April, 1998
Table of Contents
DNR Bows to Industry Pressure
Not the First TimeLegislators Are Trying to Hide Pollution
Lame Excuses
DNR’s excuse is flawed for several reasons
Time is Short
Demonstrations to Start Soon
Poisoning Continues
What You Can DoCome hear speakers Industry doesn’t want you to hear
Water-Keepers -- Public Forum on Water Quality
Legislature Threatens Land-use
What are “Takings?”Clean Money Campaign Reform
Legislation Proposed
Legislators Block ReformElectric Utilities Downplay Wind Energy
Citizen Comments
Local Involvement
Popular Support
Legislative Sponsors
Basic Goals of the Bill
How Clean Money, Clean Elections would work
Facts to Ponder
Contrary Attitude from WPSA New Kind of Drug Problem?
Average versus Peak Wind Speeds
Wind Energy is Available & Renewable
Fuel Subsidies Undercut Wind Energy Economics
Environmental Costs Not Included
The Future is NOW
What About the U.S.?Public Comments Sought for Non-point Program
Timeline
Poor Public Notice (Again)
What You Can Do
DNR Bows to Industry Pressure
Once again, Gov. Thompson’s new version of DNR has bowed to pressure
from Fox River polluters and the Chamber of Commerce.
DNR had organized a big public program for April 27 where several health
experts would have described the effects of PCBs on human and wildlife
health. But industry representatives were outraged and clearly pressured
DNR to drop the program, which it did after the speakers had already purchased
plane tickets and 500 public announcements and news releases had already
been sent.
For years citizens have asked for public hearings and programs on critical
issues involving the Fox River clean-up. For years, DNR staff have agreed
this is a good idea, and yet it hasn’t happened.
Last summer it seemed it was finally going to happen. Clean Water Action
Council was invited by the Wisconsin Dept. of Justice (which represents
DNR’s legal case against the polluters) to join a diverse committee planning
four public programs and comment sessions which would have been held in
the fall of 1997.
One program would discuss human and wildlife health effects of PCBs,
the second would discuss dredging and disposal technologies for sediment,
the third would discuss all the legal, political and financial processes
for the Fox River clean-up, and the fourth would allow Fox River industries
to present their views, with public comment afterwards.
We sent representatives to meetings in Madison, participated in conference
calls, and helped locate potential speakers for the events.
But suddenly last summer, DNR announced all the meetings were cancelled
and the public outreach activities would be turned over to the Fox River
Coalition, an industry and government group which has stifled public input
and produced no clean-up results after many years of fruitless meetings.
This time, DNR claims the April 27 program was just a bargaining chip
to convince the Chamber of Commerce to stop telling the public there’s
“no proof of PCB’s health effects.” When the Chamber of Commerce wrote
a “letter of apology,” the DNR claimed the public program was no
longer necessary, and cancelled it, to the dismay of several co-sponsoring
agencies such as EPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
DNR’s excuse is flawed for several reasons:
1. George Meyer, the DNR Secretary, had been boasting about the upcoming program for weeks, saying he was very pleased to be hosting several internationally prominent speakers.
2. The Chamber’s letter of apology is nothing of the sort. The Chamber only admitted that “Upon reflection --- the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the Wisconsin Division of Health, and others, do consider that the current levels of PCBs found in the river pose a serious threat to human health.” The letter didn’t say that the Chamber agrees that PCBs are a threat to health.
3. One letter from the Chamber doesn’t undo the serious damage caused by at least four months of the Chamber’s aggressive lobbying and deliberate misinformation campaign against Fox River clean-up efforts. The Chamber and the polluting industries have systematically worked, very effectively, to frighten local officials and the public into thinking PCB clean-up isn’t worth the risk --- either economically or environmentally.
4. For years, Gov. Thompson’s DNR and other health and environmental agencies have ignored their responsibilities to inform and involve the general public in their actions and scientific reasoning. They are allowing self-serving polluters and politicians to control public perceptions of the issue. This endangers the entire clean-up effort.
Gov. Thompson’s DNR and other agencies claim the public program is only
postponed, until perhaps next Fall. We’ve heard this before.
Unfortunately, we don’t have the luxury of time. Two clean-up demonstration
projects are planned for this summer. One of the sites is the most contaminated
in the entire river. We need detailed public information programs NOW to
discuss the implications --- dredging technologies, disposal options, costs,
and impacts on wildlife and human health. We also need to know who will
pay for all the work.
We still haven’t gotten a report from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
or EPA on the economic damages caused by the PCB contamination. This is
a critical piece of information which is needed to balance against the
Chamber and Industry complaints about clean-up cost.
Demonstrations to Start Soon
Is it possible that the “demonstration” this summer at the Fort James
river site will be deliberately so poorly designed by industry and Gov.
Thompson’s DNR that it will only demonstrate a failure and be used to frighten
the public away from a full-scale river clean-up? We already know that
DNR agreed to a fixed price for this clean-up before they knew the extent
of the PCB hotspot in the sediment or the project design. They recently
discovered this hotspot is twice as contaminated as they expected, but
they’re still pushing forward, without a public hearing.
Meanwhile, the public and wildlife are still being poisoned on a daily
basis in the Fox River Valley and Lake Michigan region. Anglers and duck
hunters continue to ignore the warnings against eating fish and ducks.
They’re still feeding these fish to their kids and families, risking another
generation of harm.
The polluters and politicians still dance around in their official
clean-up efforts, as they have for over 12 years, pretending that legal
actions can be avoided through negotiation.
It should be obvious to everyone by now that industry never intended
to, and never will, voluntarily provide the millions of dollars needed
to clean up their toxic mess.
The delays, public confusion, and secret compromises must end.
Legislators Are Trying to Hide Pollution
Now that the Republican’s once again control both the Senate and Assembly
of the Wisconsin Legislature, as well as the Governor’s Office, several
proposed bills may actually pass.
One of the Assembly Republican bills is AB 235, nicknamed the The Dirty
Secrets Bill, and it’s a high priority of lobbyists for Wisconsin Manufacturer’s
and Commerce (which should alarm us immediately.)
Under the bill, companies that undertake an environmental audit of
their plants and procedures or management systems could get (1) privileged
treatment of the audit --- i.e. no public disclosure of audit details,
and (2) immunity from civil and criminal prosecution if they disclose violations
to the state agency --- i.e. no prosecutions even for repeat violators
or toxic discharges.
In other words, the Community Right to Know laws would be eliminated,
and DNR would be helpless. Violators would be able to thumb their noses
at the DNR, laugh at the concerns of citizens, and DNR would be prevented
from informing the public that it’s happening. DNR’s hands would be tied
and their mouths taped shut. Groups like Clean Water Action Council would
be unable to research and publicize the pollution coming from industry,
because the files would be closed.
This is a dangerous and frightening proposal, and several other states
have already passed similar laws.
Write your elected officials and tell them what you think:
State Senator
P.O. Box 7882
Madison, WI 53707
State Rep. (Last Name, A thru L)
P.O. Box 8952
Madison, WI 53708
State Rep. (Last Name, Mc thru Z)
P.O. Box 8953
Madison, WI 53708
Come hear speakers Industry doesn’t want you to hear
The program is NOT cancelled
You are cordially invited to attend a free, public presentation by several public health experts --- discussing “Restoring the Fox River: Perspectives on PCBs and Public Health.” We will also have speakers on dredging and disposal technologies for PCB contaminated sediments.
Monday, April 27 --- 7:00 p.m.
Liberty Hall, 800 Eisenhower Drive, Kimberly, Wisconsin East of the Intersection of Highway 441 and County Trunk Hwy CE
Co-sponsored by --- Clean Water Action Council, the Sierra Club, and several other citizen organizations. Don’t let corporations dictate the information you’re allowed to hear.
Water-Keepers -- Public Forum on Water Quality
Earthweek Event!
Tuesday, April 21
5:30 p.m. --- Supper and Socializing
6:30-8:00 p.m. --- Open Mike and Discussion
If you can’t make it, we’ll miss you, but please send us a quick note
listing your successes and your ideas for display in an exhibit that evening:
E-mail: cwac@execpc.com
Fax: 920-437-7326
Phone: 920-437-7304
Location: Baird Creek Ski Hill Chalet Triangle Sports Center, 500 Beverly Road, Green Bay
Take the University Avenue exit to the right off Hwy 43 and immediately turn left at the first stop light onto University Way, then left on University, right on Humboldt Road, right on Baird Creek Road and right on Beverly.
Join Clean Water Action Council on Earthweek for a public forum to celebrate efforts to protect and clean-up the waterways of Wisconsin. We will provide a potluck supper (contributions of food welcome). Then we’re planning an open microphone session where we invite you to share your success stories, concerns and ideas. What have you done for clean water in Wisconsin? What still needs to be done? How do we get there?
Legislature Threatens Land-use
Several Republican “Takings” bills are also moving again in the Legislature.
What are “Takings?”
Some people in recent years have reinterpreted the U.S. Constitution
to say that zoning and some environmental laws involve a “taking” of private
property rights without “just compensation.” They believe that the government
and taxpayers should be forced to pay individuals to not develop their
land or property in
certain ways.
This could be applied narrowly or in very broad categories.
For example, Rio Algom could argue that environmental regulations
prevent them from exploiting their ore deposit at the Crandon Mine (now
Nicolet Minerals) which deprives them of their “property rights.”
They might claim that taxpayers should reimburse the company for the
$5 billion income they expect to lose as a result.
Or Fort James could argue that air and water pollution laws violate
their property rights by restricting their free use of their industrial
properties, and therefore taxpayers should compensate them for this cost.
Community zoning could be severely weakened, for example: rules to
prevent huge animal feedlots next to homes, or to prevent buildings in
floodplains and wetlands.
Legislation Proposed
AB 806 --- Defines “ takings” actions as those which reduce the fair
market value of private real property by 50% or more, and creates heavy
restrictions on local and state governments before such “takings” can be
approved.
Several companion bills --- AB 807, AB 808, and AB 810 --- define
notification, legal actions, and environmentally sensitive areas affected
by “takings” rules. As a group, these rules Wisconsin’s landscape
and quality of life.
Charging that political insiders in Madison and Washington are dropping the ball on campaign finance reform, citizens set off on a 12 city media tour last week to promote state legislation called “Clean Money, Clean Elections,” Assembly Bill AB 950.
The Wisconsin Legislature’s 1997-98 session ended with the passage of just one reform bill out of at least 16 bills offered. And in the previous session, they killed another 27 bills.
“There is mounting evidence that Wisconsin government now operates by
a new code: you don’t pay, you don’t play,” said John Berge, state
chair of the Sierra Club. “Since clean water and clean air can’t
pay, they get less attention than checks from Exxon and paper company executives.
Those who write the big checks collect their debts from those who write
the laws, to the detriment of the environment, working families and democracy.”
Despite glaring evidence of special-interest clout and soaring election
costs, the Wisconsin establishment has shown little interest in reform.
“Unfortunately, Gov. Thompson and the legislature are pretending that an
enormous special-interest elephant is not sitting in the middle of the
Capitol building, and are refusing to consider legislation that would seriously
reduce the special interest money flowing into their coffers,” asserted
Milwaukee Alderman Don Richards.
“Only citizen pressure will shake up the insiders’ complacency, said
Charlene Lemoine of the Waukesha Environmental Action League. “The insiders
are quite comfortable with the status quo, so we’re taking this tour to
try to ignite a prairie fire of popular outrage,” she explained. “We’ll
be circulating Clean Money, Clean Elections pledge forms for citizens to
present to all candidates for state office, and giving out petitions for
a massive petition drive this year.”
The tour’s participants stress the need for comprehensive reform. “If
we want to end special-interest domination of our government, we need to
end special-interest donations as the source of money for elected officials,”
explained Jack Lohman, a Republican who is chief executive officer of Cardiac
Evaluation Center in West Allis. “Only by offering candidates a source
of clean public money can we make them accountable to the public instead
of special interests.”
Other speakers in support of the bill included Paul Hassett, a Republican
and former Executive Director of Wis. Manufacturers and Commerce, and John
Norquist, Mayor of Milwaukee.
At the Green Bay media event, local activists Rebecca Katers, of Clean Water Action Council testified on the importance of reform, as well as Lorry Corby and Carol Montie, of the Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice, the League of Women Voters, and numerous related social organizations.
“Polls show that 84% of Wisconsin citizens want “sweeping reform” noted Kelly Sparks, regional political director of the United Auto Workers. “The way that politicians spend our tax money is directly affected by how they raise their campaign money.”
The Clean Money, Clean Elections Bill was introduced as AB 950 in the latest legislative session. It’s sponsors include Assembly Rep. Tammy Baldwin and Senator Fred Risser, and Assembly Representatives Robert Turner, Rosemary Potter, John Lehman, and Spencer Coggs.
Supporters of the Clean Money, Clean Elections system are aiming for the following five goals:
1. Less spending --- By eliminating the advantage of excessive spending, most candidates will choose to spend less money overall.
2. Equal Opportunity --- A level playing field for all candidates, whether they’re wealthy or not.
3. Ending Connections between special-interest donations and special-interest influence over public policies and government budgets.
4. Ideas Not Money --- Restoring the value of good ideas over the power of the money.
5. Allow Time for Real Work --- Freeing candidates from the frantic
pursuit of donations. And preventing elected officials from spending all
their work time raising money to get themselves re-elected.
How Clean Money, Clean Elections would work
1. Qualifying --- Candidates would voluntarily qualify for the Clean Money, Clean Elections funding by collecting $5 Qualifying Contributions and signatures from several hundred private individuals, and agreeing to adhere to spending limits and accept no private donations, other than seed money. (The number of required contributions varies upon the seat being sought.)
A candidate would still need to campaign and work hard to show the support of hundreds of voters before he or she could receive public funding.
2. Full public funding --- Qualified state-level candidates would
receive a sum equal to 75% of the average spending for the position state-wide
in the 1996 election cycle. (This will immediately reduce overall spending.)
For the Assembly, this would amount to $30,000 (+$15,000 for primary);
the State Senate, $60,000 (+30,000 for primary); the Governor, $1.5 million
for general election (+$750,000 for primary); Supreme Court, $300,000 (+$100,000
for primary); etc.
Future outlays would be inflation adjusted. Money would be drawn from
a Democracy Trust Fund created by state revenues.
3. Discouraging “Arms Races” --- If a “clean elections” candidate were opposed by a privately funded candidate who refused to respect spending limits, the clean candidate would receive matching funds from the state’s Democracy Trust Fund, with a cap of up to 3 times the level of the initial Clean Money grant. This removes the incentive for candidates to spend excessive amounts.
4. Independent expenditures --- A candidate who qualifies for and accepts
public financing would receive dollar-for-dollar matching funds when he
or she is targeted by an “independent expenditure” campaign or “issue”
ads which use a candidate’s name or image during a campaign season. This
provision establishes a prior notice requirement to disclose an intended
independent expenditure campaign.
This will address the outrage which occurred in the 1996 elections
when Wis. Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) spent nearly $500,000 in the
last 2 weeks of the campaign on attack TV ads against six Democrats running
for the Legislature. (It’s not a coincidence that Republicans now
control both the Senate and Assembly in Wisconsin.)
Local leader Barbara Lawton lost to Senator Gary Drezwiecki in an extremely
close vote because she was targeted by WMC with vicious TV ads. Worse yet,
WMC bought up so much of the last minute TV time, that no TV time remained
to be purchased, even if Lawton could have afforded it.
This WMC attack was direct corporate money from undisclosed sources
(EXXON?, paper industry?) but they defend it as their right to “free speech.”
5. Costs (and Savings) for Taxpayers --- The highly respected Center
for Responsive Politics estimates that campaigns for all major state offices
could be covered at an average cost of about $5 per taxpayer. A small investment
to ensure democracy.
And the financial savings could be huge, if special interests are neutralized
and they no longer control our elected officials, taxpayers will pay far
less for unwise pork barrel projects which only benefit special interests.
Budget decisions in Wisconsin could be based on the merit of ideas,
rather than pressure from groups trying to manipulate politicians with
campaign donations.
6. Private Donations --- Clean Money candidates can accept private campaign donations only as “seed money” to get their campaign started. There is a $100 limit on such contributors. Total seed money allowed would be: for Assembly, $2,500; State Senate, $5,000; and Governor, $10,000. All other private donations would be forbidden for Clean Money candidates.
7. Voluntary Program --- Candidates could still choose to rely on private-interest funding; however, they would not gain a financial advantage because of the Clean Money plan’s “equalizing funds” feature.
(from information provided by Wisconsin Citizen Action)
• The lions share of contributions for Wisconsin’s elections come from a tiny, wealthy circle: 40% of the contributions in 1996 legislative races came from just 2/10 of 1% of the population.
• The richest 1% --- those making over $262,000 --- pay only 6.4% in total state, and local income, property and sales taxes. Those making under $43,000 pay twice as high a rate --- 12.9%. Are tax breaks geared to benefit wealthy campaign donors?
• Wisconsin corporations receive $1.1 billion a year in tax reductions and exemptions.
• Wisconsin corporate taxes are among the very lowest in the nation, even lower than such corporate-friendly states as Mississippi, North Carolina, Louisiana, and Tennessee.
• Car dealer Russ Darrow gave $5,314 to Gov. Thompson, and then succeeded in getting the Gov. to intervene in changing a road detour, at a cost of $50,000 to taxpayers.
• Ameritech and other tele-communications interests have contributed over $30,000 to Gov. Thompson, and will gain a $63 million tax reduction annually starting in the year 2001
Electric Utilities Downplay Wind Energy
by Kim Bowker
The state of Wisconsin has an exciting new energy source on the horizon
--- literally.
On February 6, two utility scale wind turbines manufactured by Tacke
Wind Energy of Germany, began feeding power into the Wisconsin Public Service
(WPS) utility grid. The two 600 kW turbines generating electricity from
on top of 197 foot towers, have the distinction of being the largest wind
project in Wisconsin and the tallest wind turbines in North America.
The town of Glenmore is hosting the generators after a three year wind
monitoring program confirmed that it was an ideal site. The turbines are
situated on land that is being leased from a local dairy farming family
in much the same way as land is leased for thousands of wind turbines in
Europe.
A recent article in Windpower Monthly entitled “Project up despite utility
reluctance” states “... the community response to the project has been
mostly positive ... the same cannot be said for the project’s co-developer
and host, Wisconsin Public Service.”
The news coverage from WPS in relation to the project has been negative
and apologetic, constantly citing Wisconsin’s low average wind speeds and
the high cost of wind energy.
Normally, when a company embarks on a new, ground breaking project,
there is excitement in the air, promotions, education forums, etc. None
of this has taken place in relation to the wind project. The press coverage
not only lacked excitement, it was full of misleading information. For
example, in one article WPS states that “steady winds of 30 mph are needed”
for the turbines to reach full output. In the very next sentence they state
that the Town of Glenmore has an average wind speed of 13.6 miles per hour.
Wind turbines produce their rated output at any second that the wind
is blowing at the turbines’ rated wind speed. Knowing the average wind
speed for a particular area allows a wind turbine manufacturer to predict
the output of their machines over a given period of time. WPS’s clever
wording creates the impression that the Town of Glenmore will only allow
the machines to run at half their rated output.
Average versus Peak Wind Speeds
Although average wind speed is the usual means for determining the viability
of the wind resource it is inherently flawed since it waters down the peak
wind speeds. The equation that calculates the power density (power available
in the wind) represents the unit for power as a cubic function in relation
to wind speed.
In other words when the wind speed doubles, the power available increases
by a factor of eight. Areas with identical averages may have very different
power densities. So when WPS discusses the low annual average wind speeds
in Wisconsin they are only describing one piece of the puzzle.
Wind Energy is Available & Renewable
In all fairness, the use of power density in place of averages still
proves that Wisconsin does not have the wind resource that the mountain
passes of California or the open Dakota Plains have.
However, Wisconsin imports 6 billion dollars of coal and natural gas
each year without questioning the availability of those resources.
Fuel Subsidies Undercut Wind Energy Economics
The higher cost of renewable energy relative to fossil fuels is another
reason offered by utilities for not installing more renewable energy projects.
They conveniently neglect to mention that heavy federal subsidies and
the omission of environmental clean-up costs keep fossil fuel prices artificially
low.
The federal subsidies granted to coal, fossil fuels and nuclear fission
in the year 1992 (in 1995 dollars) were $415 million, $444 million, and
$332 million respectively.
Environmental Costs Not Included
These numbers do not include the costs of environmental clean-up or nuclear waste disposal and clean-up. (The EPA estimates that oil spills alone cost taxpayers $1.7 billion between the years of 1974 and 1983.) These numbers also do not include miliary dollars spent to secure our access to Middle East oil or subsidies to areas of the energy supply infrastructure like extraction and transportation of fuels, or transmission of electricity. The federal subsidies to all renewable technologies combined were 203.7 million. The ratio of renewable subsidy dollars to fossil fuel and nuclear dollars is getting better under the Clinton Administration by the playing field is still nowhere near level.
