Household water costs could nearly double in some American cities, new research suggests, as climate change further stresses municipal water systems. 

Researchers at Stanford University and other institutions studied how a hotter, drier climate is poised to spike water bills for residents of Santa Cruz, California, in a peer-reviewed study published this week in the journal Nature Sustainability. While the study focused on that coastal city, the outlook is similar for many cities that will be forced to make costly upgrades to water systems as climate change intensifies, said lead author Jennifer Skerker, who worked on the research while studying for her doctorate in civil and environmental engineering at Stanford. 

Without significant government funding, the costs of new water transport systems, desalination plants and sewage water reuse systems are likely to be borne by individual water systems, which are expected to pass them onto consumers through water bills.

“So this really pits water affordability against water reliability, when in reality we need both of these to have safe, accessible and affordable water for everyone,” said Skerker, who now works for a local water utility.  

Though low-income residents use significantly less water, they will be hit hard by rising rates, which force them to spend a larger share of their resources, she said. Water rates have increased at three times the rate of inflation over the past two decades, as water providers updated aging infrastructure and addressed deferred maintenance backlogs.

The research comes as many Americans are already struggling with high energy bills: One in six American households are behind on utility bills, according to the National Energy Assistance Directors Association. While rising electric prices have sparked outrage among ratepayers, regulators and state lawmakers, relatively cheaper water has not always received the same level of attention. 

“I think water affordability definitely needs to be part of the conversation with energy affordability,” Skerker said. “…On the water side, households might be using less water than is healthy, or we can even see households making tradeoffs between paying for water or energy, or paying for groceries or medical bills.”

Like other Western cities, Santa Cruz has implemented many water conservation practices: By 2021, locals had cut water use by nearly two-thirds over two decades. That leaves few low-cost options to increase water supplies in an area entirely reliant on surface water.

The study lays out several potential scenarios for local water bills depending on climate conditions and water investments. In one of the driest scenarios, researchers predict median water bills for the poorest residents could rise from about $60 to $111 per month (in 2026 dollars) by the middle of the century. That means more than one-third of households in Santa Cruz could struggle to afford water. 

The study acknowledges that cities with larger reservoirs, more interconnected systems or access to lower-cost water sources may not experience the same acceleration in water bills. But it does envision “water affordability hotspots” across the country as more areas struggle to source and treat enough drinking water.

“It does seem unsustainable,” Skenker said, “and I think cities really need more help from the state and federal government.”

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

A pair of environmental groups filed a lawsuit Friday in Ozaukee County Circuit Court alleging that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources skipped a required environmental review process at the request of the company that is building a massive data center in Port Washington. 

The lawsuit, filed by Midwest Environmental Advocates on behalf of the Sierra Club, alleges that the DNR backed off from requiring an environmental impact statement  after the company, Vantage, said it would “kill the project.” 

Communications between data center representatives and DNR staff, obtained by the groups through open records requests, showed Vantage complaining about the EIS requirement. The DNR ultimately conducted a more limited environmental analysis summary. 

Vantage, Oracle and OpenAI are currently constructing a $15 billion hyperscale data center in the community. The data center will cover 672 acres and in its first phase require 1.3 gigawatts of power. 

In the lawsuit, the groups argue that by not conducting the full environmental impact statement, the DNR ignored the potential impacts of the construction and operation of the massive data center on the local wetlands, water supply, air quality and energy demand. The lawsuit states that failing to conduct the full review before granting permits for the data center violates Wisconsin’s Environmental Policy Act.
“The Port Washington data center is unlike anything Wisconsin has seen before,” Elizabeth Ward, director of the Sierra Club’s Wisconsin chapter, said. “It will completely transform the local landscape, consume staggering amounts of electricity and water and significantly increase fossil fuel emissions. At a time when scientists warn that greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, we cannot afford to be making long-term decisions that move us in exactly the opposite direction.”

The DNR permitting is not the only legal dispute the project is currently facing. Earlier this year, the state’s Public Service Commission instituted a tariff that outlines how data center companies must pay for the required energy use and compels them to put up a large amount of collateral for necessary infrastructure improvements. The tariff is designed to insulate regular Wisconsinites from seeing their energy bills increase or being left to cover the costs of massive upgrades to the grid if a company fails or abandons the project. 

Oracle has argued it doesn’t have enough funds to meet the collateral requirements and appealed to the PSC to reconsider. This week, the PSC declined that appeal, setting up a legal battle over the tariff. 

A DNR spokesperson said the agency couldn’t comment on active litigation.

Demand for internet access and electronic storage has grown alongside digital technology itself. At the center of that growth are the energy infrastructure and data centers that governments and companies began developing in Northern Virginia in the late 20th century. Today, the region houses the world’s largest concentration of data centers, making Virginia the nation’s digital capital.

That growth has brought major economic benefits for local governments, but it has also divided communities increasingly weary of the facilities’ heavy demands on water and energy, among other impacts.

The commonwealth’s rise as a global digital leader did not happen overnight, said House Technology Committee Chair Cliff Hayes, D-Chesapeake. It was a result of years of persistence, long-term planning and problem-solving.

”This designation for the commonwealth to be the digital capital not only of this country but of the world has taken a lot of stamina, resilience and vision,” Hayes said.

Hayes said leadership also means adapting to new challenges. This year alone, lawmakers passed an entire package of bills aimed at further regulating the industry, while the fight over tax incentives remains largely unsolved.

AOL’s move 

Ashburn’s rise as one of the largest digital infrastructure hubs began in 1997 with the arrival of America Online, or AOL, then the primary internet gateway for many users. Soon after, UUNet/WorldCom and the relocation of the Metropolitan Area Ethernet East, a major internet exchange and traffic hub, helped create unmatched fiber connectivity, turning Loudoun County into a key internet crossroads and destination for other businesses.

Buddy Rizer, executive director for Loudoun County Economic Development, said AOL’s decision to locate in Loudoun helped make the internet mainstream for Americans and anchored the infrastructure that turned Loudoun and Virginia into the world’s leading internet hub.

“You can’t overstate the importance of AOL, right? AOL didn’t invent the internet, but they made it accessible to ordinary Americans at the moment that the commercial internet was starting to take off… by the late 1990s AOL had 20 million subscribers, and roughly half of U.S. homes that had internet were using AOL by 1997.”

Rizer said once Loudoun established core infrastructure and attracted a few anchor companies, growth became compounding: infrastructure drew companies, companies brought more infrastructure and the cycle continued for roughly 20 years.

Data storage and computing explodes 

While data centers have existed in Virginia for decades, the recent rise of artificial intelligence has accelerated demand for the warehouse-like facilities that store and process data around the world. 

Ali Mehrizi-Sani, a professor at Virginia Tech, said Northern Virginia had many of the right ingredients to attract the industry even before the state sales and use tax exemption passed in 2008.

“The fact is that we have a lot of customers of data, and that’s really the federal government and their contractors,” Mehrizi-Sani said. “They use a lot of data, so really just proximity to Washington, D.C. has been a main driver of honestly everything in Virginia, including data centers.”

The early development of the internet exchange points in Virginia, combined with large stretches of undeveloped land in Northern Virginia, also helped fuel the industry’s growth. Loudoun County, for example, was far more rural than it is today.

Loudoun recorded 71 operating data centers, the most of any locality in the commonwealth, according to a 2024 study by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission. Statewide, 131 data centers were operating at the time. 

“That’s why you see data centers are coming further south, even to areas like where I live in Roanoke and Botetourt County, essentially in search of land,” Mehrizi-Sani said.

He said data centers have also remained in Virginia because electricity rates are comparatively lower than in other parts of the country. Another major factor is the state’s sales and use tax exemption.

Tax breaks and tax gains

In Loudoun, data center revenue has generated substantial tax income year after year, providing the county with more than $100 million annually to support schools and government services.

The revenue stream — estimated at about $1.3 billion in 2027 — has grown enough that the county has reduced real estate tax rates for homeowners every year for the past decade, according to county officials. 

Revenue from data centers has also allowed county leaders to propose reducing the personal property tax rate on vehicles beginning in tax year 2026 and eliminating the $25 vehicle license fee.

In 2008, the General Assembly approved a statewide incentive allowing data centers to avoid the state’s 5.3% sales and use tax, which at the time was estimated to save the industry about $1.5 million annually. Data centers routinely refresh computer equipment and software, the exemption can significantly reduce costs every few years. 

Now, however, the cost of the tax break has ballooned to about $1.9 billion annually in foregone state revenue. 

While the tax break had previously been extended, and former Gov. Glenn Youngkin sought to continue it through 2050 in his final budget proposal, debate over potentially ending the incentive led to months of negotiations and brought Virginia to the brink of a government shutdown after lawmakers failed to pass a budget until the final days of June.

Some lawmakers argued the industry had benefitted enough from the tax exemption. At the same time, concerns over rising energy costs and environmental impacts prompted legislators to look for ways to reclaim some revenue from the trillion dollar industry.

But Gov. Abigail Spanberger led the push to preserve the tax break, arguing Virginia had “made an agreement” and should not reverse course. The exemption is currently set to expire in 2035 unless lawmakers change it before then.

