Clean Water News

As the new home of WISPIRG's environmental work, Wisconsin Environment can be contacted with any questions regarding this report.

MADISON — Wisconsin received an overall "F" for its water policies according to a report released by WISPIRG entitled "Clean Water Enforcement Report Card: How Nine States' Regulations Measure Up." Of the other states surveyed, two received "F"s, four received "D"s, and only New Jersey and Washington received passing grades with a "B+" and a "C" respectively. The grades were assigned as an evaluation of the tools available to state enforcement officials to hold dischargers accountable to the law. The grades, however, are not an evaluation of the job that a specific agency or state is doing in implementing the law.

The report found that most states do not possess the proper laws and regulations needed to ensure full enforcement of the Clean Water Act. The end goal of the Clean Water Act of 1973 is to make all navigable bodies of water safe for fishing and swimming. However, today, 40 percent of Wisconsin's waters still do not meet federal water quality standards.

"In the end, Wisconsin water laws protect water polluters at the expense of Wisconsin citizens," said Anthony Pizer, WISPIRG Clean Water Associate. "We need water laws that hold polluters accountable and protect the health of Wisconsin citizens."

Wisconsin received the following grades in a range of categories:

• Wisconsin received an "F" in the "Reporting" category because it does not have state-specific regulations that dictate the frequency in which facilities have to report their discharges.
• Wisconsin received an "F" in the "Inspections" category because it has no regulations that govern the frequency of inspections.
• Wisconsin received an "F" in the "Assessing Appropriate Enforcement Actions" category because environmental agencies in Wisconsin lack the authority to assess administrative penalties. When these agencies want to assess penalties, they must either try to agree to a settlement with the violator or enter into costly and time consuming legal processes, and often settle for much lower penalty amounts.
• Wisconsin received a "C" in the "Maximum Penalties" category for having a maximum penalty of $10,000 dollars per day, per violation, which slightly mimicked the federal maximum penalty of $25,000 per day, per violation. However, Wisconsin also received an "F" in the "Mandatory Penalties" category for having no mandatory minimum penalty for illegal polluters.
• Wisconsin received an "F" for "Public Accountability" because certain provisions of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are kept confidential in Wisconsin.

The findings of the report also showed that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources' (DNR) NPDES enforcement program receives 40 percent of its funding from the state general fund and 20 percent from a federal matching grant. The program receives only four percent from permit fees and 0 percent from penalties.

"The Wisconsin taxpayer foots the bill for the enforcement program to keep our waters clean, not the illegal polluters" said Pizer.

"The majority of health problems today are caused by environmental factors," said Dr. Bruce Barrett, Assistant Professor of Family Medicine at the UW - Medical School. "There are hundreds of substances that appear to be toxic, but continue to be discharged into our waters. Following the Precautionary Principle, until a substance is proven safe we should be keeping it out of our waters. We cannot do this effectively until we have the proper laws in place to do so."

WISPIRG recommends the following suggestions to improve the water policies in Wisconsin:

• First, polluters should be held accountable through frequent, adequate inspections and consistent state review of self-monitoring reports.
• Second, states should take timely enforcement actions against serious violators of the law and assess penalties that, at minimum, eliminate the economic benefit of polluting.
• Third, states must follow up appropriately to ensure that violators return to compliance with the law, pay the penalties they have been assessed, and complete promised environmental improvements.
• And finally, the public and the U.S. EPA must have the tools to hold states accountable for enforcement of the laws.

"This report demonstrates shortcomings in our laws governing the enforcement of the Clean Water Act," said Professor Arlin Christianson, Emeritus Professor of Law at the UW - Law School. "The Clean Water Act is 30 year old legislation that has failed to fulfill its promise. One of the reasons is the lack of adequate state laws to implement the federal laws."