Feed for /2005/statutes/statutes/1 PDF
1.10(3)(b) (b) Milk is the state beverage.
1.10(3)(c) (c) The sugar maple (acer saccharum) is the state tree.
1.10(3)(d) (d) Corn (Zea mays) is the state grain.
1.10(3)(e) (e) The wood violet (viola papilionacea) is the state flower.
1.10(3)(f) (f) The robin (turdus migratorius) is the state bird.
1.10(3)(g) (g) The muskellunge (Esox masquinongy masquinongy Mitchell) is the state fish.
1.10(3)(h) (h) The badger (taxidea taxus) is the state animal.
1.10(3)(i) (i) The dairy cow (bos taurus) is the state domestic animal.
1.10(3)(j) (j) The white-tailed deer (odocoileus virginianus) is the state wildlife animal.
1.10(3)(k) (k) The American water spaniel is the state dog.
1.10(3)(L) (L) The honey bee (apis mellifera) is the state insect.
1.10(3)(m) (m) The trilobite (calymene celebra) is the state fossil.
1.10(3)(n) (n) Galena (lead sulfide) is the state mineral.
1.10(3)(o) (o) Red granite is the state rock.
1.10(3)(p) (p) Antigo silt loam (typic glossoboralf) is the state soil.
1.10(3)(r) (r) The cranberry (vaccinium macrocarpon) is the state fruit.
1.10(4) (4) The Wisconsin Blue Book shall include the information contained in this section concerning the state song, ballad, waltz, dance, beverage, tree, grain, flower, bird, fish, animal, domestic animal, wildlife animal, dog, insect, fossil, mineral, rock, soil, and fruit.
1.11 1.11 Governmental consideration of environmental impact. The legislature authorizes and directs that, to the fullest extent possible:
1.11(1) (1) The policies and regulations shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in this section and chapter 274, laws of 1971, section 1; and
1.11(2) (2) All agencies of the state shall:
1.11(2)(c) (c) Include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement, substantially following the guidelines issued by the United States council on environmental quality under P.L. 91-190, 42 USC 4331, by the responsible official on:
1.11(2)(c)1. 1. The environmental impact of the proposed action;
1.11(2)(c)2. 2. Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented;
1.11(2)(c)3. 3. Alternatives to the proposed action;
1.11(2)(c)4. 4. The relationship between local short-term uses of the human environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity;
1.11(2)(c)5. 5. Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented; and
1.11(2)(c)6. 6. Such statement shall also contain details of the beneficial aspects of the proposed project, both short term and long term, and the economic advantages and disadvantages of the proposal.
1.11(2)(d) (d) Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible official shall consult with and obtain the comments of any agency which has jurisdiction or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved. Copies of such statement and the comments and views of the appropriate agencies, which are authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards shall be made available to the governor, the department of natural resources and to the public. Every proposal other than for legislation shall receive a public hearing before a final decision is made. Holding a public hearing as required by another statute fulfills this section. If no public hearing is otherwise required, the responsible agency shall hold the hearing in the area affected. Notice of the hearing shall be given by publishing a class 1 notice, under ch. 985, at least 15 days prior to the hearing in a newspaper covering the affected area. If the proposal has statewide significance, notice shall be published in the official state newspaper;
1.11(2)(e) (e) Study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources;
1.11(2)(h) (h) Initiate and utilize ecological information in the planning and development of resource-oriented projects.
1.11(2)(j) (j) Annually, no later than September 15, submit a report to the chief clerk of each house of the legislature for distribution to the legislature under s. 13.172 (2), including the number of proposed actions for which the agency conducted an assessment of whether an impact statement was required under par. (c) and the number of impact statements prepared under par. (c).
1.11(4) (4) Nothing in this section affects the specific statutory obligations of any agency:
1.11(4)(a) (a) To comply with criteria or standards of environmental quality;
1.11(4)(b) (b) To coordinate or consult with any other state or federal agency; or
1.11(4)(c) (c) To act, or refrain from acting contingent upon the recommendations or certification of any other state or federal agency.
1.11(5) (5) The policies and goals set forth in this section are supplementary to those set forth in existing authorizations of agencies.
1.11 Cross-reference Cross Reference: See also chs. NR 150, PSC 4, TCS 4 and ss. Adm 60.01, ATCP 3.07, Comm 1.01, DOC 335.01, HFS 18.01, NR 2.085, and Trans 400, Wis. adm. code.
1.11 Annotation The Wisconsin Environmental Protection Act, while not creating a public trust analogous to the public trust in the state's navigable waters, recognizes an interest sufficient to grant a person standing to question compliance with its provisions when it is alleged that agency action will harm the environment in the area where the person resides. Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 69 Wis. 2d 1, 230 N.W.2d 243 (1975).
1.11 Annotation Counties are not "agencies of the state" within meaning of sub. (2) (c). Robinson v. Kunach, 76 Wis. 2d 436, 251 N.W.2d 449 (1977).
1.11 Annotation Sub. (2) (e) is applicable to proceedings involving authorization of priority systems for the curtailment of natural gas service. Wisconsin Environmental Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 79 Wis. 2d 161, 255 N.W.2d 917 (1977).
1.11 Annotation On judicial review of a state agency's decision not to prepare an environmental impact statement, the agency has the burden of producing a reviewable record reflecting a preliminary factual investigation into relevant areas of environmental concern and of showing a reasonable determination based on the same. Wisconsin Environmental Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 79 Wis. 2d 409, 256 N.W.2d 149 (1977).
1.11 Annotation The lack of a DNR prepared environmental impact statement did not invalidate a DNR order to close a landfill site. Holtz & Krause, Inc. v. DNR, 85 Wis. 2d 198, 270 N.W.2d 409 (1978).
1.11 Annotation DNR's decision to limit the scope of a threshold decision to consideration of the impact of a segment of a proposed sewer interceptor was reasonable when the segment had: 1) independent utility; 2) a main purpose of fulfilling a local need; 3) logical termini, and construction of the first segment did not compel construction of the second segment. Wisconsin Environmental Decade, Inc. v. DNR, 94 Wis. 2d 263, 288 N.W.2d 168 (Ct. App. 1979).
1.11 Annotation An agency determination that an EIS was adequately prepared is reviewed under s. 227.20. Wisconsin Environmental Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 98 Wis. 2d 682, 298 N.W.2d 205 (Ct. App. 1980).
1.11 Annotation The court erred in finding that this section applied to the department's code compliance review procedure. Wisconsin Environmental Decade, Inc. v. DILHR, 104 Wis. 2d 640, 312 N.W.2d 749 (1981).
1.11 Annotation An order establishing depreciation rates for a utility's nuclear plant did not require an environmental impact statement. Wisconsin Environmental Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 105 Wis. 2d 457, 313 N.W.2d 863 (Ct. App. 1981).
1.11 Annotation Standing to challenge a final EIS requires that the agency decision directly cause injury to the interest of the petitioner, which must be an interest recognized by law. Fox v. DHSS, 112 Wis. 2d 514, 334 N.W.2d 532 (1983).
1.11 Annotation An EIS is not required when the project will have minor impacts on the environment, but will have possible socio-economic impacts. Wisconsin Environmental Decade, Inc. v. DNR, 115 Wis. 2d 381, 340 N.W.2d 722 (1983).
1.11 Annotation Increased traffic congestion was a sufficient allegation of injury to acquire standing to challenge a final EIS. Milwaukee Brewers v. DHSS, 130 Wis. 2d 56, 387 N.W.2d 245 (1986).
1.11 Annotation When a state action did not come within an action type listed in DOA rules, an environmental assessment was required. A determination following an assessment that an EIS was not required for a building constructed for the state by a private developer under a lease/purchase agreement was reasonable under the circumstances. Larsen v. Munz Corp. 167 Wis. 2d 583, 482 N.W.2d 583 (1992).
1.11 Annotation The test as to whether an EIS should be conducted is one of reasonableness and good faith. When conditions for approval that compensate for any adverse environmental impacts are imposed, the statutory threshold of significant environmental impact is not crossed and no EIS is required. State ex rel. Boehm v. DNR, 174 Wis. 2d 657, 497 N.W.2d 445 (1993).
1.11 Annotation Section 227.42 (1) does not grant a right to a contested case hearing regarding the need for an EIS. North Lake Management District v. DNR, 182 Wis. 2d 500, 513 N.W.2d 703 (Ct. App. 1994).
1.11 Annotation When the legislature has selected a specific project site, consideration of alternative sites is too remote and speculative and not reasonably related to the proposed project. Shoreline Park Preservation, Inc. v. DOA, 195 Wis. 2d 750, 537 N.W.2d 388 (Ct. App. 1995), 94-2512.
1.11 Annotation The burden of proving the adequacy of an environmental impact statement is discussed. CUB v. PSC, 211 Wis. 2d 537, 565 N.W.2d 554 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-0867.
1.11 Annotation It was reasonable to suspend the requirement for a draft EIS and the corresponding comment period, when legislatively imposed time constraints could not have been met if they were not suspended. RURAL v. PSC, 2000 WI 129, 239 Wis. 2d 660, 619 N.W.2d 888, 99-2430.
1.11 Annotation Court review of an EIS is narrow. The PSC's determination that an EIS is adequate is a conclusion of law that is accorded great weight deference. An EIS must be assessed in light of the rule of reason, which requires an EIS to furnish only such information as appears to be reasonably necessary under the circumstances for evaluation of the project rather than to be so all-encompassing in scope that the task of preparing it would become either fruitless or well nigh impossible. While reasonable alternatives are to be considered, every potentiality need not be evaluated. Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. Public Service Commission, 2005 WI 93, 282 Wis. 2d 250, 700 N.W.2d 768, 04-3179.
1.11 Annotation The EIS is an informational tool that does not compel a particular decision by the agency or prevent the agency from concluding that other values outweigh the environmental consequences of a proposed action. Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. Public Service Commission, 2005 WI 93, 282 Wis. 2d 250, 700 N.W.2d 768, 04-3179.
1.11 Annotation Agency decision-making under the Wisconsin environmental policy act. 1977 WLR 111.
1.12 1.12 State energy policy.
1.12(1)(1)Definitions. In this section:
1.12(1)(a) (a) "Local governmental unit" has the meaning given in s. 19.42 (7u).
1.12(1)(b) (b) "State agency" means an office, department, agency, institution of higher education, the legislature, a legislative service agency, the courts, a judicial branch agency, an association, society, or other body in state government that is created or authorized to be created by the constitution or by law, for which appropriations are made by law, excluding the Health Insurance Risk-Sharing Plan Authority.
1.12(2) (2)Conservation policy. A state agency or local governmental unit shall investigate and consider the maximum conservation of energy resources as an important factor when making any major decision that would significantly affect energy usage.
1.12(3) (3)Goals.
1.12(3)(a)(a) Energy efficiency. It is the goal of the state to reduce the ratio of energy consumption to economic activity in the state.
1.12(3)(b) (b) Renewable energy resources. It is the goal of the state that, to the extent that it is cost-effective and technically feasible, all new installed capacity for electric generation in the state be based on renewable energy resources, including hydroelectric, wood, wind, solar, refuse, agricultural and biomass energy resources.
1.12(3)(c) (c) Afforestation. It is the goal of the state to ensure a future supply of wood fuel and reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide by increasing the forested areas of the state.
1.12(4) (4)Priorities. In meeting energy demands, the policy of the state is that, to the extent cost-effective and technically feasible, options be considered based on the following priorities, in the order listed:
1.12(4)(a) (a) Energy conservation and efficiency.
1.12(4)(b) (b) Noncombustible renewable energy resources.
1.12(4)(c) (c) Combustible renewable energy resources.
1.12(4)(d) (d) Nonrenewable combustible energy resources, in the order listed:
1.12(4)(d)1. 1. Natural gas.
1.12(4)(d)2. 2. Oil or coal with a sulphur content of less than 1%.
1.12(4)(d)3. 3. All other carbon-based fuels.
1.12(5) (5)Meeting energy demands.
1.12(5)(a)(a) In designing all new and replacement energy projects, a state agency or local governmental unit shall rely to the greatest extent feasible on energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy resources, if the energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy resources are cost-effective and technically feasible and do not have unacceptable environmental impacts.
1.12(5)(b) (b) To the greatest extent cost-effective and technically feasible, a state agency or local governmental unit shall design all new and replacement energy projects following the priorities listed in sub. (4).
1.12(6) (6)Siting of electric transmission facilities. In the siting of new electric transmission facilities, including high-voltage transmission lines, as defined in s. 196.491 (1) (f), it is the policy of this state that, to the greatest extent feasible that is consistent with economic and engineering considerations, reliability of the electric system, and protection of the environment, the following corridors should be utilized in the following order of priority:
1.12(6)(a) (a) Existing utility corridors.
1.12(6)(b) (b) Highway and railroad corridors.
1.12(6)(c) (c) Recreational trails, to the extent that the facilities may be constructed below ground and that the facilities do not significantly impact environmentally sensitive areas.
1.12(6)(d) (d) New corridors.
1.12 History History: 1977 c. 29; 1993 a. 414; 2003 a. 89; 2005 a. 74.
1.12 Note NOTE: 1993 Wis. Act 414, which creates subs. (1) and (3) to (5), contains extensive explanatory notes.
1.12 Cross-reference Cross Reference: See also ch. NR 150 and s. PSC 4.30, Wis. adm. code.
1.12 Annotation PSC decisions under s. 196.025 (4) applying the energy source priorities under sub. (4) are entitled to great weight deference. When the PSC makes a determination under the plant siting law, s. 196.491, it applies sub. (4) in the context of determining whether to approve the requested plant siting. The question the PSC should ask is: Given the requirements of the plant siting law, what is the highest priority energy option that is also cost effective and technically feasible? Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. Public Service Commission, 2005 WI 93, 282 Wis. 2d 250, 700 N.W.2d 768, 04-3179.
Loading...
Loading...
This is an archival version of the Wis. Stats. database for 2005. See Are the Statutes on this Website Official?