“We know technology is not bad,” Senate Finance Committee Chair Louise Lucas, D-Portsmouth, said last month. “We all can benefit from technology, but we, as a government, have not done a good job in managing the regulations and the impact on our communities, and that’s what we’ve got to rein in. But we’ve also got to rein in the fact that data centers – they’re some of the largest corporations on the face of the Earth, trillion dollar organizations – are getting tax exemptions right now.”

While the exemption ultimately remained in the budget, lawmakers approved a new energy consumption tax on data centers expected to bring in a total of $600 million annually, or $1.2 billion over the biennium. The industry will pay 1.1 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity consumed up to the cap, with any excess refunded at the end of the fiscal year.

Dominion Energy and Mecklenburg, Northern Virginia, and Rappahannock electric cooperatives reported in 2023 that data centers used about 5,050 megawatts of power that year, based on peak-load forecasts, according to the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission.

“What I have found is that some of the businesses coming to our commonwealth, they want to make investments in our communities and in our workforce. The consumption tax, as we’ve conceived of it here in the commonwealth, is one that’s based on fairness,” Spanberger told The Mercury last month.


Lawmakers also approved new water use regulations for data centers in areas designated as water scarce and within the water management area east of Interstate 95.

Virginia has a new two-year budget. Here’s what lawmakers now require of data centers.

The changes aim to push facilities away from evaporative cooling systems that consume millions of gallons of water annually and toward more efficient technologies. Also, for the first time, the state will regulate data center noise levels. 

The General Assembly also passed bills requiring cleaner backup generators that emit fewer carbon emissions and measures intended to help localities better assess the residential and environmental impacts of proposed facilities.

Public policy 

In 2010, Virginia created a retail and sales tax exemption for data centers, a factor companies have consistently identified as important in site selection.

Loudoun designated large areas for industrial and employment uses where data centers could be built, helping reduce development timelines and support continued growth. 

Through successive comprehensive plans, Loudoun also reserved large tracts of land in eastern Loudoun — near Washington Dulles International Airport and the W&OD Trail — for industrial and employment uses close to existing fiber networks and electrical infrastructure. The move ensured a long-term supply of development-ready sites for large-scale data center campuses.

Opposition from residents has grown in recent years, with hundreds of community members attending local government meetings to oppose projects near homes, drinking water supplies and high-voltage transmission lines. Residents have urged lawmakers to impose stronger regulations and seek greater financial contributions from the industry for supporting infrastructure.

What’s next 

Last week, lawmakers ordered a work group to study how the data center tax exemption could be phased out or modified to generate additional state revenue. A report is due in November.

While Spanberger has described the new consumption tax as “fair,” the data center industry disagrees. After lawmakers approved the budget amendments last week, Data Center Coalition CEO Josh Levi said the new tax will “drive away investment and job creation, and tarnish Virginia’s reputation.”

“The message to businesses in all industries is clear — Virginia is no longer a reliable partner,” Levi said in a June statement.

Rizer argued that Loudoun’s and Virginia’s future depends on treating data centers as a foundation for broader technology growth while maintaining a stable and predictable business climate. 

“You can’t take success for granted … the principle that made us successful is a predictable, welcoming environment with predictable tax and policy issues,” Rizer said. “The only way that that success can go into the future is by staying grounded in those principles that brought us this far.”

As for federal involvement in an issue that has become a national flashpoint, Democratic U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, who was governor when the tax exemption passed, said states should decide individually how to manage data center growth rather than adopt a one-size-fits-all approach.

“(Data centers are a) global phenomenon, and being a leader in this important area is good for America’s national security and for Virginia’s economy,” Kaine said. “But there are real challenges when it comes to water, power and land use, so local communities must get a say when it comes to how to handle them.”

Virginia has become the state that many others are watching as they weigh to and regulate the growing data center industry. Lawmakers now face balancing the promise of economic investment with mounting concerns from residents pushing back against continued expansion.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect the correct amount of data center revenue in Loudoun for fiscal year 2027, which was $1.3 billion, not $890 million as previously reported.

President Donald Trump has shown the immense power of the executive branch to stymie offshore wind development, as nearly all projects are in waters where federal agencies operate as the landlord.

Now, as the feds block new permits and dangle billion-dollar buyout offers to convince developers to walk away from their projects, state leaders are hoping some companies share their conviction that the industry can be revived after Trump leaves office.

“Any honest assessment of where we need to be to meet our climate goals depends on a thriving offshore wind sector,” said New York state Sen. Andrew Gounardes, a Democrat.

New York and many other East Coast states have set aggressive targets for offshore wind power, both to meet rising energy demands and transition to clean energy sources. But Trump’s attacks on the industry threaten to scare off companies from making the massive long-term investments required to pursue offshore wind projects.

“If there’s no business opportunity here, then they’re not going to stay here and invest here,” Gounardes said. “They’re not going to lay around with good intentions doing nothing, and we’re going to lose out because of that.”

Federal opposition

Last week, Trump’s Department of the Interior announced a $129 million deal with Duke Energy to relinquish its lease to build an offshore wind farm off the coast of North Carolina. The company pledged to reinvest the money into other forms of energy.

Since March, Trump officials have struck four such agreements totaling more than $2.5 billion to get developers to give up on their offshore wind plans. Some analysts say the federal government’s ability to blockade pending projects has caused some companies to reconsider their investments.

“If you have a lease that appears to be going nowhere for at least the next three years, you want to pivot to other options,” said Timothy Fox, managing director at ClearView Energy Partners LLC, an independent research firm. “There’s still a lot of leases out there, but the Trump administration has made this aggressive push, and we think there could be future similar announcements.”

According to Fox, developers hold leases for roughly two dozen other offshore wind areas, agreements that could be targeted for similar buyout deals.

While developers consider buyout offers from the federal government, state leaders say such deals are illegal. Seven states filed a lawsuit earlier this month saying the administration lacks the authority to cancel the leases and pay out funds, focused on a March deal with TotalEnergies to block a project off of New York.

The lawsuit challenges the administration’s use of a federal fund set aside to pay court judgments and settlements of lawsuits against the government. The deal, state attorneys general argue, “is not the result of a compromise settlement between adverse parties, but rather an agreement resulting from [federal officials’] pretextual national security concerns and TotalEnergies’ desire to receive unauthorized compensation for an expensive offshore wind lease.”

The state of California has also announced that it intends to file a lawsuit over another buyout targeting a lease area off the state’s Pacific coast.

Since taking office, Trump has halted permits and leases for other planned offshore wind projects, canceled hundreds of millions in funding to support manufacturing and ports and ended clean energy tax credits. His administration also issued stop-work orders for five offshore wind projects that were already under construction, but courts have overturned those orders and allowed work to resume.

Aside from the five wind farms currently being built, progress on dozens of other pending projects has ground to a halt.

“There’s little to be done if the federal government still controls the permits, leases and pace of development,” said Fox, the researcher.

State goals

The clash comes as many East Coast states have been counting heavily on the maturation of the offshore wind industry to meet their energy needs. Eight Atlantic states have committed to building more than 45 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2040 — enough to power more than 30 million homes. They’ve made major investments in ports, manufacturing facilities, transmission infrastructure and workforce training.

In addition to their climate goals, many states are facing surging energy demands, largely driven by data centers and artificial intelligence.

State leaders say that offshore wind farms can harness massive amounts of electricity, especially during nighttime and winter periods when solar power is in short supply. For heavily populated East Coast states, with limited areas to put sprawling energy projects on land, tapping into strong winds over the ocean has become a major part of their strategy.

“Offshore wind is key to a future that allows us to move off of fossil fuels,” said Maryland state Del. Lorig Charkoudian, a Democrat who has been a strong backer of offshore wind. “Every time the (Trump administration) makes these moves, it reminds me that their numbers show how much offshore (wind) would allow us to retire fossil fuel plants.”

Trump has long opposed offshore wind, falsely asserting that it harms whales, is unreliable and drives up energy costs. While offshore wind generation is intermittent, it has a much higher capacity factor than onshore renewables, meaning that it operates for longer periods at its maximum output level. New offshore wind projects have capacity factors that match some gas and coal-fired power plants, according to the International Energy Agency.

While still more expensive than onshore renewables, offshore wind projects globally produce electricity at a rate cheaper than natural gas and coal plants, according to Energy Solutions Intelligence, a digital consulting platform.

Backers and energy analysts say offshore wind in the U.S. should become cheaper over time as supply chains mature and investments in ports and other infrastructure pay off.

The Department of the Interior did not grant a Stateline interview request about its buyout deals for offshore wind projects, but the agency has claimed in statements that the deals will lower energy prices.

Changing plans

Many state leaders acknowledge that the delays caused by Trump’s opposition will cause them to miss their targets for building new projects over the next 5 to 10 years. But they say the industry is still essential for meeting their long-term climate goals and energy needs.

“I don’t think anyone is at the point of saying no offshore wind ever again,” said Gounardes, the New York lawmaker. “It might not be part of the alchemy in the near future, but it certainly must be part of the alchemy to meet our overall goals.”

For now, state leaders are hoping their ongoing commitments to offshore wind will convince developers to wait out the remainder of Trump’s term and stay in the U.S. market.

“[The buyouts] are a blow to the industry, but it’s not a death knell but there are other projects out there that are still in some stage of development,” said Sam Schacht, project director for offshore wind with the Clean Energy States Alliance, a nonprofit coalition of state energy agencies.

