Steve Argo (608-253-5201) 
Hiroshi Kanno (608-253-7266)

WISCONSIN DELLS, WI.  The decision by the Wisconsin Department of Natural  Resources (DNR) to issue high-capacity well permits to the Perrier Group of America is a horrendous mistake.  It was made on the grounds of legal expediency and was corrupted from day one by surreptitious meetings and highly paid lobbyists.  It also came about because our state legislature has failed, time and again, to pass tough water laws. 

Instead of basing their decision on how to best protect Wisconsin's water resources, the DNR capitulated to those who are planning to exploit Wisconsin's water resources.  It suggests something is seriously wrong in how the state of Wisconsin is being governed.

Our anger at Perrier is matched only by one disappointment with the DNR.  Twice now the people of New Haven have voted against Perrier by overwhelming margins (74% to 26%), yet both times the company dismissed the outcome as if nothing had happened.  Furthermore, when questions were raised about possible wetland destruction, the company was equally dismissive. 

We find this attitude disturbing at best, and contemptuous and arrogant at worse.

We don't think they're going to make very good neighbors.

But the DNR is the one that needs a scolding today.  We are especially disturbed at the department's timid interpretation of its regulatory authority.  We hear about "weak water laws" and how this entire mess could have been avoided had the legislature passed SB 414 last spring. 

What we do not hear (or read about in the DNR's press release or George Meyer's editorial) is the "public trust" doctrine.  This powerful shield should have been deployed months ago to protect our water, but no one in the department is willing to stand behind it.  And why is that?   It is because our governor has the agency answering to loyal, efficient, political appointees.  Ever since the department was reorganized in 1995 its enforcement powers have been in steady decline.

But generalities aside, what problems do we have with the Perrier decision?

First, Mr. Meyer, stop telling us all about how the DNR went to "unprecedented measures" to scrutinize the Perrier application.  Stop reminding us this was the "most restrictive well approval in Wisconsin's 152-year history."  Stop telling us about all those 9400 other wells.  What is unprecedented" here is the scale of Perrier's proposed pumping:  500 gallons per minute, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.  The other water bottlers in this state are pumping at less than 90 gallons a minute!

Considering that long-term impact studies have never been done at Big Springs, isn't this a bit reckless?  Please, don't refer us to Perrier's "tests" last spring:  they were run at 212 gallons a minute for 6 hours of 1 day.  No wonder Professor George Kraft of UWSP was so critical.

Giving Perrier a permit based on such parsimonious testing is an absolute joke.  As to those 9400 other wells?  We think you need qualify that by saying that 9394 of them are either agricultural or residential.  In other words, water that gets recharged back into its own system.  In Perrier's case, the water gets sucked up and shipped out to heaven knows where.

Secondly, we have been wondering about the "agreement" the DNR signed with Perrier.  On what authority was the DNR acting?  Does the department routinely sign similar agreements?  Having read the agreement, we found very few binding passages and too many vague and indefensible ones.  We are dumbfounded that the DNR places such faith in phrases like "BWSA has voluntarily committed to do additional ground water, aquatic, and wetland resource evaluations and monitoring into the foreseeable future, with DNR oversight" 

To a company that has so aggressively dug themselves in here, this doesn't exactly seem like tough enough language.

All the cards seem to fall into Perrier's favor.  They do the testing and the monitoring, not the DNR.  Isn't the teacher supposed to test the student?  Here, the student makes their own test, takes it, presumably passes it, and the teacher evaluates it.  We see red flags all over the place.  The
"agreement" also gives Perrier the right to challenge the DNR's conclusions.

What that means to us is that while a bunch of biologists are arguing over how many suspended solids are in 100 mL of a murky water sample, that giant sucking sound you'll be hearing will be spring water going up, up, and awaaaaaay.

Maybe the best way to explain the disturbing inconsistencies in the DNR's thinking is to compare the messages of the DNR's boss to different audiences.

After Governor Thompson met with Perrier CEO Kim Jeffrey in July, the meeting went well enough for Mr. Jeffrey to write back that "inasmuch as we plan to be successful in the permit stage, the next issue will be our ability to site a plant."  We are wondering how that signal compares with the one Mr. Thompson's press secretary made just last week in which the public was told that the governor "had not taken a position on Perrier."

The Perrier issue has been one public relations fiasco after another for the governor.  Beginning with the Mecan and now is Big Springs, his stubborn pride has continually gotten in the way of his better judgment. 

• Why has he  not made himself available in press conferences to answer questions? 
• Why has he not considered calling a special session of the legislature to beef up
• our water laws? 
• Why did he not come to New Haven or to Newport or to Wisconsin Dells to hear our concerns?
• Why did he not come to Senator Alice Clausing's hearing last month and explain just why Perrier is so vital to Wisconsin? 
• Why has he persisted to ram this project down our throats?