PFAS, sometimes known as forever chemicals, are a family of over ten thousand compounds with remarkable performance in applications like waterproofing, fertilizer, pesticides,...
The post PFAS Destruction appeared first on Cleantech Group.
Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and Republican lawmakers continue to dig in their heels during a yearslong tug-of-war over how regulators should hold property owners liable for contamination caused by “forever chemicals” known as PFAS.
They are pushing competing proposals to protect so-called innocent landowners — those who didn’t knowingly cause their PFAS pollution — from liability under Wisconsin’s decades-old environmental cleanup law.
Evers’ two-year budget proposal, introduced last week, exempts some owners of residential and agricultural land. The proposal would also fund testing and cleanups of affected properties.
His budget takes a narrower tack than the approach spearheaded by a Republican who has long sought to protect innocent landowners.
During the previous legislative session, Sen. Eric Wimberger of Oconto co-authored an innocent landowner bill that lawmakers passed along party lines before an Evers veto.
The governor accused Republicans of using farmers as “scapegoats” to constrain state authority. His staff warned that if Republicans present the same proposal this session, Evers might veto it again.
Wimberger says Evers’ staff has failed to respond to his requests for an outline of innocent landowner exemptions Evers would support. Wimberger is now circulating two draft bills co-authored with state Rep. Jeff Mursau, R-Crivitz, that contain provisions virtually identical to the vetoed legislation. Those include grants for municipalities and owners of PFAS-contaminated properties.
The proposals also would limit the Department of Natural Resources’ power to require property owners to pay for cleanups and extend liability exemptions to certain businesses and municipalities.
“The governor needlessly vetoed the plan over protections for innocent landowners,” Wimberger said in a statement. “Now, after delaying this relief for a year, he says he wants to protect innocent landowners. While it’s encouraging to see him change his mind, he is no champion for pollution victims.”
Wisconsin’s spills law requires reporting and cleanup by parties that pollute air, soil or water or if they discover contamination from a past owner. That is because, in part, allowing pollution to remain on the landscape could be more dangerous to human health than the initial spill.
The DNR has held parties liable for PFAS contamination they didn’t cause but also has exercised discretion by seeking remediation from past spillers instead of current property owners.
PFAS, short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a family of more than 12,000 compounds commonly found in consumer products like food wrappers, nonstick pans and raincoats along with firefighting foam used to smother hot blazes. Some are toxic.
The chemicals pass through the waste stream and into sewage treatment plants, which commonly contract with farmers to accept processed sludge as fertilizer.
Testing is now unearthing PFAS on cropland from Maine to Texas. Several hot spots are located in Wisconsin too, among the more than 100 PFAS-contaminated case files the DNR currently monitors.
The agency maintains it has never, and has no plans to, enforce the spills law against a property owner who unknowingly received PFAS-contaminated fertilizer. But Republican lawmakers don’t trust those promises.
Evers’ bill would exempt only residential and agricultural properties polluted with PFAS-contaminated sludge. Affected landowners would have to provide the DNR access to their property for cleanup and not worsen the contamination.
Evers’ innocent landowner exemption would sunset by 2036.
Meanwhile, the Republican draft bills would prevent the DNR from enforcing the spills law when the responsible party qualifies as an innocent landowner and allow the department to clean up its property at its own expense.
The first bill focuses on innocent landowner provisions, while the second, larger proposal adds grant programs without specifying appropriations. Wimberger explained introducing two bills would “ensure the victims of PFAS pollution get the debate they deserve” and prevent Democrats from “playing politics” with PFAS funding and policy.
Unlike Evers’ budget proposal, the draft bills don’t release $125 million in aid to PFAS-affected communities that has sat in a trust fund for 18 months.
The Legislature allocated the funds in the previous two-year budget, but its GOP-controlled finance committee hasn’t transferred the cash to the DNR.
Lawmakers in both parties have bristled over the languishing money, with Democrats contending the committee could transfer it without passing a new law. The nonpartisan Wisconsin Legislative Council says lawmakers would be on “relatively firm legal footing” if they did so.
