The secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources said the agency is preparing to set up grant programs to address PFAS contamination with some work beginning this summer or fall.

The post DNR Secretary says work ongoing to set up programs to address PFAS in Wisconsin appeared first on WPR.

After years of gridlock, the Wisconsin Senate passed two bills that set the framework for spending $133 million to address PFAS contamination.

The post After years of gridlock, Wisconsin Senate passes bills addressing PFAS appeared first on WPR.

The growth of industrial farms in America’s dairyland is outpacing regulators tasked with reviewing permits and overseeing compliance with waste regulations.

The post Wisconsin agency tasked with industrial farm permits plagued by low-staffing levels appeared first on WPR.

Over the past year, GOP leaders and the Trump administration have used a law known as the Congressional Review Act to push for coal mining in Montana, oil drilling in Alaska and copper mining in Minnesota, while also attempting to reverse protections for a national monument in Utah.

The rarely used act gives Congress a few months to revoke new federal regulations. Only in the past year has it ever been used to overrule land management plans.

Conservation advocates say Congress is recklessly throwing out detailed plans, which are created after years of research, public meetings and local collaboration. They fear lawmakers’ intervention could upend the long-standing management system that governs hundreds of millions of acres of public lands — with consequences that could threaten endangered species and coal miners alike.

But the fallout could be much more far-reaching than the rollback of protections for specific areas, some legal experts say. By using their review authority in a way that was never thought to apply to land management plans, lawmakers are calling into question the validity of well over 100 other such plans that were never submitted to Congress for review.

If those plans are challenged, it could create legal uncertainty for tens of thousands of leases and permits for oil and gas, mining, cattle grazing, logging, wind and solar farms and outdoor recreation.

“Using the Congressional Review Act (to revoke management plans) is really unprecedented and will have unforeseen consequences,” said Robert Anderson, who served as solicitor for the Department of the Interior during the Biden administration. “There’s a huge playing field of actions that would be forbidden if none of these management plans are lawfully in place. This could bring things to a screeching halt.”

Republicans have argued that congressional action is necessary to unleash President Donald Trump’s “energy dominance” agenda. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum frequently refers to public lands as “America’s balance sheet,” and has pledged to increase returns by extracting more resources like oil, minerals and timber.

Montana U.S. Rep. Troy Downing, a Republican who sponsored a resolution to revoke a management plan in his home state, argued during debate on the measure that Montana’s economy and energy demands rely on coal production.

“When the federal government acts recklessly, it is the responsibility of Congress to step in and course correct. … The war on coal must end,” he said.

What’s the Congressional Review Act?

The Congressional Review Act, which was signed into law in 1996, requires federal agencies to submit new regulations to Congress before they can take effect. Congress then has 60 working days to review those regulations, and may vote to revoke them.

If lawmakers reject a rule, federal agencies are barred from crafting a new one in “substantially the same form,” unless Congress passes a new law.

For 20 years, the Congressional Review Act was rarely invoked. But during Trump’s first term, Republicans used it to overturn 16 regulations, such as a rule to protect streams from coal mining pollution. Democrats used the act to revoke three rules from Trump’s first presidency.

But in 2025, Congress and Trump revoked 22 Biden-era rules.

“It seems increasingly popular from Congress as a way to get a quick win to reverse something that happened under the previous administration,” said Devin O’Dea, Western policy and conservation manager with Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, which has opposed efforts to open public lands for resource extraction. “The long-term implications are what we’re concerned about.”

Until recently, management plans for public lands were not considered subject to congressional review. Federal agencies have issued well over 100 such plans without ever submitting one to Congress. Those documents guide the work of agency officials who oversee specific areas of land, often covering millions of acres.

Created after years of public meetings and local feedback, they determine which landscapes will be leased for oil and gas drilling, protected for endangered species or open for off-road vehicles, along with a multitude of other uses.

But last year, Republicans asked the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan advisory agency for Congress, to affirm a sweeping new view of the Congressional Review Act. The office found that certain management plans were subject to review because their land-use decisions “prescribed policy,” and determined that lawmakers’ queries had opened the 60-day review “clock” for the plans in question.

“A very long deliberative process goes into these plans,” said Justin Meuse, government relations director for climate and energy with The Wilderness Society, a conservation nonprofit. “These plans are so broad and multifaceted and deal with so many different things. This is taking a hatchet to something that should be done with a scalpel.”

Using this new tool, Republicans have revoked plans that restricted mining and oil production on federal lands in Alaska, Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming. Meanwhile, House Republicans voted in January to overturn a regulation that blocked development of a mine near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Minnesota, a move that now awaits a vote in the Senate.

