As the new home of WISPIRG's environmental work, Wisconsin Environment can be contacted with any questions regarding this testimony.
Thank you for the opportunity
to testify. My name is Kerry Schumann, and I'm the Director of the Wisconsin
Public Interest Research Group, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public interest advocacy
organization with about 15,000 members statewide.
I have provided my statement
in writing, as well additional materials. I also have here 250 letters from
citizens calling on you to include mandatory buffers in the rules.
We commend the DNR for
taking action to address runoff pollution and are supportive of most of the
rule. However, we are concerned with the recently weakened standards for one
of the most important components of the rules: natural vegetative buffers.
Background on Polluted
Runoff:
Runoff pollution contaminates over 40% of our streams, 90% of our lakes, our
Great Lakes coastal waters, and much of our groundwater.
Why do we need to control
runoff pollution?
Natural Buffers: The
Key to Protecting Wisconsin's Waterways
The use of natural vegetative buffers between farmland, construction sites,
roads and waterways is a key component to stopping contaminated runoff and
excess sediment from reaching lakes, rivers and streams, moderating stream
temperatures and creating habitat for wildlife. While we feel that the rules
require adequate buffers between waterways and urban land uses such as construction
sites and roads, the recent weakening of standards for buffers between farmland
and waterways from mandatory to voluntary is unacceptable.
We agree with concerns
by DNR staff that buffers be of adequate width. Scientific studies have shown
that natural buffers between farmland and rivers and streams need to be at
least 30 feet wide in order to adequately protect the waterways. Many studies
conclude that a vegetative buffer as wide as 100 feet is best for protecting
water quality. Buffers that are between 20 and 30 feet in width may be adequate
as long as there is an additional area that is not loose soil, but rather
contains some amount of plant growth.
What do the Nonpoint
Rules Say About Buffers?
Despite an initial proposal that called for mandatory buffers of 20 to 35
feet, with 30 additional feet of some plant growth, the rule package before
you today only asks farmers to voluntarily comply with buffer standards.
We agree whole-heartedly
with the DNR concern that mandatory buffers could jeopardize Wisconsin's eligibility
for CRP and CREP money from the federal government. With state agencies tightening
their belts under a budget shortfall, Wisconsin needs every federal dollar
it can get. CREP is a program many of us in the environmental community and
in the farm community fought long and hard for because we understand the need
for those federal dollars to help farmers implement good conservation practices.
So where does the policy
fall short?
What happens after
the CREP program is over, or the money runs out? And what about the twenty-one
counties in Wisconsin that are not eligible for CREP and the eighteen eligible
counties that are not signed-up for CREP? A very significant portion of the
state is left without the protection of one of the most effective performance
standards available. Abandoning the grassed waterway and riparian buffer standard
when continuous CRP and CREP do not cover the entire state and may not be
in effect forever, is not an acceptable solution. One thing is certain, without
buffers on most of Wisconsin's waterways, we will not be successful in curbing
polluted runoff.
Our Proposal for Buffer
Standards:
This doesn't have to be a choice between federal money and mandatory buffers.
Wisconsin can remain eligible for CREP money while ensuring that Wisconsin's
waterways are being restored and protected for future generations.
We ask you to consider
our proposal to phase-in mandatory buffers over a period of time. We have
provided you with a copy of our proposed language.
WISPIRG, along with the
33 members of the Clean Water Coalition, recommends that NR 151.03, concentrated
flow channels, and NR 151.04, water quality corridors, be reinserted into
NR 151's Agricultural Performance Standards accompanied by language that will
phase-in these standards after continuous CRP and CREP either lose funding
or are terminated. Furthermore, we advocate for mandatory buffers in non-CREP
counties where state money is available for implementation. We ask the DNR
staff to insert this language in any additional necessary parts of the rule.
Proposed Language:
We suggest the following language for phasing-in the riparian buffer standard:
"The original DNR
language requiring buffer strips shall be returned to the rule with two caveats.
First, counties that enroll in the CREP program are exempt from that requirement.
Second, all counties shall be phased in according to the following timeline:
For counties enrolled
in continuous CRP and CREP contracts, this standard first applies when continuous
CRP and CREP funding is depleted or when continuous CRP and CREP contracts
are terminated. For counties that fail to enter into CREP contracts before
the final enrollment date, this standard applies after the effective date
of the rule [REVISOR INSERT DATE]. For counties that are not eligible to enter
into CRP and CREP contracts, this standard applies after the effective date
of the rule [REVISOR INSERT DATE]."
We ask that you make these
recommended changes to the rules in order to ensure that the instructions
put forth by the state legislature to control polluted runoff are met.
Again, I applaud you and
the DNR staff for the hard work that has gone into creating these standards,
and thank you for allowing me to testify today.
