting for in the legislation is the creation of a temporary standard for the regulation of PFAS in Wisconsin’s groundwater. 

“We’ve been working to see if legislatively, we can get something that does not undermine the spills law to get the $125 million out the door, that the governor would sign, that we would be in support of and, at the same time, establish some kind of interim groundwater standard for PFAS,” Oitzinger says. 

As someone fighting for a community that’s been heavily polluted with PFAS, Oitzinger says his goal is to find a compromise that helps people get clean water, even if environmental and industry groups aren’t fully satisfied. 

“It doesn’t do us any good to get into our respective camps and not find common ground,” he says. “And then the bill reaches the governor’s office and he vetoes it. That’s not helping anybody, so we’ve got to find compromise. Some of the environmental groups won’t like it, and certainly I think some of the industry lobbying groups won’t like it, but this is what we’ve got to do.”

Enbridge is working to reroute Line 5 off the Bad River reservation in northern Wisconsin, but the tribe is fighting the permit process. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

The Sierra Club and a coalition of other environmental groups announced Thursday that they had broken the world record for the largest display of origami fish in an effort to bring attention to Enbridge’s Line 5 oil pipeline, which passes through northern Wisconsin and Michigan. 

Line 5 has been the target of sustained activism for years, with environmental groups and Native American tribes arguing the pipeline’s continued existence puts the water supply for thousands of residents at risk.

By next year, Enbridge, the Canadian company that owns the pipeline, must reroute a part of the pipeline that runs through a portion of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa tribe’s reservation. As the company works through the permit process for moving the pipeline, the tribe and environmental groups have pushed the state Department of Natural Resources and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers not to approve the permits. 

The tribe says the pipeline’s continued operation, even if it no longer runs across tribal land, will harm water quality in the watershed, encourage the growth of invasive species and damage wetlands, diminishing their ability to filter pollutants out of runoff before reaching surface waters.

Fish were folded by people in all 50 states, Canada and Mexico. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

The Sierra Club of Wisconsin commissioned the creation of more than 70,000 origami fish to bring attention to the activism against the Line 5 oil pipeline through northern Wisconsin. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

Line 5 also runs under the Straits of Mackinac between Michigan's peninsulas. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

State Rep. Francesca Hong fashioned two of the origami fish into earrings. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

State Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison) and Sierra Club Deputy Press Secretary Megan Wittman pin fish onto a board. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

At a two-day hearing in May, tribal members testified against the Army Corps’ approval of the permit. A series of hearings are set to be held from August-October on a challenge to the DNR’s permitting decision. 

The Sierra Club organized the origami fish project to  bring attention to the years of activism against Line 5 and the continued fight against its path through the Bad River reservation and under the Straits of Mackinac between Michigan’s upper and lower peninsulas. 

The Trump Administration, as part of its effort to increase production of oil and other fossil fuels, has expedited permit approval of a new pipeline tunnel in Michigan.

The previous origami fish record was 18,303. With the help of folders from all 50 states, Canada and Mexico, the Sierra Club has created a display of more than 70,000 origami fish. On Thursday, the fish were put on display in the Sierra Club of Wisconsin’s Madison office as staff continued pinning them onto boards. A press conference about Line 5’s effect on Wisconsin’s water was held in front of the boards full of paper fish. 

State Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison) told the Wisconsin Examiner the fish project was a symbol of people’s ability to work together to fight injustice. 

“You topple regimes with people power,” she said.

Hong added that even if the Line 5’s permits are approved, the “fight to protect water has renewed energy” because of it. 

Despite the years of activism and push for the DNR not to approve the permits, there is little the department can do to stop the project. The DNR’s authority is limited so that if the proposed project fits within state laws, the permits must be approved, something that Hong said needs to be changed.

“We certainly have to look at amending those laws and holding polluters responsible, not compromising hundreds, thousands of people’s drinking water for tens or hundreds of jobs,” she said. 

