[ad_1]
MADISON – As a trust fund created to help Wisconsin address its “forever chemicals” problem languishes, Democrats and Republicans remain at odds over how the money should be spent and who should be held accountable for the pollution. ing.
The $125 million at the center of the debate was created as part of last year’s budget process, and Republicans soon proposed legislation that would earmark the money for grant programs such as inspections, remediation and research. However, it is worth noting that it could potentially constrain the Department of Natural Resources from taking certain actions.
Democratic Gov. Tony Evers said earlier this week that he intended to veto the bill, a decision slammed by Republicans.
“The only changes to the DNR’s authority would protect local governments from being punished for accepting grants to voluntarily address PFAS contamination, and would protect victims of contamination from intimidation and costly is to protect against the issuance of enforcement. These parties are not polluters and did not cause the pollution.” Pollution! ” Sen. Rob Cowles, R-Green Bay, said in a statement Tuesday.
Sen. Mary Felkowski (R-Irma) said in an interview Thursday that Evers’ plan to veto the bill is upsetting.
“I think this is one of the biggest mistakes he’s made since he was elected. That says a lot,” she said. “I want these funds to go to the people, but I also don’t want the DNR to create slush funds that can’t be used in ways that don’t best serve the public.”
Democrats introduce PFAS bill that says it won’t restrict DNR
Meanwhile, Sen. Brad Pfaff, D-Onalaska, introduced two bills Thursday aimed at regulating PFAS and banning the substances from manufacturing in the state.
more:2 Republican lawmakers push to set standards for PFAS in groundwater
These two bills would establish standards for PFAS in drinking water and groundwater. Create a grant program to assist local governments, organizations, and private well owners with compound testing and cleanup. Funding for communities to access clean water supplies, resources for additional testing and purification, and the use of trust funds to fund new grant programs.
The second bill would ban the intentional use of PFAS when the compounds are avoidable and allow manufacturers to be fined if they use them.
“I can’t wait to have clean water. This is about keeping my family safe at home. Toxic PFAS chemicals are in our water and in everyday household products. Regardless of the situation, it is a threat to our health, our economy, and our communities,” Pfaff said in the release.
Pfaff represents the Town of Campbell, which has been dealing with massive pollution spreading from the La Crosse Regional Airport. Hundreds of private wells on the island have been affected, and the state has been paying residents for bottled water for years.
“Families in the Town of Campbell have been forced to drink bottled water for three years because their water has been contaminated with these toxic chemicals,” he said in a release, adding, “Their Children cannot take baths using water from their homes.” It cannot be used in faucets because it contains PFAS. It’s long past time to ensure that Wisconsinites have the tools and resources they need to keep their water safe. ”
The bill appears to be in response to a Republican bill that Evers has vowed to veto.
more:Gov. Tony Evers slams Republicans over ‘breathtaking’ inaction on PFAS
In particular, Evers and clean water advocates point out that protecting innocent landowners and potentially limiting DNR testing could protect companies that manufacture or use PFAS in the production of their products. , Republicans vehemently deny this.
Sen. Eric Winberger (R-Green Bay), one of the authors of the Republican bill, is still urging Evers to sign the bill to give the money a path to flow from the trust fund. He said Thursday that the Peshtigo City Commission approved a resolution supporting the bill. The Peshtigo area has been battling contamination related to Tyco Fire Products, based in nearby Marinette.
“This resolution is another clear sign that communities ravaged by PFAS want the reforms outlined in SB 312,” Winberger said in the release. People and communities affected by PFAS. Had it done so, the City of Peshtigo would not have had to issue a resolution correcting the Governor’s false claims and asking him to sign this necessary relief. ”
Cowles said the Republican bill only slightly modifies the DNR’s ability to enforce laws known as spill laws, which are triggered when contamination is found on a property. The Republican bill would exempt landlords who are not directly responsible for the presence of PFAS from liability.
“This is not a complete repeal of spill laws,” he said. “It’s a very limited set of protections for what we characterize, and I think almost everyone else agrees that these innocent people should be protected.” Masu.”
If the bill doesn’t pass, what happens next for the PFAS fund?
Earlier this year, the DNR submitted a request to the Legislature’s powerful appropriations committee to release money from the trust fund to pay for inspections, remediation and filtration.
However, this request has not been met so far. The committee met Thursday, but addressing PFAS was conspicuously absent from the agenda.
When the trust fund was created, lawmakers stipulated that legislation was needed to direct where and how the funds would be spent.
more:‘Just wondering’: PFAS contamination discovery at Menomonie 3M site raises concerns
“We’re still trying to convince the governor to sign the bill,” Cowles said in an interview Thursday afternoon. “So that’s why we’re introducing this bill.”
The Joint Finance Committee could still release the entire fund to the DNR, or the DNR, which has been without a secretary since November, could submit a proposal for how the money would be used, be approved, and release a set amount. . But it’s not clear whether or not that could happen if the bill isn’t signed.
Felzkowski, a member of the Budget Committee, said he might accept that, but urged the governor to sign the bill anyway.
“I’m very disappointed that the governor vetoed (the bill) because I think he wants to protect innocent landowners,” Felzkowski said. If we are solving this problem and we are helping our constituents, I would very much welcome that. ”
Contact Laura Schulte at leschulte@jrn.com, X. @schulteLaura.
[ad_2]
Source link