Republicans, meanwhile, say transferring the dollars without limiting DNR enforcement powers would not effectively help impacted landowners. They say the DNR could treat a landowner’s request for state assistance as an invitation for punishment.
The previous, vetoed bill garnered support from all three Wisconsin local government associations, but environmental groups, the DNR and Evers said it shifted PFAS cleanup costs to taxpayers.
Environmental groups also feared Republicans on the finance committee would continue withholding the $125 million even if the legislation had advanced — protracting the stalemate while weakening the DNR.
Nor would risking “unintended consequences” of weakening the spills law be worth $125 million, which would scratch the surface of remediation costs, environmental critics said.
Expenses in Marinette County alone, which is coping with PFAS contamination linked to a firefighter training site owned by Johnson Controls International, already exceed that amount.
The Milwaukee Business Journal reported the company upped its reserves by $255 million to finance the cleanup. With the increase, the company has recorded charges of about $400 million since 2019.
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
Who pays for PFAS? Governor, GOP lawmakers wrestle over cleanup liability 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 year and a half after Wisconsin lawmakers earmarked $125 million to clean up toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS, the funds have yet to flow to contaminated communities.
That’s due to a legal and philosophical debate over the limits of government power and the potentially harsh consequences of a decades-old environmental law.
Lawmakers continue to hash out the rules to guide who would receive the money and, more importantly, the legal risks for entities that request it.
The Legislature’s GOP-controlled finance committee won’t transfer the cash designated to address Wisconsin’s PFAS problem to the state Department of Natural Resources, so it continues to accumulate interest in a trust fund.
Democratic Gov. Tony Evers is now trying again — this time, embracing an idea penned by the Republican legislators with whom he sparred.
Evers’ plans, to be included in his upcoming budget proposal, include a cash infusion that expands the trust fund balance to $145 million, along with a provision contained in a GOP-authored PFAS bill that Evers vetoed last year.
That measure, introduced in 2023 by Sen. Eric Wimberger, R-Oconto, created grants for municipalities and owners of PFAS-contaminated properties — so-called “innocent landowners” — who didn’t cause their pollution.
It also truncated the DNR’s power to mandate cleanups.
But in his new budget proposal, Evers hopes to carve what appears to be a narrow liability exemption.
It would only apply to cropland that was polluted with PFAS when the owner unknowingly received contaminated fertilizer derived from sewage sludge. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources already has said it doesn’t enforce its cleanup policy under those circumstances.
PFAS, short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a family of more than 12,000 compounds commonly found in consumer products like food wrappers, nonstick pans and raincoats along with special firefighting foam that can extinguish the hottest of blazes.
The intractable chemicals are turning up in drinking water around the country. In 2022, the EPA released health advisories, suggesting virtually no amount of several PFAS is safe for consumption.
The DNR is currently monitoring PFAS contamination at more than 100 sites.
State rules require reporting and environmental restoration by parties that pollute air, soil or water or discover past contamination on their property even if they aren’t directly responsible.
The DNR holds parties liable for PFAS contamination they didn’t cause but also exercises discretion to force past spillers to clean up instead of current property owners. The law also under certain circumstances exempts neighbors of contaminated properties from liability when a spill crosses property lines.
The department’s authority comes from Wisconsin’s spills law, passed in 1978. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed that legislators intended to see pollution cleaned up regardless of who caused it. Failing to do so, it said, is just as, if not more, dangerous to human health than the initial spill.
The power of Wisconsin’s spills law has come under scrutiny in recent years as the scale of PFAS cleanup costs comes to light.
Last session’s Senate bill would have prevented the DNR from enforcing provisions of the spills law when the responsible party qualifies as an innocent landowner and allows the department to clean up its property at the agency’s expense.
Wimberger said the measure would prevent the financial ruin of landowners who seek help from the department to address PFAS pollution or obtain clean water, without which their “application for a grant is a self-incriminating statement they have a polluted property and are an emitter.”
The threat of enforcement against the owner of a contaminated property might cause banks to think twice about refinancing a loan or even require a borrower to pay up in full, he said. Looming enforcement could increase the difficulty of selling a property.
At its most pernicious, the law might drive property owners to avoid testing for pollutants, risking their health for fear of the financial consequences.
Wimberger has often portrayed innocent landowners as homeowners or farmers who unknowingly had PFAS-containing inputs spread atop their fields.
But last year, Midwest Environmental Advocates, which opposed the bill, reviewed each of the 130 PFAS spill cases the department reported online.
The firm determined only seven cases applied to individuals and none concerned farmers whose contamination originated from PFAS-contaminated fertilizer. Most concerned businesses like chemical and energy companies, defense contractors and salvage yards.
Wimberger said department promises to exempt farmers don’t suffice, and throwing money at the problem is ineffective unless lawmakers enact enforcement guardrails.
Although the GOP bill would have protected individuals, liability exemptions also could extend to businesses like private landfills or paper mills that spread pulp and industrial sludge onto farm fields.
A list of more than 20 potential innocents compiled by one of the bill’s co-authors includes an electric transmission company whose transformer exploded in 2019 and the city of La Crosse, which the state currently holds responsible for PFAS contamination caused by the city’s fire department at its municipal airport. The bill’s backers say the property owners lacked a choice when firefighters sprayed the PFAS-containing foam.
Attorneys from the nonpartisan Legislative Council told lawmakers PFAS manufacturers and companies that test those chemicals likely wouldn’t qualify as innocent landowners.
However, the proposal would have prevented the DNR from enforcing cleanup laws against companies based on PFAS samples taken from company properties unless the department could show the contamination exceeded a government standard.
But Wisconsin lacks PFAS standards for groundwater, and GOP-backed bureaucratic hurdles, including a 30-month time limit on the rulemaking process, have encumbered efforts to create them.
The state’s second attempt will expire in March.
Evers recently jump-started a new effort to create PFAS groundwater rules and proposed an exemption from the usual holdups.
“Safe drinking water should not be a partisan issue, and yet it has been,” said Marinette City Council member and clean water advocate Doug Oitzinger, whose county is coping with PFAS contamination linked to a firefighter training site owned by Johnson Controls International. “We have failed utterly as a state to have environmental laws that protect us when it comes to PFAS.”
Evers’ proposal would transfer money to the DNR for PFAS testing and removal at public drinking water systems, testing of private wells, grants to stem the release of PFAS into the environment, research into PFAS destruction methods and statewide PFAS testing. Evers also would allocate $7 million to innocent landowners for testing and cleanup.
He continues to call for the release of the PFAS trust fund money, the balance of which now stands at $127.1 million, including unspent funds from a state firefighting foam cleanup program.
“We cannot afford more years of inaction and obstruction,” Evers said in a statement. “I urge Republicans and Democrats to work together to do what’s best for our kids and Wisconsin’s families by investing in critical efforts to improve water quality.”
But potential spills law impacts remain unknown until the governor’s budget clarifies the scope of liability protections Evers hopes to create.
“I’ve been waiting for months for the governor to clarify his definition of an ‘innocent landowner,’ and he has refused to respond to my requests,” Wimberger said in a statement.
Evers’ staff have said the governor remains opposed to limiting department authority, and if Republicans present a proposal identical to last session’s bill, he might veto it again.
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
Wisconsin is still sitting on $125 million for PFAS cleanup 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 PFAS advisory sign along Starkweather Creek. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)
Gov. Tony Evers on Tuesday announced a $145 million budget proposal to address PFAS pollution across the state, an amount that more than doubles the money set aside in the last state budget to address the problem.
In the 2023-25 budget, Evers and lawmakers set aside $125 million in a trust fund to be spent on PFAS remediation, but the governor and Republicans in the Legislature failed to reach an agreement on a bill that would get the money out the door.
Communities across the state have been affected by water contaminated with PFAS, a family of man-made compounds known as “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down easily in the environment. PFAS have been used to manufacture household goods such as non-stick pans, fast food wrappers and certain types of firefighting foam.
