As of now, Thompson’s dumpster includes the Public Intervenor Office.  Axing the office is viewed by some as sensible cost cutting through elimination of duplicated government functions.  Says Patrick Stevens, director of environmental affairs for Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the Madison-based state business association, “With DNR’s enforcement staff and Dept. of Justice staff devoted to environmental enforcement, the Public Intervenor Office is redundant.”  He notes that with the substantial body of law already on the books “the notion that environmental safeguards will go out the window with the elimination of the office is simply unfounded.”

State spending aside, the elimination of the office could be seen as a symbolic victory for business confronting an increasingly confused web of environmental regulation.

Compounding the inherent difficulties of this regulatory labyrinth is the cover it offers environmental activists for blocking activities viewed as environmentally malicious.  On a gut level, elimination of the office means one less environmental advocate to contend with.

Yet gut reactions aside, arguably the office serves business by reducing the likelihood of an environmental legal ambush.  Here’s why:

The Public Intervenor Office was originally established in the late 1960s to placate flannel-shirt conservationists and sportsmen who feared merging the Conservation Department with the Department of Resource Development into the current Department of Natural Resources would mean the loss of a public advocate for conservation.

It was to be DNR’s watchdog --- a role that has since expanded to include other administrative agencies whose rules touch environmental concerns.  In the process the office has become a player in drafting both legislation and administrative rules.

From the business point of view, the process has resulted in a more certain and consistent regulatory framework.  It means minimizing risks associated with legal uncertainty, which translates into legal uncertainty, which translates into less costly regulation and a lower probability of facing environmental lawsuits.

Says Donald Gall, a Michael, Best and Friedrich environmental attorney, “They serve a valuable function in regulatory development.”

“When they have a  concern it’s always valid,” Gallo says.  On Wisconsin’s comprehensive soil cleanup rule, for example, “they made us think of all the ways that rule is going to be used.”  Gallo served on the advisory committee involved in drafting the rule, which is intended to speed remediation projects and reduce cleanup costs.

But regulation with few hidden traps are as important as cost considerations.   Gallo believes that, because of the public intervenor’s influence on the rule-making process, Wisconsin is more apt to do it right the first time.   Subsequently, the meaning of Wisconsin regulation is less likely to be determined by the courts and is less likely to be subject to a series of confusing major revisions.  The economic value of certainty argues for the Intervenor Office.

The office has evolved into a focal point for forming consensus in drafting environmental laws and regulation.  While the process may be less that perfect, the alternatives are either political, litigious or a combination of both.

This consensus process dates to the mid-1970s when a huge public-policy hole became apparent with regard to metallic mining.  In 1976, Kennecott Copper Corporation sought permits to mine copper in the Town of Grant, in Rusk County.  Grant residents were less than enthusiastic and discovered mining regulations simply did not exist.  What followed was a long process for drafting enabling legislation and detailed mining regulations.  Among the interests represented at the negotiating table were industry, Town of Grant, the Natural Resource Defense Council, Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade Inc., and the Public Intervenor.

At the time, a mining company official acknowledged “intervention in the permit proceedings by the state public intervenor and local groups provided visible evidence that the state not only did not have mining regulation in place, but also the permit procedure mechanisms were either ill-defined or absent.”

The process resulted in consensus legislation adopted in 1979 by an almost unanimous vote by the state Legislature, and set a pattern for the environmental lawmaking process.

Says Public Intervenor Thomas Dawson, “Our office has constantly attempted to reach consensus with business.  As a public environmental advocate, we’re not an environmental group answerable to a board of directors and its narrow policy objectives.”

According to Dawson, the intervenor’s role is to maintain an objective view toward environmental issues; bring the major players together to set standards; and trying to find win/win solutions on development issues.

The intervenor’s role goes beyond representing the public in policy debates.

It also serves as a devil’s advocate on projects involving difficult permitting situations.  “We’re up front,” says Dawson.  “We don’t lay in the weeds until the public hearing on a permit (to raise objections.)”

Kenosha Mayor John Antaramian, who is currently wrestling with redevelopment plans for the city’s lake front, actively sought the intervenor’s opinion on the type of development allowed.  “There are many times I prefer to deal with the intervenor than with narrow interest groups,” Antaramian says.  “On this (lake front) site, we did not have to bring them in, but wanted to avoid lawsuits further down the road after considerable investment has been put into the project.”

Antaramian has a 14-year history of dealing with the intervenor dating back to when he was a Wisconsin legislator.  He says there are many occasions when they have seen less than eye to eye, but “the office has always been very fair.”

As far as avoiding law suits, Susan Mudd, Citizens for a Better Environment  Wisconsin director, says, “Environmental groups place a great deal of trust in the quality of the intervenor’s work.”  She says most environmental groups are far less likely to become involved in opposing a permit if the public intervenor has been in on the process.  Mudd is a member of the Public Intervenor Office Citizen Advisory Committee.

Some are questioning the Governor’s motives in eliminating the office.  Again, mining is the issue.  In 1993, plans resurfaced for mining a significant ore deposit near Crandon.  The response of Attorney General James E. Doyle was to assign an additional part-time intervenor specifically to the project.

“Wisconsin has the most stringent mining rules in North America,” says Richard Diotte, Crandon Mining spokesman.  The company must abide by those rules, and, from its standpoint, the public intervenor’s involvement in the permitting process is a non-issue.

Currently, intervenor Laura Sutherland, is challenging the groundwater modeling assumptions that are incorporated in the permit application.  To that end, she brought in outside experts to assess the company’s assumptions.  Diotte says it’s simply part of the permitting process.

However, Wisconsin Attorney General Doyle told the Public Intervenor Citizens Advisory Committee in March the elimination of the office “is not about budget.”

He said, “It’s about a longstanding animosity the Governor has with the Public Intervenor Office.”  More pointedly, he noted, “some of the expertise the intervenor brings to mining might be brought to bear on this issue.”

Regardless of the Governor’s motive, a larger question remains --- if the office is jettisoned, will Wisconsin businesses ultimately find environmental compliance more confusing, difficult and costly?