WE MOVE NOW TO THE CONTROVERSIAL BILL THAT ALLOWS DEVELOPERS TO
FILL SOME WISCONSIN WETLANDS WITHOUT A PERMIT, WHICH IS
EXPECTED TO PASS IN THE STATE SENATE NEXT WEEK AFTER ASSEMBLY
PASSAGE THIS WEEK.
THE MEASURE THEN HEADS TO THE GOVERNOR'S DESK.
UNDER THE BILL, BUILDERS COULD FILL URBAN WETLANDS WITHOUT A
PERMIT AND FILL UP TO THREE ACRES OF RURAL WETLANDS.
DEVELOPERS COMPLAIN WISCONSIN'S REGULATION OF WISCONSIN LANDS IS
ONEROUS.
ENVIRONMENTALISTS SAYING ALLOWING BUILDERS TO FILL
WITHOUT PERMITS WOULD HURT WATER QUALITY AND WORSEN FLOODING.
TONIGHT WE CHECK IN WITH AN EXPERT, UW-MADISON PROFESSOR OF
GEOGRAPHY MORGAN ROBERTSON.
THANKS VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
I UNDERSTAND THE AREA OF WETLANDS IN WISCONSIN AT ISSUE
AS WE'VE DISCUSSED IS LIKE A MILLION ACRES BUT THEN THE FEDS
REGULATE ANOTHER FOUR MILLION ACRES THAT ARE CONNECTED TO
NAVIGABLE WATERWAYS.
WHY ARE WETLANDS PROTECTED?
- WETLANDS PROTECTION HAS TWO MAJOR JOWFIFICATIONS. -- JUSTIF.
THEY ARE FOCUSED ON RECREATIONAL VALUES AND THE LANDSCAPE.
THAT'S GENERALLY WHAT PEOPLE FOCUS ON WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PURPOSE OF WETLANDS CONSERVATION.
BUT THERE'S THE PUBLIC HEALTH FUNCTION OF WETLANDS, THAT THEY
CONCENTRATE AND SEQUESTER AND SOMETIMES TREAT THE LANDSCAPE OF
CONTAMINANTS THAT FLOWS INTO THEM AS LOW POINTS IN THE
LANDSCAPE.
SPECIFICALLY, THE NUTRIENT PROBLEM THAT WE'RE FACING IN
WISCONSIN.
BECAUSE WETLANDS ARE FOCUSED PLACES WHERE SURFACE WATER
BECOMES GROUNDWATER.
THEY'RE AN ESSENTIAL PART OF SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF NITRATE
POLLUTION THAT'S AFFECTING OUR GROUNDWATER.
- SO THERE'S THAT.
THERE'S THEIR KIND OF CLEANING EFFECT ON DRINKING WATER.
- YES.
- WHAT ABOUT HOW WETLANDS PROTECT AGAINST FLOODING?
- WETLANDS ARE SORT OF THE NATURAL DETENTION BASINS IN THE
LANDSCAPE.
AS WE HAVE SEEN AN INCREASE IN EXTREME PRECIPITATION EVENTS IN
THE STATE OVER THE RECENT DECADES, WE'RE SEEING THE NEED
FOR GREATER DETENTION AND GREATER ABILITY TO STORE THAT
STORMWATER ESPECIALLY IN URBAN AREAS.
TO REDUCE FLOOD PEAKS.
IT'S A VERY CLEAR PART OF NOT ONLY PUBLIC HEALTH,
BUT PUBLIC SAFETY AND INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT.
AS YOU LOSE THOSE SMALL WETLANDS, YOU LOSE THE
PROTECTION AGAINST FLOODING.
- SO WHAT COULD THAT LOOK LIKE, SAY IF THERE WERE MANY ACRES OF
WETLANDS FILLED IN?
- YOU'D SEE AN INCREASE IN STORM PEAKS AND YOU WOULD SEE
THAT WATER NOT BEING ABSORBED INTO THE GROUNDWATER AND BEING
DIRECTED INTO THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM.
IT WOULD RESULT IN THE NEED FOR UPGRADED SYSTEMS AND ECOLOGICAL
IMPACTS DOWNSTREAM.
- THE BILL REQUIRES MITIGATION BY BUILDING NEW WETLANDS OR
PAYING INTO I UNDERSTAND A DNR WETLAND RESTORATION FUND.
WOULD THESE MEASURES MITIGATE THE FILLING IN OF WETLANDS?
- POTENTIALLY.
COMPENSATION FOR PERMITTED IMPACTS HAS BEEN ALLOWED SINCE
THE LATE '70s AND THERE'S BEEN A LONG TRACK RECORD OF EXAMINING
HOW THIS WORKS.
WISCONSIN WAS IN THE FOREFRONT OF SKEPTICISM THAT COMPENSATION
COULD ACHIEVE THE GOAL OF
APPROPRIATELY REPLACING THE LOST FUNCTIONS AND VALUES.
BUT SINCE 2001 WISCONSIN HAS BEEN SORT OF IN THE BUSINESS OF
OVERSEEING COMPENSATION, THE DNR HAS OVERSEEN COMPENSATION.
SO IT'S POSSIBLE.
I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THIS BILL DOES IS TO ESTABLISH A
STUDY TEAM THAT DOES HAVE THE MISSION OF THINKING CAREFULLY
ABOUT HOW TO DO THAT APPROPRIATELY.
- COULD YOU FILL IN A WETLAND IN ONE PLACE AND MITIGATE BY
REBUILDING A MANMADE WETLAND IN ANOTHER PLACE?
- WELL, THAT'S BEEN THE LONG-TERM CONVERSATION.
THERE'S SOME SKEPTICISM ABOUT THAT.
YOU CAN IF YOU ARE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT WHERE THAT REPLACEMENT
GOES.
YOU CAN REPLACE SOME OF
THE FUNCTIONS AND VALUES THAT HAVE BEEN LOST.
YOU ALWAYS DO LOSE SOMETHING BY LOSING THE WETLAND IN THAT P
LACE.
NOT EVERYTHING CAN BE REPLACED.
BUT OF COURSE TO PREVENT ALL WETLANDS IMPACTS ALSO HAS ITS
OWN SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC COSTS.
- HAVE OTHER STATES ALLOWING THE FILLING OF WETLANDS TO THE
EXTENT THAT THIS WISCONSIN LAW WOULD ALLOW?
- YEAH.
TO GO BACK TO THE SUPREME COURT CASE THAT OPENED UP THESE
WETLANDS IN 2001 FOR D EVELOPMENT, THAT IS THE SUPREME
COURT CASE SAID THESE ARE NO LONGER COVERED
BY THE CLEAN WATER ACT.
WISCONSIN JUMPED ON THE SORT OF PATCHING THAT GAP IN COVERAGE
AND IMMEDIATELY IN SENATE BILL 1 UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THIS SYSTEM
OF PROTECTING THEM.
OTHER STATES FOLLOWED SUIT, BUT OHIO AND INDIANA ONLY WHERE
THESE ISOLATED WETLANDS ARE COMMON.
GETTING DATA ON WHETHER OR NOT THESE WETLANDS HAVE UNDULY BEEN
TARGETED IN THE STATES THAT HAVEN'T PROTECTED THEM IS VERY
DIFFICULT.
IT IS ONLY ANECDOTAL.
IT IS VERY HARD TO SAY.
- AND SO IF OTHER STATES HAVE GONE KIND OF FULL BORE WITH
FILLING IN THEIR WETLANDS WITH VERY LITTLE TIME LEFT, ABOUT 30
SECONDS, ARE THERE SOME STATES THAT EXPERTS LIKE YOURSELF HAVE
SEEN THAT YOU SAY, WELL, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS IF DEVELOPERS AND
BUILDERS FILL IN THESE WETLANDS.
- WELL, ONE COULD LOOK AT ILLINOIS, I THINK.
BUT RECOGNIZE ALSO THAT I LLINOIS, COUNTIES AND
MUNICIPALITIES HAVE THE POWER TO REGULATE THAT FILLING, SOMETHING
THAT THIS BILL TAKES AWAY FROM COUNTIES IN WISCONSIN.
SO THAT'S A DIFFERENCE THAT MEANS THIS ISN'T SOMETHING WE'VE
SEEN BEFORE.
- MORGAN ROBERTSON, THANKS VERY MUCH.