“There’s this bad news story happening about the attempts to erode these future projects, while at the same time there’s a very positive story about the projects that are under construction and producing power now and their ability to capably meet states’ power demands.”

While states play the waiting game with offshore wind, they’re making new plans to meet their energy needs in the near term. Lawmakers in Maryland have invested in battery storage, which Charkoudian described as a “no-regrets” option that can help meet energy needs today while complementing offshore wind once it comes online.

Other states, including New York and New Jersey, have looked at increasing subsidies for nuclear power.

“I wouldn’t say that they’re giving up on offshore wind, but states are pivoting to other carbon-free resources that  are favored by this administration, namely nuclear power,” said Fox, the energy researcher.

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

After denying requests for disaster relief to Wisconsin over recent months, President Donald Trump has approved $22.6 million in assistance to several counties that experienced extreme weather in April. Wisconsin Emergency Management determined that over $27 million in damage occurred as a result of the historic April storms that hit communities, bringing tornados, heavy rain and flash flooding.

The storms broke records as rivers overflowed and skies darkened under heavy cloud cover, high winds and torrential rain. According to the National Weather Service, a record-breaking 8.56 inches of precipitation accumulated in Green Bay during the month of April, breaking the prior record set in 1929 by more than 2 inches. Wausau also broke the record for precipitation with 8.74 inches accumulating in April, compared to the 6.06 inch record set in 1954. Historic flooding flowed out along the Wolf River basin in Shiocton and New London, as well as near the Embarrass and Peshtigo rivers near Porterfield. The Menominee River at McAllister reached its second highest level on record, and multiple dams overflowed in Waupaca and Shawano counties.

Residents living in the counties of Bayfield, Brown, Jackson, Jefferson, Juneau, Kenosha, Manitowoc, Marathon, Milwaukee, Outagamie, Racine, Rock, Sauk, Vernon, Washington, Waukesha, Waupaca and Winnebago, along with the Oneida Nation, will have access to the assistance. The funding will cover temporary housing and home repairs, low-cost loans to cover uninsured property losses and other programs. Federal funding is also available to state, tribal, and local governments which are eligible for assistance, as well as certain private nonprofit organizations to help replace damaged facilities. 

Trump posted on Truth Social that he’d contacted U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany — the Republican candidate he  endorsed for Wisconsin governor —  about greenlighting the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) assistance. Trump said that “the wonderful people of Wisconsin are in good hands with Tom,” alongside other Republican politicians which have been endorsed by the president. Meanwhile, Tiffany posted on X saying he called the White House after the storms and thanking the Trump administration “for their partnership.” Tiffany said in his post, “We’ll keep working to ensure every Wisconsin community has the resources needed to recover.”

Trump’s effort to spotlight Tiffany in connection with the announcement of emergency assistance comes ahead of the gubernatorial primary in August. Tiffany is the leading Republican contender, while six Democrats with a range of experiences and political leanings are competing for their party’s nomination. 

When Trump first announced the emergency relief for Wisconsin, saying he had contacted Tiffany to inform him, neglecting to mention the current Gov. Tony Evers, Evers said in a statement posted to X, “Wisconsinites and I will believe it when we see it.” 

“President Trump and the Trump Administration have declined tens of millions of dollars in Wisconsin disaster relief requests,” Evers wrote, “and have been playing politics by withholding emergency FEMA assistance from states across our country that’s supposed to go to helping families and communities rebuild and recover after a disaster—and all while he uses taxpayer dollars to build himself a golden ballroom.”

In February, the Trump administration denied disaster relief — for a second time — which would have helped Wisconsin communities recover from historic, record-breaking flooding and storms that hit in August. Over 1,800 homes in the Milwaukee area alone were left either damaged or destroyed, and multiple parks were left virtually underwater. The state fair shut down early as people fled the fairgrounds through waist-high water, and some were left stranded on roadways after their vehicles were flooded. Collectively, the August floods caused about $76 million in damage to private homes and public infrastructure, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. 

A letter sent to Evers by FEMA in February said that assistance was “not warranted” but didn’t explain the rationale the agency had used to make that decision. Flood assistance was also denied for Milwaukee in November and October. A month after the FEMA denial, Wisconsinites endured a historic blizzard so bad that it shut down plowing services in a state used to snowfall. This summer, residents have been contending with a dangerous heatwave. 

These are just the latest bouts of extreme and dangerous weather which have challenged the ability of residents to adapt and of local and state governments to respond. Researchers have long warned that extreme weather including more intense flooding, heatwaves and blizzards would become more common due to climate change. Trump has called climate change a hoax and his administration has cut back the federal programs to improve climate resilience. 

This story was first published by WyoFile.

PARK CITY, UTAH — The U.S. Forest Service received roughly 300 applications for the 15 new state director jobs created during a major agency reorganization that’s dissolving regional offices the agency’s first chief, Gifford Pinchot, created nearly 120 years ago.

That’s 20 applications per job, on average, for well-paying “senior executive service” positions at a federal agency that employs roughly 30,000 staff.

It’s a figure that, to many, suggests stunningly little interest in the jobs and a reminder that it remains a tough time to be a Forest Service employee tasked with managing 193 million acres of the United States.

But U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz on Tuesday sounded upbeat about the 300 applications, a datapoint he offered without prompting. Applicants are a mix of Forest Service veterans and outside candidates, and there are more than he needs to fill the state director jobs and restructure. Schultz’s team has already narrowed the pool of candidates and is starting to arrange for interviews, he told WyoFile from a boardroom at Park City’s Deer Valley Resort.

“I expect [interviews] to begin within the next couple weeks,” Schultz said.

The Trump administration’s pick to lead the Forest Service took a break from the Western Governors’ Association conference and sat down with WyoFile to discuss the status of the agency’s workforce and looming structural changes that were signaled in summer 2025 and formally set in motion this spring. The University of Wyoming graduate spoke just over the Wasatch Range from Salt Lake City, where he’s planning to live and work after relocating the agency’s headquarters from Washington, D.C.

Nearly five dozen research and development stations may also be shuttered, and their staff will be clustered at more centralized operations instead.

All these changes are coming quickly.

Schultz says he will wait until after the already deadly, active wildfire season dies down before reassigning regional personnel and opening the doors on state offices.

“Sometimes toward the end of October, early November is when we’d be looking at getting those offices operational,” the Forest Service chief said.

Wyoming’s office is coming to Cheyenne, though the building has not been selected. The state offices in the Equality State and elsewhere will house an estimated “six to eight” staff, and will include positions specializing in communications, legislative affairs, tribal affairs and other “liaison-type” roles, Schultz said.

“The intent is not to replicate the regional model,” he said. “It’s to have those positions supervise the forest supervisors, and also to be a liaison with states, with counties, with tribes.”

A former Idaho Department of Lands director, Schultz moved to the private sector and was an executive with an Idaho logging company before U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins hired him away in February 2025. Restructuring the Forest Service will concentrate resources and decision-making in the states and communities where national forestland is part of the landscape, he said.

“What we’re trying to do is basically bring the Forest Service closer to the people that we serve,” Schultz said. “The change from regional offices to a state director role is to really empower folks closest to the ground — district rangers and others who make decisions.”

It won’t be immediate, but eventually national forests like Wyoming’s Bridger-Teton, Shoshone, Bighorn, Medicine Bow-Routt and Black Hills should experience an increase in staffing and money as resources are diverted away from regional offices in places like Denver and Ogden, Utah, Schultz said.

“That is the intent,” he said.

Yet, the reorganization is also immensely controversial. Partly that’s a product of the administration spearheading the changes.

President Donald Trump’s second term started by bringing a wrecking ball to the federal government. The face of the aggressive, abrupt job cuts, now-trillionaire Elon Musk even wielded a chainsaw on stage to signify the actions of his now-defunct “Department of Government Efficiency,” which trimmed the Forest Service’s workforce by about 18%.

Forest Service employees express skepticism

Many Forest Service employees are unsettled by the structural changes afoot. Retired White River National Forest supervisor Scott Fitzwilliams, who took a buyout during the DOGE era, criticized how hastily the reorganization was decided and implemented.

“This is turning over 100 years of organization,” Fitzwilliams said. “This is not thought out. And it’s chaotic.”

The Forest Service rolled out its plans in the absence of public review, Fitzwilliams pointed out. Except for stakeholders like the timber and fossil fuels industries, he said the reorganization wasn’t vetted and caught almost everyone off guard.

“I know for a fact, ranking members of resources committees on the Senate side and the House side, they learned about it when you and I learned about,” Fitzwilliams said.

But Schultz argues the concept of restructuring has been kicked around for nearly two decades. There’s been talk of redesigning the Forest Service to a state-focused system since 2008, and the effort became more formal in August 2024, he said.

Retirees who are formally organized have also voiced concerns.

Bill Avey, who chairs the National Association of Forest Service Retirees, told WyoFile that he feels the reorganization is “not in the best interest of the public or the national forests or the Forest Service itself.” He worried that the new structure will lead to the Forest Service becoming beholden to state politics.

“These are national forests; they aren’t state forests,” said Avey, who supervised the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest. “The forests are going to be much more influenced by the politics of the state, when they should be managed for the people of the nation.”

The Forest Service state directors will be hired into career positions, and are not political appointees, according to Schultz.

But those assurances didn’t allay the concerns of Avey, who pointed to how state offices and directors function at the Bureau of Land Management.

“State directors are very political positions,” Avey said. “We’re worried about increased politicization of the Forest Service.”

Steve Ellis preceded Avey in chairing the National Association of Forest Service Retirees. His career started at the Forest Service but crossed over to the BLM, where he became the Idaho state director and then deputy director for the whole agency.

“So I know both the structures,” Ellis said. “Democratic and Republican governors in the West, my observation is they always liked the BLM model better.”

Two weeks ago, the bipartisan Western Governors’ Association pledged its support for the Forest Service restructuring in a letter.

“This state-based model will ensure strong communication between the agency and states and territories, and promote coordination on forest and rangeland management, recreational use, and wildfire mitigation and response,” Utah Republican Gov. Spencer Cox and Hawaii Democrat Gov. Josh Green wrote.

Salt Lake City HQ

Delivering the keynote address at the Western Governors Association conference this week, Schultz told the crowd that he’s “thinking about” giving the states more national forest management control. And he argued that there will be benefits to the coming headquarters move to Salt Lake City and the broader Forest Service restructuring.

“I currently have 26 direct reports,” Schultz said. “Under this new model, I’m going to have six reports. We’re going to align much like a normal corporate structure.”

Moving Forest Service headquarters to Salt Lake City has been criticized partly because of the first Trump administration’s 2019 reorganization of the BLM, which included moving its headquarters to Grand Junction, Colorado, a mid-sized city about the size of Casper. That effort failed spectacularly. Less than 13% of the 328 employees whose jobs were moved chose to relocate and only three employees ended up moving to Grand Junction, according to High Country News. In fall 2021, the Biden Administration Interior Secretary Deb Haaland moved the office back to Washington.

Schultz is hopeful the Forest Service’s 2026 headquarters relocation will go differently. Salt Lake and Grand Junction are “two fundamentally different communities,” he said.

“Salt Lake is a large metropolitan area — 1.6 million people,” Schultz said. “We’ve already gotten commitments from folks that are willing to go there.”

Asked if the Forest Service has goals for retention during the transitions, Schultz didn’t specify. He pointed out instead that only about 1% of the workforce will be asked to move throughout the entire reorganization.

“There could be fewer than 300 people that have to physically relocate,” the chief said.

Although the headquarters is officially changing locations, most of its employees will actually remain in Washington. Although the Forest Service’s fact sheet about the reorganization indicated that two-thirds of the National Capital Region positions would be relocated, the numbers shared by Schultz looked much different.

Out of the 750 people who are assigned to the Washington office, more than half are already remote, he said. That leaves roughly 350 employees who show up to the brick-and-mortar office on Independence Avenue.

“We’re expecting probably less than 50, at this point, may have to relocate out of the DC area,’ Schultz said. “Some of [the headquarters employees] are going to go to Maryland.”

Forest Service whistleblowers who wrote a letter to Congress have argued that leadership is underestimating the disruption and that mandatory relocations could impact as many as 1,900 employees.

Some 6,500 Forest Service employees were informed in a letter that their job would be affected by the reorganization in some capacity.

“It basically said in that letter that you may have a different supervisor, you may have a different structure, you may have a different job,” Schultz said.

As of Tuesday, those 6,500 employees haven’t been told what’s specifically changing.

“It’s still being worked on,” Schultz said.

Unions for Forest Service employees have called leadership’s communication style “engineered vagueness.” In early June, six congressional Democrats from Colorado wrote Agriculture Secretary Rollins a letter urging the Trump administration to disclose more information about the plans.

State of staffing

At the moment, the Forest Service has roughly 30,000 employees, Schultz said. The agency lost nearly 7,000 staff last year, according to Office of Personnel Management data. The great majority, 6,500 of them, accepted one of the “deferred resignation program” offers, he said.

“So it’s been largely voluntary,” Schultz said.

Current staffing at the Forest Service is at about the same level as it was in 2018, according to the chief. The workforce swelled in 2020 and 2021 due to funding from the Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, but the Forest Service’s base appropriation didn’t grow enough to support the larger workforce, and in 2024 under the Biden administration the “ball had already started rolling” of how to right the books.

“Decisions had to be made on how to get the budget straight,” Schultz said. “We can’t overspend what Congress has authorized.”

In 2025, the Forest Service went without non-fire seasonal staff because of the budget crunch. That’s changed, however, and the Forest Service so far in 2026 has added more than 1,600 employees, OPM data shows. Most new staffers are seasonals doing recreation work, Schultz said.

While that fits with Schultz’s goal of bringing more resources to forests and ranger districts, the Trump administration’s proposed Forest Service budget for fiscal year 2027 goes in the opposite direction. Proposed funding levels for the National Forest System would fall by $438 million, or 24%, and research, operations and maintenance line items are cut even deeper. Some $620 million for the “forest and rangeland research” and “state private and tribal forestry” would be zeroed out completely.

In a May 13 budget-focused Senate hearing, Schultz did not put up a fight or ask for more funds.

Fitzwilliams, the retired White River National Forest supervisor, struggled to see how Trump’s Forest Service budget fits Schultz’s vision of beefing up resources at forests and ranger districts.

“More resources on the ground, I think we’d all agree that’s really important,” Fitzwilliams said. “You can’t say that and then stand behind the president’s budget proposal, which he does.”

Turmoil in the federal government over the last 18 months has caused the workforce’s job satisfaction to outright plummet, according to a survey of 10,000 workers. At the Forest Service, the depleted staff and the agency’s reorganization has been cause for plenty of bad vibes.

“They’re stressed,” Fitzwilliams said, “and morale is horrendous.”

A coalition of more than 200 business owners from throughout the Great Lakes region is calling on the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy to reject permits for Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel pipeline, urging other business owners to sign on to a joint letter opposing the project.

Line 5 stretches from Superior, Wisconsin to Sarnia, Ontario, with a four-mile segment of dual pipelines located on the lakebed within the Straits of Mackinac, where Lake Michigan and Lake Huron meet. 

In its call for support, the Great Lakes Business Network pointed to a recent spill of up to 1,900 gallons of drilling fluid in Wisconsin as part of Enbridge’s effort to reroute Line 5. The project came after a federal judge found the company had trespassed on the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa’s reservation for more than a decade by continuing to operate the pipeline following the expiration of its easement.

Enbridge Spokesperson Ryan Duffy told Michigan Advance the company reported the release of the clay and water mixture used for drilling to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources on Saturday, and that it had been contained using sandbags and silt fence and that the cleanup is well underway.  

“We will continue to work with the DNR on completion of the clean-up,” Duffy said in an emailed statement. 

Wisconsin Public Radio reported concerns from the Bad River Band and environmental advocates that the release violates Enbridge’s waterway and wetland permit, with one condition stating the company “shall not discharge drilling mud into wetlands, waterways or sensitive areas.”

The Bad River Band has also challenged the reroute, noting that the pipeline would still encircle the reservation and threaten waters, fish and wild rice, which are culturally sacred and economically critical to its members.

Tribal communities and environmental advocates have called for a shutdown of the more than 70-year-old pipeline for years, pointing to a series of anchor strikes which dented the pipeline, and the 2010 Kalamazoo River oil spill from Enbridge’s Line 6B as among their reasons for concern.

While Enbridge has agreed to replace the two segments of pipeline with a new segment housed within a tunnel embedded within the bedrock beneath the lakebed, opponents have raised their further concerns with the safety of the tunnel project, including unstable bedrock, high water pressure and the presence of gasses that could lead to an explosion.

Whitney Gravelle, president of the Bay Mills Indian Community previously told Michigan Advance the tunnel would bore through several cultural sites, archaeological resources and what Anishinaabe consider to be the site of creation.

In order to move forward, the tunnel project is in need of permits from the United States Army Corps of Engineers and EGLE. Another vital permit granted by the Michigan Public Service Commission is under review by the Michigan Supreme Court, following challenges from tribal communities and several environmental advocacy groups.

While Enbridge has touted support from businesses in the region, the Great Lakes Business Network has rejected that notion, calling all business owners and leaders who care about the Great Lakes to submit their signatures by the close of business on July 2.

“We cannot stand by while a Canadian oil company claims to speak for our business community,” Great Lakes Business Network Co-Chairs, Pete Laing and Travis Hixton said in a statement. “The Great Lakes are our economic engine supporting tourism, shipping, real estate, and countless jobs. A decade of destruction to our bottomlands for an unnecessary tunnel is bad for business and bad for our future.”

Following the Great Lakes Business Network’s call for signatures, Great Lakes Michigan Jobs, which says it represents more 75,000 Michigan businesses, issued its own statement calling on EGLE to renew Enbridge’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit.

If reissued, the permit would allow Enbridge to release roughly 6 million gallons of treated wastewater into the Great Lakes per day between two facilities located on the north and south sides of the straits.

“We strongly support Line 5 and the Great Lakes Tunnel and urge EGLE to renew the permit to allow tunnel builders to treat and clean wastewater,” Mike Witkowski, the director of environmental and regulatory policy at the Michigan Manufacturers Association, said in a statement.

The Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program, established in 1989 to help Wisconsin obtain and maintain its natural areas expired Tuesday. Cause of death, according to advocates, was legislative obstinance. 

