The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and a group of environmental organizations announced a settlement agreement Monday that would require stricter environmental impact assessments of future data center developments and initiate a statewide review of how data centers use the state’s resources. 

In June, the Sierra Club and Midwest Environmental Advocates sued the DNR in Ozaukee County court, arguing that the agency approved the permits for Vantage’s massive data center currently under construction in Port Washington without conducting a proper environmental impact statement. 

“AI data centers are massive, thirsty, energy hogs and have popped up all over Wisconsin,” Elizabeth Ward, director of the Wisconsin chapter of the Sierra Club, said in a statement. “They could completely change our landscape and use unprecedented amounts of water and energy. Wisconsinites and our regulators need to understand the impacts and opportunities to reduce harm before allowing data centers to move forward. Wisconsinites deserve an informed, transparent process for decisions that could shape their communities and environment for decades.

A report this summer by the state Public Service Commission found that the Port Washington data center and data centers being built by Microsoft in Mount Pleasant and Meta in Beaver Dam are set to be responsible for a 40% increase in statewide energy demand over the next six years. 

As part of the settlement agreement in the lawsuit, the DNR will conduct full environmental impact statements of individual data center proposals moving forward and complete a statewide strategic analysis of how data centers consume resources. 

State law and the DNR’s administrative rules allow the agency to conduct such an analysis when conflicts arise over resource demands for a  “complicated or complex issue; an issue that is new to the state; an issue or policy that will likely lead to future department actions that will require an environmental impact statement; issues for which there is a high potential for legislation or new department policy and the planning and development of controversial resource-oriented projects.”

“What started as a lawsuit over the environmental review of one data center has become an opportunity to address the data center issue on a much bigger scale,” MEA attorney Michael Greif said. “Looking at these impacts holistically is important because the impacts of data centers are statewide. State regulators will now have to examine the cumulative impacts of data center development across Wisconsin.”

Wisconsin will become one of a few states assessing the statewide impacts of data centers on their resources. In July, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed an executive order that initiated a similar analysis and last December, the Maryland Legislature enacted a law that requires a number of state agencies to study “the likely environmental, energy, and economic impacts of data center development.”

A factory farm in Pierce County filed a lawsuit late last month appealing an administrative law judge’s decision that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources didn’t include enough groundwater protections when approving a permit allowing the farm to expand from 1,700 to 6,500 cows. 

The Ridge Breeze Dairy in Maiden Rock has long been the subject of local activism against the expansion, which is expected to generate 78 million gallons of manure every year. The initial DNR permit process drew significant public participation. 

The dairy is owned by the Appleton-based Breeze Dairy Group, which operates a number of farms in the state — some with a history of manure spills. 

Communities across Wisconsin are facing the effects of massive factory farms on their local water, particularly rural areas where residents get their drinking water from private wells. The groundwater around the Ridge Breeze site already has elevated nitrate levels, which have been linked to blue-baby syndrome, thyroid disease and colon cancer.

The DNR approved the expansion permit in February 2025. During the application process, the agency had to send the permit back to the farm operators once because it named nearby properties as sites for planned manure spreading although those property owners were never contacted.

After the approval, a group of local residents and the advocacy group Grassroots Organizing Western Wisconsin filed a lawsuit alleging that the permit did not do enough to ensure that the area groundwater was protected. 

Two days of hearings were held in Eau Claire in March and in August Administrative Law Judge Angela Chaput Foy ruled in favor of the residents, sending the permit back to the DNR to include a process through which the agency can verify that the farm isn’t harming the groundwater. 

“By omitting a mechanism to verify actual compliance, the Department has issued a mandate while simultaneously denying itself the tools or data necessary to know whether that mandate is broken,” Chaput Foy wrote.

In the lawsuit, filed Sept. 23 in Outagamie County Circuit Court, the farm argues that it’s “aggrieved” by being forced to verify it is following the law, mostly because it would have to pay the cost of digging groundwater monitoring wells. 

In recent years, Wisconsin factory farms and their allied advocacy groups have also filed lawsuits that argue the DNR lacks the authority to regulate their pollutants at all. 

Ridge Breeze argues that state law doesn’t include a mechanism through which the DNR can verify compliance with groundwater standards in a factory farm’s permit. 

“The ALJ concludes that the lack of mechanisms in the Permit to verify that Ridge Breeze’s practices comply with the standards is inherently contradictory to the mandate to assure compliance with those standards,” the lawsuit states. “The Decision thus improperly conflates the statutory requirement to assure compliance with a (non-existent) obligation to prescribe conditions that verify compliance. Nothing in [state statute] requires the DNR to require groundwater monitoring or some other mechanism to ‘verify’ compliance or detect non-compliance.”

