Seeing Red: Wisconsin's Cranberries, Campaign Contributions, and the Environment, cont.

---

Cranberry farming is a labor-intensive endeavor, requiring considerable water management.  A water control system, consisting of reservoirs, ditches and dikes to allow the grower to manipulate water levels in the cranberry beds.

Contrary to common belief, cranberries do not grow in or under water, but rather on moist soil.  During the growing season, water levels are kept 9-12 inches below the surface by releasing water to the side reservoirs or nearby waterbodies.  Sprinklers are used for frost protection, irrigation, and chemical applications.   In late fall, after the ground has frozen, the beds are slowly flooded to create ice cover to protect buds from serious winter injury and allow equipment to spread fresh sand on the beds.  Flooding is also used during harvest to float the berries away from the vines.

According to a 1981 survey, even before the current expansion boom, state cranberry growers had built dams on 59 navigable streams and rivers, diverted water from 33 lakes and impounded the natural drainage on 33 wetlands.

For every acre of cranberry bog, the growers retain 10 acres of side reservoir (and support land), a swampy holding tank for the water they draw upon to flood their bogs.  With at least 13,700 acres of land under cranberry production in 1997, growers require at least 137,000 acres of water in Wisconsin.

A portion of this water is generated from wells on private land, but the majority of the water flows from water bodies held in common for all Wisconsin citizens by the state government: wetlands, lakes, rivers and streams.  These important natural resources also require vast quantities of water to maintain their health.  Therein lies a conflict that increases as the cranberry industry steadily expands in Wisconsin.
 

Wisconsin's Wetland Water Quality Standards

 In 1991 Wisconsin created Wetland Water Quality Standards under adminstrative code NR 103 in response to the alarming decline of natural wetland acreage in the state.  The DNR estimated that loss at more than 50 percent of Wisconsin's original acres.

Up until then, permits to fill in wetlands for any type of development were granted under the Federal Clean Water Act by the Army Corp. of Engineers (Section 404).  The Wisconsin DNR, who had better knowledge of the resources and the impacts to them than the Army Corps, could only play an advisory role in that permitting process.

By establishing NR 103, the Wetland Water Quality Standards, the DNR gained veto power in the Army Corps of Engineers permitting process and, therefore, an opportunity to address the precipitous loss of natural wetlands in the state.

NR 103 created two tests for receiving a permit to alter, or fill, a natural wetland.  The first is an alternatives analysis; e.g. can the development occur somewhere else where a wetland would not be affected?  The second, if there is no alternative to the wetland, is to evaluate the potential for "significant adverse impact" on the wetland's functional values (e.g. its ability to provide water quality protectin, flood control, wildlife habitat, etc.).

The sequence of the two tests is very important for two reasons. The first concerns staff resources because the analysis of  adverse impact on functional values is very labor intensive and time consuming.  The second relates to the inherent subjectivity of deciding whether an adverse impact to the functional value of a wetland is "significant."  Political pressures can and do influence these value judgements.
 

Political Influence

A recent three-part series in the Wisconsin State Journal (Nov. 22-24) describes the considerable political influence and clout exerted by the cranberry industry over the years: "...according to DNR files and interviews with agency staffers, the lobby has wielded extraordinary power in its dealings with that agency, refusing, for example, to cooperate with scientific studies of pollution from cranberry farms."(3)

The cranberry industry has been very active in contributing to the campaigns of Wisconsin's elected officials. Between January 1,1991 and August 24,1998 the cranberry industry has contributed at least $113,169 to campaigns for state assembly, state senate and governor.  Because the industry operates no Political Action Committees (PACs), all contributions were from individuals or groups directly aligned with the cranberry industry.

Governor Thompson received the lion's share of these campaign contributions --- $84,183.  The cranberry industry's focus on contributions to Governor Thompson's campaigns is understandable.  Governor Thompson directly controls the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) through his appointment of its Secretary who is a member of the Governor's cabinet, and has now appointed all seven members of the Natural Resources Board.   The DNR's administrative duties include regulation of the state's water resources; resources utilized heavily by the cranberry industry.

The cranberry industry has been less active in contributing to Wisconsin legislators, contributing at least $28,806 during the same period.
 

Special Treatment

Historically, the Wisconsin cranberry industry has been granted special exemptions from environmental laws and rules that must be followed by other agricultural and industrial businesses in Wisconsin.  Recently, executive and legislative decision-makers have chosen to retain these special rules and even expand them.  By law, Section 94.26 of Wisconsin Statutes, the legislature has elevated the private rights of cranberry growers over public rights in water-related matters.

The special treatment began in 1867 with passage of the "Old Cranberry Law" which allows cranberry growers to destroy wetlands, alter trout streams and lakes, and avoid state dam safety inspections.  These actions may be taken without state input and approval. Recent attempts to remove this unparalleled exemption have met defeat in the Wisconsin legislature.  A 1990 bill, AB 763, which would require the cranberry industry to adhere to the same environmental laws as other Wisconsin businesses was defeated.

Even when the legislature addressed the cranberry industry's impacts on Wisconsin's waters, the Governor negated the effort.  In 1987 (before the DNR became a cabinet agency), the legislature approved funding for the DNR to study the impacts of pesticide use and of fertilizer and sediment runoff caused by cranberry growers.  Governor Thompson vetoed the study.  He also appointed Wilbur Lee, a Port Edwards cranberry grower to the Natural Resources Board, although Lee resigned after serving less than two years on the board.

The governor said that wetlands legislation that would harm the growers' abilities to use and enhance wetlands in their efforts to grow their crops wouldn't get beyond the tip of his pen.  "You've got a friend in the governor's office who carries a big red pen," Governor Thompson said on January 15,1992 to the Wisconsin Cranberry Association's winter meeting in Stevens Point.

A recent major expansion of special treatment for cranberry growers occurred in 1997 when the DNR revised its water quality standards for wetlands dealing with cranberry projects (NR103). Critics of the change concluded that it would grant a significant exemption from part of the water quality standards to the cranberry industry by shifting the burden of proof from the grower to the DNR, and relaxing the requirement to search for alternative locations for new cranberry operations.

The seven-member Natural Resources Board, all appointed by Governor Thompson, granted the exemption in the face of overwhelming public opposition (98% of citizen comments opposed the exemptions.(6) )  The next section takes a more detailed look at how that decision was made and the implication that the decision was largely the result of political influence over a Governor which the cranberry industry has invested in with its campaign contributions.

The following sections of this report discuss key details:

  Report Overview and Introduction
  Special Exemptions, Public Intervenor Objects, DNR Staff Shortages, Conclusions and Recommendations
  Methodology and References
  Campaign Contributions, Contributors and Recipients