Initially created through a bipartisan piece of legislation, the program has helped local governments build boat launches, playgrounds, bike paths and hiking trails in every corner of the state; helped land trusts and non-profits obtain and conserve thousands of acres of forest land and helped the Department of Natural Resources grow and manage Wisconsin’s state parks. 

“Every single community has a boat launch, or a playground, or a neighborhood park, or a bike path that was funded with Knowles Nelson dollars,” said Charles Carlin, the director of strategic initiatives for Gathering Waters, an alliance of 40 land trusts around Wisconsin.  “So, the state just looks a lot different than it would if we didn’t have Knowles Nelson, and we all have more opportunities to get outside and enjoy all these places that make Wisconsin special than we would have without the program.”

Since its inception, the program has enjoyed broad support from voters and been seen as a national model for land conservation systems. However, in recent years, a handful of Republican legislators — largely representing the northern parts of the state — began to sour on the program’s aims. 

This group has argued that too much land in northern Wisconsin has been conserved, leaving  struggling local governments without enough of a property tax base to fund their budgets or grow their communities. An analysis by the Examiner found that most of the public land in northern Wisconsin is national forest land and that land purchased through Knowles-Nelson is a tiny portion of Wisconsin’s public lands portfolio. 

Opposition to the program was supercharged after the state Supreme Court ruled that the Legislature’s Republican-controlled Joint Finance Committee was unconstitutionally exercising its power by allowing members to anonymously hold up any proposed land acquisitions through Knowles-Nelson. 

The decision angered legislators who had previously been able to quietly stop projects in their districts, and the program suddenly faced energized opposition. Proposals that aimed to bring together bipartisan support to continue the program from Gov. Tony Evers, a handful of Republicans and the Legislature’s Democratic caucus failed to gain traction during the most recent legislative session. 

“Scoring a few political points in the Capitol at the expense of your community and of your voters just encapsulates what people hate about politics right now,” said Carlin. “What happened this session is a very small number of Republican senators decided that political retribution inside the Capitol in Madison was more important than good policy for their constituents. That’s bad governance. It undermines their own communities, and I would hope that they are questioning that choice, perhaps regretting it. I think we’re all going to be looking to see what happens in November, and to see, gosh, are there consequences for choosing to govern like that?” 

With the program’s expiration this week, legislative Democrats have stated that if voters elect Democratic majorities in the Legislature and a Democratic governor next year, re-authorizing the program will be among the first priorities. 

Senate Minority Leader Diane Hesselbein (D-Middleton) said at an event Tuesday morning at Governor Gaylord Nelson State Park in Waunakee that with trifecta control of government, Democrats would bring the program back.

“Senate Republicans … have ensured that towns and cities across our state do not have the money to repair boat launches or keep our trails safe,” she said. “They have made it impossible for the state to preserve more of our landscape, giving developers free rein. They have decided to disregard the will of the residents, and no wonder why the Republican party is losing so much at the polls. The expiration of this program today is just another example of Republican failures, but my message to Wisconsin is very simple: Vote for Democrats in November, and we promise, especially with the Democratic trifecta, we will bring the Knowles Nelson Stewardship Program back in full force, so people can enjoy nature regardless of their zip code, every single place in the state of Wisconsin.” 

Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay), one of the authors of the failed Democratic bill to reauthorize the program, told the Examiner Monday that the expiration was just a “pause.” 

Habush Sinykin said that she’s working on ways to get a Knowles-Nelson bill through the Legislature no matter the result of the November elections. 

“We’ll find out just in a matter of months what we have to work with,” she said. “But we have quite a bit of give with regard to how we can keep the program going forward productively, in terms of funding and for oversight mechanisms. And again, I would be certainly grateful to be able to work across the aisle and with legislators in my own party to come up with the Knowles Nelson reauthorization program that makes sense for Wisconsin. It contributes so much to our state and local economies and quality of life. It really is a wise investment.” 

Even if a bill to restart the program is introduced immediately at the start of the next session and fast tracked to the governor’s desk, it could be close to a year before the program is back on track. Carlin said that because of the long-term planning required for the type of land acquisitions funded through Knowles-Nelson, the “ripple effects go way beyond that 12-month period of time.” 

“Every single land trust and every single local government is cash strapped, and they are strained for capacity as well. There’s more to do than there is people and money to get it done,” he said. And so, as the future of Knowles Nelson became more and more uncertain, you know, land trusts, they really ramped down their land acquisition planning. Because if they don’t have a sense of how the heck they’re going to fund a project, they don’t pursue it. And so what that means is, is fewer conversations are happening with prospective landowners, that fewer negotiations about land purchases are happening. And that’s not an on/off switch; it takes a while to ramp that up and to get going again.” 

Carlin added that the state knows there’s a growing maintenance backlog for the state’s outdoor recreation facilities and a need to help communities across the state build infrastructure to manage the effects of climate change. 

“By pulling the rug out from under ourselves to make those investments for a year, we’re causing delays that might wind up lasting three years or five years until we get ourselves back on track, even when Knowles Nelson is fully funded,” he said. “So you know what’s done is done, and now we’ve just got to figure out how to fix it and get back on track as quickly as possible.”

As America prepares to celebrate its 250th birthday, my son and I recently spent a week driving across the country, visiting Rocky Mountain, Arches, Great Basin, and Yellowstone National Parks. The trip reminded me that despite our differences, Americans share a common responsibility: to leave our country stronger and more prosperous than we found it.

Wherever we traveled, people wanted many of the same things: good-paying jobs, thriving communities, affordable energy and opportunities for future generations.

Those hopes are shaped by many decisions, but few are more important than how we produce, deliver and pay for energy.

Most families are not thinking about climate policy. They are thinking about utility bills, housing costs, job opportunities and whether their communities can compete in a changing economy.

A recent Wisconsin Conservation Voters poll found that 84% of Wisconsin voters are concerned about rising electricity costs — ranking utility bills alongside groceries as a financial stress.

Wisconsin families want affordable energy, reliable electricity, good-paying jobs and a stronger future for their children. Clean energy helps deliver all four.

More than 75,000 Wisconsinites already work in clean energy. Wisconsin manufacturers supply components used across the country. Electricians, engineers, construction workers, and skilled tradespeople are modernizing our energy system while helping businesses and homeowners lower energy costs.

This is not tomorrow’s economy. It is today’s.

Clean energy is an economic development strategy, a manufacturing strategy, a workforce strategy and an affordability strategy. Communities embracing innovation are attracting investment, creating jobs, and becoming more competitive.

Unfortunately, federal policy is moving in the opposite direction.

The Trump administration recently announced a $700 million taxpayer-funded effort to keep aging coal plants operating, including one in Wisconsin. At the same time, it has proposed spending approximately $2.5 billion to buy out offshore wind leases representing roughly 13 gigawatts of generating capacity while redirecting support toward fossil fuel development.

These decisions matter because they directly affect affordability, health and our future.

Americans are increasingly being asked to support aging coal plants through both their electric bills and their tax dollars. Extending the life of outdated infrastructure delays investment in newer technologies that are often less expensive and more reliable.

We are already doing this with coal plants in Oak Creek, Sheboygan and Beloit. We cannot keep repeating that mistake.

Wisconsin also faces another challenge.

Artificial intelligence is creating unprecedented demand for electricity. Two proposed data centers alone could require nearly four gigawatts of power, more electricity than every Wisconsin household combined.

Data centers can create jobs and economic opportunity. But they also require new power plants, transmission lines and grid upgrades.

The question is simple: Who pays?

Wisconsin families, farmers and small businesses should not shoulder those costs.

Large energy users should pay the full cost of the infrastructure they require. Utilities should be transparent, regulators should protect ratepayers and communities deserve a meaningful voice before billions of dollars are committed.

This is not a choice between economic growth and environmental responsibility.

The strongest energy policies lower costs, strengthen energy independence, improve reliability, create jobs and protect the resources that make Wisconsin such a great place to live.

Wisconsin has everything it takes to lead: innovative businesses, talented workers, world-class manufacturers and practical problem-solvers.

As America approaches its 250th birthday, we should remember that every generation is called upon to build something lasting.

For ours, that means building an energy system that is affordable, reliable, resilient and capable of powering Wisconsin’s economy for decades to come.

The clean energy transition is not happening because it is partisan. It is happening because it works.

The question is whether Wisconsin will build it, power it and prosper from it.

Communities across Wisconsin are enduring a heatwave that’s breaking records across the nation and around the world. According to the National Weather Service, east central, south central and southeast Wisconsin are all under an extreme heat warning until 7 p.m. Wednesday, with the heat index nearing or exceeding 100 degrees Fahrenheit in Milwaukee, Kenosha, Madison and Green Bay. Local officials are highlighting access to cooling shelters and other emergency resources. 

In Kenosha, heat index could reach 107 degrees Fahrenheit, city officials warn. Residents should stay hydrated by drinking water, staying cool indoors and be aware of signs of heat stroke including confusion, dizziness, nausea or headaches. The Milwaukee Health Department offered similar warnings. 

A spokesperson for the  Milwaukee County Department of Health and Human Services said the county has a “No Wrong Door” model, which allows residents to connect with the department at many different health and human services agencies.  Local housing navigators are out in the community checking on people who are unhoused and offering them access to cooling sites, shelters and temporary housing. Residents can locate cooling sites by dialing 2-1-1 and many public cooling sites have been set up  along county transit routes. Residents who own properties they want to turn into a public cooling location should email IMPACT 211 at resourcechange@impactinc.org. 

