Maryland Democratic Gov. Wes Moore spent a few minutes sorting donated food before signing an executive order in late October declaring a state of emergency to allow for distribution of food aid. As the federal government reopens, questions remain about how states will be reimbursed for the costs they incurred. (Photo by Bryan P. Sears/Maryland Matters)

Though Congress ended the record-setting federal government shutdown, many questions remain for states that were already wading through seismic federal changes.

One major uncertainty: whether and how states will be reimbursed for the costs they incurred, as they have been in previous shutdowns. And for the longer term, the shutdown offered a glimpse into the funding challenges facing states. They’ll have to rely more on their own money and staff to keep federal programs going even at a time when many face their own budget problems.

That’s a top concern for the federal food stamp program, known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Amid conflicting federal guidance during the shutdown, states reacted in different ways: Some issued partial benefit payments, others sent aid to food banks to keep people from going hungry.

But even after the government reopening restores SNAP aid, other challenges loom. The major tax and spending law enacted this summer tied SNAP funding to state error rates, which measure the accuracy of benefit payments. Advocates fear the shutdown will increase error rates because of conflicting federal guidance.

Air travel, SNAP benefits, back pay at issue as federal government slowly reopens

“States are really worried,” said Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center, a nonprofit working to address poverty-related hunger.

And states have been rushing to inform rural residents, veterans and older adults that they will soon be forced to meet work requirements or lose SNAP benefits. It’s just the first in a wave of cutbacks to the nation’s largest food assistance program required under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that President Donald Trump signed in July.

FitzSimons said the shutdown highlighted the importance of SNAP and how “untenable” many of the upcoming changes will prove for states. For now, states are working to get benefits to people immediately, and then will focus more on questions of reimbursement and ongoing changes to SNAP.

“The hope is that states will be able to move quickly and then turn their attention to all the changes,” she said.

While public attention has centered on the shutdown chaos in recent weeks, more fundamental changes are occurring outside the spotlight, said Eric Schnurer, founder and president of Public Works, a consulting firm specializing in government performance and efficiency.

“The ground is shifting under their [states’] feet even as this goes on,” he said. “Even if the Trump administration and his policies were to pass on in another three years, there are serious structural changes in the relationship between state and federal government.”

Since taking office, the Trump administration has stripped states and cities of billions of dollars that Congress approved for education, infrastructure and energy projects. And the president’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act mandates deep cuts to social service programs, including Medicaid and food stamps.

Under the law, states will be required to pay a greater share of administering SNAP in the coming years. That requirement, along with eligibility changes, could result in millions of Americans losing benefits.

“I think the public in general got a taste of what that might look like over the past month,” Schnurer said, referencing the shutdown’s first-ever disruption to SNAP benefits.

State-federal strain

The legislation to reopen the government approved by Congress and signed by the president this week says that states shall be reimbursed for expenses “that would have been paid” by the federal government during the shutdown.

“So that sounds promising for states,” said Marcia Howard, executive director of Federal Funds Information for States, which analyzes how federal policymaking impacts states.

But it’s unclear how that language will be interpreted. For example, states that sent money to food banks for emergency food assistance are less likely to be made whole compared with states that sent funds through existing federal programs like SNAP, she said.

California dedicated $80 million in state funds and deployed the National Guard to food banks across the state. But Virginia launched a temporary state-level version of the federal food stamp program.

Previous administrations have been more flexible with federal funds, making it easier for states to receive funding or reimbursement, Howard said.

“This administration is really more holding states’ feet to the fire perhaps than other administrations have. So I think they’ll be less permissive in who and how they reimburse,” she said.

It could take weeks or months before states know the full fallout from the shutdown, especially with food assistance.

“[States] did such different things, and I think there’s going to be a fair bit of back-and-forth: should this be covered? Should this not be covered?” Howard said.

The shutdown and its aftermath underscore the ongoing strain between state and federal governments, said Lisa Parshall, a professor of political science at Daemen University in New York.

Federal uncertainty can cause state leaders to be more cautious about their own budgets — similar to how an economic downturn can decrease consumer spending, she said.

“There’s a delay of services, there’s a diminishment of capacity and partnership, and those things might be harder to quantify when you’re talking about what is the cost of the shutdown,” she said. “But I think those are real costs.”

And the end of the shutdown does not extinguish those tensions.

“In some ways, even though the shutdown is over, things are not going to go back to ‘normal,’” she said.

More changes coming

Aside from spending cuts and new administrative costs, Trump’s July law made major tax code changes poised to cost many states, said William Glasgall, public finance adviser at the Volcker Alliance, a nonprofit that supports public sector workers.

Most states use the federal tax code as a basis for their own income tax structures, so changes at the federal level can trickle down to state tax systems or states can choose a different structure to avoid those changes.

Last month, a Massachusetts budget official said federal tax changes would cost the state $650 million in revenue this budget year.

So even with the government back open, states have to plan for some level of unpredictability, Glasgall said. And the future of entire agencies like the Department of Education remain up in the air, he noted.

“So there’s still a lot of uncertainty, even with this bill,” he said.

On Wednesday, state budget analysts briefed Maryland lawmakers on the $1.4 billion budget gap they could face as they head into the 2026 legislative session.

That figure does not include the fallout from the federal government shutdown, which may not be known for months, according to Maryland Matters.

In late October, Democratic Gov. Wes Moore declared an emergency and directed $10 million in state funds toward food banks and pantries. Earlier this month, he announced $62 million in state funds would be deployed directly to SNAP recipients.

Rhyan Lake, a Moore spokesperson, told Stateline that Maryland expects the federal government to reimburse the state for its SNAP expenditures during the shutdown.

But lawmakers are still gearing up for a hit from major federal changes.

In addition to cuts from Trump’s domestic tax and spending law, Maryland has lost about 15,000 federal jobs, budget officials said. But many federal workers who took buyouts were paid through September. And the shutdown caused a pause in federal employment data, potentially concealing the true impact.

State Sen. James Rosapepe, Democratic chair of the joint Spending Affordability Committee, said he’s worried the state has only seen the beginning of its federally induced fiscal challenges. He also noted that this week’s shutdown-ending legislation only assures the government remains open through January, meaning another shutdown could be just a couple months away.

“We’re less than a year into the administration, and the effects of things they’ve already done don’t seem to have flowed through yet to the data that we have, which leads me to believe that the worst is yet to come,” he said.

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

An aerial view shows an Amazon data center last year in Ashburn, Va. A new study found that most states offering subsidies for data centers do not disclose the recipients of those tax benefits. (Photo by Nathan Howard/Getty Images)

Most states offering incentives to data centers don’t disclose which companies benefit, according to a new report.

At least 36 states have crafted subsidies specifically for data center projects, according to Good Jobs First, a nonprofit watchdog group that tracks economic development incentives. But only 11 of those states — Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin — disclose which companies receive those incentives.

In a new study, the organization examined a lack of transparency in data center deals, which are proliferating across the country as technology demands increase.  

Despite data centers’ significant energy requirements, states frequently compete heavily to land the projects, which invest millions or even billions into new construction. But the study noted those projects often employ nondisclosure agreements, project code names and subsidiary names that hide the firms behind the new server farms.

“Only when governments disclose information on which companies get public money and what they do with it can there be meaningful analysis, greater public participation, and wiser use of public financial resources,” the report says.

Good Jobs First specifically examined sales and use tax exemptions that benefit data centers. The study does not account for local property tax abatements, corporate income tax credits and discounts on electricity and water rates.

Virginia, the largest data center market in the world, forgoes nearly $1 billion in state and local sales and use tax revenue each year without telling the public which companies benefit or how much they receive, the study said.

Good Jobs First underscored state calculations that show data center subsidies do not provide a return on taxpayer investments. It recommends states eliminate or curtail data center subsidies. “At the very least, states should practice full transparency,” the report said.

Good Jobs First says states must reassess their investments in data centers with federal cuts looming that will strain state finances.

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

Telephones inside the Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center in Vandalia, Mo., where incarcerated people pay per-minute rates to call loved ones. (Photo by Amanda Watford/Stateline)

The Federal Communications Commission voted to roll back limits on how much companies can charge incarcerated people and their families for phone and video calls.

The 2-1 vote in late October reverses rate caps the FCC adopted last year under a 2023 law that allows the agency to set limits on prison phone and video call rates. Critics say the rates are kept high by limited competition among major providers such as Securus Technologies and ViaPath.

Under the new interim rules, phone calls will cost up to $0.11 per minute in large prisons and $0.18 per minute in the smallest jails. Video calls will cost up to $0.23 per minute in large facilities and as much as $0.41 in small ones.

Only three states — Florida, Kentucky and Oklahoma — currently have rates above the new rates, meaning most prison systems across the country are already below the previously adopted 2024 rate caps.

The new 2025 rates will take effect 120 days after being published in the Federal Register.

In June, the FCC had abruptly announced a two-year delay in implementing the 2024 rate caps after receiving complaints from local sheriffs and prison telecom companies. Republican attorneys general from 14 states also filed a lawsuit last year challenging the commission’s authority to limit how much prisons and jails can charge for phone calls, arguing that the rules deprived correctional facilities of needed funding.

Republican Commissioners Brendan Carr and Olivia Trusty, both appointed by President Donald Trump, supported the rollback. Carr argued the previous caps limited facilities’ ability to recover safety and security costs, such as monitoring calls, leading some to scale back or eliminate calling services altogether. Trusty said the 2024 rules “did not always strike the right balance,” and cited “unintended consequences” like service disruptions in some facilities.

At least one small jail — in Baxter County, Arkansas — ended phone services earlier this year in protest of the lower rate caps.

Democratic Commissioner Anna Gomez, appointed by President Joe Biden, voted against the order and called it “indefensible.” She said the decision gives monopoly telecom providers “the authority to increase the costs for families to maintain critical connections with their loved ones in prison.”

Advocates for incarcerated people condemned the vote.

“These changes are a betrayal of the families who entrusted the FCC to protect them from the notoriously predatory correctional telecom industry,” Bianca Tylek, the executive director of Worth Rises, said in a news release. Worth Rises is a nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated to dismantling the prison industry.

Some research suggests that incarcerated people who maintain consistent contact with loved ones are significantly more likely to succeed upon release and are less likely to reoffend.

The FCC’s latest decision comes months after New York joined California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Minnesota in offering free phone calls in state prisons. Colorado’s policy won’t take full effect until 2026.

At least two states — Maryland and Missouri — considered legislation this year to make prison and jail calls more affordable. Maryland’s proposal to make calls free in state prisons did not pass, but Missouri enacted a law in August capping phone call rates at no more than 12 cents per minute in correctional centers.

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at ahernandez@stateline.org.

Wind turbines rise up above farmland near Middleton on November 19, 2013. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Wisconsin Democrats have announced a bill that would cap residential energy bills at 2% of household income. 

On Tuesday, Democrats said the proposal from Rep. Darrin Madison (D-Milwaukee) would protect Wisconsinites’ bank accounts while the state finds ways to expand clean energy production in the face of climate change and manage the increasing energy burden posed by data center developments across the state. 

“Rising energy rates are becoming an unsustainable burden on regular people in Wisconsin,” Madison said at a Tuesday morning press conference. “Our energy system still has big problems to tackle, like dramatically moving towards carbon-free electricity, or the challenge of data centers, which are currently on course to double the amount of energy creation in Wisconsin. Regardless of your stance on data centers, artificial intelligence and the role these technologies can or should play in our communities, the people of Wisconsin must have their energy burden lifted. This bill is a common sense, necessary protection for people struggling to afford their basic needs before we take further action on any of these things as legislators to address those issues.”

At the press conference, residents who have struggled with energy bills spoke about how getting power disconnected can reverberate through people’s lives, causing health problems or forcing choices between other household costs. 

“We’re doing everything we can, yet we still cannot keep up,” said Jill Sexton, a Wausau resident who is on disability assistance with a husband on Social Security. “I ended up taking a part time job specifically to cover the increase in our electric and heating bills. Nowadays, here’s our reality: Each month we choose between paying the electric bill and heat bill or filling our prescriptions. Some months I don’t buy the medication. Some months we stretch food until the very last day.”

Several lawmakers tied the bill to the national Democratic party’s growing focus on “affordability” and bipartisan skepticism of data centers. 

“We have the money. It’s all about how we prioritize where we spend it,” Rep. Ryan Spaude (D-Ashwaubenon) said at the press conference. “Folks in my district and around the state are on a knife’s edge. Many of them are just barely getting by. This bill is going to do something. It’s going to keep more money in their pockets. It deserves a hearing and it deserves to be passed by this body.” 

Legislators announced the bill just as communities are grappling with the construction of massive data centers across the state. While the centers can provide an easy source of property tax revenue for local governments, they also use a massive amount of water and energy — raising questions about the protection of local water supplies, adequacy of the state’s existing renewable energy sources and concerns that a data center-generated spike in energy use will be passed on to local ratepayers. 

Last week, Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay) and Rep. Angela Stroud (D-Ashland) introduced a bill that would require data centers to cover the cost of increased energy use, mandate the development of more clean energy and ensure data center construction pays local workers living wages. 

“While our state energy system faces deep uncertainty, especially when it comes to the climate crisis, we’re responding to data centers that are going to have increasing energy demands and raise rates for many communities,” said Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison) who is running in the Democratic primary for governor. “It is vital that we cap all utility payments at 2% of income so that we can protect our ratepayers and our communities first. This bill is a clear and systemic practical response to rising energy rates, and it’s one of the key cornerstone priorities of the Assembly Democrats’ affordability agenda.”

Under the rate cap bill, the Public Service Commission would be responsible for administering an energy burden relief fund. The fund would cover the difference for any household with energy costs that are more than 2% of the monthly household income. The bill would give the PSC 12 months after enactment to start the fund and three years to automatically enroll every eligible household. 

The bill would allow the PSC to prioritize households making less than 300% of the federal poverty level, only provide payments to cover energy costs for primary residences and provide a maximum energy use threshold to prevent people from receiving state aid for energy intensive home businesses such as mining cryptocurrency. 

Also, the bill would prevent public utility companies from disconnecting the service of people making less than 300% of the federal poverty level and require the PSC to annually report the number of utility disconnections.

Gov. Tony Evers, shown here in a press gaggle in March, said Monday that health insurance rates on the ACA market are set to skyrocket in Wisconsin. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Last updated 10/28/2025, 1:51 p.m. 

The cost for health care coverage purchased on HealthCare.gov in Wisconsin will rise for some insurance policies by anywhere from 45% to 800% for 2026, depending on where a person lives, Gov. Tony Evers announced Monday.

The increased rates will be made worse with the end of enhanced federal subsidies, provided in the form of tax credits, that have lowered insurance costs through the marketplace since 2021, Evers and Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) said during a virtual press conference Monday morning. The enhanced subsidies expire at the end of December.

“In 2025, 88% of Wisconsinites [who] enrolled in coverage on HealthCare.gov qualify for tax credits, saving an average of $664 a month,” Evers said. “And without these enhanced tax credits, health care premiums for Wisconsinites are going to skyrocket, period. Many Wisconsinites will see their premiums double, and some of them will see staggering increases.”

HealthCare.gov is the federal insurance marketplace, created under the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) to improve health insurance access for people without health coverage from an employer or from government programs.

More than 310,000 Wisconsinites purchased health insurance through the marketplace for 2025, according to the Wisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Insurance (OCI). HealthCare.gov open enrollment for 2026 starts Nov. 1.  

OCI released a list Monday with examples of rate increases for patients of various ages and under selected scenarios based on age, family size and incomes. The examples compared rate increases across eight counties.

Evers said a statewide average increase wasn’t available “because it’s going to impact lots of people in a lot of different ways.”

The comparisons made by OCI all reflected health plans in the Silver category on HealthCare.gov. Silver plans have a “moderate” deductible and require patients to pay 30% of the cost of care (see sidebar, HealthCare.gov insurance plan categories).

In a few scenarios and locations, rate increases will be lower than 10%. Those are exceptions, however. Most scenarios and locations showed premium increases ranging from more than 30% on up. Some increases were well over 100%, and one example showed an increase of more than 800% in one county.

The comparisons reflect the premium cost after any subsidies are applied. 

The ACA included subsidies on the cost of insurance from the beginning for people with incomes up to 400% of the federal poverty guideline.

The enhancements that were put in place in 2021 and expire at the end of December included increases in the subsidies for the original group. They also extended subsidies to people with incomes above 400% of the poverty guideline, to avoid an “eligibility cliff” at those higher incomes. 

In the comparisons, the 2025 premiums include the effect of the enhanced subsidies, while the 2026 premiums reflect the return to the original subsidy formula.

According to OCI’s report 2026 premiums will increase:

• Between 39% in Waukesha County and 85% in Barron County for a 26-year-old with an income of $48,000 (subsidy continues, but reduced).
• Between 16% in Marathon County and 43% in Barron County for a 26-year-old with an income of $65,000 (subsidy ended).
• Between 18% in Brown County and 84% in Barron County for a 40-year-old with an income of $65,000  (subsidy ended).
• Between 132% in Waukesha County and 391% in Barron County for a 60-year-old with an income of $63,383  (subsidy ended).
• Between 221% in Waukesha County and 812% in Barron County for a 60-year-old couple with an income of $85,658  (subsidy ended).
• Between 2% in Waukesha County and 57% in Barron County for a family  of four with a household income of $128,000 (subsidy continues, but reduced).
• Between 102% in both Waukesha and Dane counties and 312% in Barron County for a family of four with a household income of $130,000  (subsidy ended).

In both family examples, the parents are ages 48 and 47 and children ages 8 and 12.

Nationwide, some 22 million Americans will see their premiums double on average, Baldwin said. She cited projections that 4 million Americans “will look at that price tag and decide to drop their insurance altogether because it’s simply too expensive. It’s more than they can afford.”

KFF, a nonpartisan, nonprofit health policy news and analysis organization, reported Oct. 3 that seven out of 10 people nationally who buy health coverage through the federal marketplace said they would not be able to afford insurance without the enhanced subsidies.

Democrats in Congress have named extending the subsidies as one of their conditions for Democratic support of the Republican majority’s legislation to end the current federal shutdown.

In response, GOP leaders in Congress have called on Democratic lawmakers to sign on to their spending bill to restart the government and then negotiate to extend the subsidies.

Baldwin said Democrats won’t accept “a wink and a nod” that the tax credit talks should come after the government reopens. She said she’s heard privately from Republicans in the Senate who agree that Congress should extend the subsidies.

With 78% of Americans, according to one poll, “who believe we need to address this, and many of my Republican colleagues want to do so, then we need to have an agreement to extend the tax credits as we reopen the government,” Baldwin said.

Later Monday in Milwaukee, Evers held a round table with business owners, advocates and lawmakers to discuss the HealthCare.gov rate increases.

“If you’re seeing these jumps in 26-year-olds, across the board, I don’t know how we afford this,” said Dan Jacobs, owner of the Milwaukee restaurant DanDan. Jacobs said about two-thirds of his employees have health insurance, most of them probably purchasing it through the marketplace.

His business subsidized the insurance premiums that full-time employees and managers bought through HealthCare.gov for 2025, he said, but with the premium increases, reported Monday, “we’re not going to be able to afford to do that,” Jacobs told Evers.

Kara Pitt-D’Andrea, who operates a nonprofit child care facility in Milwaukee with about 25 employees, told Evers,  “100% of us are on the ACA or Medicaid.” 

She called health coverage a moral imperative rather than an act of charity. “To say to people, ‘We refuse to come to the table to create a sustainable option for you’ is the equivalent of saying, ‘You are unimportant in the game of business that we are playing,’” Pitt-D’Andrea said.

 

Chair of the Federal Reserve Jerome Powell, left, administers the oath of office to Lisa Cook, right, to serve as a member of the Board of Governors at the Federal Reserve System during a ceremony at the William McChesney Martin Jr. Building of the Federal Reserve May 23, 2022 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court will take up in January the question of President Donald Trump’s firing of Federal Reserve Board governor Lisa Cook, according to an order filed by the court Wednesday.

The unsigned order states Trump’s application to stay a lower court’s decision to keep Cook on board while the case plays out will be deferred until oral arguments on an unspecified date in January. 

Trump tried to remove Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors in late August, alleging she lied on a mortgage application. A federal district judge sided with Cook in early September after she challenged the president in court.  

A three-judge panel then split 2-1 in rejecting Trump’s appeal to overturn the lower court decision and affirmed on Sept. 16 that Cook could keep her position as the case plays out. 

Trump asked the Supreme Court to intervene, adding to his series of petitions to the justices since his second term began. The decision could have major bearing on Trump’s powers as the chief executive.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters during Wednesday’s briefing that the administration remains confident about the legality of Cook’s firing.  

“Look, we have respect for the Supreme Court but they’re going to hear the actual case and make a determination on the legal argument in January. And we look forward to that because we maintain that she was fired well within the president’s legal authority to do so. She was removed from the board. And we look forward to that case being fully played out at the Supreme Court,” Leavitt said.

The legal battle is occurring against a backdrop of Trump’s ongoing pressure to insert himself in the decisions of the independent central bank. 

For months Trump and his allies have attacked Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell with antagonizing social media posts amid Trump’s continued campaign for lower interest rates.

The president and Senate Republicans recently installed White House economist Stephen Miran on the board. Miran is taking a leave of absence as chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers while he serves in the role.

The Fed lowered interest rates for the first time in 2025 by a quarter percentage point on Sept. 17. Miran was the only board governor to vote against the change after lobbying for a half-point cut.

Cook, the first Black woman to serve on the Fed board, was appointed by former President Joe Biden in 2023 and confirmed by the Senate in a 51-47 vote.

The Federal Reserve’s dual mandate is to maximize the nation’s employment while also stabilizing prices by keeping inflation low and steady over a long period of time. Among the tools the central bank uses to accomplish the two missions is regulating interest rates to cool inflation or stimulate the economy.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Wisconsin electricity rates – for residential, industrial and commercial users – have exceeded regional averages annually for 20 years.

From 2003 through 2022, Wisconsin rates exceeded the averages in each of the three user categories for eight Midwest states, Wisconsin Public Service Commission reports show.

For the three categories combined, Wisconsin’s rate was second-highest in 2023-24 and third-highest in 2024-25 among 12 central region states, federal Energy Information Administration figures show.

Here are the July 2025 cents-per-kilowatt hour rates in Wisconsin versus the north central region average:

Residential: $18.30/$17.84

Commercial: $13.39/$13.31

Industrial: $9.87/$9.46

Electric bills rose for residential customers of Wisconsin’s five largest utilities, according to the Wisconsin Citizens Utility Board. For example, the average monthly We Energies bill for a typical residential customer was $128.65 in 2024, twice as high as $56.18 for 2004.

Booming data center construction in Wisconsin could affect utility rates.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• Wisconsin Public Service Commission: Strategic Energy Assessment reports
• U.S. Energy Information Administration: Electric Power Monthly
• Wisconsin Citizens Utility Board: We Energies residential average bills
• Wisconsin Watch: Data center construction is booming, and it could affect utility rates

Have Wisconsin electricity price increases exceeded the Midwest average for 20 years? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Photo by Gregory Conniff for Wisconsin Examiner

Wisconsin farms applied about 16 million pounds more nitrogen than necessary to their fields in 2022, according to a recently released report from Clean Wisconsin and Alliance for the Great Lakes. 

The excess application of fertilizer poses serious risks to public health, raises costs for people who get their water from public utilities or private wells and increases costs for farmers, the report found. 

Throughout the report, the environmental groups included input from residents who have had their health and wallets affected by nitrate pollution. 

“I own a daycare center, and the mental toll of just staying in business because I did not cause the contamination of my well and yet am expected to solve the problem is exhausting…” Kewaunee County resident Lisa Cochart says in the report. “This could put me out of business. I work hard to provide my community with a service that assures that each child is receiving the best care and it can be shut down because of a nitrate test that I cannot control.”

The report makes a number of recommendations to better track the amount of nitrogen spread on Wisconsin’s fields and in Wisconsin’s water systems while better enforcing regulations meant to protect drinking water. But agricultural industry representatives have said the report places too much burden on farmers — even though agriculture produces up to 90% of the nitrogen in the state’s groundwater. 

“Wisconsin cannot afford to delay. The cost of inaction — both financial and human — is rising,” the report states. “A coordinated, science-based policy response is essential to reduce nitrate pollution at its source, protect public health and ecosystems, and ensure clean, safe drinking water for future generations.”

The report recommends tougher state standards for nitrates, improved enforcement of nutrient management plans on individual farms, creating a statewide registration system for manure haulers and requiring regular groundwater monitoring for factory farms. It also proposes collecting data on the cost of nitrogen contamination to public water systems, expanding the state’s existing private well compensation program and increasing the state’s nitrogen fertilizer tonnage fees.

While the report’s recommendations are aimed at a wide range of policy areas and farming is the major source of nitrogen contamination, dairy industry representatives have pushed back on its findings. Tim Trotter, CEO of the Dairy Business Association, told Wisconsin Public Radio farmers are already doing enough voluntarily to address the problem. 

“Our work with solutions-minded environmental groups and other stakeholders through a statewide clean water initiative has resulted in tailored changes to programs and policies that open up more opportunities for on-farm innovation that addresses this important issue,” Trotter said. “Reports like this one do little to bring practical, achievable solutions to water quality challenges, and can be counterproductive to progress.”

In the past, the Dairy Business Association has sued state regulators to weaken the state’s ability to regulate pollution sources such as runoff. 

The report states that the state Legislature and the courts have limited the authorities of state agencies, including the Department of Natural Resources and Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, preventing them from doing all that is necessary to manage the contamination. 

“Because Wisconsin administrative agencies have been severely limited in their ability to establish new regulations, they have relied heavily on voluntary incentives, such as cost-sharing and price supports to incentivize farmers to implement conservation measures,” the report states. “However, it is clear that these voluntary incentives alone aren’t enough to solve Wisconsin’s nitrate problems.”

The report also found that in applying more nitrogen fertilizer than necessary, Wisconsin’s farmers are spending $8-$11 million more each year than they need to — “dollars that could be saved with more precise application.” 

More than one-third of the state’s residents get their drinking water from private wells, which are especially susceptible to nitrate contamination. The report recommends expanding the well compensation program, but adds that is just a band-aid solution. 

The program also limits participation to residents making less than $60,000 per year and includes a number of requirements that further restrict who is eligible, even if their wells exceed the state’s nitrate standard of 10 milligrams per liter, according to the report.  

Instead, the report argues, the state needs to better work to keep nitrates out of the groundwater in the first place. 

“Well compensation programs, while vital for near-term relief, are ultimately a stopgap,” the report states. “They do not address the root cause of nitrate pollution. Without stronger upstream controls on nitrate pollution, more families will face the high cost and growing scarcity of access to safe drinking water.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE