Wiscosnin DNR B-slapped by federal agents

That's BUREAUCRAT-slapping, just so we're clear here. Rat's use of crude vernacular is against its code of rat ethics.

But the bureaucrat-slapping of the Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources by fellow bureaucrats of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is remarkable, for the no-nonsense thoroughness of the communique, and for the fact that it was even written.

On July 18, the EPA's Chicago office informed the DNR that it has found "numerous apparent omissions and deviations" from how DNR is supposed to enforce clean water laws.

In fact, EPA slapped DNR a total of 75 times for various omissions and deviations. In effect, EPA is telling DNR: "You are blowing off federal law and we're not happy about it." Some examples:

• EPA tells DNR that it is too restrictive in who they allow to make a legal challenge of a water permit. They point out that Wisconsin lacks clear-cut ways for the public to participate in DNR's water pollution enforcement process.
  

• EPA tells DNR that it can't let the state's transportation department off the the hook from controlling erosion at road construction sites: "Wisconsin cannot simply exempt DOT projects from [stormwater] permitting requirements."

• EPA contends DNR is letting the fox of municipalities watch over the hen house of their own stormwater programs.

There are 72 more.

EPA asks DNR to respond to this letter by mid-October. For scores of these deficiencies, its communique asks the agency to "include a plan, with schedule and milestones," for how DNR will comply with federal law. EPA is even asking for new administrative rules and statutes for some of these deficiencies. (Guess EPA hasn't been hanging around Wisconsin in recent months, where old environmental laws are being gutted, and new ones have as much chance as a rat at a cat convention.)

This EPA letter indirectly stems from a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling last spring which said, in effect, that the DNR didn't have to carry out certain provisions of federal clean water laws unless the EPA specifically ordered it. This appears to be that order.

The rat-paw prints of fellow river rats at Midwest Environmental Advocates are all over this opus from EPA. EPA cannot be dictated to, of course, but MEA has been sure to keep EPA apprised of the slippage we all have observed over the years in Wisconsin DNR's consistently and evenly enforcing clean water laws.

A bridge too big and way too expensive

Elected officials and road proponents continue to peddle an oversized and expensive bridge over the St. Croix River at Stillwater, Minnesota -- a river that's a federally designated Wild and Scenic River.

In pushing Congress to release federal funding for a $700 million, 4-lane bridge, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker ignored a proposal of the aptly-named "Sensible Stillwater Bridge Partnership" to build a far less expensive, tidier bridge that's far more appropriate for that setting.

There's no doubt the existing rickety lift bridge has got to go. (It would be spared and mothballed under any re-building scenario.) But spending $700 million on an oversized bridge in tight budget times, when there are so many infrastructure projects going wanting -- especially when there is an intestate highway bridge 6 miles to the south of this spot -- it is eminently sensible to go with a 3-laner at an estimated cost of just under $300 million.

That's a savings of at least $300 million that could be put to other road or transit projects.

Opponents of the mega-bridge have dubbed it the "Bachmann bridge," because of the enthusiastic support the bridge gets from the otherwise budget-hawkish Rep. Michelle Bachmann. It should be pointed out that support for the excessive bridge is bi-partisan, including Wisconsin Rep. Ron Kind and the St. Croix County board of supervisors, a few of whom expect to do well in land speculation if a big bridge is built.

Those guys will cash on land development anyway, even with a more modest bridge. They could do the right thing and get behind the Sensible Stillwater Bridge push, be fiscally responsible, and help maintain the unique scenic status of the Lower St. Croix.

Beautiful Beulah and WI's Supreme Court

With dysfunction, scandal, and even purported physical assaults being the focus of Wisconsin's Supreme Court these days, you might have missed a recent wise -- and extremely rare unanimous -- ruling by the Court on an important water issue.

The Supreme Court ruled, 7-0, last week that the Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources has the authority to regulate the pumping of groundwater if that pumping might affect surface waters nearby.

Here's the story: the village of East Troy, in Walworth County, wanted to install a new municipal well, not far from the shores of Lake Beulah. Lake property owners got nervous, and pushed DNR to determine whether taking hundreds of thousands of gallons from the groundwater and putting into the kitchen sinks and front lawns of East Troy residents might drain their lake.

The DNR determined no, it wouldn't, and besides, it's not their job to regulate how taking water from underground might affect water on the surface.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that yes, indeed, the DNR DOES have the authority to regulate so-called "high capacity" wells, as long as scientific evidence could show harm.

This decision is huge for the lakes and rivers of this state. Up to now, the DNR has been unwilling to tell groundwater pumpers, like farmers and cities, to cool it on their pumping, even if they had evidence that pumping was draining dry a river. The most vivid case of this is the Little Plover River in Portage County, which has dried up in past summers. Scientists are certain that crop irrigation and heavy water use by the nearby village of Plover causes the Little Plover to dry up.

In the case of the Little Plover, the DNR set a minimum flow that the river is not supposed to go below before......well, we don't know what they'd do, because the agency has been reluctant to extend its authority to connecting groundwater pumping to surface water effects. They regulate the two separately, but the Supreme Court decision ought to give the agency a clear signal they can insist to parties drawing huge amounts of water out of the ground that they have to be conscious of the effects of that pumping on nearby lakes and streams.

Whether the DNR actually acts on this newly clarified legal authority is another matter. "Open for business" these days means "open to ignore environmental impacts." At least DNR can't hide behind lack of clear authority. The Wisconsin Supreme Court resoundingly gave it to them last week.

Don't look for much more unanimity for that gang, however. Maybe they need to spend time together on a river -- amazing what curative powers flowing waters have.

River Disappearing Act

Dear Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources:
You have a few customers who need your service – the Manitowish River, some lonely, sexually repressed sturgeon, and a bunch of my river rat buddies have been left high and dry. Cutting off spring flows to the Manitowish River to fill the lakes upstream is a real turn-off, if you know what I mean, for the sturgeon, musky and pike all trying to perpetuate the family name in the river system, and nearly 1600 acres of sedge meadow wetlands critical to the life cycle of myriad plants, animals and fish are quickly filling in with willow. The really silly thing is this cycle of draining the lakes in fall so people don’t have to risk ice damage to their piers and then refilling them in spring is also trashing the upstream lakes – a lot of plants die off when they’re exposed in fall, opening the door for invasive species to flourish. See my earlier post below, The “Man”itowish River - No Rest for Weary Wildlife for the background story.

With the help of a few well-placed cameras and a video recorder, we’ve now got footage of the dewatering of the Manitowish River wetlands. Historically in a dry year, this transformation from a continuous inundated wetland to a few pockets of standing water might have taken place over the course of 4 or 5 months well into the fall. Due to the mismanagement of the Rest Lake dam upstream, what you will see happened in a mere 22 days this year , leaving amphibians and fish stranded to die.

It ‘s not just the backwater sloughs and wetlands that are being impacted. The photographs below are of the main channel of the stream. In the first photo the flow of the river was 240 cubic feet per second. The second photo was taken only four days later after the flow had been decreased to a trickle (40 cubic feet per second) after they closed the gates of the dam.

Come on, DNR, the time really has come to fix this decades-old problem. Make a decision, and issue an order to operate the dam in way that truly protects all public interests, not to mention the lives of my fellow river dwellers. You could be heroes, and establish a legacy for a new way of managing river systems in Wisconsin. Not only would it save the Manitowish and its struggling sturgeon population, but it would bring Wisconsin’s dam management out of the dark ages and set the stage for a new way of doing business that manages the resource for all.

You know you’ve got the authority and all the information you need to put a stop to slaughter. I hear your new regime is all about customer service - the only question I’ve got is, who is the customer? Is it just the folks on Rest Lake who find it such a boring inconvenience to pull their docks in fall, or is it me?

Lies. Dam Lies.

A bill that passed the Wisconsin Senate this week and is on track to be voted on by the Assembly will allow hydropower from megadams in Canada to count toward utilities’ renewable energy requirements. This proposed language would alter state law as a sweetheart deal for one utility: Wisconsin Public Service (WPS), of Green Bay.

WPS will purchase more than 500MW of energy from Manitoba Hydro, a deal worth over $2 billion. WPS wants this power to count as their renewable energy requirement but is hindered by one small roadblock: current law explicitly exclude Manitoba megadams from being considered renewable. Current language acknowledges the cultural and environmental devastation these dams brought to the Churchill River system and the Northern Cree tribes that subsisted on it.

But these are not existing dams sitting around waiting for a customer. Exports of power to Wisconsin and Minnesota has been the justification to build three brand new megadams. The proposed dam construction will continue to create massive reservoirs, flood forests, release methane into the atmosphere and increase mercury into the water, fish and animals. Getting the power from Canada to Wisconsin will also require more high powered transmission lines (of the controversial Arrowhead-Weston type) a detail that has been conveniently omitted from the PR for cheap energy put out by WPS and the sponsors of this bill in the Wisconsin Legislature.

