Reading Time: 8 minutes

From the docks of the Port of Santos, a 58-terminal complex covering an area the size of 1,500 American football fields, ships loaded with soybeans prepare to set sail for China. 

Less than 45 miles from São Paulo, the port services nearly a quarter of Brazil’s soybean exports. For decades, U.S. agribusiness giants like Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge and Cargill have operated facilities at the port. 

Today, they share space with COFCO International, China’s state-owned food conglomerate, which has invested around $285 million in recent years. The expansion will make it the port’s largest dry bulk terminal.

And Santos isn’t alone. In the west, the Port of Chancay is rising on Peru’s central coast.

COSCO Shipping, a state-owned Chinese company, is investing at least $3.5 billion to construct 15 berths, logistics facilities and a 1.1-mile tunnel, enabling cargo to be channeled directly from the port to nearby highways.

Once fully operational, Chancay will function as a regional redistribution hub for exports from Peru, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador and Colombia: from copper and lithium to soybeans and other agricultural products. Upon completion around 2035, it is expected to become the region’s third-largest port.

These and other recent investments across the region have positioned China to source more agricultural products from Latin America as it pivots away from U.S. farmers in response to President Trump’s higher tariffs. 

China first began that pivot in 2018, when Trump’s first-term tariff hikes ignited a global trade war. But since returning to office, the president has renewed that strategy, and China’s investments signal a generational shift that may not reverse if and when the trade war subsides. 

“What are the signs that China’s here to stay (in Latin America)? Really, the infrastructure,” said Henry Ziemer, an associate fellow with the Americas program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a U.S. nonprofit policy research organization that reports 23 ports across Latin America have some degree of Chinese investment.  

“Ports, railways, roads, bridges, metro lines, energy, power plants are probably the best signs that China has a long-term commitment … These are long-term projects.”

Daniel Munch, an economist with the American Farm Bureau Federation, said that when a country gains control over ports that make trade faster, cheaper and more reliable, such as the Port of Chancay, trade flows tend to “lock in.” Reversing that trend, he warned, would require the United States to narrow its efficiency gap, noting that none of its container ports rank among the world’s top 50.

“It could entrench patterns,” Munch said.

This is bad news for American farmers, particularly soybean growers. 

Soybeans are a cornerstone of American agriculture, particularly in the Midwest. Nationwide, more than 270,000 farms grow the crop, according to the latest Census of Agriculture. In Illinois, nearly half of all farms depend on soybean production, and in Iowa and Minnesota, about four in 10 do.

In 2024, more than 40% of U.S. soybean production was exported, with about half going to China.

But tensions between the United States and China have risen this year – Trump has increased tariffs and recently threatened a 157% tax on all Chinese imports, while China responded by reducing U.S. soybean imports to near zero for six months. 

A trade deal announced in November ends the suspension and includes commitments for China to buy 12 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans in the final two months of 2025 and at least 25 million metric tons annually through 2028, according to Purdue University and farmdoc Daily. 

Brazil has stepped in as China’s biggest supplier of soybeans, which are used to feed livestock to support protein demand. 

China has become one of the two main export markets for at least 10 nations, most of them in South America, according to the International Trade Outlook for Latin America and the Caribbean 2023 report by the U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

From 2010 to 2022, the region accounted for nearly one-third of China’s food imports. Brazil alone supplied about 21% of those imports over the same period.

“In recent years, there has been significant growth in telecommunications projects and across all areas of transportation – including airports, ports, roads, railways, and subways – as well as in sanitation and urban mobility. These sectors account for nearly 60% of the total number of projects,” said José Manuel Salazar-Xirinachs, executive secretary of ECLAC, who highlighted the scale of China’s involvement during the 2024 International Seminar on Contemporary China Studies in Costa Rica.

China has viewed Brazil as a strategic partner for several years, primarily because of its soybean supply, and has responded with infrastructure investments, according to Fernando Bastiani, a researcher with ESALQ-LOG, the Group of Research and Extension in Agroindustrial Logistics at the University of São Paulo.

“Today, COFCO has direct access to farmers, purchases soybeans and oversees the entire commercialization chain, including storage and transport to China,” Bastiani said. “In recent years, (COFCO) has also realized it needs to control logistics systems and infrastructure, because that’s a key part.”

In Brazil, Bastiani explained, logistics costs account for 20% to 25% of the final soybean price, mainly due to the long distances between farms and ports and the high cost of trucking. “China understood that by investing in infrastructure, it could help make Brazil more competitive,” he said.

In May, the two countries signed new agreements to deepen their agricultural trade ties, granting Brazil authorization to export meat and ethanol byproducts. 

“Amid the changing and turbulent international landscape, China and Brazil should remain committed to the original aspiration of contributing to human progress and global development,” said Chinese President Xi Jinping.

China’s pullback squeezes US port volumes  

While Latin America has seen growth, many U.S. ports have experienced a significant decline in business.

At the New Orleans District — a dominant grain corridor — soybean exports grew by less than 3% between September 2024 and September 2025, according to the most recent data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics at the U.S. Department of Transportation. Shipments through the Los Angeles District fell almost 15%, while the steepest drop came in the Seattle District, where exports plunged 81%.

Nearly half of all U.S. corn, soybean and wheat exports move through the Mississippi River system, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation’s Market Intel report.

This major inland trade artery connects the Midwest’s farming regions to the Gulf of Mexico, carrying an average of 65 million metric tons annually of bulk agricultural products by barge over the past five years to export terminals near New Orleans, where shipments depart for international markets.

“The facilities that purchase soybeans from farmers extend to our freight railroads, where they don’t have as much volume that they’ve been moving, at least for soybeans,” said Mike Steenhoek, executive director of the Soy Transportation Coalition. 

Steenhoek noted that corn exports have remained strong, which has helped sustain some port activity — but it hasn’t solved the underlying problem: “China imports more U.S. soybeans than all of our other international customers combined,” he said.

At the Port of Los Angeles, the largest container port in the Western Hemisphere, agricultural exports have also weakened as trade with China cools.

“Exports in general have been very soft, and we attributed it to the retaliatory tariffs that have been put in place by China,” said Gene Seroka, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles. “Our single biggest export sector is agriculture … of that, soybeans are the number one export commodity.”

Before the first tariffs were introduced in 2018, China accounted for about 60% of the port’s business. Today, it’s closer to 40% and falling, as trade flows and sourcing shift toward countries such as Vietnam, Indonesia and Thailand. 

“We’ve been very aggressive in finding cargo out of other countries,” Seroka said. “But there is no doubt in my mind that we are concerned every day that these policies could impact the amount of cargo that comes to Los Angeles.”

The decrease in exports is not just a hit to farmers, but also to port workers; each four containers handled at the port generates one job, according to Seroka.

“In Southern California, one in nine people has a job related to this port,” said Seroka, referring to dockworkers, truck drivers, brokers and warehouse employees. “It truly is a conversation of national significance.”

U.S. port traffic isn’t poised for a quick rebound despite a recent trade agreement that ends China’s suspension of U.S. soybean imports. After six months of near-zero shipments due to retaliatory trade measures, Beijing in November agreed to purchase 12 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans in the final two months of 2025 and to commit to annual purchases of at least 25 million tons through 2028.

A recent analysis from Purdue University’s Center for Commercial Agriculture and farmdoc Daily said the announcement offered some relief to U.S. farmers at the tail end of harvest, but overall exports to China this year are still on track to be the weakest since 2018, when trade tensions during the first Trump administration slashed volumes to 8 million tons.

“It is very difficult to take a market (China) of over a billion people and replace that,” said John Bartman, a soybean farmer from Marengo, Illinois.

By October, Brazil had exported a record 79 million metric tons of soybeans to China, nearly 80% of its total soybean shipments during the period, according to a farmdoc Daily analysis of data from Brazil’s Foreign Trade Secretariat. Brazil’s total soybean exports reached about 100 million tons between January and October, already surpassing the country’s full-year total for 2024, which was just under 99 million tons.

“U.S. soybean farmers are standing at a trade and financial precipice,” Caleb Ragland, president of the American Soybean Association, wrote in a statement. 

US trade strategy remains unsettled as China moves ahead

While China builds long-term infrastructure to secure its supply chains, Washington is still struggling to define its trade strategy and to contain the political fallout of renewed tariffs.

In mid-September, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives moved to block Congress from influencing Trump’s tariff policy, even as Senate Democrats prepared to force votes challenging his trade war, The New York Times reported. The maneuver effectively stripped lawmakers of the ability to advance measures to lift tariffs until March 31, 2026, extending a prohibition first imposed in the spring to spare members from taking a politically difficult vote.

“Tariffs not only cause farmers to pay more for their inputs, but they have also seen tariffs reduce markets for U.S. farm products,” said U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, during an October session.

If the November soybean agreement between Trump and the Chinese president holds, Beijing’s purchases would still fall short of recent norms. Even if China buys at least 25 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans annually over the next three years, that volume would remain about 14% below the five-year average shipped to China from 2020 to 2024, according to an analysis from Purdue University’s Center for Commercial Agriculture and farmdoc Daily.

Some purchases have started rolling in. But April Hemmes, an Iowa soybean farmer who has promoted increased trade with China, said the agreement would be difficult to fulfill, noting that delivering 12 million metric tons of soybeans by early next year is “not very realistic.”  

As China establishes new trade routes across Latin America, every new port or shipping lane makes a future recovery for U.S. farmers more challenging.

Despite the tensions, Hemmes still views China as an essential market. 

“I don’t think our relationship with China has been damaged,” the Iowa soybean farmer said. “China is a low-cost buyer and will need soybeans from the U.S. for a long time. But we will never be their number one source.”

For her, the changing politics and policies have made the United States an “unreliable trading partner.”

“The only way that we become their top choice would be if our soybeans were far cheaper than South America’s.”

This story is a product of the Mississippi River Basin Ag & Water Desk, an independent reporting network based at the University of Missouri in partnership with Report for America, with major funding from the Walton Family Foundation.

Wisconsin Watch is a member of the Ag & Water Desk network. Sign up for our newsletters to get our news straight to your inbox.

China is investing billions in Latin America, potentially sidelining US farmers for decades to come 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.

Democratic and Republican candidates for governor appeared for a joint forum in early November. Shown are, from left, Matt Smith of WISN-12, Francesca Hong, Sara Rodriguez, Kelda Roys, David Crowley and Missy Hughes, all Democrats, and Josh Schoemann, a Republican. Republican Tom Tiffany did not participate. Since that event two more Democrats have entered the contest, former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes and former cabinent member Joel Brennan. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

A popular two-term governor decides to retire, and triggers a flood of prospective replacements. Democrats vow to flip the Republican-majority Legislature. A state Supreme Court race blows the doors off spending records, and another one is waiting in the wings.

Each of those could be considered a big story by itself in Wisconsin, but they’re all part of this year’s single biggest story in government and politics. And that story — that it was a really big year for Wisconsin politics — wasn’t just about 2025: It set the stage for 2026.

The  three-stories-in-one about Wisconsin politics are just the beginning of the news that flooded our pages in 2025. Wisconsin Examiner’s five-person staff published 550 stories in 2025, a total that includes opinion columns by Editor Ruth Conniff, but doesn’t include briefs that also appeared under the bylines of Conniff, Erik Gunn, Isiah Holmes, Henry Redman, Baylor Spears and Criminal Justice Fellows Andrew Kennard and Frank Zufall.

Herewith, then, our list of 10 big stories that the Wisconsin Examiner covered over the course of the last year.

1. Wisconsin politics goes into overdrive

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers put an end to the last Wisconsin governor’s quest for a third term when he defeated Republican Scott Walker in 2018. Midway through his own second term, Evers surprised many by deciding to call it quits when his current  term ends rather than run again.

The decision created the first open race for governor in more than a decade and opened the floodgates, with a bevy of Democrats entering the fray. By contrast, the Republican field was down to two at year’s end, with one early contender dropping out after the entry of Congressman Tom Tiffany.

In the Wisconsin Legislature, Democrats, having narrowed the Republicans’ majority in 2024 thanks to new maps that undid the state’s 15 years of GOP gerrymandering, launched twin efforts to flip both the Assembly and the Senate in 2026. Republicans vowed to maintain their majority in both houses.