Clean water advocates saw the $125 million appropriation set aside two years ago as a good first step for addressing the problem. Democrats and advocates turned against a bill authored by a group of Green Bay-area Republicans, including Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto), because they believed it would allow polluters to receive funds through its innocent landowner grant program and let them off the hook for damage they caused.
As the debate over that bill took place through much of the last legislative session, residents of communities harmed by PFAS pollution complained that the bill did nothing to address the state’s lack of a standard for the acceptable level of PFAS in groundwater — the source of drinking water for the large portion of residents who use private drinking wells. The state has passed standards for PFAS in surface water and municipal water systems, but a previous effort to set a groundwater standard was halted by Republican appointees on the state Natural Resources Board in 2022.
Another proposed rule from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to set a groundwater standard has stalled because it is estimated to cost more than $10 million to implement. Under a state law known as the REINS Act, any administrative rule with an estimated cost over $10 million must be approved by the full Legislature.
That proposed rule is set to expire March 12, which would require the DNR to start the years-long rulemaking process over again. On Tuesday, Evers announced he has approved a new rulemaking effort to set a groundwater standard.
Under Evers’ budget proposal, the $145 million would be used to create a grant program for municipal water systems addressing PFAS pollution, helping private well owners sample and test their wells for the chemicals, research the destruction and disposal of the chemicals, provide grants to local businesses to reduce or eliminate their use of PFAS and provide bottled water to affected communities. The proposal, according to a news release, would also “protect innocent landowners like farmers who unknowingly spread biosolids containing PFAS,” an issue that Wimberger has cited as his motivation for his inclusion of the language that Democrats objected to in his previous bill.
In a news release, Wimberger responded to Evers’ proposal, saying the governor had finally come around to his view on the innocent landowner provisions while complaining Evers had not provided a counter-proposal to last year’s failed bill.
“It seems Governor Evers has come around to my position and supports my bill that he vetoed last year,” Wimberger said. “His proposals today are an admission of what I’ve been saying for years: we can’t just write the DNR a check for $125 million to fight this problem. We need a strong legal framework to fight PFAS contamination, including language protecting innocent landowners from being treated like polluters. However, I’ve been waiting for months for the Governor to clarify his definition of an ‘innocent landowner,’ and he has refused to respond to my requests. This delay is holding up meaningful solutions to PFAS problems affecting communities across our state. I find myself sitting at the table waiting to have a meaningful conversation on how we can pass a bill to fight PFAS in Wisconsin, and I hope the Governor will join us there soon.”
The language of Evers’ proposal isn’t yet public so it’s unclear how his definition of innocent landowners differs from Wimberger’s bill, but Erik Kanter, government relations director for Clean Wisconsin, told the Wisconsin Examiner that exempting farmers who spread PFAS-contaminated biosolids from being held responsible for PFAS pollution was something that had been talked about among lawmakers and interest groups. He added that Clean Wisconsin couldn’t support a PFAS bill unless the innocent landowner definition is narrowed.
Evers said he also wants to expand eligibility for the state’s well compensation grant program, which helps fund the addition of treatment systems or replacement of private wells. The program currently does not apply to private wells used for drinking water. He also said he wants to pass a bill that would exempt the proposed groundwater standard from the REINS Act requirements and prohibit the spreading of biosolids that exceed certain PFAS levels.
“Whether it’s kids in the classroom, families at home, or our farmers and agricultural industries, Wisconsinites’ health and well-being depend on access to clean, safe water,” Evers said in a statement. “Folks should be able to trust that the water coming from their tap is safe, but we know that’s not the case for far too many families and communities. We have a responsibility to ensure Wisconsinites have access to safe, clean drinking water no matter where they live in our state.”
The governor called on lawmakers not to repeat past delays.
“This is an urgent issue, and we cannot afford more years of inaction and obstruction,” Evers said. “I urge Republicans and Democrats to work together to do what’s best for our kids and Wisconsin’s families by investing in critical efforts to improve water quality and get contaminants out of our water in our next state budget.”
Evers’ full budget proposal is set to be released Feb. 18.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
This week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a pair of cases that present two questions at the core of an ongoing struggle between some of the most powerful forces in the state.
In the first, the seven justices will hear an appeal of a lower court ruling that could hamper the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ ability to enforce the state’s “Spills Law.” Enacted in 1978, the law requires people or companies discharging a hazardous substance “to restore the environment to the extent practicable and minimize the harmful effects from the discharge to the air, lands or waters of this state.”
The lawsuit, which the court will hear on Tuesday morning, was filed by Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state’s powerful business lobby, in 2021. It argued that the DNR could not require people to test for so-called “forever chemicals” contamination — and require remediation if they’re present — because the agency hadn’t gone through the formal process of designating the chemicals, known as PFAS, as “hazardous substances.” A circuit court judge and the conservative District 2 Court of Appeals agreed, so the state appealed to the state Supreme Court.
The law enables the DNR to enforce the cleanup of any substance posing a risk due to concentration, quantity and toxicity: In the wrong setting, even spilled milk poses a risk. PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a family of man-made chemicals used in nonstick cookware and firefighting foam, have been linked to serious health conditions in humans.
The agency maintains that a court loss would strip its authority to compel polluters to clean up chemicals and provide emergency water under the Spills Law, cutting off residents on PFAS-contaminated French Island who have been receiving water since 2021.
This case is notable for more than just the potential environmental implications. It could also put WMC, one of the most powerful lobbying groups in state politics, at odds with the court’s liberal majority just as a potential majority-shifting court campaign gets underway.
In 2023, WMC spent $5.6 million on the race boosting conservative former Justice Daniel Kelly in his failed bid against now-Justice Janet Protasiewicz. That figure made it the third biggest spender in the race — behind Protasieicz’s campaign and liberal group A Better Wisconsin Together — with the lobbying group outspending even Kelly’s campaign.
Wisconsin Watch will be keeping tabs on how the court’s liberal justices approach this case. Will they leave the lower court ruling in place? Rule against WMC, but only offer the DNR a narrow victory? Something else? A holding in favor of the DNR could draw the ire of WMC and the state’s business community — just as Wisconsin embarks on six straight springs of Wisconsin Supreme Court elections. Keep in mind that a 2005 environmental case involving lead manufacturers helped spur the modern era of expensive, politicized Wisconsin court races.
The second case, which the justices will hear on Thursday morning, is a continuation of a July 6-1 ruling blocking the Legislature’s Republican-controlled budget committee from “vetoing” certain conservation projects. In an opinion authored by conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley, the court declared that the committee’s review of certain projects was a separation of powers violation.
The court initially only heard one of three issues raised by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers in the lawsuit. But now, it will consider another: Whether or not the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules has the authority to strike down rules created by state agencies and professional boards.
JCRAR is a 10-member committee that, under state law, currently has the ability to block administrative rules proposed and promulgated by executive branch agencies. For example, in 2023, the committee voted 6-4 along partisan lines to lift a ban on conversion therapy in Wisconsin. The ban was implemented in 2020 by a state board that supervises licensed therapists, counselors and social workers in Wisconsin. The board deemed conversion therapy to be unprofessional conduct for those professions.
Attorneys representing the governor argued the committee’s ability to throw out rules is unconstitutional, once again arguing it represents legislative overreach and is a separation of powers violation.
The case presents yet another opportunity for the court to play the role of power broker. Will it bless the committee’s current practice? Will it rule in favor of the governor, expanding his policymaking ability while curbing the authority of the Legislature? We’re looking for these answers, while also keeping tabs on whether or not it seems the justices will once again be able to reach consensus, as they did in their 6-1 ruling over the summer.
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear cases on ‘Spills Law’ enforcement, legislative power 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.
How Did PFAS Get in the Water and Soil? As reported in September’s What Are PFAS? blog, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are...
The post Alternatives to PFAS in Textiles and Agriculture appeared first on Cleantech Group.
PFAS is an abbreviation for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. They are man-made chemicals widely used in packaging, cookware, fabrics, cosmetics, electronics, and medical...
The post What are PFAS? appeared first on Cleantech Group.
Login