The fish display will be available to view at the Urban Ecology Center in Milwaukee on Saturday.

Pelican River area in Wisconsin (Jay Brittain | Courtesy of the photographer)

When Gov. Tony Evers made his 2025-27 budget proposal in February, it included an annual $100 million appropriation to fund the broadly popular Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program for another 10 years. The budget he signed after 1 a.m. Thursday included zero money for the program, which is set to lapse next summer. 

While a separate piece of legislation to re-authorize the program has been introduced by Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) and Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), the failure to provide added money in the budget has raised concerns that the program — which allows the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to provide grant funding to acquire, conserve and maintain public lands — could fail to survive the political tumult of divided government and die. 

Even though the conservation of public lands is widely popular among both Democratic and Republican voters in the state, a handful of Republican legislators have grown increasingly hostile to the program, particularly since the state Supreme Court ruled last year that the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Finance doesn’t have the authority to hold up grants issued by the DNR through the program. Republicans complain that the acquisition of public land takes parcels off the property tax roles and prevents development projects. 

The Kurtz and Testin proposal aims to reach a compromise by re-authorizing the program while adding more legislative oversight by requiring that any land purchases over $1 million be approved through legislation. 

“While I recognize all that has gone into reaching this compromise budget, I must share that I am deeply disappointed that Republican leaders would not agree to reauthorize the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program — even for just one more year through 2027,” Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay) said in a statement. “Here’s the situation now: Knowles-Nelson reauthorization expires on June 20, 2026, giving the Legislature one year to take action before the deadline, and Republicans have indicated they will bring this back to the agenda this fall. Trust that I will keep up the pressure on Republicans and hold them to their word. I will continue to be a strong advocate for this long-standing bipartisan promise.” 

The lack of stewardship program funds in the final state budget led Evers to use his partial veto authority to prevent spending money on five individual public lands projects that legislators had earmarked in the bill. 

“I object to providing an earmark for a natural resources project when the Legislature has abandoned its responsibility to reauthorize and ensure the continuation of the immensely popular Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship program,” Evers stated in his veto message.  “Instead of renewing the program and helping the many, the Legislature has opted to benefit the politically connected few. The Legislature must do its job and renew the Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship program.”

Timber strategic plan 

The DNR budget also includes funds for a $1 million grant to the Great Lakes Timber Professionals Association (GLTPA) and the Wisconsin Paper Council to craft a Forestry Industrywide Strategic Plan. 

This provision was included by the Joint Committee on Finance in its late night session last Friday and has raised concerns from some environmental groups that it is a giveaway to industry groups to push for increased extraction of resources from the state’s forest lands. 

“Taxpayers should not be made to underwrite private industry studies with no public benefit or input. Would they decide how to manage local, state, and federal forests in this study? Would it be published?” Andy Olsen, senior policy advocate at the Environmental Law and Policy Center, said. “One million dollars is very generous with taxpayer dollars for a sketchy study  with no public benefit.”

The GLTPA has been involved in efforts in Wisconsin’s Northwoods to oppose conservation projects and move local land use policies to be more pro-extraction by encouraging increased logging and the expansion of the state’s mining industry. 

The association’s director, Henry Schienebeck, has been influential in Oneida County’s effort to rewrite its comprehensive plan to be friendlier to industry and worked with American Stewards of Liberty, a Texas-based right-wing anti-conservation group, to oppose land conservation such as the Pelican River Forest. 

DNR spokesperson Andrea Sedlacek said the department is “monitoring this and all other relevant DNR budget motions as the process plays out” but did not yet have information on what the development of the strategic plan would look like or if other people or groups would be involved in its development. 

But despite the grant being given only to industry groups, some environmental advocates say it’s a win. 

