February 27, 2004

The Clean Water Coalition recognizes and appreciates your efforts to create a groundwater bill that protects natural resources, economic and community development.  We are submitting the following to communicate to you the position of the Clean Water Coalition and give you an indication of our preliminary assessment of the pros and cons of LRB4302/P1.  

Our primary concerns and/or recommendations are as follows:

1. Groundwater Protection Areas. As was pointed out repeatedly during the February 13 meeting, within 1200’ of GPA waters, wells would not be prohibited, only scrutinized.  As a coalition comprised of conservationists and environmentalists concerned about protecting Wisconsin’s water resources, we have always supported making the GPA list more inclusive of cold water lakes, wetlands and headwaters.  We recognize, however, that a compromise position is necessary.  

With the goal of reaching a mutually agreeable bill, the Clean Water Coalition firmly supports: a) continuing to define Class III trout streams as subject to GPAs, b) continuing to define all Class I and II trout streams as subject to GPAs, c) continuing to define all outstanding and exceptional resource waters as subject to GPAs, and d) adding springs greater than .5 cfs to the list of GPAs.  

In addition, we note that an "area of special natural resource interest," as recently defined in Act 118, includes all trout streams as well as all outstanding and exceptional resource waters.  We believe that the GPA list should be consistent with Act 118 by also including the areas that possess "significant scientific value, as identified by the department."  

2. Significant Environmental Impact.  We have discussed the Schoepke/Smith emergency rule concept and DNR’s counterproposal, but we have concerns about both.  The recent Legislative Council memo that compiled examples of similar language already in the statutes was quite helpful and convinces us that a simpler option is best.  Therefore, the Clean Water Coalition favors the language toward the bottom of page 8 of LRB-3184/P2, that conventional DNR rulemaking should produce the "criteria for determining whether a withdrawal, individually or in combination with other withdrawals, causes or threatens to cause significant [adverse] environmental impact, including consideration of any impacts on any public utility engaged in furnishing water to or for the public, springs, wetlands, rivers, lakes, fish, wildlife, and groundwater quality."  

3. Additional Standards; High Capacity Wells Outside of a Groundwater Protection Area.  We agree that there needs to be a mechanism to apply the substantive standard of significant environmental impact in the "rest of the state" (i.e., areas outside the GPAs and GMAs).  However, we do not think simply protecting springs or areas where water loss exceeds 95% properly addresses the problem of groundwater quantity.  The DNR, as the central manager of the State’s water resources, needs to have the ability, under special limited circumstances, to require permits in the "rest of the state" if there is information indicating that there could be a significant environmental impact.  To do otherwise, would unreasonably (and perhaps unconstitutionally) restrict the scope of the DNR’s authority.  One possibility would be to set up a petition process where wells in the "rest of the state" would be reviewed by the DNR, under special circumstances, after it has been petitioned to do so. 

4. Approvals and Adaptive Management.  The Clean Water Coalition initially supported the requirement of permits that would need to be reviewed and renewed every ten years as specified in your draft, LRB-3168/P1. Industry groups appeared to oppose this due to the need for certainty in their investments.  The DNR appeared to oppose ten-year permits due to workload concerns.  In an effort to find common ground that meets all of our respective concerns, we will accept the use of approvals as long as the DNR has the ability to (but is not required to) modify the approval once every ten years in response to new scientific information.  

5. Mitigation/Relocation Fund. The Clean Water Coalition supports the creation of a mitigation/relocation fund.

6. One-Time Fees for New Wells. The Clean Water Coalition supports the fee structure in the February 12 Legislative Council memo.  

7. Groundwater Management Areas.  The Clean Water Coalition believes that immediate action is necessary in the GMAs.  We have, however, reached a compromise position where we agree to support the concept of a voluntary, collaborative, locally-led planning effort in the two large drawdown regions.  The February 12 Legislative Council memo provided a valuable framework regarding financial and technical assistance, scientific analysis, and the utilization of existing authority.  In addition to DNR being required to delineate the two large GMAs within two years, we recommend that DNR be authorized to recognize smaller GMAs if local governments elsewhere take the initiative.  

