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.

Lake Superior had not seen an established population of the invasive bloody red shrimp until now. A new study by researchers at the University of Minnesota-Duluth and University of Wisconsin-Superior show there's a self-sustaining population in the Duluth-Superior harbor.

The post In Lake Superior, researchers find invasive bloody red shrimp are here to stay appeared first on WPR.

A developer is hoping to build a large-scale wind farm project in Marathon County, but locals are concerned about potential effects on health, homes and property values.

The post Marathon County residents sound off against proposed wind farm project appeared first on WPR.

The Wisconsin Department of Justice announced a $275,000 settlement Thursday with energy firm Enbridge for alleged violations of the state’s spills law over a 2019 spill in Jefferson County.

The post Wisconsin DOJ announces $275K settlement with Enbridge over 2019 spill appeared first on WPR.

Biofuel and corn advocates argue expanding the use of higher-ethanol gasoline could increase demand for corn and serve as a lifeline for farmers. Critics say it would lead to environmental and health costs.

The post Congress debates selling gas with 15 percent ethanol year-round permanently. Would it help Wisconsin farmers? appeared first on WPR.

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.

Wisconsin native Callie Grones was among AmeriCorps members abruptly fired by the Trump administration last year. Now, she's being recognized as an AmeriCorps Member of the Year.

The post Axed by the Trump administration, Wisconsin native named AmeriCorps Member of the Year appeared first on WPR.

Marinette and Peshtigo area residents told regulators Monday that they want the state to use a recent $10 million settlement over PFAS contamination to fund a health study and safe water for community members.

The post Wisconsin residents want $10M PFAS settlement spent on safe water, health study appeared first on WPR.

The Wisconsin Department of Justice announced Monday it has reached two settlements with a waste management company in Eau Claire over alleged air and hazardous waste violations.

The post Eau Claire company must pay $325K over alleged air and hazardous waste violations appeared first on WPR.

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.

The Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program will expire June 30 because Republican and Democratic lawmakers couldn't agree on the terms of reauthorizing it.

The post Candidates for governor vow to revive land conservation program appeared first on WPR.

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.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

When the filing window for lawsuits seeking compensation for cancers and other illnesses linked to exposure to toxic aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) closed on Sept. 5, 2025, it did so with little notice to the firefighters it was meant to protect, including those in Wisconsin.

Fewer than 13,000 claims were filed nationwide, a small fraction of the more than 1 million firefighters in the United States. This gap has raised questions about awareness of the filing process and access to legal information among potentially affected individuals.

Firefighters in smaller and volunteer departments may have faced additional barriers to learning about filing deadlines. In many of these departments, limited administrative resources, part-time staffing and reduced access to legal outreach may have limited the reach of information about filing deadlines to some personnel.

This is a story about who did not file a lawsuit and why many firefighters may have been left behind while companies that profited from toxic products continue to avoid full accountability.

Toxic foam, local consequences

For decades, AFFF has been widely used by fire departments, industrial sites and military facilities because of its ability to rapidly suppress fuel-based fires. The foam’s effectiveness comes from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a class of toxic chemicals known for their serious health risks.

Often called “forever chemicals,” PFAS persist in the environment and build up in the human body. Studies have linked PFAS exposure to kidney and testicular cancers, thyroid disease, immune dysfunction, and other long-term illnesses. Firefighters show higher PFAS levels in their blood than the general population from routine AFFF use and wearing PFAS-contaminated turnout gear meant to protect them.

PFAS contamination is widespread in Wisconsin. Elevated levels of these toxic chemicals have been found in the state’s drinking water, resulting from firefighting foam used at military installations and airports. While the contamination threatened the public through the water supply, it also exposed the risks firefighters faced from regularly using the foam.

A broken notification system

Wisconsin is home to 809 fire departments and roughly 25,000 firefighters. Nearly 80% of those departments rely on volunteer personnel. Many of those firefighters may have been exposed to AFFF during their service, yet the exact number of Wisconsin firefighters who filed claims before the Sept. 5 deadline is not available in consolidated public data. Nationwide, fewer than 13,000 claims were submitted in total, a figure that suggests vast numbers of potentially affected firefighters never filed at all.

Volunteer departments may have faced particular barriers. Many operate with limited administrative resources and part-time staffing, leaving little capacity to track litigation deadlines alongside the demands of active firefighting. Without dedicated staff tracking occupational health developments, information about the filing window may never have reached the people who needed it.

There was also no centralized system to notify retirees or firefighters who had already left service due to illness, the population arguably most in need of compensation. Without a mechanism to track AFFF claims at the local level, many firefighters likely had no way of knowing the window existed at all.

Removing barriers to ensure fair compensation

Firefighters who missed the filing window now face a much harder path to compensation.

Claims may still be filed, but only with causation reports directly linking their illness to PFAS exposure. These reports may cost thousands of dollars in expert fees to obtain, creating heavy burdens for firefighters already battling illness.

U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and U.S. Rep. Darren Soto, D-Fla., introduced the Firefighter PFAS Injury Compensation Act in 2024, but it stalled in committee without a vote. 

Similar legislation should be reintroduced. Such a bill would establish a no‑fault compensation system that presumes PFAS‑related illnesses were caused by PFAS exposure during firefighting activities, allowing eligible firefighters to receive compensation without having to prove causation in the traditional legal sense. Compensation would be tied to the illness and length of service, with determinations required within 120 days of filing.

Beyond legislation, agencies must also mandate outreach programs and unified notification systems for future compensation programs. Such measures would ensure firefighters are not excluded from relief due to broken outreach systems.

For firefighters in Wisconsin and across the nation, these reforms could change lives.

Honoring their sacrifice means delivering on these reforms. We must go beyond symbolic gestures to concrete actions that truly support firefighters both during and after their service. The AFFF filing window revealed a systemic failure. What matters now is whether we choose to learn from it.

Jordan Cade is an attorney with the Environmental Litigation Group, P.C., based in Birmingham, Alabama, where he represents firefighters and their families affected by exposure to PFAS and other toxic chemicals.

Guest opinion: Many Wisconsin firefighters missed a chance at toxic foam compensation. Here’s how to fix that. is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

A high tech robot dove 1,300 feet to Superior Maximus, the deepest point of the largest freshwater lake in the world. Scientists hoped to see wildlife rarely seen in their native habitat and discover a time capsule dropped in the 1980s.

The post Researchers explore the deepest part of Lake Superior for the first time in 40 years appeared first on WPR.

Residents of Marathon County will have the opportunity to sound off on a proposed wind farm project proposed that could include as many as 38 turbines.

The post Marathon County to hold listening session on proposed wind farm appeared first on WPR.

The city of Superior has passed a moratorium on data centers as a nearby Duluth suburb weighs a massive data center complex proposed by Google.

The post Superior joins growing number of Wisconsin communities to pass data center moratorium appeared first on WPR.

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.”

Canadian energy firm Enbridge said work on rerouting its Line 5 oil and gas pipeline in northern Wisconsin is picking up steam with hundreds of workers on site as legal challenges remain ongoing.

The post Enbridge says 500 at work on construction of Line 5 reroute in northern Wisconsin appeared first on WPR.

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.”

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Silos — tower-like structures on farms that hold fermented feed for livestock — have dotted the Midwestern landscape for 150 years. But they’re threatened by development and old age. One “silo hunter” in northern Illinois has been tracking down silos her grandfather built before they disappear.

Marianne May drove around the backroads of McHenry County on a recent afternoon, scanning for those tall, round structures with a shallow point at the top that’s characteristic of her grandfather’s silos. Some of them have a little diamond shape on the very top — his signature.

She’s a self-proclaimed silo hunter, and she comes back to her hometown throughout the year to find ever more silos that her grandfather, Frank May, built on some of the oldest farms in the Midwest.

“I grew up in Richmond, and I always knew where a lot of my grandpa’s silos were,” she said. “I just sort of had them in my head. I never really thought that I would do anything about it. They just were always there, part of the landscape.”

Silos probably fade into the background for most people who live in the Corn Belt. Though they often serve as landmarks, people’s connection to them has tended to be utilitarian. Occasionally, silos have been saved by being converted into housing or public space, but many others have been destroyed.

But their legacy is rooted in Illinois. Historians believe the first one in the Midwest was built in Spring Grove, a village in McHenry County. Bill Kemp, historian with the McLean County Museum of History, said silos transformed agriculture in the Midwest. 

“Silos and all of these magnificent, very utilitarian buildings,” Kemp said, “really speak to this rich, dynamic, very diverse agriculture that was practiced up until World War II — or the decade after World War II — when industrialization and commercialization and singular, two-crop farming came into play.”

Farmers used to have to rely on dried hay to feed their animals over the winter, but it was bulky and it didn’t last long. But silos are airtight containers that farmers could pack tightly with corn, allow it to ferment and then store it for years. They used to be made of wood, but when people like Frank May started using concrete in the early 1900s, farmers could grow their livestock herds even larger.

Kemp said initially, farmers were skeptical of this new invention.

“Once you would have a farmer in a particular township or in a rural neighborhood construct a silo and find how useful it was,” he said, “that would be quickly adapted by his or her neighbors.”

It’s an essential structure.

“We tend to forget about the built environment of the Corn Belt,” he said. “And all these wonderful stories — the buildings and the structures in the countryside that people drive past all the time but never really think about — what do they say about the past?”

Marianne May said silo hunting can be a thankless task. She’s been doing this for six years and has identified almost 200 of her grandfather’s silos. She said there may be at least that many more.

“Almost every place I go, there’s something,” she said. “There’s some connection, whether it’s somebody in my family or extended family, or maybe they worked with Frank. There’s something fun to be discovered.”

So much of the work is investigation and guesswork. But she can speculate what it was like for her grandparents to grow up as neighbors, just like she wonders why the silos are clustered in groups, or why he used one shape over another.

She found a silo at Frank May’s childhood home, as well as a matching silo at the farmhouse across the street. That’s where Marianne’s grandmother grew up.

“I think it’s important that these silos are identified,” she said. “The locations where they are and where they were, because each time I come home, there are some gone that get pushed over for development or just fall over.”

It’s a reminder that May’s project is never-ending and that it’s a gift to learn more about the family history of the area’s farming community — and the mark farming made on the Midwestern landscape.

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

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

Silos are disappearing from the landscape. One woman wants to hunt them down before they do. is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.