Fred Clark, former executive director of Wisconsin Green Fire, said the development of such a plan is something the organization has been advocating for over the past several years. Clark pointed to a study of the health of the state’s forests Green Fire published last year and said that because the state’s paper mills have largely been shuttered, there are fewer  places for the state’s foresters to bring their timber, destabilizing the industry. 

Without a plan to find new uses for the state’s timber, the economics of Wisconsin’s working forest lands could change, resulting in land sales and development that results in forests being cut down to use the land for other purposes — ultimately harming the health of Wisconsin’s forests. 

“The focus that we would like to see there is not necessarily on producing more timber, because we already grow a lot more timber than we harvest,” Clark said. “What we really think the state needs is a strategic focus on developing new forest products and helping expand and refine forest products markets so that we’ve got places for our wood to go.”

Clark said he foresees the development of the plan working through the state’s Council on Forestry, which includes members representing industry, environmental groups, state and federal agencies, legislators and landowners. He added that for the project to succeed it needs input from all those groups, including those with records such as the GLTPA. 

“We need everybody at the table for this, and there’s a wide range of points of view in the forestry community,” Clark said. “Great Lakes Timber Professionals have been an active member of the Council on Forestry almost since day one. We won’t succeed if we don’t have a pretty strong consensus all the way from the environmental groups to groups like Great Lakes Timber Professionals. So I think there’s a lot of common ground there. The most important next step for us is to see that there’s a really broad based committee within the Council on forestry that’s helping guide this work.”

A Green Light Metals crew hit water when it began digging a waste pit for its exploratory drilling project last week. Activists say it proves the project is occurring too close to the groundwater while the DNR and company say it's just rain water. (Photo obtained by the Wisconsin Examiner)

A Canadian mining company began work on an exploratory drilling project in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in Taylor County earlier this month, triggering local concerns that the project could harm groundwater and the nearby north fork of the Yellow River as the company and state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) insist the permitting and regulatory processes are enough to keep the environment safe. 

Green Light Metals, which runs its U.S. operations out of Medford, owns the mineral rights to the Bend deposit in Taylor County, about 19 miles north of Medford, and the Reef deposit near Wausau. The Bend deposit, which has been explored before, contains copper, gold, silver and zinc. The deposit is estimated to contain more than 4 million tons of ore. If the drilling exploration is successful, it could lead to a larger underground mine. 

The start of work on the project is the beginning of the company’s efforts to expand its operations in the U.S. after it went public on the Toronto Stock Exchange earlier this year. 

“Wisconsin is open for business,” the company’s CEO Matt Filgate said on an investing focused podcast earlier this month. 

Company officials say their aim is to protect the environment while nodding to the possibility that a mine in the region could produce materials necessary for green infrastructure — mostly tellurium, a metal necessary in the construction of solar panels. 

“There are very detailed environmental review and environmental studies that are done on virtually every aspect of the surrounding environment,” Steven Donahue, a Green Light Metals board member, told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel in April. “An important component of that is the water resources, but it’s also all the ecosystems. It’s the engineering of the project, it’s how the project is going to be closed and reclaimed, and how it’s going to be able to protect the environment, not only during construction and operations, but also after it’s closed. All those facets of a project would be evaluated by the state.”

Views of the project within the rural, largely conservative county — President Donald Trump won Taylor County with 73.5% of the vote last year — vary widely. Much of the county is covered by the national forest, which Juliana Reimann, a Madison resident who grew up in the county and remains a regular visitor, says is a “magnificent, breathtaking natural environment.” 

Conservative hunters and fishers in the area are concerned about the drilling project’s potential effect on those activities in the forest or on the Yellow River. Still, some community members are hopeful the mine can bring some economic benefits to the community and others are keeping a watchful eye on the project without making a conclusion. 

“Some of the people who are in our group are adamantly opposed to any mine, period,” Cathy Mauer, a member of the Friends of the Yellow River, says. “Some of us think that so far they’re trying to be careful without being naive about it because the goal is to make money for their investors.” 

“I’ve found sometimes the people from Green Light are being, I don’t think they’re lying, I think they believe it, but I don’t think they’re being realistic about the potential problems,” she adds. “I think they’re being straightforward, they’re either optimistic or aren’t being completely realistic about the potential problems. And maybe we’re imagining the worst case scenario, which we need to. It’s the worst case scenarios that cause the problems. That’s what we have to plan for.”

Some environmental activists remain much more concerned about the possible effect of the drilling operation on the local water. 

“I really have such a love for that forest, and that drilling site is right smack dab in the middle of it,” Reimann says. “The project will impact groundwater, as I see it, heavily. And of course, groundwater is critical as drinking water.”

She adds that the health of the forest is important for the community’s ability to “thrive.” 

Wisconsin was under a mining moratorium from 1997 until 2017, which required companies that wanted to mine sulfide ores such as copper and gold to prove that other mines operated and were closed for 10 years without causing pollution. While business groups lauded the law’s repeal as opening up the state to billions of dollars in investment, drilling operations in the state have yet to result in a full mine being opened. 

With the repeal gone, the DNR’s permitting process for drilling operations requires companies to obtain a license and file a notice of intent to drill, which the state can deny, approve or approve with conditions. The company must then obtain a number of permits relating to stormwater discharge, dewatering operations, endangered species and wetland preservation. Because the site is within the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, the U.S. Forest Service also has its own permitting process. 

The DNR’s approval of Green Light Metals’ notice of intent included nearly two dozen conditions but despite that, environmental activists remain concerned about a number of aspects of the project. 

When the company drills into the bedrock where the minerals are, the drill must go through the layers, known as the glacial overburden, above it, which requires a steel casing to keep chemicals out of the groundwater. The company obtains cuttings from the bedrock that can be tested for the metals it is looking for. After drilling is complete, the hole is filled from the bottom up with cement, which pushes up the lubricants and water used in the drilling process and flushes out the hole. 

State regulations require that the pipe used to pump in that cement be submerged the entire time so as to prevent air pockets forming. This is often done using what’s known as a tremie pipe, but Green Light Metals is instead pouring cement through the drill rods themselves, which come in 10 foot sections and therefore require that crews stop as each piece is removed — a method that activists are concerned makes the process more likely to cause pollution but DNR metallic mining coordinator Molly Gardner says is common practice. 

The materials flushed out of the drill hole as the cement rises are then put into a lined waste pit dug by the company, encased with more cement and finally covered with the topsoil. 

Activists are concerned the company will not be thorough enough to protect the environment throughout this process.

“It’s like any industrial activity, there is room for error, and if not fixed, you could have a problem,” Dave Blouin, the political chair for the Wisconsin Sierra Club, says. 

Additionally, there has been a dispute about the type of land the company is operating on. Green Light Metals says there is some wetland in the area, but not where it is drilling, while activists say much of the area is wetland, directly connecting the groundwater with the Yellow River. A recent study by the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey found that “the North Fork Yellow River and surrounding surface waters are connected to the shallow glacial aquifer.”

“The North Fork Yellow River is a river within the Chippewa Basin. Over 3,000 stream and river miles flow within the Chippewa River basin and with 156,200 acres of freshwater lakes, 22,711 acres of flowages and more than 150 acres of freshwater springs. The river basin watershed provides significant habitat, recreation, navigation and is a significant drinking water resource for northwest Wisconsin people,” Wisconsin Trout Unlimited said in a resolution opposing the Bend project. “Mining of metallic sulfide ores and minerals has a consistent proven record of surface and ground water contamination and pollution. This potential source of pollution threatens the groundwater of Taylor County and the surface waters of the Chippewa Basin watershed.”

When the company began digging the waste pit for its first drill hole last week, the crew hit water just four feet below ground, which opponents of the project say was the groundwater and proof the area is mostly wetland. 