And GOP lawmakers from Utah are seeking to overturn the management plan for Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in that state.

Conservation leaders say the rollbacks are unprecedented.

“It’s very surprising,” said Autumn Gillard, coordinator with the Grand Staircase-Escalante Inter-Tribal Coalition, a group of tribal nations working to protect the monument. “The (resource management plan) is created as a set of advisement points to land managers to reflect on when making decisions. It’s not a direct set of rules.”

In Minnesota, advocates for the Boundary Waters wilderness area say it is treasured for its pristine lakes, where paddlers can fill their water bottles straight from the surface. They fear efforts to allow a copper mine near the headwaters of the area will irreversibly pollute the most popular wilderness in the country.

“We weren’t expecting the Congressional Review Act to be on the table in this way,” said Libby London, communications director with Save the Boundary Waters, a coalition seeking to protect the wilderness area. “It sets a really scary precedent that undermines decades of land management decisions.”

Officials at the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management did not grant interview requests. Staff at the House Committee on Natural Resources did not grant an interview with U.S. Rep. Bruce Westerman, an Arkansas Republican who chairs the committee and who has championed using the Congressional Review Act to allow more mining and drilling.

Legal questions

Environmental groups have condemned Republicans’ use of the act to push for more resource extraction. If Trump wants more mining and drilling, they say, then federal agencies should take the time to draft new management plans using the same rigorous process.

But perhaps more concerning to some public land stakeholders are the potential implications for a whole host of other lands. None of the plans issued by federal land managers over the past 30 years were ever submitted for review, because no one at the time considered them to be rules.

In other words, hundreds of plans covering millions of acres of land could be deemed invalid under the new congressional interpretation that they qualify as rules.

“That right there is chaos,” said Peter Van Tuyn, a longtime environmental lawyer and managing partner at Bessenyey & Van Tuyn LLC. “Those (plans) go across the full spectrum of what land managers do: conservation and preservation, mining approvals, oil and gas drilling, resource exploitation, public access and recreation. There’s a very real chance that a court could say that a resource management plan was never in effect and all the implementation actions under the umbrella of that plan are invalid.”

In a letter to the Bureau of Land Management late last year, The Wilderness Society and other organizations identified more than 5,000 oil and gas leases that could be legally invalid, as they were issued under management plans that were never reviewed by Congress.

Public lands advocates say the same logic could be applied to mining leases, grazing permits, logging, outdoor recreation and many other activities covered by agency planning documents. Many industries that rely on public lands, such as hunting and fishing guides, could be thrown into chaos.

“Let’s say you’re operating as an outfitter,” said Ryan Callaghan, president and CEO of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers. “Having something like an entire resource management plan rolled back would be a huge curveball, and something you’d have an absolute inability to plan for as a business owner. It’s very reasonable to have a lot of questions as to what the ramifications are.”

Industry concerns

Some industry leaders are also worried about the precedent Congress is setting by wiping out plans that were created after years of local input and consultation.

“I’m fairly concerned about that,” said Kathleen Sgamma, a longtime oil and gas advocate who now serves as principal for Multiple-Use Advocacy, a consulting group focused on federal land policy. “It’s not unreasonable to think about a future day where there is a Democratic trifecta and they would be able to (revoke) old plans likewise.”

Sgamma was nominated by Trump to lead the Bureau of Land Management, but withdrew her nomination last spring amid fierce opposition from conservation groups, and following the publication of a memo in which she had criticized Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

She said she was less concerned with the idea that previous plans could be declared invalid. She argued that, if challenged, agency officials could submit those old plans to Congress and start the 60-day review “clock” before litigation advanced.

The greater uncertainty, Sgamma said, is the provision that agencies cannot adopt rules in “substantially the same form” as those that have been revoked by Congress. While Republicans intend to target restrictions on drilling and mining, they are using the Congressional Review Act to revoke entire plans. That could prevent agencies from issuing new plans covering less controversial topics, such as campgrounds and trails.

Van Tuyn, the environmental lawyer, shared that concern.

“If they have a plan that looks 80% like the previous plan, and a court says 80% is ‘substantially similar,’ what does the agency do? Go back to the drawing board and say 50%? You used to have all this public access and now you can’t?” he said.

The Public Lands Council, which advocates for ranchers who operate on public lands, did not respond to an interview request. Western Energy Alliance, which advocates for oil and natural gas production, did not grant an interview request. The American Petroleum Institute did not respond to an interview request. Public Lands For The People, which advocates for mining on public lands, did not respond to an interview request.

