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 Annotation
The Wisconsin Environmental Protection Act, while not creating a public trust analogous to the public trust in the state's navigable waters, does recognize an interest sufficient to grant a person standing to question compliance with its provisions where 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 W (2d) 1, 230 NW (2d) 243.
1.11 Annotation
Counties are not "agencies of the state" within meaning of sub. (2) (c). Robinson v. Kunach, 76 W (2d) 436, 251 NW (2d) 449.
1.11 Annotation
Sub. (2) (e) is applicable to proceedings involving authorization of priority systems for the curtailment of natural gas service. Wis. Environmental Decade v. Public Service Comm. 79 W (2d) 161, 255 NW (2d) 917.
1.11 Annotation
On judicial review of state agency's decision not to prepare environmental impact statement, agency has burden of producing reviewable record reflecting a preliminary factual investigation into relevant areas of environmental concern and of showing a reasonable determination based on same. Wis. Environmental Decade v. Pub. Service Comm. 79 W (2d) 409, 256 NW (2d) 149.
1.11 Annotation
Lack of DNR prepared environmental impact statement did not invalidate DNR order to close landfill site. Holtz & Krause, Inc. v. DNR, 85 W (2d) 198, 270 NW (2d) 409 (1978).
1.11 Annotation
DNR's decision to limit scope of threshold decision to consideration of impact of segment of proposed sewer interceptor was reasonable where segment had independent utility, had main purpose of fulfilling local need, had logical termini, and where construction of first segment did not compel construction of second segment. Wis. Environmental Decade, Inc. v. DNR, 94 W (2d) 263, 288 NW (2d) 168 (Ct. App. 1979).
1.11 Annotation
Agency determination that EIS was adequately prepared is reviewed under s. 227.20. Wis. Environmental Decade v. Public Service Comm. 98 W (2d) 682, 298 NW (2d) 205 (Ct. App. 1980).
1.11 Annotation
Court erred in finding that this section applied to department's code compliance review procedure. Environmental Decade v. DILHR, 104 W (2d) 640, 312 NW (2d) 749 (1981).
1.11 Annotation
Order establishing depreciation rates for utility's nuclear plant did not require environmental impact statement. Wis. Environmental Decade v. Public Serv. Comm. 105 W (2d) 457, 313 NW (2d) 863 (Ct. App. 1981).
1.11 Annotation
Standing to challenge FEIS discussed. Fox v. DHSS, 112 W (2d) 514, 334 NW (2d) 532 (1983).
1.11 Annotation
EIS was not required where project will have minor impacts on environment, but will have possible socio-economic impacts. Wisconsin's Environmental Decade v. DNR, 115 W (2d) 381, 340 NW (2d) 722 (1983).
1.11 Annotation
Increased traffic congestion was sufficient allegation of injury to acquire standing to challenge FEIS. Milwaukee Brewers v. DH&SS, 130 W (2d) 56, 387 NW (2d) 245 (1986).
1.11 Annotation
Where state action did not come within action type listed in DOA regulations, an environmental assessment was required; determination following assessment that environmental impact statement was not required for building constructed for state by private developer under lease/purchase agreement was reasonable under the circumstances. Larsen v. Munz Corp. 167 W (2d) 583, 482 NW (2d) 583 (1992).
1.11 Annotation
The test as to whether an EIS should be conducted is one of reasonableness and good faith. Where conditions for approval which 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 W (2d) 657, 497 NW (2d) 445 (1993), 184.
1.11 Annotation
Section 227.42 (1) does not grant a right to a contested case hearing regarding the need for an environmental impact statement. North Lake Management Dist. v. DNR, 182 W (2d) 500, 513 NW (2d) 703 (Ct. App. 1994).
1.11 Annotation
Where 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 W (2d) 750, 537 NW (2d) 388 (Ct. App. 1995).
1.11 Annotation
Burden of proving the adequacy of an environmental impact statement discussed. Citizens' Utility Board v. PSC, 211 W (2d) 537, 565 NW (2d) 554 (Ct. App. 1997).
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)(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 which is created or authorized to be created by the constitution or by law, for which appropriations are made by law.
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)(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)2.
2. Oil or coal with a sulphur content of less than 1%.
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 History
History: 1977 c. 29;
1993 a. 414.
1.12 Note
NOTE: 1993 Wis. Act 414, which creates subs. (1) and (3) to (5), contains extensive explanatory notes.
