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.
44.
Municipal Flood Control and Dam Rehabilitation
Sections 395 [as it relates to s.
20.370 (7) (da)], 621h, 962 [as it relates to s.
20.370 (7) (da)], 962b [as it relates to s.
20.370 (7) (da)], 967 [as it relates to municipal flood control and riparian restoration grants], 967e [as it relates to municipal flood control and riparian restoration grants] and 1345cm [as it relates to promulgating rules]
These sections provide $9,000,000 of general obligation bonding authority in a new appropriation for municipal flood control and riparian restoration cost-sharing grants. The sections also create a new grant program to match federal funds for rehabilitation of flood control dams and allocate $500,000 of the bonding authority for these grants.
I am vetoing section 621h and partially vetoing sections 395, 962, 962b, 967 and 967e to remove the separate appropriation and bonding authority for municipal flood control and riparian restoration. I object to the separation of funding for municipal flood control from urban nonpoint pollution abatement issues. Combining the funding for these two programs recognizes the effect of storm water control and pollution abatement measures on flooding and gives the Department of Natural Resources and the Natural Resources Board more flexibility to direct funds to maximize water quality and quantity improvements.
Recognizing the need for rehabilitation of flood control dams in western Wisconsin and around the state, I am retaining the $500,000 set-aside to match federal funding for dam rehabilitation. To allow the department and counties to maximize the amount of federal funding received by the state and expedite the awarding of grants, I am partially vetoing section 1345cm to remove the requirement that the department promulgate rules for the grant program.
45.
Funding Notices of Discharge
Section 3173j
This provision would require the Department of Natural Resources to provide a cost-sharing grant to an animal feeding operation to correct unacceptable practices identified in a notice of discharge.
I am vetoing this provision because I object to singling out animal feeding operations which have violated pollution control laws for special consideration under this program. These animal feeding operations should compete for this funding like any other entity. Furthermore, requiring the department to make cost-sharing grants in this manner would be in direct violation of federal law, which bars this practice in some cases.
46.
Watershed Center
Sections 1066d and 1358m
These sections would require the Department of Natural Resources to provide $150,000 SEG annually to the University of Wisconsin System for the establishment and operation of a watershed management center at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point.
I am vetoing these sections because they are unnecessary and are not a cost-effective use of water resources account monies. Given the limited revenues available in the water resources account of the conservation fund, it would not be prudent at this time to expand the uses of this account to support a new center. The university may pursue watershed research or establishment of such a center without a statutory directive.
47.
Wisconsin Waters Initiative
These provisions create an appropriation to receive funds from the environmental fund for providing computer accessible water resources management information and allow the Department of Natural Resources to submit a proposal to the Joint Committee on Finance concerning the continued development of a system to provide computer accessible water management information. If the committee does not notify the department within 14 days of submittal of the request that a meeting would be scheduled to review the proposal, the new appropriation and the appropriation under s.
20.370 (4) (aq) would each be supplemented by $100,000 SEG.
I am vetoing these provisions because I object to the infringement on executive branch authority to manage programs. This information is important for water management and planning activities. Therefore, I encourage the department to pursue cost-effective continued development of this system with existing funds allocated for this project.
48.
Lake Management Grant for Fish Lake
Section 9137 (8q)
This section requires the Department of Natural Resources to provide a lake management grant to Dane County for water quality and lake level improvements for Fish, Mud and Crystal Lakes. The grant would not be subject to the statutory limitation on the portion of project costs that may be funded.
S313
I am vetoing this section because it infringes on the department's authority to decide which projects, and associated funding, will provide the best management of Wisconsin's lakes. I also object to the waiver of the 75 percent limitation. Dane County can continue to compete for funding through the various assistance programs provided by the department.
49.
Stewardship Earmarks
Sections 1034h, 1034hm [as it relates to s.
23.197 (7)], 1034pm, 1039bv, 1039fm, 1039k, 1039km, 1039m, 1039s and 9107 [as it relates to (1) (i) 2.]
These provisions require the Department of Natural Resources to do the following under the Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship 2000 Program:
•
Provide up to $175,000 SEG for the development of a recreational area on Keyes Lake in Florence County;
•
Provide $60,000 SEG to the city of Hillsboro and waive the 50 percent matching requirement for the development of a camping and recreational area near the Hillsboro and Northeastern Spur Trail;
•
Provide $135,000 SEG to acquire conservation easements along the Plover River in Marathon County and Portage County;
•
Provide $648,100 SEG to Milwaukee County to redevelop the beach at Grant Park;
•
Provide $25,000 to the city of Menasha for the purchase of land to be used for a skateboard park facility in Winnebago County; and
•
Provide up to $200,000 SEG in matching funds for the development of a conservation law enforcement museum.
I am vetoing these provisions because I object to the infringement on executive branch authority to manage programs and because these provisions are unnecessary. The department currently reviews grant applications under several criteria that take into account the importance of the property for recreational and conservation purposes. These criteria and the requirement for a local match for grants ensure that local projects are planned and supported by the communities affected by the projects. Circumventing this process undermines the integrity of the Stewardship 2000 Program.
50.
Forest Legacy Program Funding
Section 1034k
This section requires the Department of Natural Resources to set aside not less than $12,000,000 from the land acquisition subprogram of the Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship 2000 Program. These funds may be obligated only to provide matching funds for the purchase of land or easements under the federal Forest Legacy Program.
By striking the digit "1", I am partially vetoing this section to limit the set aside amount to not less than $2,000,000. I object to the amount of funding being set aside because this requirement limits the department's flexibility in determining the best use of the Stewardship 2000 Program funds. In addition, the Forest Legacy Program matching requirement is 25 percent of the program costs. Although I strongly support the conservation of Wisconsin's forested land, the state is not expected to receive enough federal funding for the department to obligate the total amount of the proposed set-aside. If additional federal funding becomes available, I am requesting the department to set aside additional Stewardship 2000 Program funds to maximize the amount of federal dollars coming to the state.
51.
Stewardship Appraisal Requirements
Section 1035g
This section requires governmental units or nonprofit organizations to submit at least one appraisal to the Department of Natural Resources if they request a Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship 2000 Program grant to purchase land which the department estimates has a fair market value exceeding $200,000. The department is required to also obtain a separate independent appraisal.
I am vetoing this section because it creates an unnecessary burden on the department. The department did not receive any additional resources to obtain and review these appraisals. Requiring the department to manage this requirement with existing funds may result in delays in awarding grants to applicants.
52.
Stewardship Purchase Notification
Sections 1038q, 1038qc and 9437 (1z) [as it relates to s.
23.14 (1m)]
These sections require the Department of Natural Resources to notify, in writing, affected local units of government of any acquisition of land or interest in land at least thirty days prior to completion of the acquisition.
I am vetoing sections 1038q and 1038qc and partially vetoing section 9437 (1z) [as it relates to s.
23.14 (1m)] because they unduly limit the department's ability to work with sellers and to expedite the protection of sensitive environmental areas.
53.
Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach Acquisition
Section 1038saq
This section prohibits the Department of Natural Resources from promulgating administrative rules or establishing a department policy that imposes a specific maximum purchase price per parcel or per acre for real property that the department acquires within the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach National Natural Landmark.
I am vetoing this section because it limits the department's flexibility to determine how best to use limited resources to protect and preserve sensitive areas of the state.
54.
Signage for Fishing Easements
Section 1038dg
This section requires the Department of Natural Resources to place a sign on any property where the department acquires an easement allowing public access for fishing. The sign must inform the public that the easement allows public access to the body of water for fishing.
S314
I am vetoing this section because it is unnecessary and infringes on the property owner's rights. The department may erect signs on property with fishing easements at its own discretion and in cooperation with the property owner.
55.
Forestry Demonstration and Education Center
