Wisconsin governor proposes extra money to wash up PFAS

Studying Time: 5 minutes

A 12 months and a half after Wisconsin lawmakers earmarked $125 million to wash up poisonous “endlessly chemical compounds” referred to as PFAS, the funds have but to movement to contaminated communities.

That’s as a result of a authorized and philosophical debate over the bounds of presidency energy and the doubtless harsh penalties of a decades-old environmental regulation.

Lawmakers proceed to hash out the principles to information who would obtain the cash and, extra importantly, the authorized dangers for entities that request it.

The Legislature’s GOP-controlled finance committee received’t switch the money designated to deal with Wisconsin’s PFAS drawback to the state Division of Pure Assets, so it continues to build up curiosity in a belief fund.

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers is now making an attempt once more — this time, embracing an thought penned by the Republican legislators with whom he sparred.

Evers’ plans, to be included in his upcoming price range proposal, embrace a money infusion that expands the belief fund steadiness to $145 million, together with a provision contained in a GOP-authored PFAS invoice that Evers vetoed final 12 months.

That measure, launched in 2023 by Sen. Eric Wimberger, R-Oconto, created grants for municipalities and house owners of PFAS-contaminated properties — so-called “harmless landowners” — who didn’t trigger their air pollution.

It additionally truncated the DNR’s energy to mandate cleanups.

However in his new price range proposal, Evers hopes to carve what seems to be a slender legal responsibility exemption.

It could solely apply to cropland that was polluted with PFAS when the proprietor unknowingly obtained contaminated fertilizer derived from sewage sludge. The Wisconsin Division of Pure Assets already has mentioned it doesn’t implement its cleanup coverage below these circumstances.

What are PFAS?

PFAS, quick for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a household of greater than 12,000 compounds generally present in shopper merchandise like meals wrappers, nonstick pans and raincoats together with particular firefighting foam that may extinguish the most well liked of blazes.

The intractable chemical compounds are turning up in consuming water across the nation. In 2022, the EPA launched well being advisories, suggesting nearly no quantity of a number of PFAS is protected for consumption.

The DNR is presently monitoring PFAS contamination at greater than 100 websites.

What are state cleanup necessities?

State guidelines require reporting and environmental restoration by events that pollute air, soil or water or uncover previous contamination on their property even when they aren’t instantly accountable.

The DNR holds events responsible for PFAS contamination they didn’t trigger but additionally workout routines discretion to power previous spillers to wash up as an alternative of present property house owners. The regulation additionally below sure circumstances exempts neighbors of contaminated properties from legal responsibility when a spill crosses property strains.

The division’s authority comes from Wisconsin’s spills regulation, handed in 1978. The Wisconsin Supreme Court docket affirmed that legislators supposed to see air pollution cleaned up no matter who triggered it. Failing to take action, it mentioned, is simply as, if no more, harmful to human well being than the preliminary spill.

The facility of Wisconsin’s spills regulation has come below scrutiny lately as the size of PFAS cleanup prices involves mild.

What do the Senate invoice’s backers dislike about present coverage?

Final session’s Senate invoice would have prevented the DNR from imposing provisions of the spills regulation when the accountable occasion qualifies as an harmless landowner and permits the division to wash up its property on the company’s expense.

Wimberger mentioned the measure would forestall the monetary break of landowners who search assist from the division to deal with PFAS air pollution or get hold of clear water, with out which their “software for a grant is a self-incriminating assertion they’ve a polluted property and are an emitter.”

The specter of enforcement in opposition to the proprietor of a contaminated property would possibly trigger banks to suppose twice about refinancing a mortgage and even require a borrower to pay up in full, he mentioned. Looming enforcement might improve the issue of promoting a property.

At its most pernicious, the regulation would possibly drive property house owners to keep away from testing for pollution, risking their well being for concern of the monetary penalties.

Is that this really taking place to landowners?

Wimberger has typically portrayed harmless landowners as owners or farmers who unknowingly had PFAS-containing inputs unfold atop their fields.

However final 12 months, Midwest Environmental Advocates, which opposed the invoice, reviewed every of the 130 PFAS spill circumstances the division reported on-line.

The agency decided solely seven circumstances utilized to people and none involved farmers whose contamination originated from PFAS-contaminated fertilizer. Most involved companies like chemical and power firms, protection contractors and salvage yards.

What impacts would the Republican proposal have?

Wimberger mentioned division guarantees to exempt farmers don’t suffice, and throwing cash on the drawback is ineffective except lawmakers enact enforcement guardrails.

Though the GOP invoice would have protected people, legal responsibility exemptions additionally might prolong to companies like personal landfills or paper mills that unfold pulp and industrial sludge onto farm fields.

An inventory of greater than 20 potential innocents compiled by one of many invoice’s co-authors consists of an electrical transmission firm whose transformer exploded in 2019 and the town of La Crosse, which the state presently holds accountable for PFAS contamination brought on by the town’s fireplace division at its municipal airport. The invoice’s backers say the property house owners lacked a alternative when firefighters sprayed the PFAS-containing foam.

Attorneys from the nonpartisan Legislative Council instructed lawmakers PFAS producers and firms that check these chemical compounds probably wouldn’t qualify as harmless landowners. 

Nonetheless, the proposal would have prevented the DNR from imposing cleanup legal guidelines in opposition to firms primarily based on PFAS samples taken from firm properties except the division might present the contamination exceeded a authorities customary.

However Wisconsin lacks PFAS requirements for groundwater, and GOP-backed bureaucratic hurdles, together with a 30-month time restrict on the rulemaking course of, have encumbered efforts to create them.

The state’s second try will expire in March. 

Evers lately jump-started a brand new effort to create PFAS groundwater guidelines and proposed an exemption from the same old holdups.

“Protected consuming water shouldn’t be a partisan situation, and but it has been,” mentioned Marinette Metropolis Council member and clear water advocate Doug Oitzinger, whose county is dealing with PFAS contamination linked to a firefighter coaching website owned by Johnson Controls Worldwide. “We’ve got failed totally as a state to have environmental legal guidelines that shield us in the case of PFAS.”

What does Evers say he’ll embrace in his upcoming price range?

Evers’ proposal would switch cash to the DNR for PFAS testing and elimination at public consuming water methods, testing of personal wells, grants to stem the discharge of PFAS into the setting, analysis into PFAS destruction strategies and statewide PFAS testing. Evers additionally would allocate $7 million to harmless landowners for testing and cleanup.

He continues to name for the discharge of the PFAS belief fund cash, the steadiness of which now stands at $127.1 million, together with unspent funds from a state firefighting foam cleanup program.

“We can’t afford extra years of inaction and obstruction,” Evers mentioned in a press release. “I urge Republicans and Democrats to work collectively to do what’s finest for our children and Wisconsin’s households by investing in essential efforts to enhance water high quality.”

However potential spills regulation impacts stay unknown till the governor’s price range clarifies the scope of legal responsibility protections Evers hopes to create.

“I’ve been ready for months for the governor to make clear his definition of an ‘harmless landowner,’ and he has refused to reply to my requests,” Wimberger mentioned in a press release.

Evers’ workers have mentioned the governor stays against limiting division authority, and if Republicans current a proposal similar to final session’s invoice, he would possibly veto it once more.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for authentic tales and our Friday information roundup.