The Department of Natural Resources has issued air quality alerts for the Kenosha, Milwaukee, Racine, Ozaukee, Racine and Sheboygan counties. Local health officials in Dane County and Madison noted that over 1,000 deaths from extreme heat occur each year in the United States. People who are  most at risk are older adults, people working outside, infants, children, unhoused people and those with chronic medical conditions.

Wisconsin state law prohibits a utility from disconnecting electrical service to occupied dwellings during a heat advisory, warning, or emergency situation, according to the Wisconsin Public Service Commission. 

Utilities are also required to make “reasonable attempts” to reconnect service to dwellings disconnected due to unpaid bills when an occupant notifies them that  there is a potential threat to health or life. However, the utility may require a licensed physician’s statement or a notice from a public health, social service or law enforcement official in those circumstances. When the  heat warning is over, the utility is allowed to disconnect the power again.

Scientists have long warned that worsening heatwaves and extreme weather are becoming more common due to man-made climate change. Green Bay is still recovering from severe floods that hit last week, damaging  roadways and businesses. In April, Milwaukee County, which has also experienced historic flooding in the last year, re-affirmed its commitment to the Paris Climate Accords, which called on the world to take necessary steps to prevent average global temperatures from increasing beyond 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.

A new lawsuit challenging a logging project in Oregon threatens to unravel the management plans governing hundreds of millions of acres of federal public land.

At stake are thousands of leases and permits covering billions of dollars of economic activity — including mining, drilling, grazing, logging, ski resorts, wind and solar projects, outdoor recreation, hunting and fishing. If successful, the lawsuit could throw the management of huge swaths of the West into chaos.

Some experts fear the new legal uncertainty around federal agencies’ management authority could unleash a tsunami of lawsuits targeting everything from mining to the conservation of wildlife habitat.

“They’ve opened Pandora’s Box here,” said Susan Jane Brown, the attorney who filed the lawsuit and serves as principal at Silvix Resources, a nonprofit environmental law firm.

“When you throw that whole system into chaos, it’s a problem whether you’re the oil and gas industry or the timber industry or someone who wants to take a fall hunting trip. There’s a lot at stake here.”

The legal battle stems from Republican lawmakers’ recent use of the Congressional Review Act, a previously obscure tool, to push for more mining and drilling on public lands overseen by the federal Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service.

Under President Donald Trump, Congress has aggressively used the review power granted by the 1996 law to revoke decisions made during the Biden administration, including financial regulations, energy efficiency standards and auto emissions rules.

Some legal experts contend that by using the law to target public land policy, Congress unwittingly invalidated hundreds of land use plans, along with decades worth of permits and management decisions. The Oregon lawsuit is the first to test that theory in court — but public lands advocates don’t expect it to the be the last.

“This is incredibly destabilizing for anyone that cares about public lands, whether you care about those as an industrial developer or a wilderness advocate,” said John Ruple, research professor of law at the University of Utah’s Wallace Stegner Center for Land, Resources, and the Environment.

Over the past year, legal experts, agency veterans, conservation groups and industry leaders have warned that Congress was using the Congressional Review Act in a way that could undermine land use plans across the country. Oil and gas drillers could have their permits challenged in court. Ranchers could lose their leases. And understaffed federal agencies would have to redraft hundreds of plans that typically take years to complete.

“This has been flying under the radar,” said Michael Carroll, a land management campaign director with the Wilderness Society, an environmental group. “[Congress] basically opened themselves up to multiple lawsuits from any number of stakeholders calling into question whether or not an agency has the authority to issue permits.”

The Congressional Review Act

The three-decade-old Congressional Review Act requires new regulations issued by federal agencies to be submitted to Congress before taking effect. Congress then has a review period of 60 working days during which it can vote to revoke them.

This review power was rarely invoked until Trump’s first term, when Republicans used it to overturn 16 regulations. The GOP has been even more aggressive in Trump’s second term, overturning 23 rules so far, including conservation standards for water heaters, overdraft lending regulations and restrictions on pollutants in tire manufacturing

Until recently, management plans for federal public lands were not considered “rules” subject to congressional review under the law. Agencies have issued well over 100 such plans since 1996 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 about those plans had opened the 60-day review “clock” in each instance.

Using this new interpretation, Republicans in the past two years have revoked plans that restricted mining and oil production on federal lands in Alaska, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming.

But the repercussions could go well beyond those specific plans.

None of the plans issued by federal land managers over the past 30 years was 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.

Oregon lawsuit

Now, a lawsuit in Oregon will put that argument to the test. Cascadia Wildlands, a conservation group in the Pacific Northwest, has filed a complaint challenging a timber harvest on Bureau of Land Management land in western Oregon. That logging project was approved under a management plan that was issued in 2016.

Since Congress now considers such plans to be rules, the plaintiffs argue, the 2016 plan never took effect because it was never submitted to Congress.

Cascadia Wildlands has fought numerous legal battles over logging projects approved by the Bureau of Land Management. If the lawsuit over the management plan is successful, said Nick Cady, the group’s legal director, the same theory would give them leverage to block any logging project issued under the 2016 plan.

“They let the genie out of the bottle,” Cady said. “Instead of just letting [the Congressional Review Act] move forward with whatever Republicans choose to select, it’s worth curbing that by pointing out that it can point both ways.”

If the plan is struck down, activists of all types could use that precedent to challenge any activity on public land governed by a management plan that hasn’t been reviewed by Congress.

“It is a target-rich environment if our lawsuit is successful, and even if it’s not successful we’ve already demonstrated that there’s a lot of interest here,” Brown said. “This is what happens when you overturn longstanding precedent and throw spaghetti at the wall.”

Cady and Brown said they hope their case compels Congress to revise the Congressional Review Act to exempt public land management plans.

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

A group of Ashland residents held a protest Wednesday against the use of municipal water for constructing the controversial reroute of Enbridge’s Line 5 oil pipeline across northern Wisconsin. 

The reroute has been protested and challenged in court by locals, members of the nearby Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and environmental groups for years. 

“Michels Construction, a subcontractor of Enbridge, is taking precious water from Lake Superior out of the City of Ashland municipal water supply to build Line 5,” the protesters said in a joint statement. “This sacred water is being used to devastate our wetland and forest ecosystems and being returned with unknown contaminants for our community to deal with. This is a violation of the Great Lakes Compact and a direct threat to Anishinaabe Treaty Rights. Ashland needs to stand by their resolution of support to the Bad River Tribe and demand a halt to Michels’ water usage.”

Locals have seen Michels construction trucks being filled with water at the Ashland water station. Ashland municipal water comes from Lake Superior. Locals argue the public hasn’t been notified of a contract with Michels for the water use nor has there been a discussion over how much water would be used. 

Enbridge plans to use a process called horizontal directional drilling to pass 30,000 feet of pipe underneath 23 bodies of water in the region, according to the project’s environmental impact statement. About 15% of the relocated pipeline is being installed using this process, through a contract with Michels Construction. 

Enbridge spokesperson Juli Kellner said in a statement that using city water helps the company make sure it comes from a clean source.

“Buying water from a municipal source, instead of permitting water taken from area lakes or rivers, ensures the water is properly treated – and compensates the city fairly,” she said.

HDD involves drilling a hole underneath the body of water through which the pipeline is then fed. The drilling process requires water to be mixed with clay and other additives to use as lubricant for the drills and other tools. The other additives are contain “proprietary ingredients” that are kept from public view, however the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources documents show the company agreed that any ingredients used will comply with state standards. 

“The drilling fluid would consist primarily of water (approximately 95%) and bentonite, which is a type of clay,” according to the environmental impact statement. “Water for the drilling fluid would be obtained from a known safe source free of bacterial and chemical contamination. Additives could be included in the drilling mud to improve its ability to transport cuttings to the surface, provide a stable hole, and lubricate the drilling tools. Enbridge has stated in its Construction Site General Permit application that the company will only use additives that are considered pre-approved for use in potable well drilling or are listed on the DNR’s Approved Horizontal Directional Drilling Products List.” 

However the HDD process can often cause inadvertent releases of the lubrication slurry, raising concerns among residents. 

As a community on one of the Great Lakes, Ashland is subject to the Great Lakes Compact, an agreement among the American and Canadian governments dictating how the lakes’ water can be used. The compact requires that any water taken be returned in a clean state. 

The Ashland city administrator did not respond to a request for comment about the approval of the water usage.

Recent administrative efforts to endorse new coal-fired power plants and repair outdated plants are making my blood boil. For more than 30 years, I have worked tirelessly along with thousands of other public health and climate scientists to understand the very real public health threats posed by burning fossil fuels like coal. Coal-fired power plants are some of the worst offenders when it comes to causing harm to human health and the environment. In addition to being a health hazard for anyone living downwind of the coal-burning plants, it’s more expensive and less reliable than other cleaner sources for power.

Let’s look at some of the reasons why coal is bad for health. 