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

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)

A pair of Republican lawmakers, desperate to advance a Knowles-Nelson stewardship program bill that can garner GOP support, urged Senate lawmakers and members of advocacy organizations to get on board with pausing land acquisition for two years.

“I think we’ve landed it in a good spot now. Is it perfect? I’ll be the first to admit this is not a perfect bill,” Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point) said during the Senate Financial Institutions and Sporting Heritage committee meeting Tuesday. “If we simply allow the clock to run out, this program goes away, and I certainly don’t want to be behind the wheel when the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program phases out.”

Since 1990, the Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship Program has preserved wildlife habitat and expanded outdoor recreation opportunities throughout Wisconsin by authorizing state borrowing and spending for the purchase of land and by giving grants to local governments and nonprofit conservation organizations.

The program will run out of money on June 30, 2026 without legislative action. Reaching an agreement to continue the program has been difficult, however, with Testin telling the committee that legislators  have faced “buzzsaws” from all sides as they have worked to put together their plan. 

The Assembly passed a pair of amended bills on a 53-44 party line vote last month.

“A lot of my colleagues said ‘Oh, you’ll never get a hearing in the Senate,’” Kurtz said. “Thanks to Chairman Stafsholts, we’re having a hearing in the Senate, so it’s baby steps. It’s like chopping wood. Sen.  Testin and I are committed to keep working on this.” 

“It’s not done, so time hasn’t ran out,” Kurtz added.

Under the current proposal, the program would receive funding for another two years. 

The DNR would need to conduct a survey of all of the land that has been acquired under the stewardship program under the bill, as well as listing land acquisition priorities. The survey would need to be submitted to the Legislature in two years.

Kurtz told the committee that recent changes to the bill do “refocus” the program towards maintaining the land that has already been acquired under the program. He said that lawmakers had to make “some tough decisions.”

“It does temporarily change the focus of the program to maintain what we already own and catch up on backlog maintenance, while DNR is doing the study, planning and prioritizing a comprehensive path forward for land acquisition,” Kurtz said. “We’re confident this plan will ensure the long-term legacy of stewardship for generations.”

The lawmakers said there are still some additional changes to the bill to come. 

Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay) expressed concerns about the decreasing funding and scope of the program and questioned how lawmakers got to the point of cutting the land acquisitions portion of the program. 

The Knowles-Nelson program is currently funded at about $33 million annually. Habush Sinykin and Democratic lawmakers proposed a bill that would dedicate $72 million to it and Gov. Tony Evers had called for over $100 million for it in his budget.

The GOP bill in its current state would dedicate $28.25 million.

The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) would be allowed to obligate $13.25 million a year under the bill in its current form. Of that, $1 million would be for land acquisition — a cut from $16 million — that could only be used for the Ice Age Trail. DNR would also be able to obligate $9.25 million for property development and local assistance — a cut from $14.25 million — and $3 million for recreational boating aids. 

Funding for the program includes $7.75 million for DNR property development and grants, $4 million for local assistance grants and $3 million for grants for wildlife habitat restoration. There would also be $250,000 set aside each year to be used for DNR land acquisitions, but acquisitions would be limited to parcels of land that are five acres or less and meant to improve access to hunting, fishing, or trapping opportunities or are contiguous to state-owned land.

“Where we find ourselves now is a situation where we have zero dollars awarded to land acquisition,” Habush Sinykin said, adding, “When does this program stop being the Knowles Nelson stewardship program?” 

Testin said the funding was what was “politically palatable” for the Republican authors’  Assembly and Senate colleagues.

“There are some individuals that have strong feelings both for and against this program,” Testin said. “And where we think we’ve landed is at a point to keep the program going in some form or fashion, continue to put state resources behind it, and then as we do every two years, when we come back in January 2027, regardless of what happens in — shakes out in the November elections, we will begin another state budget process, which then gives us the opportunity once again to take a look at where we are financially as a state, hopefully put more resources into various programs, whether it’s Knowles-Nelson or others.” 

Habush Sinykin said funding acquisitions is necessary to maintain the “vitality” of the program. She also noted that there is strong bipartisan support for the program including from constituents and from conservation and recreation organizations 

“What we’re hearing is we in the Legislature need to put our money where our values are, and this is a program that is valued,” Habush Sinykin said. 

Kurtz shared what he said was the “Assembly perspective” with the committee. 

“It became abundantly clear for the [Republican] caucus I represent that land acquisition was a problem, and that’s why we kind of pivoted to the major land acquisitions, which some people did not like that as well,” Kurtz said. “I’d love to see more money in the program… But I know what the power of our caucuses is, they don’t like borrowing money, and so that’s an issue. They don’t like buying all the land up north. That’s an issue…. Let’s focus for a couple years on maintaining what we have. Let’s do the inventory. Let’s see what the path is for, and in two years, we’re going to be right back here, saying, hey, we need to do this.”

Part of the political problem for the popular Knowles-Nelson stewardship program involves legislative Republicans’ resentment of a 2025 state Supreme Court decision. 

For many years, Wisconsin lawmakers exercised control over the program through the Joint Finance Committee. Members of the committee had the ability to anonymously object to any project and have it held up for an indeterminate time. But last year the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that anonymous objections were unconstitutional, with conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley writing for the majority that the statutes “encroach upon the governor’s constitutional mandate to execute the law.” 

Republican lawmakers on the committee complained that eliminating the anonymous veto had placed them in a difficult position. 

Committee Chair Sen. Rob Stafsholts (R-New Richmond) said he was “a little disappointed” that the committee  had to be there working on the issue at all, noting that the state Supreme Court ruling changed the shape of the program.

Testin said there was not a problem with the way that the program functioned prior to the decision and that the Supreme Court ruling is the reason the program is in trouble. 

“By and large, the vast majority of projects that came before the finance committee were approved and enumerated,” Testin said. “We no longer have that authority and put this entire program in jeopardy.” 

Republican lawmakers on the committee suggested that environmental groups that supported the Supreme Court case overturning the anonymous veto process were responsible for damaging the Knowles-Nelson program. 

Cody Kamrowski, executive director for the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, met a cold reception when he told lawmakers about his organization’s decision to withdraw its support for the bill after the recent amendments.

“Land acquisition is not incidental. It is what makes public access, habitat protection and outdoor opportunity possible in the state of Wisconsin,” Kamrowski said, warning that setting aside more land is particularly important in fast-growing areas where preserving wild land will soon be “gone forever.” 

“Have you thought about where we’re at and the political reality of where this program is at?” Stafsholts replied.

Charles Carlin, director of strategic initiatives for Gathering Waters, an alliance of 40 land trusts around Wisconsin, said his organization is concerned about the elimination of the land acquisition portions of the program and language that would limit habitat management to government-owned land. 

GOP lawmakers on the committee were not receptive to Carlin’s pleas, especially since his  organization was part of the Supreme Court case as a co-plaintiff.

“Do you as an organization regret intervening in that lawsuit knowing where we’re sitting here today?” Sen. John Jagler (R-Watertown) asked.

Carlin said Gathering Waters is “incredibly proud of the work” the group  did on the lawsuit. He noted that there were more than two dozen projects blocked by the committee in the first two years of Evers’ term. 

“I don’t agree with the framing of the question that we are here today because of the Court decision,” Carlin said. “We are here today because of an apparent reluctance to come together and make a bipartisan compromise to keep the program moving forward.”

“I will happily go before the public any day to talk about why projects should always move forward with a democratic process, and that all of our decisions in government should be transparent and open to public scrutiny,” he added.

Stafsholts disagreed. 

“I think that 100% of the reason we’re sitting here today is because of that lawsuit… you can’t sit there silently and watch something dramatically reduce the ability to have stewardship in Wisconsin and then come back here and beg for it.” Stafsholts said. 

Testin said the lawsuit is the reason he and Kurtz had to “bend over backwards” and “move heaven and Earth” to get a bill advanced in the Legislature. 

After the hearing, Carlin told the Examiner he wasn’t expecting to be challenged on his group’s participation in the lawsuit during the hearing. He questioned Republican lawmakers’  characterization of  the “anonymous objector” system as good governance. He also said that Republicans could simply work together with Democrats to pass a bill that continues the program, which has long enjoyed broad, bipartisan support. Instead, Republicans are presenting an ultimatum that they will only consider a bill that has majority Republican support. 

“This is what is politically possible right now, if we only rely on the votes of Republican legislators,” Carlin said, noting that all 60 Democratic legislators signed on as cosponsors to a Democratic proposal and the authors of that proposal, including Habush Sinykin, have said they want to work with Republicans. “Compromise is an absolute necessity in the Senate… If lawmakers were willing to work across the aisle — and they don’t even have to meet in the middle, they just have to make some meaningful progress towards supporting the core functions of the program — then there would be absolutely no problem getting this across the finish line,” he said. “The problem is only there if lawmakers insist on it being a partisan bill.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE