Table of Contents

$50,000 Grant Awarded to Citizen Groups
Please write! Cancel Second Demo
Updates on Mining in Wisconsin
Town Says "No!" to Crandon Mine in Spring Election
Nicolet Minerals is Suing Nashville
Whining Miners
Mining Conference Cancelled When Faced with April Fools Rally
Legislators and Citizens Demand DNR Write Rules
Court Upholds Tribe Water Laws
Nicolet Minerals Spent $1.51 Million Lobbying in 97-98
Youth Aggression Caused by Chemicals?
Stewardship Fund Protects Wildlife and Green Space
Split the DNR?
Wisconsin the Pits for Wildlife funding
Citizens Appeal Minergy Case
What You Can Do

$50,000 Grant Awarded to Citizen Groups

The EPA has awarded a $50,000 Technical Assistance Grant to a
coalition of local and regional citizen groups affected by the proposed
Lower Fox River Superfund Site.  Clean Water Action Council will be
the "fiscal sponsor" and coordinator of the grant, and is required to
provide an additional 20% in matching funds or services (equal to $12,000)
as part of the project.
 
EPA provides the grants to allow citizens to hire technical
advisors to assist in analyzing the risk assessments and remediation
technologies presented by the government for cleaning up the river.  The
money is also provided to help pay for distributing this information to the
public.
 
The idea is to help "level the playing field" and provide an
independent source of expert opinion for citizens who face confusing and
highly technical arguments paid for by Fox River polluters, or presented by
government officials.
 
Our coalition includes a variety of groups across a broad
geographical area impacted by Fox River PCBs:  Clean Water Action Council ,
with 20,000 members and contributors in N.E. Wis.; Wisconsin's
Environmental Decade, with 5,000 members and contributors in N.E. Wis.;
Great Lakes United, an umbrella group with 150 organizations and 500
individual members, including several on Lake Michigan; Door County
Environmental Council, with 400 members in Door Co.; Chappee Rapids Audubon
Society, with 100 members in Marinette Co.; and the Brown County
Conservation Alliance, representing 14 organizations in Bro. Co.
(including DePere Sportsman Club, Gardeners Club of Green Bay, Green Bay
Area Great Lakes Sport Fishermen, Green Bay Boating Club, Green Bay Chapter
of Trout Unlimited, Green Bay Duck Hunters, Izaak Walton League - Bro. Co.
Chapter, N.E. Wis. Audubon Society, N.E. Wis. Beagle Club, N.E. Wis.
Chapter Ducks Unlimited, So. Brown Co. Conservation Club, U.S. Coast Guard
Auxilliary - Green Bay Chapter, and Clean Water Action Council.)
 
Now, we're getting set up for the detailed federal accounting
process and writing contracts.   We're starting a search for a potential
Technical Advisor, who will be selected after an open bidding process.
 
In a few months, after the Advisor has had time to review Fox River
information, we will organize several public programs, write newsletter
articles, distribute fact sheets, and create a special section on our Web
Page to help distribute the advisor's analysis of the information.  We hope
to provide this before the DNR's final Remedial Investigation Feasibility
Study is completed.   Stay tuned --- this could be interesting!

Please write! Cancel Second Demo

Clean Water is calling on the DNR to cancel the second demo project
at Deposit 56/57 offshore from the Fort James Corporation Broadway Mill.
DNR admits this "demo" will demonstrate nothing new.   It has potential for
great harm, because the mills propose to dredge out only a portion of
contaminated Fox River sediments, leaving the surrounding muds to slump
into the hole and spread downstream.  We think the mills are pushing this
to show what a mess dredging can cause.  We are urging DNR to hold off
until the ENTIRE area can be properly dredged all at once. DNR proposes to
allow Fort James to take sediment dredged from this site and put it
(untreated) at their landfill by the Oneida Casino and airport in
Ashwaubenon (Green Bay area).   

Please write a letter to DNR asking them to stop.  Write to: 
Secy. George Meyer, WDNR, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI
53707.

Updates on Mining in Wisconsin

Town Says "No!" to Crandon Mine in Spring Election

The people of Nashville have spoken: "We don't want a mine and we
don't want a mining company interfering with our elections," stated Chuck
Sleeter, who was re-elected Chairman of the Town of Nashville tonight.
Sleeter defeated his opponent, Dave Campbell with a vote of 351 to 266,
reported Joanne Tacopina, Nashville Town Clerk. Robert Van Zile and Duane
Marshall were re-elected Town Supervisors. In a close race for Town
Treasurer, Jan Olson claimed victory over pro-mining incumbent Mary
Torgerson with a vote of 313 to 303. Joanne Tacopina was unopposed for Town
Clerk. With the election of Jan Olson as Treasurer, the Nashville Town
Board is solidly opposed to Nicolet Minerals Company's proposed Crandon
mine. Although the voter turnout of 85% for this election is less than the
previous two Town Board elections, Sleeter said he is pleased with the
results, "Compared to other races around the state, we had a very high
voter turnout. The people didn't back down from the mining company's threat
of a lawsuit. It shows we are not afraid to stand up to the mining industry
to preserve our way of life."
 
A statewide group called "People for the USA" (funded by mining companies) had formed a "Nashville Committee" to try to defeat the anti-mining candidates, but they failed.
 
The residents have spoken loud and clear in the past three
elections (pro-mining opponents tried unsuccessfully to oust Chairman Chuck
Sleeter in a recall last summer).  The residents refuse to be bullied by a
large foreign corporation.
 
For more information about Nashville issues, visit their Webpage:
www.nashvillewiundersiege.com

Nicolet Minerals is Suing Nashville

In 1996, a former Nashville Town Board signed a Local Agreement
with Crandon Mining Company (AKA Nicolet Minerals Company, owned by Rio
Algom Ltd., of Canada) over objections of local residents.
 
The local opposition to the signing of that agreement was by a
margin of four to one.  Residents were outraged at the Board's actions,
because the Agreement offered no protection to town residents, yet
restricted future town boards from protecting the health, safety and
welfare of its citizens.
 
In short, the Local Agreement gave all the power to the mining
company and it was negotiated behind closed doors without allowing the
public to participate.  (Although several who had been part of the closed
door negotiation had held personal leases with the mining company and had
taken money from them over the years.)  The former board is awaiting a June
trial date for allegedly violating the open meetings law in regard to those
closed door negotiations.
 
Shortly after the Agreement was signed the entire former town board
was voted out of office. After nearly two years of careful research, the
current Town Board rescinded the Local Agreement based on its legal
deficiencies, and is confident its recission will be upheld in a court of
law.
 
Nicolet Minerals Company (NMC) has sent two mailings to town
residents which in essence, threatened to bankrupt the town if they didn't
retract their rescission; the most recent mailing was sent just before the
April 6 election.
 
NMC says they will take whatever steps are necessary to protect
their interests and their investments.  Rio Algom certainly has more money
than Nashville's 973 residents in this small rural community, however, Rio
Algom cannot buy the law or the merits of this case and that is how the
Town Board intends to win.

Whining Miners

A recent mining industry trade journal, "North American Mining"
included an article titled: "Fraser Institute Survey of Mining  Companies
in North America."
 
The survey showed that Wisconsin ranked second lowest in the "North
American Investment Attractiveness Index."  The authors said Wisconsin's
"anti-mining" policies were largely to blame. The article states that
"Wisconsin topped the U.S. 'worst jurisdiction' list" and states that "the
major frustrations cited by mining and exploration companies doing business
in Canada and the United States include an inefficient regulatory process;
permitting uncertainties; delays; negative attitudes towards mining; and
'an obsessive and extremist approach toward environmental concerns'"
        
Sounds like we're getting to them.  Keep up the good work!

Mining Conference Cancelled When Faced with April Fools Rally

A major Wisconsin Mining Technologies Conference was scheduled to
coincide with the April 1st weekend in Oshkosh and was to include 200 or
more participants.   It was co-sponsored by Wisconsin Manufacturers &
Commerce (WMC), Wisconsin Mining   Assoc. (WMA), and Nicolet Minerals Co.
(NMC).
 
Nevertheless, it was cancelled at the last minute, perhaps when
they learned that citizens from throughout Wisconsin planned to gather
outside for an "April Fools" educational rally against mining company
misinformation.   The theme was to be: "Wisconsin citizens aren't fooled."
 
Many people felt the conference was an attempt to further persuade
regulatory agencies, government representatives,  and citizens that mining
could comply with the  Moratorium Bill, and to pressure DNR to speed up the
permit granting process.
 
This cancellation shows the power of citizen involvement.

Legislators and Citizens Demand DNR Write Rules

For almost a year now, DNR has refused to write rules for the
Mining Moratorium Law after first promising to do so.  It is unheard of
that DNR would refuse to write administrative rules to implement a law as
important as this one, yet the lack of clear rules enables DNR to interpret
the law behind closed doors and outside of public scrutiny and debate.
 
DNR turned down requests made last fall by 42 environmental and
conservation groups and 32 state legislators to write rules for the Mining
Moratorium Law.
 
The Moratorium Law requires mining companies that want to open
mines in Wisconsin to prove a similar mine has operated in North America
for at least 10 years without polluting rivers, lakes, streams or
groundwater and has been closed for 10 years without signs of pollution.
But DNR is interpreting the law to allow two mines to meet this test.  This
creative interpretation not only serves the mining industry well, but is a
complete reversal of the DNR's former interpretation of the law.  When the
Moratorium Bill was being debated before passage, Rep. Spencer Black
(author of the Moratorium), DNR official Stan Druckenmiller,  DNR Secretary
George Meyer,  representatives from Wis. Manufacturers and Commerce, and
Rio Algom's Nicolet Minerals all referred to having a SINGLE mine meet the
law requirements.
 
Secretary Meyer acknowledged in January this year that the DNR
did in fact change its interpretation of the law after it had passed.
 
The current interpretation by the DNR, in which two mines equal a
single example mine, was made behind closed doors without any public input
and occurred after the Law was passed overwhelmingly by both the state
Senate and Assembly.    Resolutions are circulating the state, and
legislators are again taking actions to require DNR to follow the law and
adopt rules for Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 293, which governs metallic
mining.
 
Since the Mining Moratorium Law,Wisconsin Statue 293.50 is part of
Chapter 293, rules are required to be adopted for it.  The agency is
required to hold a public comment period during which residents can voice
their concerns about how the law should be interpreted.

Court Upholds Tribe Water Laws

The U.S. District Court has dismissed aState of Wisconsin suit
against the U.S. EPA and the Mole Lake (Sokaogon) Chippewa.  The suit
attacked EPA's authority to grant "Treatment as State" (TAS) status to Mole
Lake Reservation.
 
The EPA originally granted TAS status to Mole Lake in 1995, to
support Mole Lake's sovereign authority to set its own water quality
standards under the federal Clean Water Act. The decision reaffirming the
TAS status has far-reaching implications not just for the Mole Lake
Chippewa, but for the controversial proposed Crandon mine.
 
The State disputed Mole Lake's authority, claiming that all
navigable waters within  Wisconsin could only be regulated by the state.
Yet the EPA, under the federal Clean Water Act, allows for Indian tribes to
be treated as states to regulate and manage their own resources.
 
State Attorney General Jim Doyle challenged the federal law by
suing both the EPA and Mole Lake.  A citizens' petition recently asked
Doyle to drop the suit; it was signed by 26 Wisconsin environmental groups,
by two neighboring townships, and by 454 individuals from 121 communities
around the state.
 
The District Court resoundingly rejected the state's logic and
dismissed the suit. Part of the state's underlying argument had been that
tribal governments in general have neither the technical capacity nor the
commitment to environmental protection, and so the EPA should not treat
them like states. Yet the federal court decision praised Mole Lake's
technical effort in setting its water quality standards, and stated that
the tribe has stronger environmental protection regulations than those
contained in Wisconsin's environmental statutes.
 
Glenn Stoddard, Attorney for the Sokaogon Chippewa, said, "This is a very good decision for the Chippewa and for the environment in the area that would be affected by the proposed Crandon mine."
 
The Midwest Treaty Network said,  "Tribal environmental powers
based on federally backed Native sovereignty can help protect the
environment for Indians and non-Indians alike.  Many residents of
northeastern Wisconsin are trusting Native sovereignty to protect their
environmental and economic interests more than the sovereignty of a
pro-mining state government."
 
The Mining Impact Coalition said, "Wisconsin's current water
quality and enforcement standards are insufficient and will not adequately
protect the reservation's ancient wild rice beds from the threats of
metallic sulfide mining upstream.  Rice Lake, an enormous wild rice bed
situated within their reservation boundaries, lies a few thousand feet
downstream from the proposed Crandon mine."
 
Although the Crandon mine is not directly mentioned in the legal
decision, the proposed mine must now comply with Mole Lake's regulatory
authority.

Nicolet Minerals Spent $1.51 Million Lobbying in 97-98

According to an Associated Press review of lobbying reports filed
with the state's Ethics Board, Nicolet Minerals spent more money  lobbying
in Wisconsin than any other special interest in the state over the past 2
years.
 
The company dedicated $1.5 million and 4,624 hours to lobbying in
1997 and '98, its reports show.
 
It is likely that at least some of the total attributed to Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC), the state's biggest business lobby, was spent on the same issue and we know that some members of the Wisconsin Mining Association (also an arm of WMC) likely spent money also. WMC was the third highest-spending group, dedicating $1.1 million and 15,440 hours to lobbying during the last session.
 
One surprise is the news that at least some of the money spent by
the Wisconsin Counties Association (WCA) is from taxpayers.  The WCA has
been avowedly pro-mining in this state as evidenced by many past statements
from its director, Mark Rogacki. The Association was the second
highest-spending lobbying group last session. The group representing the
state's 72 counties spent $1.2 million and 20,322 hours lobbying in 1997
and 98. About 40 percent of that came from taxpayer money, legislative
director Craig Thompson said.
 
It's clear that we have to remain involved to counteract the intense pressure these lobbying dollars can exert.  We must show the mining companies we can't be bought.

Up to Top

Youth Aggression Caused by Chemicals?

For the past 25 years, tens of millions of Americans in hundreds of
cities and towns have been drinking tap water that is contaminated with low
levels of insecticides, weed killers, and artificial fertilizer. They not
only drink it, they also bathe and shower in it, thus inhaling small
quantities of farm chemicals and absorbing them through the skin.
Naturally, the problem is at its worst in agricultural areas of the country.
 
The most common contaminants are carbamate insecticides (aldicarb
and others), the triazine herbicides (atrazine and others) and nitrate
nitrogen. For years government scientists have tested each of these
chemicals individually at low levels in laboratory animals - searching mainly for signs of cancer -and have declared each of them an "acceptable risk" at the levels typically found in groundwater.
 
Now a group of biologists and medical researchers at the Univ. of
Wisconsin in Madison, led by Dr. Warren P. Porter, has completed a 5-year
experiment putting mixtures of low levels of these chemicals into the
drinking water of male mice and carefully measuring the results. They reported recently that combinations of these chemicals (at levels similar to those found in the groundwater of agricultural areas of the U.S.) have measurable detrimental effects on the nervous, immune and endocrine (hormone) systems.
 
Furthermore, they say their research has direct implications for
humans.
 
Dr. Porter and his colleagues point out that the nervous system, the
immune system, and the endocrine (hormone) system are all closely related
and in constant communication with each other. If any one of the three
systems is damaged or degraded the other two may be adversely affected. The
Wisconsin researchers therefore designed their experiments to examine the
effects of agricultural chemicals on each of the three systems
simultaneously.
 
To assess immune system function, they measured the ability of mice
to make antibodies in response to foreign proteins. To assess endocrine
system function, they measured thyroid hormone levels in the blood. And to
assess nervous system function they measured aggressive behavior in the
presence of intruder mice introduced into the cages. They also looked for
effects on growth by measuring total body weight and the weight of each
animal's spleen.
 
The experiments were replicated many times, to make sure the
results were reproducible. They found effects on the endocrine system
(thyroid hormone levels) and the immune system, and reduced body weight,
from mixtures of low levels of aldicarb & nitrate, atrazine & nitrate, and
atrazine, aldicarb & nitrate together. They observed increased aggression
from exposure to atrazine & nitrate, and from atrazine, aldicarb & nitrate
together.
 