State regulations require that waste pits for drilling “shall not be at or below the groundwater table at the time of the drilling activity and shall be constructed such that the base will remain above the normal local groundwater elevation.”

Reimann and other opponents believe the company moving forward puts the entire watershed at risk. 

“This drilling is taking place very close to the north fork of the Yellow River,” Reimann says. “It’s taking place in vast wetlands, the hydrology is such that any kind of contamination there will affect not only the Yellow River. The Yellow River flows to the Chequamegon Waters Flowage. People up there refer to it as Miller dam, that’s a very popular camping and fishing site, as well as close to the rice beds of the Ojibwe and ultimately those waters will migrate westward to the Chippewa River, to Lake Wissota and I guess ultimately to the Black River [and] to the Mississippi. You know that water doesn’t stay in one place, so it has a huge negative impact if those waters are contaminated.” 

But Gardner says those claims aren’t accurate and is confident in the department’s regulatory and inspection processes. She says the survey conducted by the company confirmed they weren’t drilling in wetlands and the water the crews found when digging the pit is just rainwater. She says the groundwater is actually 20 feet below the surface. 

The company’s wetland study was partially done as a “desk review” using maps, state data and satellite imagery. A field study by the company was conducted later, but “soils were not investigated,” and “WDNR Wetland Soils & Indicators (WSI) are prevalent across nearly the entire site,” a company memo states. 

“We’re looking at the access, we’re looking at the drilling operation, the sumps, the security, the safety, and everything that’s going on,” Gardner says. “We’re regulating, we’re inspecting that they follow their exploration plan.” 

She says that throughout the drilling process, which includes eight holes as part of the first phase and an additional 15 holes in the second phase, the DNR will have stormwater inspectors, exploration inspectors and Gardner herself on site at regular intervals and for occasional unannounced inspections. 

“It’s not common for the DNR to be able to go on site continuously with any type of construction projects,” Gardner says. “So mining and mining-related projects are allowed to have extra inspections to really ensure that things are going according to plan, because it is an important topic and it’s an important project, so we have more resources to do additional inspections for mining in relation to other types of construction projects.” 

Donahue, the company board member, says the company has been working with local officials and community members to keep them aware of what’s happening on the site and that the project will follow all “applicable regulations.” 

“The Green Light exploration team has been working diligently with the Wisconsin DNR and the U.S. Forest Service to secure all necessary permits and approvals for the exploration program,” he says. Green Light will work diligently to properly abandon the boreholes with the proper amount of cement in accordance with applicable regulations and permits.  In addition, the drill cuttings will be properly disposed by mixing the cuttings with cement in accordance with applicable regulations and permit requirements.”

Rep. Tony Kurtz testifies on his proposed legislation to reauthorize the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

Organizations representing wildlife, land conservation and local governments testified Wednesday at a public hearing to push for the passage of a Republican bill to reauthorize the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program while advocating for a number of amendments to the bill’s text. 

The proposal’s authors, Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) and Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), say the current version of the bill is a starting point for negotiations. Without a deal, the 35-year-old program will lapse despite its popularity among voters. 

The challenge for legislators is that despite overwhelming public support for land conservation, a subset of the Republican members of the Legislature have grown opposed to the grant program. In their view, the grant program allows land to be taken off the local property tax roll and blocks  commercial development. 

That opposition has grown stronger since the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in a 6-1 decision last year that the Legislature’s Republican-controlled Joint Finance Committee’s authority to place anonymous holds on stewardship grant projects is unconstitutional. 

Kurtz has said that without returning some level of legislative oversight, the Republican opposition to the program won’t get on board with reauthorizing it. But the bill also needs to be palatable to Democratic Gov. Tony Evers so that he will sign it and any Republican opposition to the bill could make the votes of Democratic legislators more important. 

In an effort to recruit  Republican holdouts, the bill includes a provision that requires the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to submit a list to the Legislature each January of any major land acquisitions costing more than $1 million the department plans to purchase with stewardship funds that year. The Legislature would then need to approve each proposed project in a piece of legislation and provide the required appropriation. 

To gain the support of environmental groups, the bill allows stewardship dollars to be used for the first time to fund habitat restoration projects. 

Following a recent trend of Republican-authored legislation, the bill separates the policy changes to the program from the budget appropriation to fund it in an attempt to sidestep Evers’ partial veto pen. 

Charles Carlin, the director of strategic initiatives at non-profit land trust organization Gathering Waters, said in his testimony at the hearing Wednesday that the bill’s authors had to “try and thread a challenging political path towards reauthorization.” 

At the hearing, testifying members of the public mainly highlighted two areas for improvement on the bill — clarifying how the DNR should prioritize habitat restoration, facility upkeep and land acquisition in award grants and more clearly laying out how the legislative approval process for major land acquisitions will work. 

As currently written, the bill would require the DNR to prioritize property development over land acquisition projects. 

Brian Vigue, freshwater policy director for Audubon Great Lakes, said those types of grants are so different that they should be considered separately. 

“Because habitat management projects are so different from land acquisition projects, it really will make it difficult for the DNR to determine which of the two types of grant applications would have priority over the other,” he said. “It’s kind of an apples to oranges comparison to make so I think a practical solution to this challenge is to create a separate appropriation for wildlife habitat grants.” 

A number of organizations testifying called for more direct language outlining how the legislative oversight process will work, such as binding timelines for when the Legislature must consider the projects on the DNR list, clear guidelines for how projects will be evaluated and quickly held votes on project approval. 

Representatives of organizations that work to purchase private land and conserve it through conservation easements or deals with the state said that the opportunities to purchase a piece of land and save it for future enjoyment by the broader public come rarely and that those real estate transactions can often be complicated and take a long time. If a deal is largely in place except for the required legislative approval — which could potentially take years or never even come up for a vote — landowners might be unwilling to participate in the process. 

“Opportunities to provide such access sometimes only come once in a generation,” said Tony Abate, conservation director at Groundswell Conservancy, a non-profit aimed at conserving land in south central Wisconsin. “We are concerned with the funding threshold and the logistics of the proposed major land acquisition program. Real estate near population centers is expensive, and we often compete with non-conservation buyers to secure farmland or recreational lands.”

Abate said that of the conservancy’s 16 current projects, four would surpass the $1 million threshold and require legislative approval. He suggested raising the threshold to $5 million.

Carlin, with Gathering Waters, said the provision as currently written could indefinitely delay projects. 

“We appreciate legislators’ concerns with oversight, and we welcome discussion about how to provide effective and efficient oversight,” he said. “Unfortunately, the current proposal lacks defined timelines, transparent evaluation processes or mechanisms to require timely votes. Without these elements, worthy conservation projects could languish indefinitely. So we would ask that any review process include binding timelines, transparent project evaluation and timely votes to ensure strong oversight while maintaining predictability for applicants.”

At the hearing, members of the committee asked few questions of the testifying groups and members of the public. Democrats on the committee pushed more than once to make sure they see the partner bill providing the money for the program before voting on the policy changes. 

All of the testimony at the hearing Wednesday was either to provide information only to the legislators or in favor of the bill. The committee received one written comment against the bill’s passage, from the Wisconsin Bear Hunters’ Association.

Republicans on the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee rejected a funding request from the City of Ashland to build a new boat launch at Kreher Park. (City of Ashland)

A pair of Republican lawmakers has introduced legislation that would re-authorize the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program, a popular program that allows the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to fund the purchase of public land and the upkeep of recreational areas. 

The decades-old program is set to expire next year and despite its bipartisan support among the state’s voters, a subset of Republicans in the Legislature — largely from the northern part of the state — have become increasingly opposed to the program due to concerns that it stops land from being developed for commercial activities. 