This bill is bad news for rivers and for the renewable energy industry in Wisconsin. This proposed change first appeared as part of last year’s package of clean energy initiatives, but that version was accompanied by an increase in the percent renewable energy to be required of utilities. (River Alliance was on record as opposing it even last year.)

This time around, the higher renewable energy standards have been droppd. Without them, the cheap Canadian hydropower will flood Wisconsin within the next decade and completely remove any incentive to develop in-state renewable energy from wind, solar and other sources. (Oh, that’s right – they’re making wind energy harder to produce too.)

Call it cheap. Call it politically expedient. Just don’t call this renewable energy. That would be a dam lie.

Grass Carp Found in Lower Wisconsin River Confirmed Sterile

You may remember that on April 27^th the Wisconsin DNR stumbled upon two large grass carp just downstream of the Prairie du Sac dam. This was a significant finding because it was the first time an Asian Carp had been found in the Wisconsin River. See previous blog on April 29^th for more background.

The DNR biologists who found the carp sent a sliver of its head including a piece of its eye to a USGS lab in Louisiana to determine if this fish had been capable of breeding in our waters. They also sent a few bones to another USGS lab in Missouri to determine how old the fish was (we are still waiting for the results from the latter but WDNR biologists believe it to be at least 10 years old).

The results from Louisiana are in and are quite encouraging – the fish is triploid. A triploid fish is one that is modified to have an extra set of chromosomes that prevents the fish from forming glands necessary to reproduce. Triploid carp are still legally released in many states for use in aquatic plant management. Today, thanks to NR 40, it is ILLEGAL to release even triploid carp.

While we can all sigh in relief as we dodged this biological bullet, this remains to be a harsh reminder that Asian Carp are quite capable of invading Wisconsin through our western border, the Mississippi River. This is believed to be the way in which this pair of Grass Carp found their way to Wisconsin.

Join the River Alliance as we partner with Friends of the Lower Wisconsin Riverway, Sauk River PAL and many more to prevent the spread of invasives within the basin! »

Lawmakers and Mining Companies Hand Us A Gift

Granted, you normally wouldn't dub draft legislation that strips, guts, gouges, unhinges, declaws and strip-mines (you might say)Wisconsin mining laws and regulations a gift.

But you have to congratulate the mining companies poking around northern Wisconsin for iron ore, and the two feckless tools they found in the Wisconsin legislature, to make it so much easier to rally public support against a proposed iron mine in Wisconsin.

The mining companies told two legislators (Honadel and Zipperer) just what they wanted, so the two lawmakers made the mining companies' every wish in come true.

There's strong local support in Onieda County for the jobs the mine may bring, and if you're living in Grantsburg or Union Grove or somewhere -- and the mine isn't in your back yard -- you might think: "Well, they need jobs up there, and it can't be that bad, could it?"

And maybe that's how people might have seen it -- a good thing at best, a minor environmental disruption at worst. Now, thanks to this draft bill, even someone in favor of the mine might wonder what we're getting when the bill:

• would allow the Dept. of Natural Resources less time to review a mining proposal than it takes your mechanic to change out your blown transmission;

• says really bad information about the mine -- say, a circle on a piece of paper saying, "Mine Goes Right Here" -- is not grounds for DNR to deny the mine;

• claims wetlands are expressly made sacrifice areas for mining tailings, and can be mitigated (replaced, which doesn't really work for wetlands, but never mind) anyhere in the state;

• blows off (meaning does not require!) analysis of environmental or health hazards the mine could cause;

• blows up any process for public input into how the mine will be regulated.

And on and on.

Despite how hideous and egregious this bill is, it is turning out to be handy ammunition for mining opponents. It's obvious the mining companies and the Walker administration want to railroad this mine through. Rat doubts most Wisconsinites think we are this desperate for iron mining that we are willing to throw out any vestige, any pretense, of review or process for this project. And other legislators in the area, who may have been ambivalent or felt compelled to support the mine because of the jobs prospect, can now easily oppose the legislation because it
makes mincemeat of any reasonable review process of the mine, including public scrutiny.

You'd think they'd learn from the last mining project that got blown up by smart and well organized opposition. But Crandon mine cheerleaders made several blunders along the way that helped catalyze public opinion against it.

It's hard to imagine we could be so lucky this time, but it appears we're up against hubris and arrogance once again. But their first cousins are stupidity and blindness, and this bill is a first sign of that.