• When coal is burned in power plants, it releases soot – tiny particles that get deep into people’s lungs and bloodstreams. Mercury in soot is also a severe health hazard because it releases a potent neurotoxin that contributes to many chronic illnesses. Exposure to soot is linked to cancer, respiratory disease, heart disease, neurological and developmental disorders. Children and senior citizens are particularly vulnerable to impacts from coal-fired soot.
• Coal ash, the hazardous residue left after coal is burned, is a concoction of toxic metals (like lead, mercury and arsenic), cancer-causing compounds, and other dangerous substances. Power plants produce about 70 million tons of it each year. In April 2026, the Trump EPA proposed weakening federal coal ash standards.
• In 2023, a study published in Science magazine reported that:
  • Air pollution from coal power plants is associated with greater mortality than previously thought.
  • Such deaths have decreased due to air pollution regulations and coal power plant retirements.

Coal is not cheap

Prior to this administration, many utilities had already started phasing out coal plants in favor of clean energy because coal plants often need expensive repairs and emit costly, dirty fuel. Coal power is so expensive that, according to a 2023 study, 99% of the time it would be cheaper to get electricity by building entirely new wind and solar farms than it would be to buy power from existing coal plants. 

The Trump administration announced plans to provide up to $500 million in funding to coal-fired power plants in 10 states, along with an export terminal in California. The Columbia Energy Center, coal-fired plant co-owned by Alliant Energy, Madison Gas and Electric, and Wisconsin Public Service near Pardeeville, is expected to receive $19 million in federal funding for a modernization project. The plant was originally scheduled to retire by 2024. Alliant is exploring a gas conversion for one of the two primary generating units, so there is a potential for continued operations beyond the end of 2029 (the updated retirement date for the facility).

Note the Columbia plant has released more emissions of the health-harming pollutants nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide than any other Wisconsin coal-fired power plant from 2019 to 2023, the most recent five years for which data are available.

Additional costs for coal-fired energy also come from federal taxpayers subsidizing the industry for nearly 100 years. In 2026, the subsidies will be around $5.5 billion. Plus think about all the additional costs that taxpayers must absorb from the impacts of air pollutants on their health – at a time when healthcare subsidies have lapsed for millions of Americans.

There is no such thing as clean or cheap coal. As we approach America’s 250th anniversary, it’s more than time for a real Energy Independence Day from throwback policies that harm Americans and a focus on cleaner energy sources that protect human health and the environment.

A Columbia County coal plant previously slated for retirement that is expected to receive millions of dollars from the Trump administration to “modernize” its operations dramatically increased its pollutant emissions in 2025. 

Columbia Energy Center in Pardeeville is jointly owned by Alliant Energy, Madison Gas & Electric and Wisconsin Public Service and was initially set to close by the end of 2024. But that retirement was pushed back first to 2026 and then to 2029. 

Earlier this month, the Trump administration listed the plant as one of the beneficiaries of more than $700 million in spending to prop up the coal industry. The plant is expected to get $19 million through funding from the Defense Production Act. 

“Our action will allow these facilities to invest in upgrades that will extend their operational lives for decades into the future, reinforce the reliability of our electric grid, which is really the biggest beneficiary, and most importantly, keep electricity prices very low for the American people,” Trump said in a June 4 Oval Office news conference. 

Department of Natural Resources records show that the pollution emitted by the plant massively increased last year — a sign that the utility companies were ramping up the plant’s usage beyond its planned retirement date. 

In 2024, according to the DNR data, the plant emitted 3.9 million pounds of carbon monoxide. That jumped to 6.6 million pounds last year. Carbon dioxide emissions increased from 11 billion pounds in 2024 to 14 billion in 2025. 

Emissions of particulate matter, which is connected to health problems such as asthma, nearly doubled from 362,833 pounds to 685,876. 

The amount of nitrogen oxide, ammonia, lead, arsenic and cyanide pumped into the air by the plant all increased last year, the DNR report shows. 

Alliant Energy spokesperson Cindy Tomlinson told the Examiner that the plant’s life had to be extended to meet the midwest’s energy demand.

“In recent years, to meet MISO requirements and the energy needs of the Midwest, the plant has run more frequently, however it continues to operate in the normal range and in full compliance with the air permit requirements,” she said. “Our application and the potential $19 million grant award, provides us with an opportunity to cost-effectively modernize Columbia — an existing cornerstone in the American energy infrastructure. If awarded the grant, funds would be used to lower costs on several planned projects that are designed to maintain reliable and safe operations at the plant.”

But climate and health advocates say that the utility companies’ refusal to transition away from fossil fuels, and the Trump administration’s embrace of the industry will have dramatic effects on the health of Wisconsinites. 

“Coal makes us sick, coal kills people, coal poisons our water, coal causes so much harm that is so well documented that it is almost unthinkable that in 2026 our government would use our taxpayer dollars to continue with this technology,” Brittany Keyes, clean air policy manager for Healthy Climate Wisconsin, said. “There’s no such thing as clean coal, and the utilities running with our taxpayer dollars to continue to burn coal longer is taking Wisconsin backwards.” 

Modeling data from the EPA shows that shutting down the plant would result in 2,600 fewer asthma attacks, 1,200 fewer missed school days, and at least four fewer premature deaths statewide each year.

Amy Barilleaux, spokesperson for Clean Wisconsin, says that the state and its utilities are making that health tradeoff even though the coal needs to be imported from elsewhere. 

“I think Wisconsinites know we don’t have coal here. We have to get coal shipped in or trained into Wisconsin,” Barilleaux said. “It’s extremely expensive, so we have the extreme expense on the front end. Wisconsinites are being asked to foot the bill to keep expensive coal plants open, because of AI. Because the Trump administration says we need to support all the energy demands that are needed by tech companies. Then at the same time you have this giveaway potentially to fossil fuel companies saying, ‘Well, we’re gonna, you know, make it really hard, as hard as possible,’ to have clean energy that we do make in Wisconsin. We do have sunshine, we do have wind.” 

The plant’s life has been extended at a moment when the future of Wisconsin’s energy is at the forefront of the state’s political debate. The massive energy demand of the hyperscale data centers being constructed across the state and the rise in electric bills that have followed have drawn frustration from voters across the political aisle. 

The state’s Republicans are running on a desire to continue the reliance on fossil fuels. When Trump appeared at an Eau Claire dairy farm for an event earlier this month, U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden, running for reelection in the hotly contested 3rd Congressional District, touted the president’s support of “beautiful, clean coal.” U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the presumptive Republican nominee for governor, has for years fought against the development of solar energy in his northern Wisconsin district. 

Democrats meanwhile are running on lowering energy costs. State Rep. Francesca Hong has run on a statewide data center moratorium while former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes has promised to appoint people to the Public Service Commission who will work to keep utility rates frozen. 

Barilleaux said the state would be less susceptible to outside influence on its energy policy if it enacted “integrated resource management,” a system used in other states that requires public utilities to get their future plans approved and publicized by state regulators. 

“Wisconsin does not have to be hurt by these mandates coming down from the Trump administration, these rolling back of regulations,” she said. “If our utilities had just gone ahead and kept their word and shut down the coal plants when they said they would, we wouldn’t have to be having a conversation like this right now, so we could have protected ourselves from this moment, and we still can, like other states.” 

She said Wisconsin needs lawmakers who are willing to stand up to the utility companies. 

“Wisconsin does not have to be as vulnerable as it is to both this Wild West of energy plans that we’re in right now, and to the whims of whoever is in the presidency, we don’t have to be hurt by the way we produce energy, we don’t have to be in this situation,” she said.

A final agreement has been reached to release the remaining beagles housed at the Ridglan Farms dog breeding and research facility in Dane County, finding them medical treatment and new homes. Animal welfare groups praised the settlement. 

Dr. Alka Chandna, vice president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), called the news “a milestone” which reflects years of “relentless pressure” from people “who refuse to accept a system that breeds dogs and other animals only to confine, mutilate, poison, and kill them in laboratories.”

Ridglan Farms operated for decades, accumulating a long list of complaints from concerned citizens. The facility both breeds beagles which are sold to labs for animal testing and maintains its own research branch. Animal rights groups have spent years bringing attention to what they described as deplorable living conditions for the dogs as well as painful medical procedures without anesthesia. 

Last year, prosecutors found that Ridglan Farms had violated state animal cruelty laws and ordered the facility to shut down its breeding operation. Animal rights groups, fearing that Ridglan would euthanize the dogs if it couldn’t sell them off, stormed the facility earlier this year, breaking into the farm and carrying off  some of the more than 2,000 beagles housed there. A larger group numbering hundreds of people arrived for a second rescue attempt, but was  confronted by local law enforcement using tear gas and rubber bullets. In the aftermath of the raid, the participants were described as violent burglars by Ridglan Farms and Dane County Sheriff Kalvin Barrett. 

Four activists, including lead organizer Wayne Hsiung, were charged with felony burglary, and Ridglan Farms was cited for filling a trench around the facility with manure to deter the crowd, creating  an environmental hazard. As the activists prepared for court proceedings, animal welfare groups worked out a deal to purchase 1,500 of the dogs to find them new homes and medical treatment. 