The new Senate and Assembly maps were made possible after the 2023 state Supreme Court election flipped the seven-member Court’s ideological majority from conservative to liberal. With the balance of the Court  at stake again after liberal Justice Ann Walsh Bradley retired in 2025, Democrats went all out, electing Dane County Judge Susan Crawford to the nominally nonpartisan Court and handily overcoming the efforts of billionaire Elon Musk who spent millions  supporting Crawford’s opponent, former state Attorney General Brad Schimel. The contest set both state and national records for campaign spending in a U.S. judicial election, and maintained the one-vote liberal majority. Now supporters of the current Court majority have their eyes on extending that ideological advantage in 2026. 

Chris Taylor, currently a District IV appeals court judge and a former Democratic state representative, is running to succeed sharply conservative Rebecca Bradley. Bradley opted not to seek a new term on the Court, and conservative Appeals Court Judge Maria Lazar has announced plans to seek the post.

2. A  bipartisan state budget splits both parties

Evers went into the 2025-27 state budget process with an ambitious list of goals. Lengthy negotiations between the Democratic governor and Republican lawmakers produced a deal. While the final result fell well short of his original vision, Evers claimed victory nevertheless, with gains on paper for child care funding and for public school special education funding.

Both, however, left their strongest advocates disappointed, and by the end of the year, the special education funding did not live up to the promises made when the budget was signed.

3. Public school troubles

The budget’s lack of additional school aid for regular classes was especially upsetting to public school advocates, and was exacerbated by the state’s expanding school choice systems that use tax dollars to pay for private schools and charter schools outside the common public schools. It also underscored the extent to which local communities have been voting to raise their own property taxes to support their school systems.

The defeat of some school referendum requests further accentuated the sense of crisis, while Republican lawmakers called for new restrictions on the referendum process. And in the state’s largest system, Milwaukee Public Schools, an audit called for sweeping changes in response to a range of challenges, from declining enrollments and staff turnover to the continuing pressure of having to fund the parallel voucher and charter systems.

Throughout the year, the state Department of Public Instruction came under intense scrutiny from Republican lawmakers over policies ranging from school performance evaluations to the handling of sexual abuse complaints against school employees.

4. Federal fallout from a new administration

With the inauguration of President Donald Trump to a second term in the White House, the fallout from new federal actions reached Wisconsin in a myriad of ways. The giant legislation to cut taxes (mostly for the wealthy) and spending (much of it for health care) that Trump signed in July was one cause, setting the stage for future cuts to Medicaid and to health care under the Affordable Care Act, while also imposing new restrictions on programs aimed at reducing hunger.

But there were other reductions as well, some coming from the actions of the “Department of Government Efficiency” or DOGE that Trump authorized, and others from unilateral — and often legally challenged — actions by the administration itself. Clean energy and climate change projects, scientific research, education assistance, help with removing lead from public schools, community service, child care, economic policies, numerous federal agencies and the federal workforce itself along with countless other federal initiatives were swept up in the administration’s first year.

The record-long federal shutdown — when Congress failed to agree on a temporary spending plan and the GOP majority refused to extend extra tax breaks for Affordable Care Act health plans into 2026 — added to the chaos, with a temporary halt to the federal SNAP food assistance program.

Wisconsinites joined people from across the country in the recurring protests that started just weeks into the Trump presidency, culminating in the Oct. 18 “No Kings” rallies from coast to coast that some analysts identified as the largest mass protest ever in the United States.

5. Immigration arrests spark turmoil

The Trump administration’s immigration crackdown reverberated in Wisconsin from Inauguration Day. At the start of this term, Editor Ruth Conniff traveled to Mexico, documenting the longstanding relationships Wisconsin farmers have had with migrants who provide 70% of the labor that the state’s dairy industry has relied on.

Republican lawmakers called for cementing the state’s relationship with the newly unleashed Immigration and Customs Enforcement — ICE — agency , while the Evers administration resisted those calls. Individual counties signed on to assist ICE, sometimes facing opposition, but while Wisconsin was less in the national spotlight than other states, it wasn’t immune to periodic episodes of immigration enforcement.

Visa cancellations caught up students from overseas, and migrant arrests rose across the state. Immigration enforcement officers focused on the Milwaukee County Courthouse in their search for immigrants to take into custody, prompting criticism from advocates who warned the result would drive migrants underground rather than encouraging them to show up for court dates as witnesses, plaintiffs or defendants.

After a four-day trial in December, Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan was convicted on a felony charge of obstruction but acquitted of a misdemeanor charge of concealing a man who had appeared in her courtroom in April and was targeted by immigration officials. The case had national repercussions as the Trump administration targets judges it sees as opponents to its policies.

6. Environment: Data centers, stewardship and PFAS conflicts

In Wisconsin a statewide — indeed, nationwide — the rush to embrace massive data centers to serve emerging artificial intelligence-based technology sparked widespread debate over water use, electricity demands and power generation.

Meanwhile, a longstanding and widely popular land preservation program — the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship fund — hovered on the verge of collapse as Republican lawmakers demanded the power to veto stewardship decisions after a state Supreme Court ruling in 2024 removed the Legislature from the process.

After a running battle against rerouting an Enbridge oil pipeline, the Army Corps of Engineers approved permits for the project over the strenuous objections of opponents, only to be sued by the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.

A standoff between the Evers administration and the Legislature’s Republican leaders over how to address PFAS “forever chemicals” was eased by a state Supreme Court ruling allowing the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to apply Wisconsin’s spills law to PFAS contamination, along with a bipartisan bill that would require the DNR to notify local and tribal officials about groundwater PFAS contamination.

7.  Law enforcement: Investigating themselves, surveillance of the public

A lengthy investigation by Isiah Holmes of the Wisconsin Examiner in partnership with Type Investigations documented how the Milwaukee Area Investigative Team, assigned to probe death investigations for people killed by metro Milwaukee police officers, use protocols that grant officers privileges not afforded to the general public.

Among many other issues involving policing and law enforcement in Wisconsin, police surveillance was a recurring matter, with debates arising over facial recognition technology, department interest in expanding phone-tracking resources and increasing attention to how police agencies make use of widespread surveillance cameras.

8. Prison reform struggles

Evers’ budget proposal included a sweeping plan for prison reform, but the  result was more limited, leaving advocates dissatisfied. One concrete element is the start of a project to close the Green Bay Correctional Institution, a longtime objective, but divisions remain between the governor and GOP lawmakers about the details.

9. Voting rights debates revive 2020 election denial

With the return of President Donald Trump to the White House, the conspiracy theories that were amplified after his reelection loss in November 2020 got a new burst of energy. The Wisconsin Elections Commission twice rejected an administration demand for the personal identifying information of Wisconsin voters.

Trump issued a largely symbolic pardon of the Republicans who signed certificates falsely stating he won the 2020 presidential election in Wisconsin, while a Dane County judge kept alive a criminal case against three men charged with orchestrating the fake elector scheme.

Although bipartisan lawmakers in the Assembly sought common ground over absentee ballot drop boxes and a measure to allow election clerks to begin counting absentee ballots on the Monday before Election Day, their efforts stalled.

10. Flooding and disasters

August flooding in Southeast Wisconsin that followed torrential storms and was centered on the metro Milwaukee area left behind devastation, damaging nearly 2,000 homes and some $34 million worth of public infrastructure.

The Trump administration’s Federal Emergency Management Agency approved $30 million in initial relief to support the victims of flood damage, but the administration denied a subsequent request for aid to mitigate future disasters.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 7 minutes

A version of this story was originally published by Circle of Blue.

On a warm fall afternoon, dairy farmer Chris Kestell pushes through prairie brambles taller than himself, tracing a path overgrown with thickets and swarming with bees as he hikes toward a hidden waterway.

Though the route is unidentifiable to the untrained eye, Kestell, 47, has lived here, in the small town of Waldo, Wisconsin, for nearly all his life. His father first walked this path 70 years ago, and his two young boys, 8 and 10 years-old, mark the third generation to follow this practiced journey.

After several minutes, he comes to rest beside a fallen tree. In its petrified tangle of roots, guarded by a tiny plastic gnome, a collection of spoons, bowls, and mugs fit like perfect puzzle pieces. Kestell takes a silver ladle from the snarl and kneels over a wall of dirt, from which a steady trickle emerges.

These are the headwaters of the Milwaukee River, known locally as Nichols Creek. According to Milwaukee Riverkeeper data, it is the “most pristine” monitored waterway in the entire 900 square-mile rivershed, and one of the only regional waters where brook trout reproduce naturally. 

As he has done since he was a young boy, Kestell brings the water to his lips. “By a certain age, everybody drinks here,” he says. “The creek is a landmark for this area. When you’re a kid, you’re like, ‘Wow, this is pretty awesome.’ It’s a special place.”

Deep in this quiet wooded alcove, Nichols Creek is a cultural touchstone and habitat of ecological importance. Safe and secure for generations, residents fear it is suddenly at risk of severe damage from a new era of energy transition in Wisconsin. 

The waterway — along with drinking water wells, protected woods and wetlands, and newly restored floodplains — is caught in the spreading network of high-voltage power lines. 

According to Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC) documents, more than 400 miles of new high-voltage power lines are either under review or approved in Wisconsin. Similar projects have also been greenlit in Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, and the other three Great Lakes states in recent months, together totaling well over 1,000 miles. 

As part of its Plymouth Reliability Project, the American Transmission Company (ATC), a local electric utility, plans to install seven miles of high-capacity lines through the Waldo area. Part of the route would pass directly over Nichols Creek, raising concerns over deforestation around the county’s only stream designated as “outstanding” by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

Meanwhile, a second ATC expansion, the Ozaukee County Distribution Interconnection project, proposes the construction of five new energy substations and corresponding transmission lines just southeast of Waldo. The preferred route would require the clear-cutting of old-growth forest and intersect the Cederberg Bog Wilderness — “the most intact large bogs in southeastern Wisconsin,” according to the Wisconsin DNR, and a registered National Natural Landmark by the U.S. Department of the Interior.

“Our entire business is based on people coming away from the city and spending the weekend here in the trees,” said Katy Rowe, who co-owns Abloom Farms, a resort and wedding venue located on the northern edge of the bog. “Eminent domain should not be used as a weapon against normal American citizens that have decided to live a quiet life in the country.”

According to ATC’s website, these projects are “needed to ensure electric reliability and address current and future energy needs in the community and the surrounding area.” But those needs aren’t due from the smattering of dairy farms, lonely county roads, and modest old homes that comprise rural Waldo, population 467. 

Nearly two dozen data centers in southeastern Wisconsin alone are either proposed, built, or in-development, but the two newest are not like the others. More than 20 miles away, in the city of Port Washington, a 672-acre campus built by Vantage Data Centers broke ground on Dec. 17. Even farther, some 70 miles south, Microsoft is building a 315-acre facility near Racine. 

Though seemingly far enough away to be irrelevant to Waldo, the new sites’ thirst for power knows few bounds. When fully built, the Vantage and Microsoft locations will together require a 24/7 electricity supply totaling 3.2 gigawatts — greater than all of Wisconsin’s homes combined. 

Power generated by natural gas, nuclear, coal, solar, wind, and battery storage stations across the state’s central and eastern regions are all in the mix to bring data center campuses online. Transmission lines, running through Waldo, will transport the electricity they demand.

When reached, ATC declined to comment on the Plymouth Reliability project.

But the company in public testimony has downplayed the project’s potential effects on wetlands and says it will take measures to minimize the impact. 

The project as proposed “will not directly impact stream channels or have direct discharges to streams,” Erika Biemann, senior environmental project manager for ATC, wrote in testimony before Wisconsin’s PSC.

Waldo’s story is not a one-off. New state and federal legislation are incentivizing data center development and encouraging power lines’ rapid rise across the region, potentially running roughshod over other communities. 

In February, Illinois — which by one count leads the Great Lakes region with more than 200 data centers — enacted a law allowing tax incentives for the construction of new battery storage facilities and high-voltage transmission lines. A month later, lawmakers in Indiana (75 data centers) enacted a law aiming to make transmission lines more efficient and cost-effective to construct. Similar legislation went into effect in Ohio (192 data centers) in August.

On a national scale, President Trump signed an executive order this January declaring an energy emergency and ordering agencies to “expedite the completion of all authorized and appropriated” energy infrastructure. The order directs the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to speed up their review of permit applications to develop wetlands for transmission lines and other energy projects. The Corps is reviewing such permits for new lines in Wisconsin and other states. 

In late October, U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright directed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to change permitting and rulemaking procedures to “significantly reduce” the amount of time and oversight required to bring data centers onto the grid. 

Literally caught in the middle of a new epoch of surging energy demand and supply in the Great Lakes region, residents say they are contending with powerful economic trends that could be devastating to the environment, and already are weighing on their spirits. 

Back at his family home, Kestell points to a large rock on his front lawn. The new power lines, Kestell said, would run right over his uncle’s final resting place.

“This is not rural electrification anymore, bringing power to poor farms” said Kestell’s father, Tom, also a farmer in Waldo. “This is an elite, wealthy class of people who are invested in these power stations and data centers, who are going to make probably trillions of dollars off this. And the people who they infringe on in the meantime? They’re just collateral damage.”

Homes and ponds face risk

What’s developing in Waldo is a case in point. The wetland area through which Nichols Creek flows is the source of local residents’ well water. 

“Water comes, goes back down into the ground, and then becomes a collection of underground springs,” said JoAnne Friedman, the town chairperson of Lyndon, Wisconsin. “When you try to imagine how much water is underground here, it is a phenomenal amount.”

The water recharge process, and the natural filtration trees and other plants provide, is threatened by the right-of-way easements that the 138-kilovolt power lines require. All vegetation between 60 feet and 110 feet to either side of the lines would need to be cleared during their construction. 

The loss of maple and cedar tree cover, Kestell said, threatens both the warming of Nichols Creek and soil erosion on the side of county roads that already slump and flood when storms roll through. 

“With all of these projects, they don’t realize how much mitigation people who have these properties have done to prevent erosion,” said Friedman, who has needed to enlarge her property’s 20-foot-deep retention pond from half an acre to two acres to manage gushing ephemeral streams during springtime snowmelt and heavy rains. 

Living at the bottom of a small sloped valley, she said she has planted so many trees she “lost count,” all to help redirect flows from damaging her home. If ATC’s transmission line route is built, she said, this cover would all be clear-cut. 

Hundred-year-old trees would also be razed from the backyard of Randy Pietsch, a retired dairy farmer who has lived along the banks of Nichols Creek for more than 50 years. The trout pond he keeps on his property has long been open to friends and family for fishing, though he closed it several years ago and has no plans now of reopening. 

“I’m not hopeful for anything,” he said. “Why they have to come through here is beyond me. I can’t imagine that electric line’s good for fish. They just want to steal the land, that’s all. It’s sad, it’s stressful. You lose a lot of sleep at night.”

ATC says the project will not significantly affect the creek. 

“The loss of forested riparian habitat along Nicholas Creek would not be significant, especially considering the large riparian forest buffer both upstream and downstream from the proposed route crossing,” Biemann, the ATC environmental project manager, wrote in public testimony. 

Olivia Poelmann, a PSC environmental analysis and review specialist, testified that the project’s cumulative environmental effects are “not expected to be significant and are mostly temporary, with a large majority of impacts occurring primarily during the construction phase of the project.” 

But most startling, residents say, are the effects of ATC’s preferred route on their properties, many of which have been in their families for multiple generations. 

In some cases, the transmission lines’ right-of-way easements extend several feet inside peoples’ homes. One resident, Nolan Harp, said that the lines would run within 40 feet of his front door, placing half of his house within an easement. As a result, five 40-foot tall trees in his yard would be cut down, and his private well would need to be moved.

“That’s my sole source of water. It’s an old well, but it works, it’s clean, and it’s good,” Harp said. “But you can’t have something like that under power lines.”

Harp said that ATC has offered to dig up the open well, its casing, tank, and pump, and replace them elsewhere on his property. But the headache of additional construction, and the obvious hazard of power lines running above his house, has him considering other options.

“I don’t want to move, but if they insist on putting that power line up, I don’t think I can live here,” Harp said.

In late January, the $33.5 million Plymouth project was approved by the PSC, though it added a condition that prevents ATC from using eminent domain to build their power lines. ATC subsequently petitioned to reopen the application on the grounds that PSC cannot revoke that right, which is protected under Wisconsin state law. In April, this petition was granted. 

Kestell, who founded an organization called Neighbors 4 Neighbors to fight against the project in court, estimates that residents have spent $250,000 of their own money on legal fees.

At the end of the day, their homes and health are the most important concerns. 

“When they put these towers in, some of them are going down 30 or 40 feet, possibly hitting the aquifer when they’re digging foundations,” said Kestell, who estimates his own front door will be within roughly 20 feet of an easement. “We’re just not sure about contamination.”

Wisconsin Watch contributed reporting.

As data centers boom, rural Waldo braces for high-voltage lines over wetlands and homes 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.

Reading Time: 13 minutes

A version of this story was originally published by the Door County Knock, an independent, nonprofit news organization covering Door County, Wisconsin. Subscribe to its newsletters here.

The 143-foot tug boat Donny S. sits aground in a few feet of water on the northeast side of Baileys Harbor. One cannot miss it, whether buying smoked fish from Baileys Harbor Fish Company, renting a waterfront cottage, hiking at Toft Point State Natural Area or watching a sunset from the Baileys Harbor Yacht Club. 

Depending on who you talk to, the forsaken tugboat is a hazard, an eyesore or a curiosity. No matter what folks think about it, there is no question the Donny S. is something of a local celebrity. Hundreds of social media posts have been made about the vessel on what William Stephan, the chief engineer of another tug, calls “boat nerd” sites.

Attempts to move it have failed. Municipal, county, state and federal agencies have received complaints and inquiries about it. State representatives have gotten involved. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has convened four working group meetings and issued citations and fines to the boat’s owner, Jeremy Schultz. 

But the Donny S. remains mired on the lakebed, its status and fate uncertain.

The curious second life of the Donny S.

Before it came to rest in Baileys Harbor, the tugboat had a long and industrious life. Built in 1950 and named the G.W. Coddrington, it eventually wound up as the Donny S. in Sturgeon Bay. Owned by Selvick, and then Sarter Marine, the tug broke up ice for the winter fleet at Fincantieri Bay Shipbuilding and performed other commercial tugboat operations. 

The boat was decommissioned  in 2020 and sold to private owner, Jeremy Schultz, after it was unable to meet regulatory requirements laid out by Subchapter M. The rule, issued by the U.S. Coast Guard in 2016, established new protocols and standards for commercial tugboats and marine towing companies. 

Schultz moved the Donny S. to Baileys Harbor in 2021, with the intention of eventually taking it to Manitowoc to be scrapped, according to Mike Cole. Cole owns Ironworks Construction in Baileys Harbor. He also owns the dock the Donny S. was tied to when it arrived in Baileys Harbor. 

Sometime after August 2021, Schultz began preparing the tug to be moved to Manitowoc, Cole said. Preparation included “de-ballasting” the tug  – removing the water from ballast tanks that keep the heavy vessel from moving around in wind and damaging the dock. Schultz also got the boat moved farther away from the dock and  “pointed in the right direction,” Cole said. In order to do so, the Donny S. had to be untied, but at least one line was kept between the tug and the dock once it was situated where Schultz wanted it, he added. 

All of the ballast water had been pumped out of the vessel, a float plan was approved, and the tug was ready to go, Cole said. Then the Coast Guard received a complaint about possible contaminants on board, he said, and moving it was delayed.

It was just enough time for weather conditions to go from ideal to difficult. Autumn storms pushed the Donny S. aground, according to Cole. It has not moved since. 

Not for lack of trying, according to William Stephan. Stephan is the chief engineer on the Cheyenne, a tugboat owned by Five Lakes Marine Towing in Sturgeon Bay. Schultz worked on the Cheyenne and had arranged to have it tow the Donny S. to Manitowoc, according to Stephan.

The DNR issued its first citation to Schultz for obstruction of navigable waters in October 2022. On Dec. 22, the Cheyenne tried to move the Donny S. Stephan was on board. 

It was a zero-degree day, with a cold fog settled over Lake Michigan, he remembered. When the Cheyenne got to Baileys Harbor, the Donny S. was “high and dry,” he said, which was a surprise to him and the rest of the crew, as they thought it was ready to be moved. Instead, the 500 ton Donny S. was grounded firmly on the bottom of the lake and surrounded by ice chunks.

The Cheyenne tried a few maneuvers anyway, Stephan said, but it could not get close enough. The water around the Donny S. was too shallow and the Cheyenne did not have enough line to reach it from deeper water. 

“It was a wasted trip,” Stephan said. The Cheyenne’s crew had volunteered their time in exchange for getting a cut of the salvage from the Donny S., he said.

 “(Schultz) still owes me a port light,” he quipped. 

Tug condition, knowns and unknowns

Reports and observations vary regarding the condition of the Donny S. and what exactly is on board. There have not been any formal state or federal assessments made of the tugboat recently, and that is part of the reason nothing is being done about it, according to Mike Kahr. 

Kahr is a Baileys Harbor resident and civil engineer who owned Death’s Door Design and Development, a marine construction firm, for 35 years. 

“I believe it’s sitting on solid rock now with soft sediment around it,” he said, “and I believe if it starts moving in the storm, it’s going to pop a hole in it, and the oil in the bilge is just going to end up on the beach. I firmly, firmly believe that it’s not a question of if, but when.” 

Kahr became concerned about the tugboat when it first went aground in Baileys Harbor, he said. He has since contacted the Coast Guard, the DNR, the Town of Baileys Harbor and the Door County government, alleging it is an environmental hazard. Kahr is also part of a working group convened by the DNR in August 2025 to address the stranded vessel. 

In August, Kahr boarded the Donny S. and took photos, soundings and measurements that he claimed prove the boat is an environmental threat. There is upwards of 3 feet of “oily liquid” in the bilge and about 112 different fuel tanks present on board, he noted. The engines are still in the boat as well, though the transmission has been removed, he said. 

Kahr also took hull measurements with an ultrasound meter and the steel hull is pitted with rust and is ½ inch thick, he said.

It was the Coast Guard’s understanding that all potential pollutants like fuel had been removed from the Donny S. prior to attempts to remove it from the harbor, according to a phone conversation with Lt. Nathan Herring on Dec. 5.

Herring is the commander of the Coast Guard’s Marine Safety Unit in Sturgeon Bay, the office responsible for inspecting commercial vessels, waterway safety and pollution response. He attended the first DNR working group meeting on Aug. 28 and heard about Kahr’s findings for the first time.

“That was, I think, new news to everybody in the meeting,” Herring said. 

A current inspection and evaluation of the boat’s environmental condition and contents, by an authorized entity, is crucial for any progress toward removing the Donny S., according to Tressie Kamp, assistant director at the Center for Water Policy at UW-Milwaukee.

The organization is an interdisciplinary research center housed in the School of Freshwater Sciences, and it works with scientists, academics and technical experts inside and outside the UW system to review policy related to state waterways. 

The center published a policy brief in September regarding abandoned vessels in Wisconsin waters. 

“Government actors need to go on the boat and understand what the conditions are years after the last Coast Guard inspection,” Kamp said. Anyone who wants to do something about the tug, whether government or private actors, cannot know what efforts will consist of, or how much it will cost, until that happens, she added. 

Hazard, eyesore or curiosity?

The Donny S. has been drawing interest, and ire, ever since it’s been grounded. 

Mike Kahr is not the only one worried about the potential environmental fallout of the tug. Baileys Harbor Fish Company owner Todd Stuth has also been concerned about the Donny S. since it arrived in Baileys Harbor. It’s easy to keep it in mind, he said, because the tug is right in front of his business. 

“We get questions (from customers) every day,” Stuth said. 

As a commercial fisherman, Stuth has years of experience in the boating world, and he speculated that there is lead paint on the hull of the Donny S. Red lead paint was widely used as hull coating in the 1950s, when the tug was built, he said, which means specific abatement processes need to be followed in order to cut the boat apart for salvage.

Stuth is also certain that the Donny S. will leak at some point, spilling the contents of the bilge into Baileys Harbor waters, which would be a disaster for the watershed, he said. Toft Point State Natural Area and the Ridges Sanctuary are nearby. 

“I’m a little miffed that the state and county haven’t made a stronger push to have it removed,” he said. “We can put a man on the moon … but we can’t get a tugboat out of a harbor.”

Cole with Ironworks Construction asserted there are no contaminants on board the vessel, and everything potentially harmful has been removed, during a phone conversation on Dec. 8. In order to move it from Sturgeon Bay to Baileys Harbor, a float plan and inspection needed to be approved by the Coast Guard, he said. That was done and all potential hazards were removed at the time, he added. 

Captain Lynn Brunsen does not think the Donny S. is an imminent environmental threat either, he said. He works for Shoreline Boat Tours, operating out of Baileys Harbor, and said tourists are always intrigued by the tugboat. 

“I get within one hundred feet of it every time we do a tour,” Brunsen said. “There’s no evidence of oil, no slick or sheen in the water, no smell.” He does agree that eventually a hole will rust or break through the hull and whatever is in the bilge could spill out, he said. 

Brunsen also does not consider the tug a navigational hazard, he said, as it is sitting in about two feet of water. Nothing much bigger than a kayak can get next to it, he added. 

He is concerned about the tug as a safety hazard however, and has observed people climbing aboard the vessel via knotted ropes hanging down the side,“like something you would see on a pirate ship,” Brunsen said. 

Earlier this summer, someone lit what appeared to be smoke bombs or fireworks on board as well, he added. 

Whether a hazard or not, Stuth said, the Donny S. needs to go.

“The entire shoreline community in Baileys Harbor is pretty perturbed and wants it gone,” he said. 

Accountability in limbo

Whose responsibility is it to remove the Donny S.? The tug’s owner, Jeremy Schultz, is the obvious answer, according to municipal, county, state and federal agencies. The DNR has issued over a dozen citations for “unlawful obstruction of navigable waters” to Schultz from October 2022 to February 2024. Fines levied were upwards of $20,000. 

According to court records, Schultz’s fines were paid in June 2025. No fines or citations have been issued since. Notes obtained from the DNR’s working group meetings this fall stated that the owner does not have the means to remove the vessel. 

Schultz could not be reached for comment. 

“What people want to see happen is it is boarded and inspected by an official authority. We want to understand what’s on the boat and for someone to take responsibility for it,” Baileys Harbor town chairman David Eliot said in a phone call Dec. 3. (Disclosure: Knock editor-in-chief Andrew Phillips previously worked for a company owned in part by Eliot. Phillips was not involved in editing this story.)

The town sent a letter to the DNR in March 2025, and will be sending another, Eliot said. According to the letter, the town has received “many inquiries and complaints” from the community and considers the tug an eyesore and a hazard. 

Baileys Harbor was informed by the DNR that the Donny S. is not under the town’s jurisdiction, according to Eliot.

The Door County government has a similar position, Corporation Counsel Sean Donohue said. They would like to see the tug removed, but do not have jurisdiction or funds to do it themselves. Both town and county representatives have attended DNR working group meetings. 

The state authority is the DNR, and they have fined the owner and convened four stakeholder meetings since August to try to address the problem, but have taken no other action. The agency did not respond to inquiries in time for publication. 

From a federal standpoint, the Coast Guard’s involvement is only triggered if there is active pollution or a navigational hazard posed by the vessel, according to Lt. Herring. The Coast Guard does not deem either of those things a concern at this time, with the Donny S. 

“The first step in taking action would be if there’s an active pollutant coming from the vessel into a waterway,” Herring said. “We would be able to federalize that case, or that vessel, to where we can remove those contaminants from it. But as far as removing the vessel itself, there’s nothing that the Coast Guard would do at the onset.” 

Any costs incurred by Coast Guard removal or pollution cleanup would be forwarded to the owner of the tug, he added, and additional civil penalties and fines would be levied. 

One of the reasons cited by municipal, county and state authorities for abdicating responsibility for the tug is that the Donny S. is privately owned. There is no explicit definition of an abandoned vessel under Wisconsin law, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The state statute regarding abandoned property may suffice, but there is also no formal process for dealing with abandoned vessels, according to an administrative policy review in 2015 by NOAA’s Marine Debris Program. 

“The state is still wrestling with the Baileys Harbor case,” Kamp at the Center for Water Policy said, but the courts can make a determination as to whether the Donny S. is abandoned. Even if it is not abandoned, a government entity could seek an inspection warrant to board the vessel, she said. 

A lack of any clear mandate for government action further complicates the problem of removal, Kamp said. A number of government entities have authority to remove the tug, including municipal, county, state and federal agencies, she explained, but nothing that compels them to do so.

The situation is “a perfect storm” for creating confusion and questions on the part of government entities, she added, as indicated by the town and county government believing the situation is outside of their jurisdiction.

An expensive problem

Even if the jurisdictional and enforcement waters were not murky, removing the tug is no small undertaking, according to those who have already tried and members of the DNR working group. Notes from the group indicate initial estimates from salvage companies are upwards of $1 million. 

Those estimates are ridiculous, according to dock and Ironworks’ owner Cole, and he said he thinks he would be able to remove the tug for much less. 

“No one has asked me though,” he said. 

If the Donny S. does indeed contain lead paint, tanks with residual fuel, and contaminants in the bilge, that makes for a complicated removal, according to commercial fisherman Stuth. In order to scrap it properly in that case, it would need to be cut up on the water, requiring a crane, a barge and mitigation around the vessel to block anything leaching into the water, he speculated. 

Unclear authority over the tug, as well as its uncertain abandonment and hazard status means “no salvage company wants to touch it,” he added. 

Door County Corporation Counsel Donohue also indicated that even if it turns out various authorities have jurisdiction over the tug, or are found legally allowed to remove it, the funding to do so is simply not there. 

There are grants available for marine debris and abandoned or derelict vessel removal. The DNR provided information to Schultz about available grants and indicated he would need municipal or county government cooperation in applying for them, according to notes from the working group meetings. Neither town nor county officials have been contacted by Schultz regarding grant funding at this time. 

Removing stranded vessels should be covered by a statute requiring penalties of the vessel’s owner and compelling them to act, according to Kamp. If the owner is insolvent or there is no appetite for government enforcement, she said, there are other potential funding sources. 

Existing environmental funding streams, like grants, are used up very quickly in Wisconsin, she said. The Center’s policy brief advises giving the legislature authority to create a designated funding program for abandoned vessels, based on what some other states have done. 

However, the Center advises Wisconsin “emphasize ways to not put the taxpayers on the hook for addressing these things,” Kamp said. “Keep the responsible entities (the owners) on the hook.” 

Abandoned vessels statewide

The Donny S. is not the only recently grounded vessel in Wisconsin, but it is by far the largest. The Deep Thought, a Chris-Craft Roamer, became grounded near Bradford Beach in Milwaukee in 2024, after the owners ran out of fuel. The boat was beached for several months, becoming a popular local attraction. In May 2025, Milwaukee County ended up paying for its removal.

In the summer of 2024 another boat, this time a motor yacht named the Sweet Destiny, beached in the St. Croix River, near Hudson, Wis. After months of complaints and fines, the boat was removed through volunteer efforts and donations.  

The 33-foot and the 54-foot pleasure boats were newer and much smaller than the Donny S., with fewer potential environmental issues. 

These cases illustrate gaps in Wisconsin law when it comes to abandoned vessels. The DNR is the lead agency responsible for administering the patchwork of laws that address abandoned vessels, public nuisances and waterway obstruction, according to information from NOAA’s Marine Debris Program. 

Though the Center for Water Policy did not do a broad survey or count of abandoned vessels in the Great Lakes, Kamp said, “the fact we have these examples, and mechanisms to deal with them in other states indicates this is not a one-off problem.” 

Fourteen other states have state-level programs concerning abandoned vessels, including designated funds. Wisconsin lawmakers introduced a bipartisan bill earlier this year that would clearly define abandonment of a vessel, and threaten owners of such vessels with up to nine months of jail time and a fine of $10,000 if they do not remove it within 30 days.  

An anonymous letter sent to local media and the DNR called out State Sen. Andre Jacque and Rep. Joel Kitchens for their perceived lack of response to the Donny S. A hand-painted banner reading  “Jacque and Kitchens are fine with this” hung on the tugboat at one point this fall.

According to local legislators themselves, they are aware of the issue and have had some involvement. Jacque sent a staffer to the first DNR working group meeting, and his office has researched options for removal and funding.

Kitchens was invited to the first meeting in August, but did not attend, as it conflicted with a hearing for Northern Sky Theater’s tax status, he said. 

“We write laws but have no enforcement,” Kitchens said in a phone call on Dec. 3, “We have the least ability to do anything.” 

If there are contaminants on board, Kitchens said it is “certainly up to the DNR to take steps.” 

Ultimately, it is the owner’s responsibility though, he added.   

Sen. Tammy Baldwin is also aware of the situation, according to Alanna Conley, Baldwin’s deputy communications director.

“At this point, according to public statements from the Coast Guard and folks on the ground, this feels like an issue we would support funding for,” Conley said. “The Town of Baileys Harbor could apply for a debris removal grant. Baldwin’s office supports funding.”

While legislators legislate, officials meet and discuss, shoreline property owners complain, tourists take photos, and everyone waits for someone else to act, the Donny S. remains mired in the lakebed and a gray area of accountability. 

The DNR and Coast Guard did not respond to open record requests in time for publication.

‘We can put a man on the moon … but we can’t get a tugboat out of a harbor’: Who will move the abandoned Donny S.? 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.

A mill in Shawano County that closed a year ago is set to reopen as the first chip mill in the U.S. purchased by a logger co-op.

The post Shawano County mill reopens, easing strain on timber processing across the Northwoods appeared first on WPR.

Reading Time: 8 minutes

Tyler Stafslien is a fourth-generation farmer who’s worked his family’s land in central North Dakota for about 20 years. Roughly half of his 2,500 acres is typically dedicated to soybeans, a major crop in the state and in the Mississippi River Basin. But growing soybeans has become less profitable over the last decade as input costs rose and the Trump administration’s tariff negotiations in 2018 and 2025 destabilized trade and strained farmers’ incomes. 

This year, wary of the precarious export market, Stafslien decreased his soybean acres by half.

“We’ve been experiencing in ag, the last couple of years, a downturn in commodity prices, a lot of that related to just a large supply across the globe of major commodities, but then you add this trade war on top of it, and it’s like the icing on the cake,” Stafslien said.

The administration this month announced a $12 billion fund for one-time payments to row crop farmers to offset a portion of their inflation- and trade-related losses in the 2025 crop year.

Farmers were asking for the federal relief funds and are happy the administration is finally answering, said Stafslien. But he’s still facing uncertainty. The administration has yet to announce how much money per acre eligible growers will be receiving, and the funds will not be distributed until February, further stressing farmers like him with large debt and growing interest.

“Payments announced this week must be followed by additional and expedient efforts to keep farmers on the land and to improve the farm safety net, leaving annual bailouts as cautionary historical context rather than ongoing policy,” David Howard, policy development director of the National Young Farmers Coalition, wrote in a statement earlier in December. 

Farmers and farming associations are looking for longer-term solutions: to diversify trade partners and increase domestic uses for soybeans as export revenues become less certain. Some, like Stafslien, are shifting to other crops, like corn and wheat.

Soybeans are the largest agricultural export in the U.S. The legume covers more than 81 million acres — or 10% — of all U.S. farmland, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported in September, and more than 40% of the nation’s soybeans are exported to other countries. 

U.S. farmers received $24.5 billion from soybean exports in 2024, with Chinese purchases accounting for $12.6 billion – roughly twice the amount purchased by the next five largest export partners combined, according to USDA data.

But this year, China stopped purchasing U.S. soybeans during tariff negotiations with the Trump administration, instead falling back on its relationships with Brazil and other South American countries to meet its soybean needs. For U.S. soybean farmers, this growing season ends with low prices, unsold harvests, big financial losses and uncertainty going into the next season despite a tentative new deal with China. 

“We learned firsthand that being heavily reliant on China for export sales is only good when things are good,” said Andrew Muhammad, University of Tennessee professor of agricultural and resource economics.

How did we get here?

Soybeans brought by traders and missionaries from Asia first took root in North America in small quantities in the 1700s, but the USDA did not begin tracking soybeans as a crop until the early 1920s. 

Around that time, the USDA, land grant university extension agents and farm groups started to promote the soybean to farmers as a soil-fertilizing crop that yielded high-protein meal for animal feed, oil and even meat replacements for human consumption. The Mississippi River Basin’s flat plains and intermittent rain proved to be ideal conditions for the crop. 

Soybeans gained a foothold on U.S. farms in “fits and starts” over several decades, author Matthew Roth writes in his book, “Magic Bean: The Rise of Soy in America,” but really took off  as a cash crop after World War I. Its success was later buoyed by the Agricultural Adjustment Act that allowed soy plantings while restricting other commodities as a way to stabilize crop prices during the Great Depression, policies limiting foreign oils, and the growing need for animal feed and oil during World War II, according to Roth.

The crop helped diversify farming in the South and Midwest. By the 1960s, Roth writes, “the soybean had insinuated itself thoroughly into the American diet,” but indirectly – as feed for the country’s livestock, oils for salads and derivatives in processed foods.

At the same time, soybeans proved to be a desirable product for international trade partners. In 1989, U.S. soybean exports totaled around $4 billion, about a fifth of which went to Japan. The Freedom to Farm Act in 1996 allowed farmers to plant single-crop fields, and with rising export demand from China starting in the early 1990s, many farmers chose to plant soybeans, Roth wrote.

In 2001, China joined the World Trade Organization and gained better access to globalized trade with the organization’s members, including the U.S., according to Muhammad and the Council on Foreign Relations. From there, growth in China’s tourism economy and middle class spurred increased demand for meat protein, Muhammad said, heightening the country’s need for animal feed in the form of U.S. soybeans. 

By 2000, the crop was planted on more than 74 million U.S. acres, according to the National Agricultural Statistics Service.

“Over time, China has grown, and it seems to be the case that our total export sales have grown with our exports to China,” Muhammad explained. “They’ve sort of driven that rise over the last two decades.”

Brazil’s soybean industry has competed with American exports since the 1970s, but since 2017 has consistently exported more than the U.S. 

When Trump first upped tariffs on Chinese goods in 2018, China retaliated, Muhammad said, and began investing more heavily in purchases and transportation infrastructure in Brazil. The turn toward Brazil as a primary provider during trade negotiations in 2025 “represents a return on that investment (for China),” he said.

Farmers in the U.S. are reckoning with the fallout. 

Farming pains and changing plans

Justin Sherlock farms 2,400 acres of corn and soybeans in eastern North Dakota. His dad started farming in the early 2000s and he took over the farm in 2012.

“The last, you know, 13 years that I’ve been going, the last decade, has been pretty tough to really try and get established,” he said. 

For Sherlock, China coming to market very late in the 2025 harvest season was a blow to profits. Nearly one-quarter of the state’s agricultural exports hinge on soybeans, with China serving as the largest market for U.S. grain.

Sherlock was able to sell most of his soybean crop early to North Dakota soybean elevators — facilities that store the beans — which then found domestic processors in Nebraska and Kansas to sell to. But those domestic markets were also absorbing the supply that would typically be exported to China, so prices — around $8.65 per bushel — dropped significantly below Sherlock’s cost of production. He said he will lose “several hundred thousands of dollars” this year, on top of similar losses last year. 

“We just have to find a way to hopefully make it to next year,” he said. “That’s the struggle right now for a lot of producers.” 

Especially for young or beginning producers, said Sherlock, farmers will likely be having “tough financial discussions with their bankers and lenders.” Or, worst case scenario, these losses could mean losing their farms.

“You cannot have a successful agriculture industry in North Dakota without trade,” he said. “It’s so important that we fix these trade relationships and get back to doing business with other countries.” 

Trade uncertainty was keenly felt by soybean farmers in several Mississippi River Basin states, many of which lead the nation in soybean production and exports. 

Illinois accounts for 16% of the country’s total soybean exports, followed by Iowa with 13%, according to the most recent data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service. North Dakota comprises 5% of national exports.

Even in states that aren’t among the country’s top producers, soybeans can make up a significant portion of the state farm economy. Tennessee ranks 16th in the nation for soybean exports, for example, but soybeans were the highest-ranked agricultural commodity produced in the state in 2023, bringing in more than $990 million in cash receipts. In 2025, soybeans covered nearly 1.5 million acres of Tennessee farmland – the most of any crop in the state – according to the University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture.

New crush facilities that separate the beans into oil and meal are under construction in North Dakota, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas and Ohio — states that previously shipped soybeans to other countries to be processed.

The USDA’s Economic Research Service reported in July that more soybeans are being processed domestically. Most of the soybeans that stay in the U.S. are crushed into oil and meal, and a majority of that meal goes toward feeding livestock. The oil is used in biofuels, for industrial uses, and in food. New crush facilities that separate the beans into oil and meal are under construction in North Dakota, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas and Ohio — states that previously shipped soybeans to other countries to be processed. Biofuel has increased domestic demand for soybeans — and crush facilities — since around 2010, providing an alternative for farmers facing lower demand from traditional export partners.

April Hemmes, a fourth-generation farmer in north-central Iowa, said in September that she is fortunate to have nearby options for her beans: There is an ethanol plant and a crush facility that makes soybean meal, biodiesel and food-grade oil, about 10 miles away from her farm. Farmers who don’t have those options will have a harder time adapting to changing export markets, she wrote in an email.

The lack of money in farmers’ pockets is trickling down to other sectors in farming communities, too, said John Bartman, a regenerative farmer working about 850 acres in northern Illinois. He pointed to farm equipment dealers and factories in Illinois and Iowa that are shuttering well-paying jobs because business has been so slow. 

“So it’s more than just farmers who have been affected by this,” Bartman said. 

What comes next? 

In October, China and the U.S. hammered out a trade agreement. China agreed to purchase at least 12 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans by the end of the year, according to the White House, and will purchase at least 25 million metric tons each year through 2028. USDA export sales data from Oct. 2 through Dec. 8 shows China made soybean purchases from the U.S. totaling about 2.8 million metric tons.

For comparison, China purchased an annual average of 29 million metric tons of soybeans from the United States between 2020 and 2024, according to The Center for Strategic and International Studies, an international public policy think tank.

The deal “really isn’t much of a trade deal at all,” Bartman said.

“We’ve just gone through this tariff war, which we’re still going through right now, and what did we get out of it? China agreed to buy less soybeans than what we had last year, and we as farmers have suffered the collateral damage from this,” Bartman said.

With low trade prices and higher input costs, he warned, “we have not improved our economic situation for next year.”

Bartman is among farmers who are promoting investment in domestic uses for soybeans, including biofuels and plastics, though he acknowledges that a market the size of China’s will be “very difficult” to replace.

Muhammad said the turbulence in the soybean exports market shows that disruption of stable trade policy has consequences, which can hurt some sectors more than others.

The U.S. agriculture sector is often a political target in trade disputes, he said, because other countries understand the agricultural community’s significance in U.S. politics.

“It’s not a major export in the context of all exports, but it’s a politically viable community, and it carries a lot of heft in the context of trade agreements and trade policy because of the national security nature of food,” Muhammad said.

Farmers who are eligible for the Trump administration’s $12 billion Farmer Bridge Assistance program should expect the USDA to announce payment rates for crops the week of Dec. 22, according to the department. Payments are limited to up to $155,000 per person or legal entity.

The program appears similar to a $10 billion aid package offered to farmers impacted by trade retaliation in 2018. Those subsidies did not cover all of farmers’ losses. 

For many farmers like Sherlock, these subsidies are a necessity for short-term survival. He said any farming subsidies he receives go straight to paying his bills and paying off loans.

“There will be a lot of producers, especially young, beginning producers, who won’t be able to make it and farm next year if we don’t do something to help them pay their bills from this year,” he said.

Even established producers are worried. Stafslien works land that’s been in his family since 1912, but the tough years are piling up. 

“This is my future. This is my retirement. I don’t have a 401k plan. I have a farm,” said Stafslien, who lives on the farm with his wife, Shannon, and their two kids. “If I have to keep burning through this equity, that’s very, very scary for my future and my family’s future.”

This story is a product of the Mississippi River Basin Ag & Water Desk, an independent reporting network based at the University of Missouri in partnership with Report for America, with major funding from the Walton Family Foundation.

Wisconsin Watch is a member of the Ag & Water Desk network. Sign up for our newsletters to get our news straight to your inbox.

Soybeans have been a top US ag export for decades. What happens when the top buyer stops buying? 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.

Minnesota’s largest power company is backing away from plans to develop a proposed $1 billion gas-fired power plant in northern Wisconsin due to legal challenges and permitting delays.

The post Minnesota utility says it won’t buy from planned $1B power plant in Wisconsin appeared first on WPR.

Wind turbines generate electricity at the Block Island Wind Farm on July 7, 2022, near Block Island, Rhode Island. The first commercial offshore wind farm in the United States is located in the Atlantic Ocean 3.8 miles from Block Island, Rhode Island. The five-turbine, 30 MW project was developed by Deepwater Wind and began operations in December, 2016. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s administration said Monday it’s halting leases for five large-scale offshore wind projects under construction along the East Coast due to national security risks.

The Interior Department paused the projects — off the coasts of Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Virginia and New York — due to analysis from reports that have “long found that the movement of massive turbine blades and the highly reflective towers create radar interference,” which poses a national security risk, according to a department release.

“Today’s action addresses emerging national security risks, including the rapid evolution of the relevant adversary technologies, and the vulnerabilities created by large-scale offshore wind projects with proximity near our east coast population centers,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement alongside the announcement. 

The Interior Department said “the clutter caused by offshore wind projects obscures legitimate moving targets and generates false targets in the vicinity of the wind projects.” 

The department said leases for Vineyard Wind 1, off Massachusetts; Revolution Wind, off Rhode Island and Connecticut; Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind; along with Sunrise Wind and Empire Wind 1, off New York, have been paused “effective immediately.” 

The department noted that the pause would give it, the Defense Department and other agencies “time to work with leaseholders and state partners to assess the possibility of mitigating the national security risks posed by these projects.” 

The moves are part of the administration’s continued attacks against the renewable energy source, which have spilled into courts. A federal judge found this month that Trump’s January order halting permits for offshore wind projects was unlawful. 

‘Desperate rerun’ 

The action drew swift backlash from major environmental advocacy groups and Democratic officials. 

Ted Kelly, director and lead counsel for U.S. clean energy at Environmental Defense Fund, said in a Monday statement the administration is “again unlawfully blocking clean, affordable energy.”

The administration has “baselessly and unlawfully attacked wind energy with delays, freezes and cancellations, while propping up aging, expensive coal plants that barely work and pollute our air,” Kelly added.

Kate Sinding Daly, senior vice president for law and policy at the Conservation Law Foundation, described the move as a “desperate rerun of the Trump administration’s failed attempt to kill offshore wind — an effort the courts have already rejected.” 

She added that many of the projects had already won approvals through “rigorous review” and court challenges.

“Trying again to halt these projects tramples on the rule of law, threatens jobs, and deliberately sabotages a critical industry that strengthens, not weakens, America’s energy security,” she said. 

U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also weighed in, saying in a Monday social media post Trump was “trying AGAIN to kill thousands of good-paying union jobs and raise your electricity bill.”  

The New York Democrat said he’s “been fighting Trump’s war against offshore wind — a war that threatens American jobs and American energy” and vowed to continue fighting “to make sure these projects, the thousands of jobs they create, and the energy they provide can continue.” 

Rhode Island lawmakers slam pause 

Lawmakers in Rhode Island were also quick to blast the administration’s effort, which affects the Revolution Wind project off its own coast. 

Rep. Seth Magaziner said that “at a time when working people in Rhode Island are struggling with high costs on everything, Trump should not be canceling energy projects that are nearly ready to deliver reliable power to the grid at below-market rates and help lower costs.” 

The Rhode Island Democrat rebuked the administration’s claims that Revolution Wind and the other offshore wind projects present national security concerns as “unfounded,” noting that “the Department of Defense thoroughly reviewed and signed off on this project during the permitting and approval process.” 

Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse said in a statement Monday that Revolution Wind “was long ago thoroughly vetted and fully permitted by the federal government, and that review included any potential national security questions.” 

Whitehouse, the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said the move “looks more like the kind of vindictive harassment we have come to expect from the Trump administration than anything legitimate.” 

“This is President Donald ‘Stop Work’ Trump trying to keep affordable, clean energy off the grid, without a care about how many working people have to lose their jobs to keep his fossil fuel billionaires happy,” he said. 

In a statement Monday, Sen. Jack Reed noted that amid an increase in energy prices, policymakers should be promoting new energy sources.

“Trump’s repeated attacks on offshore wind are holding our nation back, increasing energy bills, and hurting our economy,” the Rhode Island Democrat said. 

Oak Bluff Natural Area in Door County, which was protected by the Door County Land Trust using Knowles-Nelson Stewardship funds in 2023. (Photo by Kay McKinley)

At a Wisconsin Assembly committee meeting in November to consider a proposal to extend the widely popular Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program, Rep. Rob Swearingen (R-Rhinelander) complained that too much land in his district has been conserved through the program.

That sentiment has become increasingly common among a subset of Republicans in the Wisconsin Legislature, most of them representing the far northern reaches of the state. The complaint they often make is that Knowles-Nelson has taken too much land off local property tax rolls, depriving already struggling local governments of important revenue. 

These complaints also go hand-in-hand with laments that the Wisconsin Supreme Court undermined the Legislature’s authority to conduct oversight of the grant program by ruling the Republican-controlled Joint Committee on Finance was unconstitutionally blocking stewardship grant projects proposed by the Department of Natural Resources. These Republicans say that their districts have borne the burden of Wisconsin’s land conservation goals for too long and some of that work should shift to southern parts of the state.

Because of this group’s objections in the Republican legislative caucus, the stewardship program is facing its demise next year.

Popular program hits roadblocks 

The Knowles-Nelson program was started in 1989 to fund land conservation in the state. Grants from the program to local governments and non-profits help cover some of the costs for purchasing and conserving land that can be used for recreation, preserving animal habitats and supporting local industries such as forestry. Polls have shown an overwhelming majority of Wisconsinites support the program. 

Despite that support, it is set to expire next summer and, so far, legislative efforts to extend the program have failed. 

In his initial 2025-27 state budget proposal, Gov. Tony Evers asked to extend the program for ten years with $100 million in annual funding. Republicans stripped that provision from the budget immediately. 

Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) and Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point) have authored a bill that would extend the program for four years at $28 million per year. The bill also includes a provision that would require the full Legislature to approve any land purchases that cost more than $1 million — a proposal that critics say would be far too slow for the speed at which real estate transactions need to move. 

A separate proposal from Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay) would re-authorize the program for six years at $72 million per year and create an independent board made up of members appointed by the Legislature to approve large land purchases through the program.

Separately, Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) has introduced a proposed constitutional amendment that would require the full Legislature to approve any state spending on land conservation.

Data contradicts lawmakers’ complaints 

The complaints that Knowles-Nelson has conserved too much Northwoods land may prove fatal to the program in a Legislature that has been unable to find common ground on environmental issues. 

But an analysis of public lands data shows that the Knowles-Nelson program plays a comparatively small role in Wisconsin’s conserved land portfolio. Despite the claims of critics, the program’s land purchases have been made in all corners of the state. 

knowles nelson by assembly district

“Knowles-Nelson becomes like sort of the straw man argument,” says Charles Carlin, director of strategic initiatives at the land conservation non-profit Gathering Waters. “If legislators stood up and said, ‘I don’t think that we should have public land in the way that we do, we should reduce our public land portfolio,’ that would be a terribly unpopular position.”

The program has widespread support, he says.

“Public lands are the prized heritage of Americans, right?” Carlin says. “It’s one of the only things that we just largely agree on as a country, is that we are really proud of our public lands. And this is part of our national identity, and I think it’s certainly part of our Wisconsin identity.” 

Swearingen’s 34th district, which covers north central Wisconsin from Rhinelander up to the Michigan border, has more land conserved by the DNR than any other district in the state — almost 335,000 acres, nearly 24% of the district. That includes land set aside for state parks, natural areas, forests and similar uses. 

But only 4.7% of the district is conserved through Knowles-Nelson. Another 4.6% of his district is conserved by the federal government, and 8.6% is conserved county forest land. 

Despite the claims that Knowles-Nelson has devoured valuable land across the state, no Assembly district has had more than 5.1% of its land conserved through the program, data shows. The average amount of Knowles-Nelson conserved land across all 99 Assembly districts is 1.13%. 

Many small purchases

Ron Eckstein, a board member of Wisconsin Green Fire, says Knowles-Nelson is best equipped to help the state purchase smaller tracts to connect already conserved land across the southern part of the state. 

“Many state fish and wildlife areas, state parks, and state natural areas across the southern two-thirds of Wisconsin have private land inholdings within their property boundaries,” he said in an email. 

“It is very important to continue to purchase these inholdings so these state properties can meet their intended purpose: fish and wildlife habitat, rare species, game species, public access, recreation and recreational trails,” Eckstein said. “This means continuing the long-term, slow process of purchasing a 20-acre tract here and an 80-acre tract there to complete these state-owned areas and fulfill their public purpose.”

state land by assembly district

Other DNR land and federal land take up hundreds of thousands more acres across the state. 

The 74th District, represented by Rep. Chanz Green and Sen. Romaine Quinn has the most Knowles-Nelson land at 5.1%. Nearly 11% of the district is other DNR land while 14.5% is federal land and 23.8% is county land.

Twenty Assembly districts have more general DNR conserved land than the 74th has Knowles-Nelson land. 

Across the five Assembly districts with the most federal land, 1,596,129 acres have been conserved. Across the five districts with the most Knowles-Nelson land, 413,453 acres have been conserved. 

The data also contradicts Republican claims that the northern parts of the state unfairly get too much land conservation attention. 

The Dane County districts represented by Reps. Mike Bare (D-Verona), Alex Joers (D-Waunakee) and Shelia Stubbs (D-Madison) are all among the 10 districts with the highest percentage of land conserved through Knowles-Nelson. Rep. Karen DeSanto’s Baraboo-area district, Rep. Chuck Wichgers’ suburban Waukesha County district and Rep. Scott Krug’s district south of Stevens Point are also in the top 10.

When divided by dollar amount, Knowles-Nelson is similarly disbursed. Since its inception, $1.2 billion has been given out through the program to all but one of the Assembly districts; the Milwaukee district of Rep. Supreme Moore-Omukunde (D-Milwaukee) is the only district to not receive any money. 

The 36th district, represented by Rep. Jeff Mursau (R-Crivitz), has gotten the most of that money — $102 million, which amounts to 7% of the total Knowles-Nelson purchases over the program’s lifetime. But districts have received an average of $13 million through the program.

federal land by assembly district

“While we’ve done some really cool things with Knowles-Nelson, it’s largely been a drop in the bucket of our sort of overall public lands portfolio,” Carlin says. While some critics complain about the state’s total public land portfolio, he adds,  “Knowles Nelson investments are really targeted and strategic, and cumulatively not actually that big.”

Republicans defend focusing on Knowles-Nelson because they have limited control over the land conserved by the federal and county governments.  Legislators have authority over the program through the biennial budget process and the confirmation of members of the Natural Resources Board, but despite that, have put the stewardship program in the crosshairs. 

In the last several years, Republicans on the Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee began using passive review — an anonymous veto system — to selectively block some Knowles-Nelson projects, to the wide condemnation of members of the public and conservation groups. A 2024 state Supreme Court ruling, in a lawsuit filed by Gov. Tony Evers against the committee’s co-chair, Sen. Howard Marklein, found that the “legislative veto” was unconstitutional. 

“Until the Evers v. Marklein decision by the liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court, there was a good process in place for new stewardship land purchases,” Sen. Mary Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk) told the Wisconsin Examiner in a statement. “Those checks and balances between the executive branch and the Legislature ensured that it was a collective decision, and that the state did not overpay for stewardship land. Unfortunately, since this process was destroyed, the Legislature is forced to put even more scrutiny on the stewardship program.”

County Forest by Assembly District

Carlin says the program has played an important role in helping local governments in more rural parts of the state invest in projects that help the local economy in the long term. Dane County’s recently passed 2026 budget includes $20 million for land conservation, which is not an expense most counties can afford. 

“But if collectively, we choose as a state to say this is an important priority, we’re all going to work on this together, then we can make meaningful investments in rural communities that wouldn’t otherwise be able to do it themselves,” Carlin says. 

“At a time when there is such incredible inequality of wealth and opportunity,” he adds, “what the data tells us is that Knowles-Nelson has been a really good democratizer of investments in conservation and recreation.”

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

A Wisconsin Senate committee held a public hearing Thursday on a bipartisan bill that would require the state Department of Natural Resources to notify county and tribal governments when local groundwater contamination is found to exceed state standards. 

Throughout the hearing, the bill’s authors and residents of communities with water quality problems complained of incidents in which significant amounts of time passed before people learned their water was contaminated with harmful chemicals such as nitrates or PFAS. 

“Time really counts, hours, days, weeks, and in our case, even years,” said Lee Donahue, a resident of the town of Campbell on French Island near La Crosse, which has been dealing with PFAS contamination for years. “It’s been heart wrenching to know that my family and my friends and my neighbors have all been impacted by these toxic chemicals. I don’t wish anyone to have contamination in their water. And the sad part is we had no clue that PFAS was pouring from our faucets and that we were drinking that water for years and years and years before any notification was made.”

Initially authored by Rep. Jill Billings (D-La Crosse) and Sen. Jesse James (R-Thorp), more than 60 legislators of both parties have signed onto the bill as co-sponsors, signaling the legislation has enough support to be signed into law during a legislative session in which efforts to find compromise on environmental issues — including efforts to extend the Knowles-Nelson stewardship grant program and to create a method to spend $125 million that has been set aside for more than two years to remediate PFAS contamination — have been stuck in the partisan muck. 

Under the bill, if the DNR finds an exceedance of the state’s groundwater standards the department will have seven days to notify the local county or tribal health department as well as the county land and conservation department. 

For several years, Wisconsin policymakers have been unable to establish a state standard for the acceptable amount of PFAS in the state’s groundwater, hitting roadblocks at the state Natural Resources Board and in the Republican-controlled Legislature. The state does have established standards for the amount of PFAS in the state’s surface water and the drinking water provided by municipal water utilities. 

As the Legislature has tried and failed to pass a bill that would spend the $125 million in the PFAS trust fund, residents of communities affected by PFAS contamination have frequently said the policy change they’d most like to see is the establishment of a groundwater standard. 

The contaminant notification bill does not establish a groundwater standard for PFAS, however it requires the DNR to notify the county government if the groundwater is found to have PFAS levels higher than the existing state standards for PFAS in surface or drinking water. 

About one-third of Wisconsin residents get their water from private drinking wells. While the bill does not establish a groundwater standard and does not provide any assistance if the groundwater they use to shower, brush their teeth, make coffee or mix baby formula is contaminated, proponents said it does make sure residents have the information they need to make decisions about the source of their water. 

“If people have a right to clean water, then they have a right to know when their water is not clean,” said Michael Tiboris, the agriculture and water policy director at the River Alliance of Wisconsin. “And this bill is exactly the kind of action that we appreciate having legislators take a strong position on, giving families knowledge of the threats to their drinking water makes it possible for them to protect themselves.” 

None of the people or groups that testified at the hearing Thursday were in opposition to the bill, but a few industry groups expressed a handful of complaints and said they’d like to see amendments to the bill’s final version. 

The concerns of business groups centered around making sure that any notifications were made after test results have been verified and making sure that the notifications don’t instigate regulatory action from the government that it doesn’t have the authority to undertake. 

“It’s just not appropriate for the government to take any kind of action,” said Adam Jordahl, director of environmental and energy policy at Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce. “I know it’s not a direct regulatory action where we’re expecting an individual or business to do something or comply with something, but nevertheless, the issue of sort of holding people accountable to a regulatory PFAS standard that has not yet actually been promulgated into the administrative code. We find that to be very problematic and kind of a slippery slope going down in terms of holding people accountable or responsible to something that hasn’t gone through the full rulemaking process.”

Scott Suder, the president of the Wisconsin Paper Council, said he’s concerned that prematurely telling people their water is contaminated could create “reputational risks” for nearby businesses. 

“It creates unnecessary legal and reputational risk for industry, potentially because the notice is subject to public inspection and copying under [Wisconsin open records law],” Suder said. “All exceedance notifications would become public records, creating significant disclosure and some reputational risks, so even minor errors or omissions could trigger liabilities, and the visibility of exceedances may lead to public misunderstanding about actual risks. So it is a bit concerning for industry as well.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Enbridge pumping station, Mackinaw City, Feb. 7, 2023 | Laina G. Stebbins

A federal judge has deemed Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s move to revoke the Line 5 oil pipeline’s easement to operate within the Great Lakes unenforceable, determining that the move is barred by federal law.

Judge Robert Jonker of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan’s Southern Division issued an order Wednesday siding with Canadian pipeline company Enbridge in their case against Whitmer and the director of the Department of Natural Resources.

In his opinion, Jonker pointed to the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992, concurring with Enbridge’s assertion that the law preempts states from placing safety regulations on interstate pipelines. He also pointed to arguments from the government of the United States and Canada arguing that the state’s effort to shut down the pipeline violates a 1977 treaty between the two nations concerning the flow of oil and natural gas through pipelines across borders. 

Consequently, Jonker granted Enbridge’s request for summary judgment, barring the state from enforcing the order terminating the pipeline’s easement to operate in the Straits of Mackinac, where Lake Huron and Lake Michigan meet. 

“Pipeline safety generally, and protection of the Straits of Mackinac, are critical interests to be sure,” Jonker wrote in his opinion. “But when it comes to Line 5, they are the responsibility of the United States and Michigan lacks the power to interfere.”

09917672711

Line 5 has long been a point of concern for tribal nations and environmental advocates within the Great Lakes, as Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel each pledged to shut down the pipeline as part of their 2018 campaign. 

The 645-mile-long pipeline, which runs from northwestern Wisconsin to Sarnia, Ontario includes a four-mile-long segment, where a set of dual pipelines operates on the lakebed of the Straits of Mackinac.

Opponents of the pipeline point to a 2010 incident, where Enbridge’s Line 6B ruptured, spilling hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil into a tributary of the Kalamazoo river. Enbridge has also reported gaps in the protective coating in the segment running through the straits. These segments have also been damaged by anchor strikes, prompting the state to declare the region a “No Anchor” zone.

In a statement to the Michigan Advance on Wednesday, Enbridge Spokesperson Ryan Duffy said the company welcomes the ruling, arguing that state officials pursued a shutdown of the pipeline due to “unsupported” claims about its safety.

“Any dispute over its continued operation must be resolved through the 1977 Transit Treaty’s dispute resolution process, which Canada has already invoked,” Duffy said. “Today’s ruling makes clear that efforts by Michigan officials to permanently shut down Line 5 would interfere with U.S. foreign affairs – authority vested exclusively in the federal government.”

A spokesperson for Whitmer referred Michigan Advance to the Department of Attorney General, which is representing the governor and DNR Director Scott Bowen in the case.

Danny Wimmer, the attorney general’s press secretary, said they are consulting with the governor’s office and the DNR to review the opinion and determine their next steps, which could include an appeal of the ruling. 

“From our own preliminary review, it appears this opinion is wrongly decided on the law and an affront to Michigan’s sovereign interests in managing the use and occupation of its submerged lands,” Wimmer said. 

A separate case led by Nessel which aims to invalidate the pipeline’s easement remains pending in state court.

Attorneys for Whitmer and Bowen have also asked the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh whether the state is immune from legal action in the case, after two previous courts determined the matter fell within exceptions to sovereign immunity.

The Bad River in Mellen, south of the Bad River Band's reservation. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

The Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, challenging the corps’ decision to grant a permit allowing the oil company Enbridge to reroute its Line 5 pipeline around the tribe’s reservation in northern Wisconsin

The lawsuit, filed in the Washington D.C. federal circuit court, is another step in the long legal history of the Enbridge pipeline and the company’s effort to move it from its current route through the tribe’s land. The tribe is asking that the permit approval be vacated. 

In October, the corps approved Enbridge’s permit to reroute the pipeline off the reservation despite significant public opposition. 

The new route moves the pipeline south but it still runs across land on three sides of the reservation and crosses the Bad River upstream of the reservation. The permit was approved as the administration of President Donald Trump has moved to more aggressively support oil and natural gas projects. Earlier in the year, the corps approved a fast-tracked permitting process for Enbridge to construct a tunnel across the Straits of Mackinac so Line 5 can cross from Michigan’s Upper Peninsula to its Lower Peninsula. 

The tribe’s lawsuit alleges that the corps violated the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act and the Administrative Procedure Act by not properly conducting required environmental reviews or following the proper procedures. 

“For hundreds of years, and to this day, the Band’s ancestors and members have lived, hunted, fished, trapped, gathered, and engaged in traditional activities in the wetlands and waters to be crossed by the Project,” the lawsuit states. “The Project would encircle the Reservation on three sides and damage areas the Band highly values for their ecological and cultural significance. The Corps’ failure to properly review and address the Project’s environmental impacts to wetlands and waterways harms the Band’s interest in maintaining its Reservation homeland and resources in the ceded territory.”

The lawsuit alleges that the corps violated the NEPA by not giving proper consideration to the “environmental effects of construction, maintenance, and operation of the Project,” including how it will harm the health of resources on and near the reservation. 

Under the Clean Water Act, the corps cannot approve permits until the state or tribal government responsible for water quality in the project area certifies the project won’t harm the local water. While the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources did previously approve the state permits for the Line 5 reroute, those permits are currently being challenged in a separate legal process. 

The tribe alleges in the lawsuit that the corps should not have moved forward with its permits until after the state process is complete.  

[The corps] violated the Clean Water Act by issuing the Permit without ensuring that construction and maintenance of the Project would not adversely affect Wisconsin and the Band’s water quality,” the lawsuit states. “This includes issuing a … permit while the required … state water quality certification is not yet final, pending state administrative proceedings; without addressing the inadequacies the Band identified with Wisconsin’s Water Quality Certification; or ensuring compliance with the Band’s water quality standards.” 

The lawsuit also states the permit approval does not address how the project construction will affect the tribe’s “ability to exercise treaty-protected rights to hunt, fish, trap, and gather in ceded territory,” “failed to evaluate the risks and impacts of oil spills along the pipeline route” and “failed to evaluate the risks and impacts of blasting as a construction method.” 

In a statement, tribe chairwoman Elizabeth Arbuckle said the tribe would do whatever it can to protect the health of the Bad River, Lake Superior and surrounding watersheds. 

“For more than a decade, we have had to endure the unlawful trespass of a dangerous oil pipeline on our lands and waters,” Arbuckle said. “The reroute only makes matters worse. Enbridge’s history is full of accidents and oil spills. If that happens here, our Tribe and other communities in the Northwoods will suffer unacceptable consequences. From the Bad River to Lake Superior, our waters are the lifeblood of our Reservation. They have fed and nurtured our Tribe for hundreds of years. We will do everything in our power to protect them.”

Enbridge spokesperson Juli Kellner said in an email that while the Army Corps made an initial permit decision, it has not been signed by the corps or the company and therefore isn’t a final decision that can be challenged in court. She said the company would intervene in the lawsuit to defend the permit approval. 

“Enbridge submitted permit applications to state and federal regulators in early 2020 to build a new segment of pipeline around the Bad River Reservation,” she said. “Enbridge’s permit applications are supported by thorough and extensive environmental analysis and modeling by leading third-party experts confirming project construction impacts will be temporary and isolated, with no adverse effect to water quality or wetlands.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

In a new lawsuit, the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa alleges the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers violated federal environmental laws when it granted a permit to Enbridge for its proposed Line 5 reroute.

The post Bad River tribe sues Army Corps to overturn federal permit for Line 5 reroute appeared first on WPR.

The report released Wednesday by the nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project found nearly two-thirds of states have cut staffing and more than half have reduced funding for environmental agencies since 2010. Wisconsin was among the top 10 states in the nation for these cuts.

The post Wisconsin’s cuts to environmental funding were among nation’s highest, report says appeared first on WPR.

George Meyer, an influential leader in Wisconsin in conservation, died Wednesday in Madison surrounded by his family. He was 78.

The post George Meyer, former Wisconsin DNR Secretary, has died appeared first on WPR.

The latest rule is the most significant change since it was first approved by EPA in 1991 to reduce lead exposure in drinking water.

The post Wisconsin moves to require lead pipes replaced by 2037 appeared first on WPR.

As power-hungry data centers proliferate, states are searching for ways to protect utility customers from the steep costs of upgrading the electrical grid, trying instead to shift the cost to AI-driven tech companies. (Dana DiFilippo/New Jersey Monitor)

Midwest Environmental Advocates filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the Wisconsin Public Service Commission seeking to force the release of unredacted documents showing how much electricity will be used at Meta’s planned data center in Beaver Dam. 

In a news release, MEA said it had sought electrical load projections for data center projects in Beaver Dam and Port Washington in an October open records request. The PSC initially provided the firm with versions that redacted the electrical load information. MEA sent a follow-up request seeking unredacted versions of the document. 

The PSC sent the unredacted version of the Port Washington project but denied the request for the Beaver Dam project, claiming it contained trade secrets. 

Wisconsin’s open records law allows government agencies to deny records requests if the information within the document is a trade secret, however MEA disputes that the amount of energy Meta plans to request for its data center counts. 

“It appears the PSC is unlawfully withholding this information because either Meta or a public utility is claiming the electricity demand for the data center is a trade secret,” MEA legal fellow Michael Greif said in a statement. “We call on Alliant Energy, American Transmission Company and Meta to be forthright with the public about their plans. These companies are asking a lot of the public and the public deserves, at least the very least, basic information about the data center’s massive energy needs.” 

Data center projects across the country are often shrouded in secrecy. A study in Virginia found that at least 80% of local governments involved with data center proposals had signed non-disclosure agreements with the data center companies — though it’s unclear how an NDA would be enforceable against Wisconsin’s public records laws. 

Earlier this year, MEA filed a separate lawsuit to force the city of Racine to release records related to the projected water use at Microsoft’s planned data center in Mount Pleasant.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The roof of the Hotel Verdant in Downtown Racine is topped with a green roof planted with sedum and covered with solar panels. (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

A Wisconsin Senate Committee held a public hearing Tuesday on a bill that would allow private companies to construct small solar projects on underutilized farmland and commercial rooftops across the state. 

The bill, which would encroach on the monopoly the state’s existing utility companies are allowed to maintain under state law, is being considered while people across the country worry about rising energy costs amid a boom in the construction of data centers and the increased use of electric vehicles and appliances. 

Environmental groups in the state have also regularly complained that the utility companies aren’t constructing enough renewable energy projects or sunsetting existing coal and natural gas power plants quickly enough. 

The bill, authored by Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point) and Rep. Scott Krug (R-Nekoosa), would allow people in Wisconsin to subscribe to get some of their power from a local “community solar” installation. The subscribers would receive credits they can put toward their utility bill. Because the power developed at the local solar installation will still need to travel through the utility company’s infrastructure, the bill includes a provision that all subscribers to the program would have to pay at least $20 per month on their electric bill. 

In the hearing of the Senate Committee on Transportation and Local Government, the bill’s authors said allowing community solar projects would increase people’s energy choices while allowing the expansion of solar power in the state that avoids the objections from local residents that often come with large, utility-scale solar projects. 

“This change will open a new market sector in a high energy industry, attract economic investments in Wisconsin, create local jobs, drive innovation and competition, and ultimately save consumers and small businesses money on their energy bills,” Testin said. 

But the authors also acknowledged there is still a lot of disagreement over the details and the bill is not yet in its final form. 

“We’re not exactly there yet. We’re not all agreeing on this being the best way forward just yet, but this public hearing is a really important step to vet that out a little bit more to get us closer to that answer,” Krug said. “So yes, there are still some kinks to work out between the utilities and individuals who want a more market-based approach to solar. I hope we can work through those issues here.”

Over the hearing’s three and a half hours, the testimony split among two groups — the utility companies who are opposed to the bill and a coalition of solar companies, economists, farmers and employers who are in favor. 

The utility companies accused the bill of creating a “shell game” that would lower the costs for the subscribers of a given project while raising electric bills for everyone else. Zack Hill, testifying on behalf of Alliant Energy, said the utility estimated that community solar would result in an additional $8.75 billion in costs for ratepayers over the next 25 years. 

“How does [the bill] pay for subscribers 10 to 20% energy savings? The short answer: It will shift costs to your other constituents,” Hill said. “Some have said this sounds like community solar voodoo economics, but all you have to remember is this, when a company promises you a discount, someone else has to pay for it.”

People in favor of the bill argued that the generation of more energy could only help lower energy costs while disputing the utility companies’ claims. Will Flanders, the research director at the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, also said the utilities’ estimates undervalue the benefits that community solar can add. 

“This is a model that expands energy choice without large subsidies, without mandates, without turning more power over to monopoly utilities,” Flanders said. “In fact, it introduces competition at a time when Wisconsin needs it the most.” 

“We argue that community solar can deliver net savings to the entire system,” he continued. “When we talk about a shell game, what we’re really saying is there’s no real additional resources being put into the system, but obviously there is additional resources being put in when we have these with these programs in place.” 

Karl Rabago, a Denver-based energy consultant who testified with Flanders, said that the Alliant $8.75 billion estimate amounted to a threat that if the utilities don’t get to sell the energy, they’ll charge consumers for that loss. 

“No one knows where this number comes from, but having seen how utilities make their case in other states, I am 99.9% confident they are basically saying, ‘If we don’t get to make the electricity and sell it, we could potentially lose $8.75 billion and and if we don’t make that money, we’re going to charge you for it anyway,’ and that’s how customer costs could go up,” Rabago said. “That’s the most likely explanation for a histrionic number. The utility position, to summarize, seems to sound a bit like ‘let us do it all and no one gets hurt.’ We’ve heard those kinds of exhortations. Monopolies do it particularly well.” 

Toward the end of the hearing, a number of Wisconsin property owners testified, touting the benefits they’ll receive if they’re able to allow solar projects to be constructed on their land. 

Duane Hinchley, a Cambridge dairy farmer, said community solar is an “innovative solution” that can give farmers a stable income to hedge against the risks in the agriculture business. Plus, he said, allowing farmers to participate will prevent land that has been farmed for generations from being developed into subdivisions. 

“With the right policies in place, our state’s proud agricultural heritage can be a cornerstone of Wisconsin’s clean energy future,” Hinchley said. 

But throughout the day, lawmakers from both parties appeared skeptical of the bill’s benefits. 

Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) said repeatedly he didn’t understand how the program would work for the utility companies. 

“It sounds like a shell game to me,” he said. “I just, I’m really having a challenge with trying to figure out how that would work, because it would seem to me that the energy company, the regulated company, is the one that’s going to be footing the bill for this.” 

Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) questioned how the program wouldn’t eventually raise energy costs for non-participants, but said one selling point for the bill was that it would encourage the increased development of renewable energy. 

“I heard you say this is going to force more solar to be built, whether or not you need it,” Spreitzer said to a utility company representative. “And I guess that, to me, is the one selling point of the bill. Is that I look at where we’ve been in the landscape lately, where we have, unfortunately, federal incentives for solar that are going away. We have increasing demand for power from data centers. We’re seeing new natural gas plants get built. We’re seeing coal plants not being retired, when we hoped they would. To me, there’s plenty of need for solar.” 

If the utility companies won’t support a community solar proposal, Spreitzer wondered, what do they need from the Legislature to encourage more solar development? 

“And so if we’re not going to go down this route, what are the incentives that you all need to make sure that we can continue to drive solar development without increasing rates for customers and without saying, ‘let’s go build a natural gas plant instead?” he asked. 

Anti-rights of nature bill 

Also on Tuesday, the committee heard testimony on a bill from Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) that would prohibit local governments in Wisconsin from enacting “rights of nature” ordinances, which grant natural elements legal rights that can be protected in court. 

Nass said in his testimony that the idea is anti-American and is contrary to the values of the U.S. Constitution.

“This is a radical departure from our current law. Rights are something that human beings have,” Nass said. “This concept of granting nature rights is something that has been done primarily in foreign countries … and many of these countries lean dramatically towards socialism and communism, and their attitude is not compatible with private property rights in our country.”

But proponents of rights of nature resolutions frequently point to the fact that corporations are granted rights under U.S. law. Communities including Green Bay and Milwaukee have passed or begun drafting rights of nature ordinances and some Democratic lawmakers have introduced a bill that would grant Devil’s Lake State Park some rights that can be protected in court. 

In a statement after the hearing, Rep. Vincent Miresse (D-Stevens Point), one of the co-authors of the Democratic proposal, wrote, “As we heard from advocates today, Rights of Nature is one of the strongest tools local governments have to protect clean air, clean water and healthy soil for future generations — so that our grandchildren, and their children after them, can drink our waters, eat food grown in our soils, and hunt in our forests.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A Wisconsin Senate committee held a public hearing on a Republican bill that would bar local governments from passing ordinances that grant legal rights to natural resources.

The post GOP bill would ban local ‘rights of nature’ ordinances appeared first on WPR.

An oak savannah in southern Dane County that the Badgerland Foundation is working to conserve using Knowles-Nelson Stewardship funds (Photo by Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)

The looming shutdown of Wisconsin’s decades old Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program has put conservation projects across Wisconsin at risk as land trusts attempt to muddle on without the program that has protected more than 700,000 acres of land in the state. 

Without the stewardship fund, projects to conserve 1,300 acres of Northwoods forest near the headwaters of the Wisconsin River in Vilas County, hundreds of acres of “ecologically significant” wetlands in Door County and dozens of acres of prairie and grassland in Dane County could go unfinished. 

“It’s a bit bleak and it’s so disheartening to know that there’s so many beautiful, wonderful places kind of on the chopping block right now all across the state,” says Emily Wood, executive director of the Door County Land Trust. “It’s not just us. We hear from our partners that there are hundreds and thousands of acres that are just not going to be protected if [the program] goes away, and that’s going to have such an impact, domino effect, on future generations.” 

The Knowles-Nelson Stewardship fund was created in 1989 to fund land conservation in Wisconsin. The program provides grants to local governments and non-profits to cover some of the costs for purchasing and conserving land that can be used for recreation, preserving animal habitats and supporting local industries such as forestry. 

The program enjoys massive bipartisan support, yet in recent years, some Republicans in the state Legislature — largely from communities in the northern part of the state — have grown hostile to it, claiming that the program has too often been used to fund the purchase of land up north, depleting local tax bases. 

Republican legislators have also complained that they no longer have oversight over the Department of Natural Resource’s management of the program after a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision last year found that the Legislature had given itself an unconstitutional veto authority over the DNR’s grant decisions. 

Several attempts have been made to save the program from expiring next summer. In his initial state budget proposal, Gov. Tony Evers asked to extend the program for ten years with $100 million in annual funding. Republicans stripped that provision from the budget immediately. 

Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) and Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point) have authored a bill that would extend the program for four years at $28 million per year. The bill also includes a provision that would require the full Legislature to approve any land purchases that cost more than $1 million — a proposal that critics say would be far too slow for the speed at which real estate transactions need to move. 

A separate proposal from Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay) would re-authorize the program for six years at $72 million per year and create an independent board made up of members appointed by the Legislature to approve large land purchases through the program. 

But there has been little progress made on advancing either proposal and now conservation groups are trying to plan for the next year without the support that Knowles-Nelson has traditionally provided.

Wood says that her organization is trying to protect the landscape in one of the most ecologically significant parts of the state. The challenge for her group is that Door County’s natural beauty draws tourists and increased development, yet too much development would damage the natural beauty. 

The Door County Land Trust has protected more than 5,000 acres of land in the county and Knowles-Nelson has covered half the cost in nearly every transaction, according to Wood. With the program shuttering next year, three projects totaling about $1 million — all of which scored highly on the DNR criteria — are at risk. 

“The county as a whole receives a ton of money from the Knowles-Nelson stewardship fund, because we are so geared towards tourism and access to natural resources,” she says.  The stewardship fund is critical for Door County to continue “to be the county that you know, everyone expects us to be when they get in the car and come up here.” 

Near the southern border of Dane County, Filip Sanna and the BadgerLand Foundation are working with the Driftless Area Land Conservancy and The Prairie Enthusiasts to protect and restore vital oak savannah and prairie in southern Wisconsin. 

Hundreds of years of agriculture have all but destroyed the native prairies in what was once one of the most ecologically diverse regions in the world.

The foundation has already conserved and gifted to the Driftless Area Land Conservancy hundreds of acres between Belleville and New Glarus that will soon be open to the public for hiking and hunting and used for sustainable practices such as regenerative agriculture. But future plans are threatened by the looming loss of stewardship funds. 

Recently, a tract of about 30 acres became available on the market within an area environmental groups have targeted as important for protecting grassland bird habitat. The Prairie Enthusiasts wanted to conserve the land but funds through the stewardship program wouldn’t be available fast enough. So the BadgerLand Foundation and the Prairie Enthusiasts reached an agreement in which the foundation would purchase the land and then sell it to the Prairie Enthusiasts once the stewardship grant comes through. 

Now those funds are uncertain and Sanna says it could sidetrack future plans.

One of the arguments Republican legislators have often made against the Knowles-Nelson program is that more populated areas in the southern part of the state should bear more of the land conservation burden. 

But the program dying off could jeopardize land conservation in the population centers because land is more expensive there. Dane County’s recently enacted 2026 budget doubled the size of the county’s conservation fund from $5 million to $10 million. That, Sanna says, can be a Band-aid for now. But county and local governments are facing their own budget challenges and smaller counties won’t be able to step into the DNR’s conservation shoes. In many places, the local governments are also dependent on stewardship program funds to conserve and maintain public land. 

“One of the responses we have to the uncertainty about Knowles-Nelson is to try to look to the county level and then some combination of county funding and private donations,” Sanna says. “That might work in Dane County, where we have a relatively strong tax base. But if you go to the neighboring counties around, Green and Iowa and Lafayette and all of those counties, that’s probably not an option.” 

“if [Knowles-Nelson] dies, the next step is going to be, now you’re going to have nice parks around all the wealthy people, but all the rest of Wisconsin that is smaller population centers that’ll just be like towns, rural housing, farmland, private land,” he continues. “There won’t be public land.” 

Way up in Vilas County, in the part of the state where the fight over land conservation has been most heated, a handful of administrative delays might end up killing a 1,300 acre conservation project because stewardship funds will no longer be available. 

The Northwoods Alliance and Partners in Forestry are working together to use federal and Knowles-Nelson funds to preserve two tracts of land west of the town of Land O’ Lakes. Joe Hovel, director of Partners in Forestry, says the project would include trails as part of the extensive Wilderness Lakes bike path system. 

Because the real estate deal on the project got delayed, and the slow speed at which the state and federal government have moved, it’s likely that the chance to use Knowles-Nelson dollars has already passed. 

Hovel says the complaints about land conservation up north discount the economic value of protecting the land for recreational uses. 

“It’s really short sighted in a sense that there isn’t enough respect for the recreational value of this land conservation stuff,” Hovel says. “The value of public access conservation land dwarfs, I mean it literally dwarfs, the value that timber revenue brings in.” 

A report from the Outdoor Recreation Roundtable found that recreation on federal public lands generates $128.5 billion in economic activity every year. All the logging on federal land generates $200-300 million per year.

The Legislature has just over six months to extend the program. Wood says it would be a self-inflicted wound if elected officials allow a program that other states look to as a model to expire. 

“It’s so disheartening to hear that the fund that has had so much success over the years, that other states look to how to fund conservation, they look to Wisconsin’s model on how to do it, and that we as a state, that same model is going to go down just because of partisan gridlock,” she says. “We really just need to keep it alive because funding it in a later year, or coming back and making changes to make it better are way more possible if it’s an existing program.” 

“But coming up with another one from scratch, it just seems like it would be an impossibility. So right now, it does feel like we are just screaming to keep it, just keep it alive. Just don’t kill it.”