29.
Land Information Board and Land Council Changes
Sections 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 200b, 201c, 1999n, 2001n, 4039b, 4041b [as it relates to the effective date], 4059b, 4059g and 9459 (5r)
These provisions add members to the Wisconsin Land Council, extend the deadline for submission of a report concerning the continuation and combination of the council and the Land Information Board, and extend the sunset of both the council and the board to September 1, 2007.
I am vetoing these provisions because I object to the extension of the report deadline. The report was required in
1997 Wisconsin Act 27, and the council and board have sufficient time to begin and complete the required report by September 1, 2002. I object to the addition of three members to the council and the extension of the sunset for both the council and the board prior to receipt of the required report. After reviewing the report, I will consider the future of the council and board.
30.
Wisconsin Land Information System
Sections 342m, 342n, 343r and 4041b [as it relates to s.
16.966 (5)]
These provisions require the Land Information Board to promulgate rules to create and maintain a land information system and require the Department of Administration to contract for operation and maintenance of such a system.
I am vetoing these provisions because they put an administrative burden on the Land Information Board and infringe on executive branch authority to manage programs. Under this budget bill, the staff provided to the Land Information Board is reduced by 2.0 FTE PR positions. In addition, the board and the Wisconsin Land Council are required to submit, no later than September 1, 2002, a report concerning the issue of continuation and the feasibility of combination of their function.
31.
Release of Smart Growth Data
Section 9101 (19b)
This section requires the Department of Administration to make the initial release of state land information submitted to the Land Information Board by May 31, 2002.
I am vetoing this section because the deadline is unrealistic. The board would receive the information by March 31, 2002, and the department would not be able to prepare the information for release until the board has determined how the information should be integrated and presented to the public. In addition, the budget bill reduces funding and positions allocated to the Land Information Board. I am requesting that the board and the department strive to make this information available in a reasonable timeframe.
32.
Comprehensive Planning Grants
Sections 332 [as it relates to establishing a deadline and opening applications to public inspection] and 395 [as it relates to s.
20.505 (1) (cm)]
These provisions increase funding to the Department of Administration for comprehensive planning grants by $157,900 GPR annually. The provisions also require the department to establish a deadline for receipt of applications and to open all applications received by the department to public inspection after the deadline.
I am vetoing these provisions because they increase expenditure authority for this appropriation at a time when the state is experiencing significant financial constraints. Furthermore, I object to legislative interference in the way the department currently conducts the application process.
The effect of this veto will be to delete the provisions allocating additional funding to the department for comprehensive planning grants and establishing further administrative requirements. Although there is no language in the budget bill that authorizes the funding increase, the purpose of this funding was included in the Conference Committee amendment to the bill. By lining out the Department of Administration's s.
20.505 (1) (cm) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $157,900 GPR provided for this purpose annually, I am vetoing that part of the bill which funds the increase to comprehensive planning grants. Furthermore, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
33.
Property Development Rights
Sections 3862w and 9309 (5z)
These provisions allow the seller of property development rights lasting longer than thirty years to bring an action to recover the difference in the sale price of the property development rights and value of those rights.
Retaining and protecting Wisconsin's agricultural, natural, recreational and open spaces has become a very important issue in recent years. The purchase of property development rights is a voluntary agreement that places deed restrictions on a property to ensure that the parcel will remain agricultural or open space. I am vetoing these provisions because of the potential dampening effect they could have on the purchase of property development rights, especially by nonprofit organizations and local units of government.
34.
Dane County Regional Planning Commission Sunset
Section 4046s
This section repeals the October 1, 2002, sunset date of the Dane County Regional Planning Commission as established by
1999 Wisconsin Act 9.
S307
I am vetoing this section because I object to the repeal of the sunset prior to receipt of the task force report required by
1999 Wisconsin Act 9. The task force is to study and make recommendations regarding the creation of a multicounty regional planning commission. I will review the continuation or modification of the Dane County Regional Planning Commission after receiving that report.
NATURAL RESOURCES
35.
Creation of a Department of Forestry
Sections 1bg, 1br, 99m, 178f, 179t, 183m, 343p, 394 [as it relates to s.
20.375], 395 [as it relates to ss.
20.370 (1) (mv) and
(mx) and
20.375], 425c, 458m, 582i, 582j, 584d, 584h, 584p, 584t, 585gm, 585hm, 585im, 589g, 591m, 591q, 591r, 591s, 600p, 603i, 603m, 603p, 603rd, 603rf, 603rk, 603rn, 603rp, 603rs, 603rw, 603ub, 603x, 604m, 608e, 608m, 608s, 621b, 621hc, 621hL, 621hx, 629db, 629dj, 629dk, 629dL, 629dm, 629dn, 629do, 629dom, 629dp, 629dq, 629ds, 629dsm, 629dt, 629dy, 629dz, 629dzb, 629dzd, 629dzi, 629fb, 629fd, 629fg, 629fj, 629fm, 632g, 753m, 759p, 962b, 969eg, 988m, 1034fb, 1034fd, 1034fg, 1034fh, 1034fj, 1034fk, 1034fL, 1034fn, 1034fp, 1034fq, 1034fr, 1034fs, 1034ft, 1034fu, 1034fv, 1034fw, 1034fx, 1034fyr, 1034hm, 1034r, 1036b, 1036bb, 1036bd, 1036be, 1036bf, 1036bg, 1036bm, 1036br, 1036bv, 1036f, 1036x, 1036yi, 1036yj, 1036yk, 1036yL, 1036ym, 1036yn, 1036yp, 1037m, 1038bb, 1038bd, 1038be, 1038bg, 1038bi, 1038bk, 1038bm, 1038bp, 1038br, 1038dc, 1038dm, 1038p, 1038qc, 1038sam, 1038sb, 1038sc, 1038sd, 1038se, 1038sf, 1038sg, 1038sh, 1038si, 1038sj, 1038sk, 1039aj, 1042kb, 1042kd, 1042kn, 1042kp, 1042kpm, 1042kr, 1042ks, 1042kt, 1042ku, 1042kv, 1046m, 1066am, 1066atg, 1066ati, 1066atv, 1066atz, 1066aui, 1066auk, 1067g, 1067r, 1107g, 1107r, 1113g, 1113r, 1119c, 1119g, 1119L, 1119p, 1119t, 1119x, 1146g, 1146r, 1146t, 1146u, 1147m, 1147r, 1148c, 1148f, 1148j, 1148r, 1149b, 1149c, 1149d, 1149e, 1149g, 1149h, 1149i, 1149j, 1149k, 1149L, 1149Lb, 1149Ld, 1149m [as it relates to distribution of seedling surcharge revenue], 1149md, 1149rx, 1153h, 1153ic, 1153iL, 1153iq, 1153ir, 1153is, 1153it, 1153Lb, 1153Lc, 1153Ld, 1153Le, 1153Lf, 1153Lg, 1153Lh, 1153Lj, 1153Lm, 1153Ln, 1153Lp, 1153Lq, 1153Ls, 1153Lt, 1153Lu, 1153nc, 1153np, 1153nx, 1153nxb, 1153nxc, 1153nxd, 1153nxf, 1153nxg, 1153nxh, 1153nxj, 1153nxk, 1153nxp, 1153nxq, 1153nxr, 1153pc, 1153pd, 1153pdg, 1153pdm, 1153pdr, 1153pdu, 1153pe, 1153ph, 1153phb, 1153phf, 1153phk, 1153php, 1153phs, 1153pm, 1153pr, 1153qc, 1153r, 1153rm, 1153sc, 1153t, 1153u, 1153v, 1153w, 1153x, 1153y, 1153yc, 1153yf, 1153yg, 1153yj, 1153ym, 1261r, 1266m, 1304g, 1304r, 1306m, 1319m, 1328m, 1346g, 1346r, 1387e, 1389r, 1398ym, 1405g, 1414g, 1993z, 2001nm, 2003mn, 2019g, 2019mn, 2020m, 2021g, 2021p, 2022tb, 2114gb, 2114gd, 2114ge, 2114gf, 2114gj, 2114gk, 2114gL, 2114gn, 2114gp, 2115m, 2195m, 2243b, 2243c, 2243d, 2243e, 2243f, 2243g, 2243h, 2243i, 2243j, 2243k, 2243L, 2243m, 2243n, 2243p, 2243q, 2243r, 2243s, 2243t, 2243u, 2243v, 2243w, 2243x, 2243y, 2243z, 2243zm, 2247c, 2247pg, 2247q, 2247r, 2247tg, 2247tj, 2247tk, 2247tm, 2247tn, 2247tp, 2247tr, 2247tt, 2247tu, 2294j, 2294m, 2294pm, 2304g, 2308p, 2308sc, 2349m, 2586r, 2672m, 2813m, 2854r, 2858no, 3035c, 3035g, 3035n, 3035r, 3035w, 3050g, 3050r, 3080m, 3081d, 3081t, 3389gm, 3390m, 3407w, 3408w, 3445c, 3445d, 3457m, 3483m, 3484m, 3485c, 3485g, 3485n, 3485r, 3485w, 3491d, 3491h, 3491p, 3491t, 3816p, 3866d, 3866h, 3866p, 3866t, 3984t, 4034yu, 9137 (5mk) [as it relates to s.
20.375 (2) (rq) and the Department of Forestry], 9137 (5vy) [as it relates to s.
20.375 (2) (w) and the Department of Forestry], 9137 (5x) [as it relates to s.
20.375 (2) (w) and the Department of Forestry], 9137 (5y) [as it relates to s.
20.375 (2) (w) and the Department of Forestry], 9137 (9zw), 9137 (9zy), 9437 (1z), 9437 (3mk) [as it relates to the July 1, 2002 date] and 9437 (3mkx) [as it relates to the treatment of s.
20.375 (2) (rq)]
These sections create a Department of Forestry from the Department of Natural Resources' current Division of Forestry, effective July 1, 2002. The new department would be responsible for six major state forests (Northern Highlands-American Legion, Flambeau River, Black River, Brule River, Governor Knowles and the Coulee Experimental forest) and some smaller forests. The Department of Forestry would also oversee several tree nurseries, local governmental and private forestry assistance, forest health, and fire management as well as grants, loans and payments to certain towns, counties and private forest owners. The "southern forests" (Point Beach, Havenwoods and five units of the Kettle Moraine State Forest) would continue to receive support from forestry revenues and would remain under the jurisdiction of the Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Parks for operations and maintenance.
S308
Prior to July 1, 2002, the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate, could appoint a secretary to head the new department, who could then appoint one unclassified division administrator, a deputy secretary and an executive assistant. The number of division administrators within the Department of Natural Resources would be reduced from seven to six. The operational budget of the Department of Forestry, excluding aids and debt service appropriations, would be over $54,100,000 and include 619 positions.
The Department of Forestry would consult and cooperate with other state agencies, especially the Department of Natural Resources. The two departments would confer on funding issues, the Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship 2000 Program, grant awards, environmental clean-up activities, outdoor recreation policies, proposed laws that affect snowmobiles, approval of National Forest boundaries, leases and treaties with the federal government establishing state forests, the Natural Areas Preservation Council activities and in all other areas where the departments' interests and responsibilities overlap. Like other agencies, the Department of Forestry would be required to keep the Governor informed of its actions and activities, to obtain the Governor's approval before acquiring new lands and to meet set conditions for selling or trading public land.
The Department of Forestry would have the same powers as other state agencies to accept gifts, grants, bequests, devises or donations. The Department of Forestry would have the authority to extend or consolidate lands under its supervision, to grant or acquire easements to areas of state forests, to acquire land to furnish access to state forests, to determine the value of donated lands, to lease lands in state forests and to designate special use areas within state forests. Twice each year, the department would be required to inspect trail signs and designated features. The department would manage forestry fund support of wildlife management and habitat development, private and county forestry, urban land conservation, forest law, fire suppression, county forest administrator grants, and distribution of federal national forest income payments.
The department would pay aids in lieu of taxes for properties under its jurisdiction, as well as debt service, for the acquisition and development of state forests. A forestry land endowment fund would be created to parallel the Department of Natural Resources' natural resources endowment fund.
Responsibilities transferred from the Department of Natural Resources to the Department of Forestry would include gypsy moth eradication, plant protection, forestry education and grants to cooperatives, support of the Wisconsin Conservation Corps, forestry-related environment education grants, reforestation, forestry recording fees, forest fire emergencies and reimbursements related to timber sales contract oversight. The Department of Forestry would support the resource aids and debt service payments formerly provided by the forestry account of the conservation fund.
Under the provisions of the new department, state forest rangers would be classified as law enforcement officers and as such, would have additional general authority.
On July 1, 2002, the staff, assets, liabilities, obligations, rules and orders primarily associated with the Department of Forestry would vest in that agency, as determined by the secretary of the Department of Administration. All incumbent Department of Natural Resources employees relating primarily to the functions of the Division of Forestry would be transferred to the Department of Forestry. The secretary of the Department of Administration would also determine which incumbent Department of Natural Resources employees that relate primarily to general administration and program support would be transferred to the Department of Forestry. After determining these employees, the secretaries of the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Forestry could submit a request to the Joint Committee on Finance to transfer monies between the departments' GPR, FED, PR and SEG appropriations to reflect the personnel transfer.
I am vetoing these provisions to retain forestry-related activities and programs in the Department of Natural Resources. I object to the duplication of effort and reduced accountability to the public for management of Wisconsin's abundant natural resources that would result from creation of a separate department. Forests are an important and integral part of Wisconsin's environment, history, culture and economy. In addition to providing valuable timber, Wisconsin's forests also support wildlife, endangered resources, recreational opportunities for residents and visitors, and lake and river ecosystems. These forests improve water quality and aquatic habitat by reducing erosion and regulating water temperatures. In order for a separate Department of Forestry to adequately manage the state's forest resources, staff would need to be reallocated to provide expertise in fish and wildlife, endangered resources and recreational issues. Also, the Department of Natural Resources would need to reallocate staff to address forestry-related management issues on properties such as the Willow, Chippewa and Turtle-Flambeau Flowages.
S309
Separation of forestry management from the Department of Natural Resources would also result in each department having to devote fee and other segregated revenues to activities for which the revenues were not originally collected. Federal regulations restrict the use of fish and wildlife fee revenue to the state agency responsible for fish and wildlife management. Therefore, the Department of Forestry would be required to use forestry revenues or to find an alternative revenue source to complete wildlife-related activities in the forests. Likewise, the Department of Natural Resources would be required to expend fish and wildlife, endangered resources, parks, recreational vehicle and other segregated revenues on forestry-related activities on land under its jurisdiction. The departments could agree to jointly manage these state lands, though this would result in foresters reporting to wildlife managers and vice versa. Creation of a separate department would result in the same problems it is purported to solve.
I also object to the creation of a new state police force, the state forest rangers. State forest rangers would be the equivalent of conservation wardens. Having two equivalent police forces in the same areas of the state would lead to public confusion and could result in uncoordinated law enforcement. For example, a snowmobiler could be stopped multiple times within a relatively short period of time by a conservation warden for a routine check on land under the Department of Natural Resources' jurisdiction and then by a state forest ranger on land under the jurisdiction of the Department of Forestry. Having separate police forces would also reduce accountability, as the public would have two possible contacts with which to register a complaint. Investigations of complaints would take more time, as each department would need to determine if the complaint is correctly filed against one of its officers, or should have been filed with the other department.
Wisconsin's forests are vital to the well-being of the state, its residents and visitors because of their impact on the state's history, economy (both through timber harvesting and tourism and recreational use), environment and culture. I support the continued improvement in management of this significant component of the quality of life for Wisconsin's citizens. Under the budget bill, funding for forestry activities and programs in fiscal year 2001-02 will increase by $4,514,400 SEG and 15.0 FTE additional forester positions are authorized. The division administrator of the Division of Forestry will be designated the chief state forester and will be required to be a professional forester. Funds within the Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship 2000 Program will be set aside to match federal funds for protection of forested lands, and public education and awareness of forestry issues will be increased through a new kindergarten through twelfth grade education curriculum and public education program. Since my veto cannot restore funding in the Department of Natural Resources forestry-related appropriations, I request the Department of Natural Resources to review the funding needs for fiscal year 2002-03 and submit either a request for corrective legislation or a request for supplemental funding to address funding and position needs for forestry-related programs, assistance and activities.
I recognize the serious concerns raised by the forestry industry and other interested groups concerning the diversion of forestry account resources and the lack of adequate attention by the Department of Natural Resources to the importance of a sustainable forest industry in Wisconsin. The bill I am signing includes considerable funding increases to support more positions in the field to meet the planning and management needs of private and industrial forest land owners. To continue to better address these serious concerns, I am directing the secretary of the Department of Natural Resources to increase efforts to serve the needs of forest land owners and Wisconsin's forest industry.
36.
Recycling
Sections 395 [as it relates to s.
20.285 (1) (tb) and
(tm)], 3222e, 3222f, 3222g, 3222h, 3222m, 3222p, 3222q, 3222r, 3225c, 3225f, 3226k, 3227e, 3619k, 3619m, 3619n, 3619s, 9137 (1k) and 9137 (1km)
These sections make the following changes to Wisconsin's recycling program:
•
Convert the existing grant distribution formula to a per capita formula, with a rate of $5.30 per capita;
•
Limit grant amounts to eligible costs incurred two years earlier and prorate grants if available funds are insufficient;
•
Create a recycling efficiency incentive grant program, funded with $1,900,000 SEG in fiscal year 2002-03 and reduce the per capita rate for responsible units ineligible for recycling efficiency incentive grants by $1.50 per capita;
•
Create a pilot program to identify workable alternatives for compliance with the landfill bans which became effective in 1995;
•
Modify the Department of Natural Resources' audit requirement to require the department to annually review, in cooperation with the University of Wisconsin-Extension, at least 5 percent of grant recipients for compliance with the landfill bans and effective recycling program criteria and to identify ways for the responsible unit to become more efficient and effective;
•
Prohibit solid waste facilities from accepting solid waste from a building containing five or more dwelling units or a facility not providing for collection of recycled materials;
•
Require the Recycling Market Development Board to give priority to projects that seek to use materials that either constitute a relatively high volume of solid waste generated in the state or are hazardous to human health and the environment; and
•
Allocate up to $200,000 annually in forgivable loans for projects that have an exceptional potential to meet one of the existing four eligibility criteria but do not comply with fiduciary responsibility criteria established by Recycling Market Development Board or the Department of Commerce
Section 3222m [as it relates to the reporting requirement] requires the Department of Natural Resources to submit two reports concerning the pilot program for compliance with banned materials to the Legislature and the Joint Committee on Finance. The first would be submitted by January 1, 2003, and the second by January 1, 2005. I am partially vetoing this section to remove the reporting requirement because it places an unnecessary administrative burden on the department.
S310
Sections 3222p and 3222q replace the department's current audit requirement with a requirement to review, in cooperation with the University of Wisconsin-Extension, at least five percent of grant recipients to ensure compliance with landfill bans and effective recycling program criteria and to identify activities, methods or procedures that would make the responsible unit's program more efficient or effective. Section 3222r requires the department to annually report to Joint Committee on Finance on the number of recycling programs reviewed. I am vetoing sections 3222q and 3222r and partially vetoing section 3222p to remove the University of Wisconsin-Extension's participation, the list of items for which the review would be conducted and the reporting requirement. I object to the infringement on the executive branch's ability to manage programs. I also object to requiring the University of Wisconsin-Extension to participate in a review that could be viewed as regulatory. The University of Wisconsin-Extension provides technical assistance and educational support to responsible units and creating a situation in which the University of Wisconsin-Extension could be viewed as a regulatory entity could undermine its relationship with responsible units.
Section 3222e allows the Department of Natural Resources to promulgate rules regarding incidental amounts of materials banned from landfills and specifying the minimum elements for coordinated program delivery. Sections 3222f, 3222g and 3222h prohibit solid waste facilities from accepting solid waste with more than an incidental amount of recyclable waste and section 3227e imposes fines for violations. Sections 3226k and 9137 (1k) create a recycling efficiency incentive grant program to provide grants to responsible units which engage in coordinated program delivery. I am vetoing sections 3222f, 3222g, 3222h, 3227e and 9137 (1k) and partially vetoing sections 3222e and 3226k to remove the solid waste facility enforcement requirements and the recycling efficiency incentive grant program requirements. I object to placing the burden of enforcing recycling laws on solid waste facilities. Enforcement is a governmental responsibility, and it is unfair to punish a solid waste facility or hauler for not knowing all contents of the waste it receives. I also object to the restrictions placed on the department's ability to develop a recycling efficiency incentive grant. My vetoes retain $1,900,000 for grants under this program, and I am requesting the department to solicit input from the public, responsible units, businesses and other interested groups on development of this program.
Sections 3225c and 3225f establish a per capita grant formula beginning with grants awarded for 2002. Grants would be awarded on a per capita basis at a rate of $5.30 per capita. Beginning with grant year 2005, recipients that are not eligible for a recycling efficiency grant would be awarded grants at a rate of $3.80 per capita. I am vetoing these sections because I object to the effect redistribution will have on many communities. Smaller, rural communities in particular would receive less funding than under the current formula; whereas large, urban communities would gain additional funding. This redistribution is not based on the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the local programs, merely population.
Section 9137 (1km) provides the Department of Natural Resources with 1.0 FTE SEG position to be funded with existing monies. I am vetoing this section because with the significant base budget reductions to the department included in this budget bill, it is inappropriate to require the department to further reallocate funds for this position.
Section 395 [as it relates to s.
20.285 (1) (tb) and
(tm)] provides funding for recycling education and solid waste research. I object to this funding because the limited resources for recycling should be focused on implementation of effective programs. By lining out the University of Wisconsin's s.
20.285 (1) (tb) and
(tm) appropriations and writing in $0, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds this provision. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
Sections 3619k, 3619m, 3619n and 3619s require the Recycling Marketing Development Board to give priority to projects that involve recovered materials that constitute a relatively high volume of solid waste generated in the state or that are hazardous to human health or the environment; to annually allocate up to $200,000 for forgivable loans for projects that have exceptional potential to meet one of the qualifying considerations, but do not comply with the board's or the Department of Commerce's criteria for meeting fiduciary responsibilities; and in consultation with the Council on Recycling, to annually establish a list of materials for which the board may award financial assistance. I am vetoing these sections because they create additional administrative burdens for the board and infringe on the board's authority to determine how to best use its limited resources.
My vetoes retain the increase in the state tipping fee to allow the recycling program to continue and to begin exploring different approaches to the current program. The Department of Natural Resources should closely monitor the pilot program for compliance with landfill bans and the recycling efficiency incentive grant program. The effects of these programs should be considered in the proposal I am requesting the department to submit for the 2003-05 biennial budget.
37.
Brownfields Staff
This provision appropriates $242,400 in fiscal year 2001-02 and $306,900 in fiscal year 2002-03 for 5.0 FTE SEG two-year project waste management specialist positions to geo-locate brownfields properties and update the Department of Natural Resources' Web-based registry of closed sites. Although there is no language in the budget bill that authorizes this increase, the purpose of this funding was included in a Joint Committee on Finance budget motion.
S311
I am partially vetoing section 395 [as it relates to s.
20.370 (2) (mq)] because I object to the increase in the number of positions related to this program. The department has received a total of 25.0 FTE positions in the last two budgets (7.0 FTE positions in the 1999-2001 biennial budget and 18.0 FTE positions in the 1997-99 biennial budget) for brownfields program activities and should use those resources as effectively as possible. The department has streamlined the work load at PECFA sites in order to provide additional staff and resources for brownfields work. By lining out the Department of Natural Resources' s.
20.370 (2) (mq) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $242,400 SEG provided in fiscal year 2001-02 and deletes $306,900 SEG provided in fiscal year 2002-03, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds this provision. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds and not to authorize the 5.0 FTE SEG positions in fiscal years 2001-02 and 2002-03.
38.
Land Recycling Loan Program Site Assessments
Section 3168n [as it relates to site assessments and investigations]
This provision directs the Department of Natural Resources to accept site assessments and investigations as eligible costs under the program for applicants able to demonstrate that remediation will be necessary.
I am partially vetoing section 3168n [as it relates to site assessments and investigations] to remove the requirement that the department accept site assessments and investigations as eligible costs because it is unnecessary. Under the program, reimbursement for previously incurred site assessment expenses is available as part of an overall project loan. Additionally, the department's Site Assessment Grant Program provides grant funding to eligible applicants for initial investigations of contaminated properties.
39.
Land Recycling Loan Program Intent to Apply
Sections 3168p and 3168r [as it relates to the notice to apply]
These provisions repeal the requirement that applicants submit a notice of intent to apply for financial assistance under the program to the Department of Natural Resources by December 31 of the preceding fiscal year.
I am partially vetoing section 3168r [as it relates to the notice to apply] and vetoing section 3168p because these provisions are unnecessary. Under current law, the department has the ability to waive this notice requirement if an eligible applicant makes a written request for a waiver.
40.
Regulation of High-Capacity Wells
These provisions direct the Department of Natural Resources to condition approval of high-capacity wells for bottled drinking water based on possible adverse effects to the quality and quantity of state waters, and to prepare an environmental impact statement with each approval of a high-capacity well for bottled drinking water. Additionally, new requirements on high-capacity wells are retroactively applied to all wells approved by the department on or after September 1, 2000.
I am partially vetoing section 3160v [as it relates to s.
281.17 (1) (c) 2.] and vetoing section 9137 (1x) because these provisions are unnecessary and because I object to applying them retroactively. First, the department already has an established environmental analysis and review process. Under this process, an environmental impact statement is prepared for all major actions that will significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Since not all high-capacity wells will significantly impact the human environment, and their potential to do so depends upon the location, aquifer type and rate of withdrawal, conditioning each approval on an environmental impact statement and a study of possible adverse effects is excessive. Second, applying these new restrictions to already issued permits would hurt businesses that have moved forward and based plans around those permits.
I recognize that there are serious concerns about the impact of these wells and believe that the existing Department of Natural Resources' requirements combined with the new permit process for wells that produce water for bottling which I am retaining in this bill will adequately protect the state's interests.
41.
Legislative Council Studies
Sections 9132 (1q) and 9132 (2x)
These sections request that the Joint Legislative Council study high-capacity well usage as well as the need to modify state laws to address the impacts of groundwater usage.
I am vetoing these sections because they are unnecessary. The Joint Legislative Council can conduct these studies without a nonstatutory law requiring them to be performed.
42.
Residential Well Air Filtration
Sections 3160q and 9437 (6p)
These sections require an owner of a residential well to install an air filter to prevent airborne bacteria from contaminating the well water if the well was constructed on or after January 1, 2003, or if water from the well tests positive for bacteria.
I am vetoing these sections because I object to requiring well owners and the Department of Natural Resources to invest substantial time and effort in a program of unproven value. There is no solid evidence that these filters will bring about the intended public health benefit, or that they will even work correctly. Further research on the public health protection offered by these filters and potential alternatives is needed.
43.
Elcho Land Spreading Grant
S312
These provisions provide an annual $25,000 GPR grant to the Elcho Sanitary District #1 to subsidize wastewater treatment costs for residents of that community. The district received financial hardship assistance in early 1999 from the Clean Water Fund Program for the purpose of constructing a wastewater treatment facility. A portion of the financial assistance was provided as a grant and the remainder as a loan with an interest rate of 0.823 percent.
I am vetoing these provisions because they set a bad precedent. The Clean Water Fund Hardship Program uses formulas that consider costs but will not always result in user rates at exactly the target of 2 percent of median household income. Communities must establish and maintain user charges sufficient to make payments on their obligations even if all forecasted revenues do not materialize or if costs are greater than predicted. The Clean Water Fund Program has over 400 loans to Wisconsin communities and it would be unfair to single out the Elcho Sanitary District #1 for this grant.
