As the new home of WISPIRG's environmental work, Wisconsin Environment can be contacted with any questions regarding this testimony.
The Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group (WISPIRG) asks you to oppose AB
228 for a number of reasons described in this statement.
First, we specifically ask you to oppose the second section of this bill, the
so-called "Environmental Improvement Program." This program is the
opposite of what the title states, and actually creates immunity from enforcement
of environmental laws without any commitment from a facility to voluntarily
meet superior environmental standards. In fact, because of a severe lack of
inspections and enforcement on the part of the Department of Natural Resources,
and because this bill allows facilities to violate laws and still become a part
of the program, participating facilities can actually be illegal polluters.
But, unlike current law that allows the state to take legal action against an
entity that breaks the law, this bill grants immunity from most legal action.
Second, I want to address some issues that are problems in both sections of
this bill.
Under both sections of the bill, an applicant for the program must have been
free of criminal violations and civil judgements for a prescribed period of
time before becoming eligible for the program. This is a serious problem because
the DNR rarely pursues legal action against illegal polluters. Although about
one-third of Wisconsin facilities illegally dump highly hazardous chemicals
into our lakes, rivers and streams every year, the DNR has only taken legal
action against about one in 25 illegal polluters in recent years. That means
many facilities that are actually bad actors, illegal polluters and repeat offenders,
will be eligible for this program.
Perhaps most concerning about this bill is that it sets a dangerous precedent
of creating immunity of state enforcement of laws—in this case, immunity
from environmental laws. It doesn’t make sense to protect industries or
individuals from enforcement action simply because they agree to obey the law
or to stop illegal activity.
To put it differently, if this type of law was implemented for individuals who
break traffic laws, they would not be penalized for breaking the law. For example,
if a police office pulls over an individual driving 45 miles per hour in a school
zone, the police officer would be unable to ticket the driver if the driver
simply agreed to stop speeding, unless the driver had actually hit a child in
the street. Even though the driver is clearly endangering the public with his
actions, he is immune from any legal action. Why would we allow an industry
immunity to dump toxic chemicals that can affect the health of our children
any more than we would allow a driver immunity to endanger our children’s
lives with careless driving or excessive speeding?
Another problem with this bill in its entirety is the budgetary implications.
With the budget deficit, the DNR, like all state agencies, is grappling with
large budget cuts that will result in downsizing existing programs. Creating
a new program will simply force the DNR to cut more corners and add an additional
burden to the agency. And, a program that spends money to allow immunity from
laws is a poor use of taxpayer money. We know from many polls and surveys that
Wisconsinites believe one of the biggest problems with the environment in Wisconsin
is poor enforcement of laws. This bill would use Wisconsin taxpayers’ money
to further weaken enforcement of environmental laws.
Similarly, the DNR isn’t currently running existing programs effectively,
so it doesn’t make sense to give them a new program. Programs like the
Title V Air Management Program and water enforcement actions are operating very
poorly. If the DNR isn’t able to properly administer the programs they
are currently required to, why give them an additional program that has no proven
environmental and public health benefits, and will actually succeed in rolling
back environmental protections?
There is no question that this bill, and the many versions of it that have come
before the Wisconsin Legislature over the past few years, is quite simply an
industry attempt to weaken Wisconsin’s environmental protections and protect
themselves from enforcement when they violate the law. But we must remember
who loses if this bill is passed - our children when they are exposed to more
air pollution, our families when they eat contaminated fish from Wisconsin’s
waters, and, generally, the citizens of Wisconsin.
Please protect public health by opposing AB 228.
