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 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.
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.
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 v. PSC,
79 Wis. 2d 161,
255 N.W.2d 917.
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 v. PSC,
79 Wis. 2d 409,
256 N.W.2d 149.
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 proposed sewer interceptor was reasonable when the segment had: (1) independent utility; (2) a main purpose of fulfilling local need: (3) logical termini; and (4) construction of the first segment did not compel construction of the second segment. Wisconsin Environmental Decade 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 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 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 v. PSC,
105 Wis. 2d 457,
313 N.W.2d 863 (Ct. App. 1981).
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 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. DH&SS,
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 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), 184.
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 Dist. 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).
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).
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.
1.13
1.13
Land use planning activities. 1.13(2)
(2) Each state agency, where applicable and consistent with other laws, is encouraged to design its programs, policies, infrastructure and investments of the agency to reflect a balance between the mission of the agency and the following local, comprehensive planning goals:
1.13(2)(a)
(a) Promotion of the redevelopment of lands with existing infrastructure and public services and the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing residential, commercial and industrial structures.
1.13(2)(b)
(b) Encouragement of neighborhood designs that support a range of transportation choices.
1.13(2)(c)
(c) Protection of natural areas, including wetlands, wildlife habitats, lakes, woodlands, open spaces and groundwater resources.
1.13(2)(d)
(d) Protection of economically productive areas, including farmland and forests.
1.13(2)(e)
(e) Encouragement of land uses, densities and regulations that promote efficient development patterns and relatively low municipal, state governmental and utility costs.
1.13(2)(f)
(f) Preservation of cultural, historic and archaeological sites.
1.13(2)(g)
(g) Encouragement of coordination and cooperation among nearby units of government.
1.13(2)(h)
(h) Building of community identity by revitalizing main streets and enforcing design standards.
1.13(2)(i)
(i) Providing an adequate supply of affordable housing for individuals of all income levels throughout each community.
1.13(2)(j)
(j) Providing adequate infrastructure and public services and an adequate supply of developable land to meet existing and future market demand for residential, commercial and industrial uses.
1.13(2)(k)
(k) Promoting the expansion or stabilization of the current economic base and the creation of a range of employment opportunities at the state, regional and local levels.
1.13(2)(L)
(L) Balancing individual property rights with community interests and goals.
1.13(2)(m)
(m) Planning and development of land uses that create or preserve varied and unique urban and rural communities.
1.13(2)(n)
(n) Providing an integrated, efficient and economical transportation system that affords mobility, convenience and safety and that meets the needs of all citizens, including transit-dependent and disabled citizens.
1.13(3)
(3) Consistently with other laws, each state agency, whenever it administers a law under which a local governmental unit prepares a plan, is encouraged to design its planning requirements in a manner that makes it practical for local governmental units to incorporate these plans into local comprehensive plans prepared under
s. 66.0295 [
s. 66.1001].
1.13 Note
NOTE: The bracketed language indicates the correct cross-reference. Corrective legislation is pending.
1.13 History
History: 1999 a. 9,
148.
