The move allows Ashley Furniture to push expansion of its Arcadia-based factory into a 14 acre wetland next to the Trempealeau River without receiving approval from the DNR.  Nor will DNR oversight be a problem in Menomonie as the Stout Technology Park fills 4.2 acres of wetlands for a new Andersen Window Factory.

Outraged by the action, five state environmental groups have filed a lawsuit seeking to block the budget bill provision.   Before legislators voted on the budget and before the governor signed it, environmentalists circulated a memo calling the wetlands action illegal.  "They were thumbing their noses at the process," says Charlie Luthin of the Wisconsin Wetlands Association.  "We tried every approach we possibly could to enlighten our legislature and the governor."

But environmentalists don’t view Moen and Clausing as the only ones with mud on their faces.  Governor Thompson is responsible for the original language benefitting Ashley Furniture; it was contained in the budget he presented to the legislature earlier this year (Clausing added the Stout Technology Park exclusion months later).

Thompson has long enjoyed a cozy relationship with Ashley.  The company has been one of the largest private recipients of state aid since 1988, winning $2.5 million in grants spread over nine separate occasions.  Company officials have been generous in their support of Thompson, contributing $46,450 to his governor campaigns since 1991.  In particular, Ashley chief Ron Wanek and his family have given the guv $29,700 during this decade.

While Wanek declined to return numerous calls to his office for this story, he did tell the Milwaukee Journal that getting the attention of the governor was important but he denied any direct connection between campaign contributions and help from the state.

Caryl Terrell, of the Sierra Club, disagrees.  "Campaign contributions are clearly the reason that the Ashley Furniture issue was in the budget," she charges.  She says Ashley hired a lobbyist to specifically get the wetlands regulatory exemption.  "We watch what happens," Terrell says.

Periodic conversations with DNR staff, contained in the agency files, clearly led Ashley to believe they would never get approval for expansion into the wetlands site they already owned.  Records reveal that the company had threatened to seek "legislative remedies" as long ago as 1991.

The DNR has been pounded by environmentalists for caving into political and corporate pressure, especially since Thompson brought the agency under control of the governor’s office in 1995.   But in this case, the DNR drew a line in the sand.

Ed Bourget, the DNR’s water team leader in its Black River Falls office, recalls walking Ashley’s expansion site.  "I remember the first time I went down there it was teeming with wildlife," Bourget says.  He saw wood ducks and a wide variety of wetland plants.  But it doesn’t look that way anymore.  Denuded by Ashley earlier this year when they cut down all the trees and mowed the grounds, the area now looks more like a golf course fairway.

Bourget also remembers dealing with Wanek on a 1989 factory expansion.  The agency allowed the company to fill 10.75 acres of a wetland - the largest private fill allowed in agency history - in return for a verbal promise from Wanek that they wouldn’t seek similar future expansions.  "I thought we had an agreement," says Bourget.

Throughout the 90’s DNR records show Ashley and Moen pressuring the agency for the expansion.  In one of the agency’s frequent responses, DNR Secretary George Meyer writes:  "We believe the wetlands in question are important and have significant functional values ….it appears to us that there are upland alternatives available that would allow the construction of the project."

Moen defends his advocacy and notes the pending addition of 300 jobs by Ashley.  "Ten to 12 years ago the DNR approved an expansion onto an area identical to that they now say you cannot do it in," he says.  "I didn’t ask the governor to put this in the budget bill," Moen adds, "but I supported it and that’s what became law." He insists that alternative sites are not available to the company.

DNR staff were standing tall in Menomonie, too.  Dan Koich, a water regulations and zoning specialist in the Eau Claire office, is intimately familiar with the 16.5 acre shallow water marsh and wet meadow in the Stout Technology Park.  Koich calls it a "real high quality wetland" and says it contains 30 plant species, pheasants, songbirds, and a 3 acre open water pond that’s a "beautiful duck habitat."

Approached informally by the City of Menomonie for an assessment of the Andersen Window factory expansion into the industrial park, Koich investigated and told them permits would be denied.  The city hoped to build a road across the wetland to the factory (which is under construction and not in the wetland), fill 4 acres and convert the meadow into a deep water pool.  Koich says a road could be built into the factory from a different direction and not impact the wetland.

Stymied by the DNR, project developers approached Clausing.  She added language to the Ashley provision that included the Menomonie site.  "My first concern has always been water quality," says Clausing mentioning her efforts to help clean-up nearby Tainter Lake which has been fouled by run-off and agricultural pollution.  Clausing thinks the project can help Tainter Lake by providing a downstream filter for its waters.

The wetland, Clausing says, did not appear to her to be of high quality.  She also offers the jobs issue:  "We have to strike a balance between long term economic health and environmental health."

The  wetlands provision, according to Koich, has other alarming implications.  "The actual budget bill language is amazing in my mind," he says.  "It includes all environmental regulations, not just wetlands."  Its sweeping language wipes away agency oversight on air, flood plain, water quality, and other protections.

Asked about this, both Moen and Clausing express surprise and indicate that it was not part of their intent.

"This particular provision would never have passed on its own," says Madison attorney Glenn Stoddard who represents the Wisconsin Wetlands Association, the John Muir chapter of the Sierra Club, the River Alliance of Wisconsin, 1000 Friends of Wisconsin and Wisconsin's Environmental Decade in their lawuit.  Stoddard says  that the regulatory exclusion was rolled into the budget bill because it’s the only bill guaranteed passage by the legislature.

The lawsuit contends that the wetlands deal violates the state’s constitution.  The legislature and the governor, explains Stoddard, are prohibited from inserting private or local bills into a multi-subject bill by the constitution.  "It really boils down to the public is frozen out of the process," he says.

Although a number of local items are routinely stuffed into the budget, Stoddard says this particular action is different:  "It’s a fine line, but when you zero in on a single wetland in a county, your clearly cross the line."

The lawsuit also charges that the state’s public trust doctrine was violated.  The doctrine controls state oversight on natural resources held on behalf of the public.  Work in the disputed wetlands is on hold until the lawsuit is resolved.

Ashley’s attorney Bruce Brovold knocks the lawsuit’s contentions:  "The ultimate decision maker is the legislature and elected officials, not bureaucrats."  Brovold says the entire matter received considerable publicity and adequate legislative review while moving through the budget process and the provision is similar to many other policy initiatives contained in the budget.

"There are other illegal provisions in the state budget," agrees the Sierra Club’s Terrell.  "We’re just five state-wide groups and we have to pick and choose our battles.  We just can’t take them all on."