The remaining dogs were included in the latest agreement to shut down the farm. In a statement, Ridglan Farms said the dogs were sold to Big Dog Ranch, with the remaining dogs to be re-housed by the end of August. The farm called the dogs “happy, healthy animals,” despite reports of sores and other medical and behavioral issues among the rescued beagles. Ridglan highlights that it passed federal regulatory inspections. “Now that transfer plans have been finalized for the rest of Ridglan Farms’ dogs, we ask that the years-long harassment campaign targeting the research facility’s owners, staff, and neighbors comes to an end,” the facility said in a statement. “We also hope Wisconsin’s legal system will hold accountable the individuals who organized and carried out the repeated violent assaults and thefts that have recently taken place at our facility.”

More than 500 people filled an Eau Claire event center Saturday evening to drink old fashioneds while connecting over a collective desire to prevent “oligarchs” and big tech companies from constructing AI data centers in the region. 

On a beautiful early summer evening in the highly contested and swingy 3rd Congressional District — with the closing game of the NBA Finals and early games of the FIFA World Cup competing for attention — attendees from across the political spectrum expressed their frustration  with a world that appears to favor the financial interests of billionaires promising to wipe out swathes of jobs with a new technology and the associated data centers threatening the natural beauty and resources of Wisconsin’s driftless region. 

“For us the land really matters,” Cyndi Greening, the leader of Chippewa Valley Indivisible, said. “This is where we swim and play and raise our kids. I think it’s a bigger issue here, because a lot of us are much more tied to the land.” 

The Uniting Western Wisconsin event was hosted by a number of groups, including Grassroots Organizing Western Wisconsin, Great Lakes Neighbors United, the Wisconsin Farmers Union, Healthy Climate Wisconsin and Indivisible. 

While data centers have been popping up across the state, most notably the hyperscale data centers constructed by Microsoft, Meta and Vantage in Mount Pleasant, Beaver Dam and Port Washington, there has been less frenzied development in western Wisconsin. But still, a proposed center in Menomonie was killed last year after opposition from residents pushed local officials to change zoning rules to put more onerous restrictions on proposed data centers. 

The event Friday included speeches from a number of anti-data center activists, musical performances from the Eau Claire-based band Them Coulee Boys and Boyceville native Madilyn Bailey and a headlining performance by the comedian Charlie Berens, creator of the popular online “Manitowoc Minute” series, who has become a high-profile anti-data center voice in the state. 

Blaine Halvorsen, who helped lead the fight in Menomonie and one of the event’s main organizers, said his goal was to move the data center fight away from “angry villager energy” opposing a development in specific  neighborhoods to a more proactive discussion about how to build stronger protections for communities so they aren’t rolled over by the power of big tech. 

That aim was reflected during Berens’ set. One of his  largest applause lines in the mixed political crowd of Wisconsin voters came when he advocated for giving the state’s Department of Natural Resources more regulatory authority over development. 

In an election year when so much attention and resources will be devoted to earning the votes of people in this area, organizers reiterated their belief that candidates had to take the intensity of data center opposition, and by extension a rejection of artificial intelligence, seriously. 

“This is a big election year, and I know all candidates should be expecting, if they’re not already, a lot of questions about data centers and how they’re going to deal with hyperscale data center proposals, and how they’re going to be the best candidate, whether it’s for governor, state Legislature, Congress, whatever it may be,” Danny Akenson, an organizer with Grassroots Organizing Western Wisconsin  said. “And I would say that we are going to be looking out to see that candidates are answering to the people in their communities, we believe that the people closest to the problem are the closest to the solution, and that local control is something that should be protected, so whether it’s data centers, whether it’s frack mines 10-15 years ago. We need to make sure that communities have a voice in the decision making, and I hope that the candidates that make sure that local control is protected are the ones that people really think about.” 

Among the attendees, people were drawn to the event for a variety of reasons. Some told the Wisconsin Examiner they were concerned about the harm data centers can pose to local land, water and air; others were concerned about the massive energy demand of data centers increasing their utility bills and some simply knew the issue is one that’s drawing a lot of attention and wanted to learn more. 

Ron Demotts, a Menomonie resident who works near the proposed data center site, said he knows it’s an issue that people in his community have been upset about, but without any social media he’s just seen yard signs around town with “no impression” about why it’s become such a prominent debate. 

“I don’t know the first thing about the topic,” he said. 

But others came more fired up. Jan Schneider connected the proliferation of data centers to the Trump administration’s immigration policies — saying that both reflect a disregard for humanity. 

“I do not support the data centers, I don’t support the energy they take, the land that they take, the fact that AI is probably what they’re supporting, and that just isn’t something that I think we’re ready for, because there’s no regulations or anything on that,” she said. 

Chippewa Falls residents Elizabeth Yost and Luke Ballard said they moved to Wisconsin from Illinois for college and then stayed after graduating specifically because of the abundant access to fresh water. 

“We’re really concerned about water access and water quality,” Yost said. “That’s why we moved to Wisconsin, so we could have fresh water to swim in and drink.” 

She added that as a younger person, she’s frustrated with AI being foisted upon her at work and on her devices. 

“A lot of the AI use that I do is kind of forced on me in my email or in my text messages, where it’s not that I’m opting in, instead it’s being forced on me because I use Gmail, because I use, like, an iPhone, so that’s frustrating,” Yost said, “definitely, that you don’t really have a choice, which is why I think it’s really important on the systemic and societal scale to have change made. Because it’s not going to be just opting out of ChatGPT that’s going to save the day.”

The New World screwworm has arrived in the United States.

For years, ranchers across Southern states have prepared for a potential invasion of the flesh-eating parasite that can wreak havoc on livestock, pets and even humans. 

Though the United States went decades without a confirmed case of the invasive pest, it’s now made its way across the U.S.-Mexico border. Officials have confirmed one case in a New Mexico dog and five cases in Texas, including cattle, a dog and a goat. 

The New World screwworm poses potentially life-threatening risks to pets, wildlife and livestock. While the risk is concentrated in a few states, experts say a massive invasion could ripple across the American economy through higher grocery prices.

Is it a fly or a worm?

Contrary to its name, the screwworm grows into an adult fly that’s about the size of a common housefly. The adult fly has orange eyes, a metallic blue or green body, and three dark stripes along the back. 

The name screwworm refers to the larvae (maggots) that burrow into open wounds, feeding as they go “like a screw being driven into wood,” according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The maggots burrow into the flesh of living animals through wounds as small as a tick bite or in body openings such as the eyes or nose. That means ranchers must keep close watch over newborn calves with exposed umbilical cords and may need to rethink branding and tagging operations that could provide an entry for the pests. 

What to look for 

The screwworm can infest livestock, pets, wildlife, birds and, in rare cases, people.

Infested animals can exhibit foul-smelling wounds with visible maggots as well as lesions in navels, ears or other sites. Texas A&M says animals may bite or lick at wounds and could display unusual restlessness or lethargy. 

“Pay attention to your animals, pay attention to any wildlife that might be around your property, if they’re acting like they’re in distress,” New Mexico Livestock Board Executive Director Belinda Garland told Source New Mexico this week. “Be aware, but there’s no need to panic.”

The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says people may feel or see maggots moving within a wound, or in their ears, noses, eyes or mouth. The larvae can cause painful sores that worsen within a few days. People may also experience bleeding and a foul-smelling odor from the site of the infestation. 

People should immediately see a healthcare provider, who must remove each maggot, sometimes surgically, the CDC says. 

For animals, USDA has approved emergency use of several medications for prevention and treatment of the parasite. Those include ivermectin, the drug that many people hoarded for off-label use during the coronavirus pandemic. 

Will this cost me?

The New World screwworm could raise prices at the grocery store. In fact, it probably already has: American beef prices are near record highs after ranchers liquidated herds to the smallest level in 75 years because of drought and other operating disruptions, including a halt on cattle imports from Mexico. 

In an effort to stop the screwworm, the U.S. banned live Mexican cattle imports, which traditionally occupy American pastures and feedlots before going to slaughter. Last month, David Anderson, professor and extension specialist in livestock and food product marketing at Texas A&M University, told Stateline that the move likely exacerbated meat prices. 

Beef prices have increased faster than inflation in recent months, according to the most recent consumer price index report. While ground beef prices fell 1.27% in May, that drop followed a 2.7% increase in April, CNBC reported, and beef prices remain up 12.9% year over year.

The pest could also impact dairy supplies, according to the University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources. While ranchers can hold back cattle during an outbreak, dairies may be forced to dump milk during an outbreak. 

What’s being done to stop it?

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

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

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

Political blame game

The arrival of the screwworm has ignited political attacks from Washington, D.C., to the Southern border.  

At a U.S. Senate oversight hearing earlier this week, Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar raised concerns about how deep cuts to USDA employment affected the department’s ability to combat issues such as the screwworm threat. She noted that the department’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service lost 25% of its staff, including more than 300 veterinary services employees. 

The Trump administration has sought to deflect blame on previous President Joe Biden. 

In that same hearing, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins blamed the previous administration and Mexican cartels’ “refusal to crack down” for allowing the screwworm to migrate north. 

“Everyone took their eye off the ball years ago, and unfortunately, because of the border policies, it’s coming our way,” Rollins said.

Meanwhile, Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller has called on the federal government to deploy targeted baits that kill screwworm flies before they reproduce. Miller recently lost his GOP primary for reelection.

“The science is settled. The tools are available,” Miller said in a news release this week. “What’s missing is urgency from the USDA.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An issue of state autonomy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proponents say consumers are already demanding higher standards.

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

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

‘We care a lot about our animals’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE