DNR Secretary Karen Hyun peers through the window after the Assembly passed one of two PFAS bills. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)
More than 30 months after Gov. Tony Evers signed the 2023-25 biennial budget into law, setting aside $125 million to help Wisconsin communities mitigate PFAS pollution in the state’s drinking water, the Wisconsin Assembly on Friday unanimously passed two bills to get the money out the door.
This is the second time legislation to spend the money has reached this point after Evers vetoed a PFAS bill in 2024 over objections that the bill was too friendly to polluters. Since the money was set aside, the issue has been mired in partisan feuding.
As the Assembly scrambled to finish its work by its self-imposed Friday deadline before lawmakers head home to campaign for reelection, negotiations over the specific language of the legislation pushed the vote, initially scheduled for Thursday, past 8:30 p.m. on Friday evening.
The two bills were among the last pieces of legislation the Assembly voted on in normal session before adjourning.
The bill establishes programs to spend the money through grants for private well owners and municipal drinking water systems, boosting the state’s testing capabilities and research into PFAS at Universities of Wisconsin institutions.
Republicans, with the support of business groups, have been trying to craft legislation that protects “innocent landowners” from being held responsible for PFAS pollution while Democrats and environmental groups have argued the initial bill too widely defined “innocent,” letting polluters off the hook while weakening the state’s toxic spills law.
The return of the bill this session was met with renewed optimism that a bipartisan agreement could be reached. However, after Republicans narrowed the definition of innocent landowners, business groups such as Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and representatives of the state’s paper industry abandoned the effort, saying they couldn’t support the proposal anymore.
Throughout the two and a half years of debate, residents of communities affected by PFAS pollution have continued to struggle, often calling for the Legislature to instead enact standards for the acceptable level of PFAS in the state’s groundwater — the source of drinking water for the hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites with private wells.
PFAS pollution has affected larger communities such as Madison and Wausau and small communities such as French Island near La Crosse and the town of Stella near Rhinelander. The class of man-made chemical compounds was widely used in certain kinds of firefighting foams and household goods such as nonstick pans and fast-food wrappers. PFAS have been connected to health problems such as developmental problems in children and certain types of cancer.
On the floor of the Assembly Friday evening, with lawmakers desperate to hit the road, only three representatives spoke on the bill.
Rep. Lori Palmeri (D-Oshkosh), a member of the environment committee that produced the bills, touted the measures as a “great compromise” despite late-night final revisions to the bill, while Rep. Jill Billings (D-La Crosse) recounted the “horrifying” struggles PFAS contamination has caused for her constituents on French Island.
Rep. Jeff Mursau (R-Crivitz), one of the bill’s authors, said the bill is a “small step” toward fully solving the PFAS problem in the state but that the body was finally passing a bill that was the hardest to get across the finish line of his whole career in the Assembly.
Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto), one of the co-authors and lead negotiators on the PFAS legislation, celebrated the compromise that came from long negotiations with Evers and the Department of Natural Resources.
“Today’s vote in the Assembly will bring a massive, multiyear effort to address PFAS contamination in Wisconsin even closer to fruition,” he said in a release sent before 6 p.m. Thursday, more than a day before the Assembly actually voted. “Wisconsinites across the state have suffered for far too long from PFAS polluting their land and water. Bill passage will put innocent communities and landowners on the best path forward to remediate PFAS while ensuring they are not punished or forced into bankruptcy over pollution they did not cause.”
In a week in which the Assembly broke through on a handful of issues that have long been mired in the Legislature’s partisan muck, Wimberger said the bipartisan compromise was notable.
“Even a broken squirrel can find a clock twice a day,” he said.
The Milwaukee County Courthouse (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)
If your local court is struggling with a backlog of cases then help is on the way — except for people living in Milwaukee County. Although initially included in a Republican effort to fund more legal staff statewide, Milwaukee was largely removed from a bill authorizing additional circuit court and criminal justice system positions, in a move both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have said was purely political.
On Thursday, lawmakers voted to pass the Assembly version of that bill (AB 514) during an Assembly floor session. Under its original form — authored by Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Gillett) and Rep. David Steffens (R-Howard) — the bill would have provided Milwaukee County with funding for four assistant district attorney positions, four assistant state public defender positions, and six support staff positions for the Public Defender’s Office by 2028.
That aid is sorely needed in Milwaukee, where courts are burdened by thousands of unresolved cases, Wisconsin Watch reported. The backlog creates situations where cases are dismissed, people are held in custody for excessive periods waiting for trial, and attorneys on both sides of cases are overwhelmed. “Justice delayed, justice denied,” is how Kent Lovern, Milwaukee County’s District Attorney, described the backlog’s consequences. Yet in late January, the bill was amended to cut assistance for Milwaukee except for additional assistant prosecutor positions.
The Wisconsin Examiner’s Criminal Justice Reporting Project shines a light on incarceration, law enforcement and criminal justice issues with support from the Public Welfare Foundation.
When questioned about the cuts during an early February Senate hearing, Steffens said “there were certain things that had to be done” in order to get unanimous support for the bill among his fellow Republicans. Other counties, including Waukesha, Green Bay, Menomonee, Kenosha, Richland, Sauk, Ozaukee, Washington, Jefferson, Eau Claire, and numerous others didn’t see cuts in the number of additional public defenders the bill supports.
Since the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020, courts across the state have battled backlogs and staffing shortages. In August 2025, Wisconsin Watch reported, there was a backlog of 12,586 felony cases across the entire Wisconsin court system. Currently, according to Wisconsin Watch, there are over 10,000 unresolved felony cases in Milwaukee County’s court system.
Answering questions from Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee), Steffens explained that the original bill was designed based on clear and “clinical” needs assessments. “However,” said Steffens, “there does become a period where politics sometimes gets involved. And the substitute that was passed, again unanimously in the Assembly, did reflect some of those political pressures.” Instead of ensuring Milwaukee’s justice system gets the resources it needs now, Steffens said there would be “a continued opportunity through the next budget” to accomplish that.
“People have different positions on things all the time, and we have to respond to that as bill authors,” said Steffens. “I will say this, though, with every piece of legislation we introduce we have an opportunity to do nothing, something, or everything. This is quite something. This will be the largest increase in well over 15 years for these positions. The people who have been working on this look at this as a historic opportunity. If you are looking for perfection in this bill, you will not find it.”
Steffens declined to say which Republican lawmakers did not want to support Milwaukee County’s court system.
In a statement to Wisconsin Examiner, State Public Defender Jennifer Bias stressed the need for more defense attorneys in the court system. “Wisconsin has a dire need for more public defender staff statewide,” Bias said in an emailed statement. “Even in its amended form, this bill is a big step in the right direction and has the full support of our agency.”
On the Assembly floor Thursday evening, Steffens said that over his nearly 12 years in the legislature, he has worked with the Republican majority (which he noted has maintained “nearly uninterrupted control” for 30 years) to pass new crime laws or measures to enhance existing crime laws hundreds of times. Steffens said he was unaware of how this would shape the court system, and that the thousands of case backlogs is a sign that he and other lawmakers have failed the court system. He recounted hearing about a man in the Brown County Jail, who claimed he was innocent, and spent over a year waiting his case to conclude. As a result, he lost his job, his wife, and his job.
“That’s not justice,” said Steffens. “The Constitution guarantees that every person shall be provided with a speedy trial. We’ve been denying that to people throughout this state. In Brown County alone, we have a backlog of 8,000 cases.” Steffens added, “I’m trying to make up for my errors, my failure as a legislator, and I hope you’ll join me.”
Recalling a colleague who said that the bill “is the cost of being a law and order state,” he declared, “it’s time to pay that bill, and we’re going to do it by hiring these people. So I hope you’ll all join me in supporting this bipartisan piece of legislation and making a substantial step forward in restoring some measure of justice for all the people in Wisconsin.”
After Steffens spoke a voice vote was called on the bill. Some lawmakers very audibly yelled “no!” but were unable to stop the bill from passing and being messaged to the Senate.
Safety and support for everyone, except if you live in Milwaukee
“We see time and time again that Milwaukee County is blamed for its criminal activity,” Johnson said in frustration during an interview earlier this week. “We’re blamed for the rise in crime in other suburban areas, and other surrounding areas in Milwaukee, but this is a clear indication of why that continues to happen. Because when we have opportunities such as this…And I’m upset that other counties are getting these resources. If they need them, they deserve them. Milwaukee deserves those same measures of safety and security, too.” A spokesperson for Steffens said that he was unavailable for comment, and Wimberger’s office didn’t respond to Wisconsin Examiner’s request.
Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee). (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)
Johnson said that the motivation to cut Milwaukee out of the court support bill stemmed from a conflict involving the district attorney’s office, public defender’s office and a court watch group called Enough Is Enough. The group is dedicated to Erin Mogensen, a 32-year-old Shorewood woman who was pregnant when a driver crashed into and killed her in 2023. Enough Is Enough monitors similar cases in the court system, and has issued reports suggesting that judges delivered sentences in reckless driving and fleeing cases that were more lenient than what prosecutors recommended.
Last fall, two regional managers of the Wisconsin State Public Defender’s Office issued a letter to judges in the Milwaukee County Circuit Court’s criminal division accusing Enough Is Enough of being little more than “an extension of the DA’s office,” the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. The defenders obtained 258 emails from a public records request, showing “extensive meetings” between members of Enough Is Enough and the Milwaukee County DA’s office. Current and former assistant district attorneys were involved in the meetings, and even worked to review and draft letters from Enough Is Enough addressed to the judiciary. The public defenders warned the judges to consider this when evaluating impact statements or the presence of Enough Is Enough.
Speaker Robin Vos stands between Rep. Cindi Duchow, right, Rep. Bob Donovan, left, and others shortly before an Assembly floor session in 2023. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)
Both the group and the DA’s office pushed back against the public defenders’ accusations, the Journal Sentinel reported. Lovern acknowledged that he was approached by the group’s members in 2024, when he announced his bid for district attorney after John Chisholm retired. By the time Lovern became DA, Enough Is Enough had obtained 501(c)3 status. Lovern said he offered the group access where appropriate and assistance from his office.
Rep. Bob Donovan (R-Greenfield) jumped to the group’s defense, accusing the public defender’s office of trying to intimidate and discredit what Donovan called a “volunteer” and “grassroots” organization. Donovan had backed Enough Is Enough since its inception, has focused on the issue of reckless driving in recent years, according to the Journal Sentinel. Donovan didn’t respond to a request for comment for this story.
“When we talk about how things in this building can be political,” Johnson told the Wisconsin Examiner, speaking of the state Capitol, “this is a perfect example of a petty argument between two factions of the court system can be interjected by somebody in the state Legislature that just takes this argument to a whole new [level].”
The decision to strip the public defender positions from Milwaukee will only worsen the court backlog, Johnson said. “So you’re going to make things more complicated simply because you’re being petty,” she told the Examiner. “And what really pisses me off is the fact that we know in this building that if the rest of the state is taken care of with their needs, and the only entity that has a need is Milwaukee County, it will not get met. Because we’ve seen them slight Milwaukee County before…You don’t get to trump public safety for hundreds of thousands of people simply because you’re being petty, and petty politics is playing into this state Legislature, and their responsibility to an entire county.”
“We obviously believe that giving the public access to see what we're doing is important, but… just blindly giving money to an organization that's asking us for money, but not giving us any answers, is certainly not the solution at this time,” LeMahieu said. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)
The Wisconsin Senate passed three constitutional amendment proposals Wednesday, including one to eliminate DEI, one to limit the executive partial veto power and another to prohibit closures of places of worship during emergencies.
With WisconsinEye, the state government video streaming service, still offline, the first floor session of the year for the Senate was livestreamed with the help of the Legislative Technology Services Bureau.
Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) told reporters ahead of the session that after WisconsinEye halted its coverage on Dec. 15, the co-chairs of the Legislative Joint Audit Committee sent a letter with questions to the nonprofit organization. The letter had a Jan. 9 deadline to reply, but the organization did not provide responses until Jan. 21.
“We obviously believe that giving the public access to see what we’re doing is important, but… just blindly giving money to an organization that’s asking us for money, but not giving us any answers, is certainly not the solution at this time,” LeMahieu said.
LeMahieu said he had not yet reviewed the answers WisconsinEye sent on Wednesday morning. He said the livestream was not a way to explore replacing WisconsinEye.
The state Legislature set aside $10 million in 2023 to help the organization build an endowment. But that grant came with a requirement that WisconsinEye to raise enough money to match the funds in order to access the state dollars. As it ran out of funds, WisconsinEye asked the state to make money available for its operating expenses without the match requirement.
LeMahieu noted that the organization had three years to raise funds and request money from the Joint Finance Committee.
“We just want to figure out, really, what’s going on. It’s not proof that we don’t need WisconsinEye…,” LeMahieu said. “The point of today is just so that the general public can see us in action today.”
During the floor session, the Senate also took up bills on tax exemptions and education.
Constitutional amendments on DEI, partial veto and places of worship
The Senate passed three constitutional amendment proposals, each of which is on its second consideration, during its Thursday floor session. Constitutional amendment proposals in Wisconsin must pass two consecutive sessions of the Legislature before they go to the voters for final approval.
Republicans have relied on constitutional amendment proposals in recent years to bypass Democratic Gov. Tony Evers. According to a Ballotopedia review, Wisconsin voters decided on 258 ballot measures between the state’s founding in 1846 and April 2025. About 71% — or 185 — measures were approved and 28% — or 73 — were defeated.
In the last five years, Wisconsin voters will have decided on 10 constitutional amendment questions — a divergence from some points in state history when Wisconsin has gone years without a constitutional amendment going before voters.
If approved by voters, AJR 102 would amend the state constitution to “prohibit governmental entities in the state from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, public contracting, or public administration.”
Democratic lawmakers said the amendment would take the state backwards. They suggested amending the proposal to enshrine equality and same-sex marriage protections. Those proposals were voted down.
State Sen. Dora Drake (D-Milwaukee), who chairs the Legislative Black Caucus and has been working to call attention to the proposal over the last few weeks, likened the amendment to lawmakers rolling back Reconstruction efforts after the Civil War. She said the abandonment of Reconstruction efforts to bring justice to those who were enslaved, are the reason why the U.S. lived with Jim Crow laws for so long.
“Lawmakers made a decision to not protect [Americans],” Drake said. “Anything that was built was destroyed. It took nearly 80 years for our country to rectify that mistake with the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and landmark Supreme Court decisions to undo that harm.”
Drake said the amendment would cause harm and eliminate measures that keep Wisconsinites safe.
“Republicans will send us back to the pre-Civil Rights era, possibly further,” Drake said.
Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) said the proposal is “long overdue” and would give Wisconsin voters the final say on “discrimination at all levels of government.” He said that programs including the Supplier Diversity Program, which was established in the 1980s and certifies minority-owned, service-disabled veteran-owned and woman-owned businesses to provide better opportunities for them to do business with the state of Wisconsin, and scholarships and loans within the state’s higher education system that consider race amount to discrimination.
“Past discrimination, however wrong, cannot be corrected with more discrimination,” Nass said, adding that merit, character and ability should be the only things considered when it comes to programs.
The Senate also voted on voice vote to pass SB 652, which would amend several programs offered in the University of Wisconsin system to focus on “disadvantaged” students as opposed to considering race. Some of those programs include the minority teacher loan program and minority undergraduate grants.
Bill coauthor Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto) said the proposal will make it so people are able to receive help based on their specific life experiences, rather than having their life experiences presumed.
“We’ll finally make eligibility based on need,” Wimberger said.
Drake emphasized that several of the programs, including the Minority Teacher Loan Program that was signed into law by Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson, were bipartisan efforts at the time they were created. She said lawmakers were forgetting history and abandoning the previous work that was done to address the barriers that students face. She said that the only thing that has changed is the election of President Donald Trump, who has targeted DEI initiatives, and launched a “war against Black and brown people.”
“Shifting the policy solely to disadvantaged students without acknowledging racial, ethnic disparities risks eroding the progress made to address educational inequities,” Drake said. “That doesn’t solve anything, it covers up the issue.”
Curtailing partial veto powers
SJR 116, if approved by voters, would prohibit the governor from using the state’s partial veto power to create or increase a tax or fee. It passed the Senate 18-15 along party lines and still needs to pass the Assembly before it would be set to go to voters.
The proposal was introduced in reaction to Gov. Tony Evers’ partial veto that he exercised on the state budget in 2023 that extended annual school revenue limits for 400 years.
Sen. Melissa Ratcliff (D-Cottage Grove) spoke against the proposal, saying that the partial veto power is one of the only checks that can “correct harmful or irresponsible provisions that come from the Legislature” and will “weaken one of the few checks that protects the public.”
AJR 10 would prohibit the state from ordering the closure of places of worship during a state of emergency. The Senate concurred in the bill in a 17-15 vote, meaning it will officially go to voters in November.
The proposal was introduced in response to actions taken during a state of emergency declared by Evers during the COVID-19 pandemic. There was no debate on the floor about the measure.
Tax exemptions
The Senate concurred in AB 38, which would mirror federal policy to exempt tips from state income taxes, in a 21-12 vote. Sen. Sarah Keyeski (D-Lodi), Sen. Brad Pfaff (D-Onalaska) and Jamie Wall (D-Green Bay) joined Republicans in favor of the bill. The Assembly passed the bill last week, so it will now head to Evers for consideration.
The bill would allow tipped employees to deduct up to $25,000 in tips annually from their federal taxable income. Those earning more than $150,000 would not be eligible for the deduction.
The Democratic lawmakers who opposed the bill said it didn’t do enough to ensure that employees make a stable wage. Tipped employees in Wisconsin can currently make a minimum wage of $2.33.
Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) said that raising the minimum wage would ensure that a person’s wage doesn’t rely on “the mood that somebody is in” or “somebody’s willingness to be sexually harassed.”
“We should not put working people through that,” Roys said.
“You don’t get everything you want in life,” Jacque said. “I think this is something that is going to make life a little bit easier for those who work in the service industry.”
“We don’t make the employers pay these people fairly,” Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee) said. “These are the same people who have to rely on child care subsidies, who have to rely on Medicaid.”
Pfaff said in a statement that he voted for the bill because “hard working people continue to feel the pressure of rising costs every time they go to the grocery store, pay their rent and utility bills, and receive their new health insurance premium.”
SB 69, which will allow teachers who spend money on classroom expenses to claim a subtraction on their state income taxes of up to $300, passed unanimously.
Three education bills pass
The Senate voted 18-15 to concur in AB 602, a bill that instructs Evers to opt into the federal school choice tax credit program. It now goes to Evers.
A provision in the federal law signed by President Trump will provide a dollar-for-dollar tax credit of up to $1,700 to people who donate to a qualifying “scholarship granting program” to support certain educational expenses including tuition and board at private schools, tutoring and books, but governors must decide whether to opt in and have until Jan. 1, 2027 to do so.
Sen. Mary Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk) said during a press conference that the program would help provide additional funding to students without using state dollars. She emphasized that if the state doesn’t opt in, then Wisconsinites could still benefit from the credit by donating to programs in participating states, but those dollars would not go to Wisconsin students.
“We want to see those dollars stay in Wisconsin,” Felzkowski said.
Evers has previously said he wouldn’t opt the state into the program. He could veto the Republican bill instructing him to do so when it arrives at his desk.
Sex ed legislation
SB 371 passed 18-15 along party lines. It would add requirements for school districts that provide human growth and development programs to show high definition video of the development of the brain, heart, sex organs and other organs, a rendering of the fertilization process and fetal development and a presentation on each trimester of pregnancy and the physical and emotional health of the mother. It now goes to the Assembly for consideration.
Roys, the Madison Democrat, criticized the bill as being part of a “nationwide effort by some of the most extreme anti-abortion… to try to indoctrinate young children.” She noted that some of Wisconsin’s prominent anti-abortion organizations support the bill including the Wisconsin Catholic Conference, Pro-Life Wisconsin and Wisconsin Right to Life.
Felzkowski, the GOP author of the bill, said young people deserve to know “what happens to them, what happens to their body, what happens to a fetus… What are you afraid of? Why would a child having knowledge scare you?”
The Senate concurred in AB 457 18-15 and will now go to Evers for consideration. The bill would require Wisconsin school districts to submit their financial reports to the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) on time before they can ask voters for funding through a referendum. It was introduced in reaction to Milwaukee Public Schools approving a large referendum and a subsequent financial reporting scandal in 2024.
Wisconsin DNR Secretary Karen Hyun testifies to an Assembly committee about legislation to address PFAS contamination. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)
A Wisconsin Assembly committee held a hearing Wednesday on a pair of bills to help mitigate and clean up water contamination caused by PFAS — a class of compounds also known as “forever chemicals” that has been tied to cancer and developmental diseases in children.
For two and a half years, $125 million set aside in the state’s 2023-25 biennial budget to fund the cleanup of PFAS contamination has sat untouched as the Republican-controlled Legislature, Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and a collection of interest groups were unable to reach agreement on how to structure the program and who should be held responsible for the pollution.
After initial optimism, the first legislative effort died after Democrats and environmental groups complained that the proposal let polluters off the hook.
While the debate in Madison has dragged on, communities including French Island near La Crosse, the town of Stella near Rhinelander, Wausau and Marinette have continued to face the harms of PFAS-contaminated water.
When the legislation was introduced again at the beginning of this legislative session, legislators again expressed hope that a compromise could be reached. Earlier this week, the bill’s authors, Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto) and Rep. Jeff Mursau (R-Crivitz), released a proposed amendment to the legislation. One of the bills directs how the money in the trust fund will be directed and the other creates the programs through which the money will flow.
At the hearing Wednesday, the duo emphasized how important it was for them to get the money out the door into affected communities and the need for compromise on the issue.
“The 2023-2025 budget included $125 million to address PFAS contamination and support cleanup efforts across the state,” Mursau said. “Unfortunately, those funds are sitting idle because we have failed to pass the legislation necessary to put them to work. Progress will require compromise. There are stakeholders on both sides of the aisle who may not like these amendments, but that is the reality of divided government, and it is not an excuse for inaction.”
The pair said the latest version of the legislation is the result of months of negotiations with the Department of Natural Resources and the Evers administration.
While the legislation still includes the “innocent landowner” provisions that have been at the heart of the dispute, the amended version tightens the definition of who qualifies. Wimberger said the new definition would still allow the DNR to bring enforcement actions against industries including paper companies and airports, but that the current version represents a lot of movement from the DNR and Evers.
“There was quite a bit of coming off the ledge on the governor’s side regarding innocent landowners,” Wimberger said.
Additionally, the bill creates a number of programs to test for PFAS and fund mitigation efforts by helping individual landowners dig new wells, helping communities upgrade water treatment systems and funding more comprehensive testing efforts.
But the language of the proposed amendments shows how difficult it has been for legislators to adjust the dial on Wisconsin’s PFAS policy. The bills now have the support of Evers, the DNR and some of the state’s leading environmental organizations, but industry groups including the state’s largest business lobby, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, and the Wisconsin Paper Council argued at the hearing that the bill would single out certain types of industry for enforcement actions.
“Substitute Amendment One takes a huge step backwards in terms of protecting truly innocent landowners and passive receivers,” Adam Jordahl, WMC’s director of environmental and energy policy, said, referring to a particular provision of the bill.
WMC in recent years brought and lost a lawsuit that would have prevented the state’s spills law from being applied to entities responsible for PFAS pollution.
Several industry representatives also threatened that if the amended bills are signed into law, they could invite legal challenges because of “constitutional concerns.” Jordahl said that one of the bills treats municipal facilities such as landfills and water treatment plants differently than private businesses conducting similar activities, which could make the law vulnerable to a lawsuit.
“This discrimination raises a significant constitutional concern under the concept of equal protection,” he said. “A successful lawsuit raising an equal protection claim could result in the invalidation of those unfairly applied exemptions. Second, as a policy matter, we feel this simply makes no sense. What is the policy justification for treating commercial and industrial or manufacturing facilities differently when they’re conducting the same activities and operating under the same laws and regulations?”
Paper industry representatives said at the hearing it’s unfair for the bill to single them out because the industry will be subjected to increased scrutiny despite their claims that the business does not cause most PFAS pollution.
Last year, the DNR named a paper mill as the responsible party for the PFAS contamination in Stella, which has seen some of the highest concentrations of the chemicals in the state.
Despite the skepticism from the business community about the latest version of the legislation, lawmakers throughout the Capitol appeared confident that it could finally get across the finish line.
“I met with Republican lawmakers and the DNR last week about critical PFAS bill changes that will be necessary to garner my support, and I’m really optimistic we’re finally going to be able to get something good done here after months of successful and productive negotiations,” Evers said in a statement. “I’m grateful Republican lawmakers have formally introduced an amendment that reflects the changes we’ve agreed to so far as a sign of good faith. We still have some important details to iron out to make sure DNR has the resources they need, but we’ve made a lot of progress. So, I’m really hopeful.”
Both Evers and Wimberger noted that the only remaining sticking point in the negotiations is how many staff members the DNR will be authorized to hire to support the responsibilities required under the bill. The current version of the amendment authorizes 10 positions while Evers is requesting 13.
Republican leaders in the Legislature have also signaled that the bill is likely to move forward.
“I think it’s a move in the right direction,” Senate Majority Leader Devin Lemahieu (R-Oostburg) said. “I think it’s a bill that hopefully our caucus can get behind and maybe finally get that money out the door.”
A bill to regulate Wisconsin's cottage food industry has drawn opposition from home bakers. (Photo courtesy of Becca Barth)
A Wisconsin Senate committee held a public hearing Tuesday on legislation that would create a regulatory system for the cottage food industry in Wisconsin.
In the hearing of the Committee on Transportation and Local Government, representatives of restaurants, commercial bakeries and grocery stores supported the proposal arguing that the bill would treat all food sellers equally, while the home bakers who would be affected by the bill complained that it would institute harsh income restrictions while subjecting them to requirements that aren’t relevant to the specifics of selling food out of a home kitchen.
Authored by Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto), the bill has largely Republican support but Milwaukee-area Democratic Reps. Russell Goodwin and Sylvia Ortiz-Velez have signed on as co-sponsors.
Under the bill, cottage food producers would be required to register with the state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. As part of that registration, people would need to provide a list of all the foods they sell and an ingredient list for each item. Any producer that earns between $10,000 and $40,000 in revenue from their home business would be subject to inspections by DATCP.
Anyone who makes more than $40,000 in revenue would no longer be considered a cottage food producer and would be required to obtain work space in a commercial kitchen.
The cottage food industry in Wisconsin was allowed to grow after a 2017 lawsuit struck down a state law banning the sale of home baked goods. Since then, the state has operated with just the court precedent guiding the industry.
Throughout the hearing, commercial industry representatives pushed for the passage of the bill as it’s written. Lobbying records show that the Wisconsin Bakers Association, Wisconsin Restaurants Association and Wisconsin Grocers Association have supported the bill.
“You have created these rules for me, and I get to be surprise inspected and tested on them to ensure consumer food safety,” Chrissy Meisner, owner of a bakery in Bloomer and member of the Wisconsin Bakers Association, said. “It is clear, even in my small town, that your honor system of them following the rules doesn’t work. There seems to be a need for the same oversight you require of me to sell bread and cookies applied to everyone.”
While much of the testimony in favor of the bill focused on food safety issues, some of those in favor also said they were concerned about competition from home producers.
“There’s only so much food that can be sold into a community,” Susan Quam, executive vice president of the Wisconsin Restaurant Association, said. “And everyone needs to fight for their share of those sales, whether it’s the grocery store, the local bakery, the restaurant or the cottage food baker. However, the first three are regulated, licensed, and have a lot of different and additional requirements that are put upon them to get that same very low profit margin.”
Home producers at the hearing said they would welcome regulation to tame their industry’s current wild west landscape, just not the regulations under the bill as currently written. The Wisconsin Farmers Union and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty have both lobbied against the bill.
The 2017 lawsuit that helped the industry bloom was litigated by the Institute for Justice, a national non-profit law firm focused on civil liberties. Ellen Hamlett, the organization’s activism manager, said she believes there’s “been a lot of industry pressure” to draft the current version of the bill.
“Wisconsin’s cottage food laws are overdue for reform,” Hamlett said. “It is very important to note that the way that this bill is structured will jeopardize the living of many cottage food producers.”
Jobea Murray, president of the Wisconsin Cottage Food Association, said that the bill represents a huge administrative burden for both the home producers and for DATCP, which will not receive any additional funding for implementing the registration and inspection requirements under the bill. She also said the food safety certifications required under the bill are specific to restaurant-like settings, which won’t help make home produced products safer.
“So we want to work with you to get this right,” Murray said. “[The bill] is a great starting point, but it needs significant changes to truly support Wisconsin’s cottage food economy.”
A lot of the opposition to the bill was centered around the $40,000 revenue cap. Several speakers noted that most states that allow the sale of cottage foods have no cap or else set their caps much higher. Iowa and Illinois do not set a cap on their cottage food sales while Minnesota’s revenue cap is $78,000.
A hemp plant at a Cottage Grove farm. Hemp, used for industrial purposes and now grown legally in Wisconsin, is made from a variety of the cannabis plant that is low in THC, the active ingredient that is responsible for the intoxicating effect of marijuana. (Wisconsin Examiner photo)
Wisconsin lawmakers are backing competing visions for the future of hemp in the state. One proposal, (SB 682), was discussed during a Thursday meeting of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Revenue. The bill would create a regulatory structure for hemp-derived cannabis products which would preserve the state’s hemp industry despite a federal ban set to take effect in November. Without state-level intervention, or the federal government choosing to reverse course, hemp growers and distributors fear that Wisconsin’s $700 million industry and about 3,500 jobs will disappear.
Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), chair of the Agriculture and Revenue Committee presented the bipartisan hemp bill to his committee, which he authored with bipartisan support. Testin’s legislation would define hemp as cannabis plants with no more than 0.3% of delta-9 THC (or the maximum concentration allowable under federal law up to 1%, whichever is greater) and define “hemp-derived cannabinoids” as any such compound extracted from the hemp plant. THC concentrations would be determined using specific high-performance testing methods.
Wisconsinites would need to be at least 21 years old to purchase hemp-derived cannabinoid products under the bill, which mandates that products undergo independent lab testing to ensure that they contain the amount and type of cannabinoids described on the product’s label. This practice, known as truth-in labeling, is something the hemp industry has called for in recent years.
Products could not be sold under the bill without labeling including contact information for the manufacturer or brand owner, serving sizes per container of product, ingredient lists including allergens, potency labeled in milligrams, and any necessary warnings. Under the bill, hemp-derived products could not contain more than 10 milligrams of THC in a single serving.
Testin said Thursday that globally, the industrial hemp market was valued at roughly $11 billion in 2025, and is expected to reach $48 billion by 2032. “Despite its wide availability, the regulation of [hemp-derived cannabinoid] products is essentially non-existent, leaving a patchwork of different approaches taken by states across the country,” he said.
In Wisconsin, such products “are generally recognized as legal but unregulated,” Testin said. “There are no state laws that restrict the sale to minors, regulate the potency or content of [hemp-derived cannabinoid products], or establish labeling or packaging requirements.” Minnesota, Kentucky, Tennessee and other states have moved to enact their own regulations, Testin said. “Regulations are needed to eliminate the current uncertainty regarding the status of [hemp-derived cannabinoid products], provide stability and certainty for businesses looking to enter this segment of the economy, and enact public safety regulations.”
Both Testin and Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) have worked on hemp laws for Wisconsin since the federal Farm Bill passed in 2018. “I’ve actually grown hemp,” said Kurtz, recalling that in 2019 “it was kind of a wide open market.” People that Kurtz and others called “bad actors” throughout the hearing also rode the hemp wave, seeing it as a “get rich quick scheme.” Kurtz said that today, the hemp industry is filled with people who want to do the right thing, but that “bad actors” have persisted.
Kurtz said SB 682 is designed to ensure that Wisconsinites “get the very best product, and they know what they’re getting.” He stressed that “if we do nothing, then hemp is going to be illegal at the federal level…but it will still be legal here in the state of Wisconsin. So I think it would behoove us to work together, get a good compromise, a good common sense piece of legislation to make sure that we — in my humble opinion — protect our constituents, but also protect an industry that I think is needed.”
Although hemp would be illegal at the federal level, a state-level industry could still operate similarly to the way some states have fully legal recreational or legalized cannabis programs, largely because the federal government has not cracked down on those industries.
Testin added that “regardless of anyone’s thoughts as it relates to cannabis and cannabinoids, it’s here. And obviously we have a lot of different approaches as to how to best move forward.” He repeatedly took aim at the “stupidity” of what he described as “our overlords” in Washington D.C., but also criticized other hemp-related bills being pushed in Wisconsin. Whereas some Republicans are seeking to ban hemp products outright, others have differing ideas about how a legal industry should be regulated.
A bill introduced by Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto), SB 681, would require that manufacturers and distributors of hemp-derived cannabinoid products have permits. Products would be sold under a three-tier system, and would be regulated similarly to alcohol under the Division of Alcohol Beverages, a component of the Department of Revenue, which would be renamed to the Division of Intoxicating Products.
Although both Testin and Wimberger’s bills have gained bipartisan support, Testin described Wimberger’s bill as “the dead bill” and “deader than dead.” Testin argued that SB 681 would over-regulate the hemp industry, and even lead to a monopolization effect where a small number of entities could control who gets hemp permits, shape an otherwise competitive market, and operate in a “good ol’ boys club” manner.
Sen. Sarah Keyeski (D-Lodi) highlighted the divide among state Republicans over hemp and cannabis products, stressing that Democrats are not the ones holding up legalization and regulation.
The committee room was filled with people from across the hemp industry who listened to the conversation. When lawmakers questioned how to ensure that children do not acquire intoxicating hemp products, distributors and manufacturers pointed to age-verification software even for online sales, which require a photograph and image of a driver’s license to approve an order. There was also discussion about how to prevent products from being marketed to children using cartoon-like advertising and appealing candy wrappers.
Some veterans testified, describing how hemp helped them alleviate pain, kick addictive pain killers, soothed PTSD symptoms, and calmed the body for sleep. Other testimony centered on the danger involved in crossing state lines to Michigan or Illinois to acquire cannabis to treat various medical conditions. Hemp farmers stressed that they need to know now how they will be affected by a looming federal ban as they decide when or whether to plant their crops in the spring.
Much of the public testimony was supportive of Testin’s bill, though some speakers said that it needed to be amended to protect farmers and growers, and also expand the kinds of products it would cover including drinks and gummies.
“Yes, we are now in a scenario where there are intoxicating hemp products,” said Testin. “But just no different than anything like beer, wine, or alcohol, we need to have some sensible regulations put in place, which this bill aims to do just that.”
As for “concerns about getting baked or getting high from these products,” Testin added, “it’s no different than those individuals who go out and consume too many old fashioneds at fish fry on a Friday night, or have too many beers. It’s about personal choice and responsibility, but at the same time making sure that we have some regulations put in place.”
The hemp industry deserves to “thrive and grow,” Testin said, while the public deserves protection and to know “that this stuff isn’t falling into the hands of people it shouldn’t be in, like kids.”
Login