8. Conservation.  We were pleased to see the possibility of conservation requirements mentioned near the top of page 6 of the February 12 Legislative Council memo, in the context of the GMAs.  However, we find no reference to conservation in LRB-4302/P1.  We suggest that some reference to conservation be considered for inclusion in the GPA framework in the context of mitigation options.  We also recommend that the legislation incorporate the water conservation proposal offered by Prof. Born to Dan Johnson on January 19.  Prof. Born wrote:  

Water conservation (meaning both more efficient use and demand reduction) has long been a mainstay of water resources management, not only in much of the arid West, but in states like Florida with its wet-dry cycles and seasonal demands.   With more people and increased competing demands -- including the needs of a healthy aquatic environment -- the time has come for water-rich Wisconsinites to modify our appetites for water.  Water conservation will be central to a sustainable water future for Wisconsin, and serious pursuit of that goal needs to begin now.  There was some preliminary work done in the early 1980s on a state Water Conservation Plan, and the water quantity management plan prepared as a result of Act 60 in 1985 also provides some guidance on how to proceed.  

NR 811, Wisconsin Administrative codes, specifies that a community putting in a new well must complete a Wellhead Protection Plan that contains nine elements, including a water conservation program.  This plan can include promotion of watersaving plumbing fixtures, water loss surveys, off peak/alternate day lawn sprinkling, consumer public information programs – the "usual suspects".  None of these are mandatory, nor does there seem to be a serious and consistent effort with regard to the implementation of such programs.  The time has come to look ahead and aggressively and systematically develop a water conservation program for Wisconsin. 

One good place to begin is with a reexamination of water utility rates in Wisconsin (there are more than 550 water public utilities in the state whose rates must be approved by the state regulatory agency).  Wisconsin’s long history in this area has focused on establishing an equitable rate structure and responsible fiscal management for these water utilities. The Public Service Commission’s (PSC) oversight of rates is keyed to the cost of services associated with different user classes; declining rates for higher water usage provides no pricing signals to foster conservation among residential and public institutional users or large industrial customers.  Utilities worry that reduced usage, a goal of water conservation, translates into reduced revenue streams and fiscal problems.  The PSC, working with the array of affected stakeholders, should undertake a study of alternative rate designs that influence customer behavior and favor water conservation.  Other states have initiated such efforts and Wisconsin might benefit from lessons learned elsewhere (for example, see New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services and New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission, 2001).

We are very hopeful that your efforts to develop meaningful, proactive legislation to address far-sighted management of one of our most valuable resources are successful, and we have made the compromises noted herein in hopes of achieving that end.  However, we will not be able to support any proposal that doesn't reflect the several key points we outline in this memo.  We look forward to working with you in the interest of sound management of Wisconsin's groundwater and the broad and varied user community. 

The Clean Water Coalition believes:

Every Citizen has a right to clean water.  Recognizing the importance of clean water to every community, the Clean Water Coalition was formed.  The broad coalition represents over 160,000 citizens across the state of Wisconsin that are concerned about water quality and supply.  Member groups include Clean Wisconsin, Friends of Jump River, Fox-Wolf Watershed Alliance, Madison Audubon Society, Midwest Environmental Advocates, River Alliance of Wisconsin, Sierra Club-John Muir Chapter, Southern Wisconsin Trout Unlimited, Trout Unlimited-Wisconsin State Council, Wisconsin Association of Lakes, Wisconsin Audubon Council, Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group, Wisconsin Stewardship Network, Wisconsin Wetlands Association, and Wisconsin Wildlife Association.  

The Clean Water Coalition proved to be an effective voice for Wisconsin’s waterways during the revision of the state’s polluted runoff rules.  Today, the coalition is working to enact legislation that sets standards for water withdrawals, promotes efficient water use, and improves the integrity of the State’s water supply.