The Wisconsin research team wrote, "Of particular significance in
the collective work of Boyd and others, Porter and others, and our current
study is that THYROID HORMONE CONCENTRATION
CHANGE was consistently a response due to mixtures, but NOT
usually to individual chemicals." [Emphasis in the original].
 
In the five-year experiment, thyroid hormone levels rose or fell depending upon the mixture of farm chemicals put into the drinking water. Dr. Porter and his colleagues
present evidence from other studies showing that numerous farm chemicals
can affect the thyroid hormone levels of wildlife and humans. PCBs
and dioxins can have similar effects, they note. Proper levels of thyroid
hormone are essential for brain development of humans prior to birth. Some,
though not all, studies have shown that attention deficit and/or
hyperactivity disorders in children are linked to changes in the levels of
thyroid hormone in the blood.  Children with multiple chemical sensitivity
(MCS) have abnormal thyroid levels.  Furthermore, irritability and
aggressive behavior are linked to thyroid hormone levels.
 
Interviewed recently by Keith Hamm of the SANTA BARBARA
INDEPENDENT, Dr. Porter explained, "Earlier work had shown that thyroid
hormone typically changed when exposure to these pesticides occurred.
Thyroid hormone not only affects and controls your metabolic rate, that is,
how fast you burn food, it also controls your irritability level. For
example, Type A personalities are more assertive, more aggressive, more
hyper.  These people tend to have higher levels of thyroid hormone. Type B
personalities-people that are really laid back, really take things very
easily-have lower levels of thyroid hormone."
 
"We expected that changes in thyroid [would] change irritability
levels. This was a concern because there was information that kids are
getting more hyper and [that their] learning abilities are going down,"
 
A recent study of 4 and 5 year-old children in Mexico specifically
noted a decrease in mental ability and an increase in aggressive behavior
among children exposed to pesticides.[6]  Elizabeth A. Guillette and
colleagues studied two groups of Yaqui Indian children living in the Yaqui
Valley in northern Sonora, Mexico. One group of children lives in the
lowlands dominated by pesticide-intensive agriculture (45 or more sprayings
each year) and the other group lives in the nearby upland foothills where
their parents make a living by ranching without the use of pesticides. The
pesticide-exposed children had far less physical endurance in a test to see
how long they could keep jumping up and down; they had inferior hand-eye
coordination; and they could not draw a simple stick figure of a human
being, which the upland children could readily do.
 
Notably, the Guillette study includes this description of  behavior
of pesticide-exposed children: "Some valley children were observed hitting
their siblings when they passed by, and they became easily upset or angry
with a minor corrective comment by a parent. These aggressive behaviors
were not noted in the [pesticide-free] foothills [children]."
 
The human body can defend itself against poisons to some degree,
but Dr. Porter and his colleagues describe ways in which low-level mixtures
of pesticides and fertilizer might get past the body's defenses:
 
The body is prepared to protect itself against poisons taken by
mouth. The liver begins to produce enzymes that try to break down
fat-soluble chemicals. However, if a poison enters through the lungs or the
skin, the body does not offer the same kind of defenses.
  
Furthermore, the body's ability to put up defenses may be
compromised by taking certain medications (e.g., antibiotics), or by
receiving "pulses" of toxins rather than a
steady dose.
 
Receiving "pulses" of poisons would be normal in the case of
agricultural poisons which are sprayed onto crops only at certain times of
the year. During those periods, people living near sprayed fields might get
a sudden dose of poison via their lungs, their skin and their drinking
water. Dr. Porter describes such a situation this way:
 
"Imagine [that] you're standing in a boxing ring and a boxer jumps
in with you, and he walks toward you smiling with his hand outstretched.
And you reach out to shake his hand and he smacks you in the stomach as
hard as he can. And when you bring your arms up to defend yourself, he
backs away. Finally you get tired of holding your defenses up and you drop
them and he rushes in and smacks you again. That's the physical equivalent
to a 'pulse dose,' which is normally what we tend to get exposed to.
 
"The defenses we have take a while to induce, just like it takes a
while to bring your arms up. It takes anywhere from a half a day to five
days to induce those [defenses] to appropriate levels. If you're in a
particular stage of your hormone cycle or you're taking some antibiotics,
it can compromise your ability to defend yourself even if you did have
enough time to induce your defenses. If you've got pulse doses coming in
under your defenses or coming in faster than you can bring your defenses up
then you've got a situation where you're totally vulnerable.
 
"If you've got a pregnant mom, for example, in day 20 when the
fetus's neural tube is closing and she gets an exposure, she hasn't had
enough time to induce her defenses. Her thyroid level goes up or goes down,
the hormone crosses the placenta and can permanently alter the
developmental pattern of the fetus's brain. And then the pulse dose is
gone, you have no detection, mom doesn't even know she's pregnant, and you
may have an offspring that is neurologically compromised and wonder, 'How
did this happen?'"
 
In the interview with Keith Hamm, Dr. Porter expressed concern for
the overall effect of pesticides on the nation's children:

Hamm: "Are pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer used more or less these
days than fifty years ago and have the toxicities changed?"

Porter: "The usage has continued to climb. There's an enormous amount of
these [chemicals being used] right now. There was a recent study that
examined the urine of people across the country, [asking] if people are
being exposed. On average,five to seven compounds were being excreted.
There's a great deal of exposure to the general populace."
 
"And yes, the toxicities have definitely changed. [Some toxicities
are now measured] in the parts-per-trillion range. I would point out that
fetuses are sensitive to chemicals in the parts per quadrillion range."

Hamm: "I would assume that most people in this country are eating
conventionally grown food. If that's the case, wouldn't the problems be
more apparent? Why are there not more hyperaggressive dim-witted people
with poor immune systems?"

Porter: "If we really looked carefully at what's been happening in this
country, you might find exactly that happening."

Conclusion

Because of recent violence in small cities and towns (such as
Littleton, Colorado, Laramie, Wyoming, and Jasper, Texas), this is a time
when Americans are searching for the causes of violence in their society.
Some are blaming a decline in religious upbringing. Others are blaming
households with the parents working and no one minding the kids. Some say the cause is violent movies, violent TV and extremist internet sites, combined with the ready availability of cheap guns. Still others point to a government that has
often sanctioned the violence of "gunboat diplomacy" to open foreign
markets for U.S. corporations.
 
No one seems to be asking whether pesticides, fertilizers, PCBs and
toxic metals (like lead and mercury) are affecting our young people's
mental capacity, emotional balance, and social adjustment. From the work of
Warren Porter, Elizabeth Guillette and others, it is apparent that these
are valid questions.

From  RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #648, April 29, 1999, Environmental Research Foundation,  P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD  21403 Fax (410) 263-8944; E-mail: erf@rachel.org     
(References available from Clean Water Action Co.)

Up to Top

Stewardship Fund Protects Wildlife and Green Space

One of Wisconsin's most important conservation programs  - the
Stewardship Fund - could be strengthened or weakened in the state budget
process underway over the next few months.
 
The Legislature and Governor need to hear from Wisconsin citizens
like yourself.  A few minutes of your time today could pay huge dividends
for our outdoors in the years to come.
 
A large coalition of environmental and conservation groups has made
several proposals:

1. More Money --- Funding should be set at $60 million a year and be
indexed for inflation to bring the program back to its original purchasing
power and help the Stewardship Fund meet key conservation opportunities on
the horizon.   Because the fund has been frozen at $25 million a year
since 1990 while land prices have grown by more than 6% a year, the fund
has lost over half of its buying power. (The current proposal before the
Legislature doesn't make up for inflation and it actually cuts the funding
for land acquisition by more than 50%.)
 
The new program should make up for inflation and also be strong
enough to meet new, one time only conservation opportunities on the
horizon.  Initiatives to protect our remaining wild lakes, great lakes
bluffs, connect the Kettle Moraine units and continue the Ice Age Trail,
protect the Baraboo Hills forests, and acquire large waterfront properties
all call for a strengthened Stewardship program.

2.  Continue Matching Grants --- The program should continue and strengthen
partnerships with local governments and conservation groups.   Over the
past 10 years, Stewardship has provided hundreds of match grants to local
governments and private conservation groups.  These grants double the
state's conservation dollars and also increase protection of important
natural and recreational properties.    The current proposal,
however, will make it harder for local governments and private conservation
groups to work with the state to protect key conservation and recreation
lands.   The current proposal changes the formula for awarding
grants and makes it much more difficult for groups to receive match grants
for conservation properties.    To continue the state  -
private/local  partnership that has worked so well, we support keeping the
current law provisions to award Stewardship grants.

Stewardship Facts

The current Stewardship program expires on June 30, 2000 and needs
to be renewed in this year's state budget.  Stewardship has protected more
than 160,000 acres of conservation land for hiking, hunting, camping,
biking and all sorts of outdoor activities in every corner of the state.
 
There is still a pressing need for conservation land.  Pressure on
state parks has grown tremendously: In 1960, there were 15 visitors for
every acre of state park land; today there are more than 20 visitors per
acre.  Last summer, more than 98% of our state park campsites were occupied
on summer weekends. Cross country skiing, sea kayaking and bike trail
riding were unheard of 30 years ago; today they are some of the most
popular forms of outdoor recreation at Stewardship properties.
 
While Stewardship has been frozen at $25 million since 1990, land
prices have more than doubled.  This means that the Stewardship Fund can
buy less than half of what it could in 1990!  On top of that, the current
proposal actually cuts Stewardship by more than half, putting the state
even farther behind.
 
Vanishing wild lakes, Great Lakes bluffs and shorelines, the Middle
Kettle Moraine, the Baraboo Hills forest and potential large tracts of
northern forests and water frontage properties all call for a strengthened
Stewardship Fund.
 
Partnerships have  helped stretch the state's Stewardship
investment.  The Stewardship Fund has used an innovative match grant
program to double the state's conservation dollar and join with
conservation groups and local governments to protect important conservation
lands.  This grant program has brought more than  $45 MILLION of private
and local funds to match the state's conservation investment.  This
partnership makes good sense for state taxpayers and should be strengthened
in the new program.
 
There is strong public support for protection of conservation land.
A recent Wisconsin Public Radio/St. Norbert's College public opinion poll
showed that 76% of residents support state acquisition of conservation
land.  At last month's Conservation Congress hearings in every county of
the state, more than 98.5% of participants supported renewing the
Stewardship Fund.  Last fall, more than 84% of land conservation ballot
initiatives passed throughout the United States.  Conservationists,
environmentalists and the public all support a strong Stewardship Fund.

Up to Top

Split the DNR?

Some legislators and conservationists are promoting legislative
action to split the DNR into 2 different agencies --- one dealing with fish
& wildlife, and the other dealing with environmental quality and pollution
concerns.
 
This would clearly be a mistake, because the two halves are so
intertwined and we actually need to do more, not less, to integrate the
many separate DNR bureaus to protect Wisconsin's ecosystem health.
 
Some people argue that money could be saved by creating two
specialized agencies, but this argument doesn't hold up.  We actually agree
with DNR Secretary George Meyer (for once) when he states, "Splitting an
agency only adds to the bureaucracy because you have two agencies where
before there was one.  You have to have TWO supervisors, TWO sets of top
managers, TWO sets of infrastructure to recruit, train and pay employees,
provide tools and computer resources, offices and more."
 
There was a proposal to split DNR in 1991.  The estimate of the
cost of that split was put at $3.8 million per year in additional
overhead plus 81 additional positions to maintain the same level
of service.
 
There is also a real life example of this:  Three years ago
Michigan split into separate environmental and conservation agencies.  To
cover the increased overhead, it took $4 million away from front line
conservation and environmental programs.  And on top of it, now citizens
have to deal with TWO bureaucracies on issues critical to fish, wildlife
and habitat.
 
We agree that DNR has some serious problems (mostly political
influence problems), but splitting DNR will only further destroy an agency
wracked by major staff losses, major budget cuts and deliberate
reorganization and disorganization by the Thompson Administration.

Up to Top

Wisconsin the Pits for Wildlife funding

Although fish & wildlife activities bring in billions, most states
provide little to no support for their fish and wildlife agencies,
according to a study by the Izaak Walton League of America .
 
States are "short-changing all wildlife" by relying mostly on
revenue provided by hunters and anglers to fund the agencies, according to
the report.  [These are decisions made largely by the Governor and
Legislature, not DNR.]
 
Twenty states return no general fund dollars to their wildlife
agencies, but many states are doing much better, the study said.
 
Missouri leads the nation, returning 63 percent of the $108 million
in sales and income tax revenue generated by fish and wildlife. Other
high-ranking states include So. Carolina, 31 percent; Washington, 29
percent; Delaware, 18 percent; Oregon, 13 percent; and Kansas, 12 percent.
  
Wisconsin returns only 0.07 percent of the funds it gets.
 
"States are not doing their fair share and they need to step up to the
plate," said Ron Scott of the League's Maryland office. The report noted
that there is a move in Congress to use offshore oil royalties to help fund
state natural resource programs, but states would have to match the
millions of dollars and many appear unwilling to do that.
 
The league is an environmental group named after the famous
17th-century English writer and fisherman.

Up to Top

Citizens Appeal Minergy Case

Clean Water Action Council, Friends of Our Neenah Parks, and
several citizens have asked the Wis. Court of Appeals to review the
dismissal of their case (which first began in 1996) against the Minergy
Incinerator in Neenah
 
Winnebago Co. Judge Hawley ruled then that citizens had no "legal
standing"  to sue to protect public rights.  We appealed to the Wis.
Supreme Court, and in a unanimous opinion in 1998, the Supreme Court
stated,"[t]he public trust doctrine allows a person to sue on behalf of,
and in the name of, the State 'for the purpose of vindicating the public
trust.'"  An important victory.
 
The case was sent back to Winnebago Co. Circuit Court to allow us
to explain why the transfer of the parklands to Minergy was illegal and
unconstitutional, because it was built on valuable public trust land,
Arrowhead Park, on the Little Lake Butte des Mort shore.
 
On March 24, 1999, Winnebago Co. Judge Crane quickly ruled that
citizens would not be allowed to argue their case.  Even worse, he ruled
that private use of public trust lands to burn industrial waste was
"consistent with the public trust doctrine and serves public trust
purposes."  He made this ruling without a trial and based only on the
"facts" presented by Minergy and its lawyers.   The judge even allowed
Minergy lawyers to write his final Summary Judgement for him.
 
When transfer of Park property to Minergy was proposed, Minergy
said it needed the Park location because the plant had to be built by the
Glatfelter Paper mill in order that steam generated from the incinerator
could be used by the paper mill.  Last week, Minergy, a subsidiary of Wis.
Energy Corp. announced it will add a steam turbine to the Park location to
generate electricity from the steam.  It appears Minergy could have been
sited anywhere, and not just on public trust lands.
 
Citizens must be given the right to put on their evidence showing
the bad bargain made by the City of Neenah.  Judge Crane's decision cut off
the full discussion of these facts and, in effect, gave Minergy control
over all of the Park because the 22 acres of waterfront parkland
immediately west of the incinerator can't be used, because Minergy
physically blocks public access to the remainder of the park.
 
Judge Crane's decision must be appealed because it ignores
important public issues in the case.  It ignores the fact Arrowhead Park
was a gift from the State of Wisconsin as public trust land to be used for
a public purpose involving the waters of the state.  The incineration of
private industrial waste is a non-per-
missible use of public trust land.
 
We believe it is up to the Appellate Court to once again protect
the right of citizens to challenge the exploitation of public trust land
for private gain.

Up to Top

What You Can Do

Contact Your Elected Officials

Contact Wisconsin Governor Thompson

Governor Tommy Thompson 
Room 115 East, State Capitol 
P.O. Box 7863 
Madison, WI 53707 
Ph: 608-266-1212 
FAX: 608-267-8983 
wisgov@mail.state.wi.us

Representatives: Email & Web Page Addresses and Toll-Free Numbers
Senators:  Email & Web Page Addresses

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 

(If you don’t know who your elected state representatives are, 
call the Legislative Hotline 1-800-362-9472  on weekdays.)