Until a 6-1 decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court last summer, members of the Legislature’s powerful Joint Finance Committee had the ability to place anonymous holds on proposed grants through the program, which resulted in many projects being delayed or prevented altogether. Without that ability, Republicans who were already wary of the program became more opposed because of what they characterize as a lack of legislative oversight. Proponents of the program say the Legislature exercises oversight through the budget writing process when it allocates funding for the program. 

In recent years, the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program has received $33 million annually in the state budget. In his budget request this year, Democratic Gov. Tony Evers proposed re-authorizing the program with a $100 million annual budget. Republicans stripped that provision out of the budget along with most of Evers’ other proposals. 

Last week, Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) and Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point) introduced a bill that would keep the program alive with $28 million in annual funding. The bill would also create a major land acquisitions program for stewardship grant awards which would require the DNR to annually submit a list of all its proposed land acquisitions costing more than $1 million for that year. 

Those acquisitions would need to be approved by votes of the full Legislature. 

Additionally, the bill would create a sub-program to use stewardship grant funds for habitat restoration projects, require the DNR to prioritize projects that develop already existing public lands over new land acquisition, require local governments to match 20% of the state funding, get rid of the current 10-acre minimum size requirement and limit the state’s contribution to 40% of the total cost if the sale of a piece of land is already closed when stewardship funds are applied for. 

In a co-sponsorship memo, Kurtz and Testin, who did not respond to requests for an interview about the bill, said the initial proposal is meant to be the start of negotiations, not the final version of the bill. 

“It’s important to note what we’re proposing is not an agreed upon deal,” the memo states. “It’s a first offer to provide a starting place for negotiations on this important program. It’s very likely the bill will continue to change during the legislative process, but it’s important to put something forward to allow feedback, have open-minded conversations and ultimately find a good place to ensure the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program’s legacy continues.” 

At a meeting with the Wisconsin chapter of the Audubon Society in April, Kurtz said the program was on “life support” and he was trying to save it from dying but any bill would need to put some oversight on the DNR in order to receive enough Republican support. 

The opposition to the stewardship program from a subset of the Republican caucus in both chambers means the bill might require Democratic votes to pass the Legislature and reach Evers’ desk. 

Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay) has spent months pushing for the program’s reauthorization – often pointing to a stewardship grant project in her district that was subjected to an anonymous hold, the Cedar Gorge Clay Bluffs on Lake Michigan. She said the hold on that project angered a lot of her constituents of both parties. 

“That really got people upset,” she told the Wisconsin Examiner. “People would not at all want to see a reenactment in any fashion of that anonymous objection process.” 

Habush Sinykin said that she’s closely watching the bill to make sure it protects a program that enjoys wide support outside of the Capitol building and will stir up significant opposition if it’s allowed to die. 

“Once people understand that this program is at risk, they are coming forward to express their opposition to any permanent damage to the program,” she said. “And so what we are engaged in right now is this process to keep it going forward, and there is going to be ongoing negotiation, because the devil is in the details. We need to make sure that what is one step forward will not ultimately be two steps backward.” 

Charles Carlin, director of strategic initiatives for Gathering Waters, a non-profit aimed at land conservation across Wisconsin, said that Kurtz and Testin should be credited for working to get the conversation started and provisions in the bill like the habitat restoration program. But he added that there are still a lot of questions about how provisions such as the requirement for legislative approval will work. 

“I think part of what they are trying to balance here is a recognition that this is an incredibly popular program with voters, while trying to balance that against the fact that there are a handful of legislators who are deeply skeptical of the DNR and deeply skeptical of additional investments in conservation,” he said. “So I see that major land acquisitions component as a way for them to try and balance those competing interests. The way that that major land acquisitions program is currently described in the bill just leaves a lot of question marks.”  

The bill is set to receive a public hearing in the Assembly Committee on Forestry, Parks and Outdoor Recreation Wednesday at 11 a.m.