The dairy points to parts of Chaput Foy’s decision in which she finds that the provisions included in the initial permit should be strong enough to protect the groundwater. 

“By disregarding substantial record evidence that showed the terms prescribed in the Permit were reasonable and sufficient to assure compliance with groundwater standards — including the ALJ’s own conclusion that the permit ‘sets Ridge Breeze up for anticipated compliance’ — the Decision is outside the range of discretion conferred upon DNR and is unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious, and should be reversed and/or remanded to the agency,” the lawsuit states. 

Danny Akenson, an organizer with GROWW, said in a statement that Ridge Breeze appealing the decision shows the farm cares more about its bottom line than being a good neighbor. 

“We fought for three years to make sure the state has a way to determine whether Ridge Breeze is contaminating our groundwater, and the judge agreed with us,” Akenson said. “Factory farm special interests care more about protecting corporate profits than protecting the groundwater Wisconsin families rely on. Ridge Breeze may have deep pockets for legal fees, but we’re organized, and we’re not going to let them off the hook.”

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has told the oil and gas company Enbridge to halt construction on the Line 5 pipeline across northern Wisconsin after a massive spill of natural gas liquids in Iron County late last month. 

The spill, which occurred near the town of Saxon and at 1.3 million gallons of natural gas liquids was the largest in the company’s history, was caused when an unoccupied truck rolled over a valve while crews were doing construction work. The company is in the process of rerouting Line 5 off the Bad River tribe’s reservation — a controversial project which has triggered numerous challenges to the DNR and federal permits. 

Since the spill, environmental activists, tribal members, candidates for office and elected officials in both Wisconsin and Michigan have renewed their calls for the pipeline to be shut down. 

After the spill, Enbridge began working to bypass the damaged valve so the pipeline could again be used to transport Canadian oil and gas. On Wednesday, the DNR issued a notice of noncompliance to the company, noting that Enbridge was constructing the bypass without the proper permits from the DNR. 

In the notice, and in an accompanying letter from DNR Secretary Karen Hyun, the agency said that it had told the company on three separate occasions it could not conduct the bypass work without approval from the state, and possibly from both the county and federal governments. 

The notice states that the bypass construction involves matting placed in nearby wetlands and close to Spoon Creek, which is considered a navigable waterway regulated by state law. 

In her letter, Hyun said she was “deeply concerned and incredibly frustrated” by Enbridge’s actions, especially the potentially harmful effects caused by the “significant discharge” of pollutants known as volatile organic compounds — which can be harmful to people’s health and the local environment. 

“Enbridge has continued to add to the growing list of environmental concerns and violations, demonstrating disregard for the environment, human health, and the statutory authority of the department,” she wrote. “Regarding the Line 5 reroute construction, Enbridge has caused additional discharges to the environment since my earlier letter, which have caused continued frustration and profound unease for the department and the people of Wisconsin. Additionally, at the location of the Line 5 Natural Gas Liquids (NGL) spill on August 25, Enbridge has made the decision to start unpermitted construction of a bypass, despite the extensive efforts of the DNR to educate Enbridge on the necessary permits and approvals for this bypass construction and a commitment to review submitted materials in a timely matter. Based on this pattern of noncompliance demonstrated by Enbridge, my concern over the environmental impacts of Enbridge’s activities over the past weeks has only heightened.”

In a statement, Enbridge spokesperson Juli Kellner said the company is working “around the clock” to clean up the spill site and return the pipeline to service. 

“Enbridge continues working towards both priorities related to the third-party line strike near Saxon, Wis. — the safe control and remediation of the incident site and completing a temporary bypass to allow the pipeline to return to service, which will help resolve energy supply disruptions,” she said. “Around the clock work on both priorities is being done in parallel. Line 5 is critical infrastructure delivering energy to millions of people in the Midwest and Great Lakes regions. We continue to work with the Wisconsin DNR on relevant permitting and separately on environmental conditions at the incident site.”

Rob Lee, an attorney for Midwest Environmental Advocates who has worked on the challenges to Enbridge’s Line 5 permits, said that the company doesn’t get to decide that restoring the pipeline is more important than following state law. 

“Enbridge knew it needed authorization before it started this work. The DNR told the company that repeatedly. Enbridge went ahead anyway. That shows extraordinary disregard for Wisconsin’s environmental laws and for the state agency charged with enforcing them,” Lee said. ““Enbridge cannot simply decide that getting Line 5 back in service is more important than following Wisconsin law. They’ve been out there moving earth, crossing waterways and disturbing wetlands without permits. They need to stop treating environmental requirements as obstacles to work around and start following the law. If they don’t, DNR should revoke the permits for the reroute.”