Wind energy has been used all over the world since the 1400’s to grind grain, move water, and produce electricity. It is not a new idea. Yet the utilities are trying very hard to demonstrate that it is expensive and unreliable, an idea for the future. The talks this past year in the Governor’s Office revolved around increasing the reliability of the electric system in our state. Wind energy, along with other renewables and energy efficiency, is the answer.
Up to Top
A New Kind of Drug Problem?
Drugs of all kinds are turning up in European water supplies, according
to an article published in teh March 21 issue of Science News.
Cholesterol-lowering drugs, antibiotics, analgesics, antiseptics, epilepsy
drugs, and beta-blocker heart drugs, are just a few of the drugs in the
drinking water, lakes, rivers, and streams of Europe.
There is very little data on the potential toxicity to humans, wildlife,
or aquatic ecosystems, scientists say.
The drugs come from human sewage. Half of a prescribed pharmeceutical
may be excreted fromt he patient’s body in it original form, or in altered,
but still biologically active, form. Up to 90% of the drugs can find their
way into water supplies. Partially degraded drugs may be converted back
into their active form through chemical reactions that occur in the environment.
This year, the Swiss Federal Research Station documented the presence
of a widely used chlolesterol drug (not manufactured in the country) in
waterbodies throughout Switzerland. It could not have come from a spill
or manufacturer’s pollution.
Similar cholesterol drug results have been discovered in Germany, plus
they’ve found pain killers and drugs that regulate blood-lipid levels.
One German chemist found 30 of 60 common pharmeceuticals in sewage,
treated water, and in nearly all streams and rivers in Germany.
A researcher at Tufts University in Boston says the levels are high
enough to potentially alter the ecology of the environment and create drug
resistent bacteria or other disease organisms.
The article suggests that the same drugs could be found in U.S. waters
if the water were monitored for drugs.
Unfortunately, neither the EPA nor the Food & Drug Administration
have been given this responsibility.
The article quotes an EPA official as saying, “The issue of drugs in
water is certainly an area where we could use a lot more science. To date,
information on hazards to wildlife or people at the nanogram level just
hasn’t been developed.”
He said water quality engineers already know that sewage discharges
tend to be high in caffeine in the mornings, after residents have their
morning coffee.
Something new to think about.
Up to Top
Public Comments Sought
for Non-point Program
A series of important “listening sessions” will be held to gather public comment on plans to redesign Wisconsin nonpoint source pollution programs, which are responsible for protecting the state’s water.
The meetings are jointly sponsored by the DNR and the Dept. of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP). The two agencies are responsible for administering the state’s non-point programs. Last year’s budget bill directed the agencies to redesign the programs, which cover many areas, including:
• manure storage & feedlot
management
• nutrient management (all
fertilizing sources of nitrogen, phosphorus, etc.)
• priority watersheds
• urban stormwater run-off
• cropland erosion.
• livestock grazing and
erosion on streambanks
“Redesigning our nonpoint program will have a great impact on many groups, including farmers, municipalities and county governments,” according to DATCP representatives. “These listening sessions are a chance for affected groups and other interested parties to give us their views, comments and suggestions for restructuring.”
According to DNR, “The budget bill reemphasized that the goal of the soil and water conservation programs in both agencies is to protect and restore water quality.”
The program redesign is expected to take from 18 months to 2 full years.
At the listening session, agency staff will describe the proposals which
the agencies have developed. Unfortunately, they haven’t provided any information
on what those proposals will be.
These non-point programs have been underfunded, unenforced, and unsuccessful
in the past. It is essential that a new set of rule be developed with some
teeth to address this growing problem affecting out water.
Please attend these important public sessions and show support for strong, coordinated programs which truly address this issue:
Wed. April 23 --- Green Bay
1-3 p.m. and 6-8 p.m.
Rooms C215 and C231
Center for Business &
Industry
N.E. Wis. Technical College
2740 W. Mason Street
Thurs., May 7 --- Rhinelander
1-3 p.m. and 6-8 p.m.
DNR Northern Headquarters
107 Sutliff Avenue
|
|
|
|
|