Petitioners skeptical of new DNR water rules
A group calling for stricter water pollution oversight in Wisconsin said new state rules are a positive step, but members remain skeptical it will lead to actual changes.
A series of rules revisions meant to align state water regulations with federal requirements were adopted by the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board last week.
The state claims it has resolved 51 of 75 deficiencies identified in 2011 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in which the state failed to properly enforce federal water regulations, according to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Most of those changes involved updating language and clarifying procedures, such as how to set limits for toxic substances discharged into rivers and lakes.
“I really do not have high hopes that much is going to come of this. I think it’s going to boil down to more political posturing, meddling and a waiting game,” said William Iwen, who lives in the town of Pierce in Kewaunee County, where a November study estimated 34 percent of private wells were contaminated with coliform, nitrates or E.coli.
Iwen is one of 16 petitioners who called on the EPA in October to crack down on the DNR for not adhering to the federal Clean Water Act. They claim the DNR’s inability or unwillingness to follow the regulations has led to growing problems with runoff pollution, contaminated drinking wells and algae blooms in lakes.
Many of the petitioners live in Northeastern Wisconsin, where phosphorus from large-scale dairy farms, industry and other sources has created a large dead zone in Lake Michigan’s Green Bay. The millions of gallons of liquid cattle manure spread on fields also has been blamed by some residents for contaminating drinking wells.
DNR Water Bureau Director Susan Sylvester said the state already has strong environmental protections, and the rules changes are more about aligning language of state regulations with the federal requirements.
“Wisconsin has pretty much the most comprehensive environmental regulations in EPA Region 5 (that includes six states bordering the Great Lakes). We’re doing a really good job right now. It’s just a question of whether (the regulations) read exactly the same,” Sylvester said, adding that the rules changes were not made in response to the petitioners.
An environmental lawyer who has been battling the DNR over water quality issues said the agency is being “insincere” about the deficiencies.
“They aren’t addressing some of the core problems… They’re only picking off some of the easy issues,” said Jimmy Para, a staff attorney for Midwest Environmental Advocates.
The state still must address 21 unresolved deficiencies. Some of those will require changing state law. For example, Wisconsin doesn’t allow individuals to challenge pollution discharge permits unless five or more people mount the challenge together. Federal law says any person has the right to make a challenge.
The DNR is also not protecting water located downstream from a pollution discharge, Para claims. For example, the agency might limit factory discharges into a river without considering if that limit is also appropriate for a pollution-sensitive lake at the river’s end.
Sylvester said the DNR is working on new rules to address most of the remaining deficiencies, and law changes have been proposed in the Legislature that would fix the rest.
arodewal@pressgazettemedia.com and follow him on Twitter @AdamGRodewald and on Facebook at Facebook.com/AdamGRodewald.