Information provided by the Wisconsin Association of Lakes

3/00

Administrative rules have been drafted by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) which will shape the future of Wisconsin's program to control this polluted runoff, called Nonpoint Pollution.

The two key rules we want to focus on are NR 151 and ATCP 50.  The DNR rule, NR 151, sets the standards to protect water quality, and the DATCP rule, ATCP 50, prescribes the agricultural program and practices to implement the DNR standards.

The new approach to nonpoint pollution control presented in these rules provides an opportunity for local governments and community organizations to work with the DNR basin teams and their County Land Conservation Department staff to define their most significant water quality problems and establish effective programs to protect and improve their local lakes and rivers.

WAL (Wisconsin Association of Lakes) supports these rules to address polluted runoff and encourages you to get involved to be sure this new program is an effective one.  They are a big step in the right direction, but to be effective, they need to be stronger in some areas.  To assure the future of our lakes, we need you to help us carry this message to the DNR and DATCP.

Please attend the DATCP and DNR hearings on the proposed rules and help us make the following points heard.  Special interest groups will try to weaken these rules - Make your comments to the DNR and DATCP  to be sure Wisconsin will have an effective Nonpoint Pollution Control program.  (Note that some comments are applicable to both DNR and DATCP rules, and so are repeated.)
 
 

• There is nothing in this rule that will protect lakes and streams from livestock wandering in them and making direct deposits.  Cows and other livestock should only be allowed in streams at designated and well designed crossings - and they should be kept out of lakes.

• Keep the targeted site provisions.  (NR 151.004 p.8)  Targeted sites allow the DNR and Counties to apply tougher standards where necessary for the protection of high quality waters and restoration of degraded waters.  There will be a strong effort to get rid of this critically important part of  NR 151 - we need to support it.

• The rules do not do an adequate job of controlling phosphorus in agricultural runoff.  Because this rule focuses on controlling nitrogen, excess amounts of phosphorus can continue to be applied to soil already overloaded with this nutrient.  The rules should be amended to permit the application of all nutrients only to the level of  crop needs as demonstrated by a soil test.

• The shoreland habitat protection part of  this rule must do a better job of stating that the protection and restoration of stream and lake shoreland habitat are critical goals of this program - as are the stated goals for erosion, sediment and excess nutrient control.  Currently the rule states that habitat protection ends at the ordinary high water mark. (NR 151.04(3) p.10)) This is clearly unacceptable.

• Urban areas being re-developed should not be exempt from requirements to protect or restore shoreland buffer strips. Many communities have had very successful shoreland restoration projects and these should be required wherever it is practical to do so. (NR 151.12 (4) p.19)

• Farmers should not be eligible for the tax break that comes from the new "Use Value Tax Assessment" unless they are following a county approved farm conservation plan. This would go a long way towards getting voluntary compliance for these rules. Other states that provide farmers with this tax relief have this requirement. Wisconsin does not. These rules do not address this issue at all - it should be inserted.

Because ATCAP 50 is the rule to implement the standards set in NR 151, it is particularly important to get our voices heard at the DATCP hearings.  If only farm interests show up and give comments, this rule will focus on farm practices and not on water quality concerns.  We need to make sure this rule will effectively implement the standards the DNR sets out in NR 151.
 

• The rules do not do an adequate job of controlling phosphorus in agricultural runoff.  Excess amounts of phosphorus can continue to be applied to soil already overloaded with this nutrient.  The rules should be amended to permit the application of all nutrients only to the level of the crop needs as demonstrated by a soil test. (applies to both DNR & DATCP rules)

• There is nothing in this rule that will protect lakes and streams from livestock wandering in them and making direct deposits.  Cows and other livestock should only be allowed in streams at designated and well designed crossings - and they should be kept out of lakes.

• ATCAP 50 has a weaker soil loss standard for fields in the shoreland zones than the DNR rule (NR151) allows. The purpose of ATCAP 50 is to implement the DNR standards, not to weaken them.  This downgrading of protection is illegal and undermines the DNR's authority to protect waters of the state.

• To receive funding from this program, Counties must develop a sound Land and Water Conservation Plan, implement it and enforce it.  We should not give them taxpayer money to correct problems unless we have some assurance that they will make the program work to benefit water quality.

• Some counties do not have any soil and water conservation staff.  Each county must be assured that they have at least one person hired to plan and administrate this program.  Not all rural nonpoint pollution comes from farms.  Many counties have serious nonpoint pollution problems related to shoreland development and other land use changes.  This program must support their needs as well as counties having large numbers of farms.

• ATCAP 50 should clearly state that county Soil and Water conservation Plans identify "critical sites" and act to get them into compliance.  Critical sites are the most serious sources of nonpoint pollution in the watershed.  If these sites are not addressed, fixing up many smaller problems will not result in water quality improvements.  Critical sites are currently not a part of these rules.

• The proposed implementation dates for this program are way too far out in the future (2006 - 2010). The implementation of these rules should not be delayed if planning, technical support, and cost sharing are available.  Nutrient management planning in particular will save farmers money in the long run because they will buy less commercial fertilizer.  There is no reason to delay these rules.  The County Land and Water Conservation Plans should prioritize implementation stages based on the condition of, and threats to, local lakes, rivers and wetlands.

• Farmers should not be eligible for the tax break that comes from the new "Use Value Tax Assessment" unless they are following a county approved farm conservation plan.  This would go a long way towards getting voluntary compliance for these rules.  Other states that provide farmers with this tax relief have this requirement. Wisconsin does not. We need to add this provision to ATCP 50.