Table of Contents

Water Threat!
QUESTIONABLE Water Quality REPORTS
Sheboygan Harbor & River
Public Meeting on Sheboygan Options
Superfund Under Attack in Congress!
Paper Industry Influence in Washington
Money for Mergers but not the River?
Pesticide Database
The Energy Fair
What You Can Do

Water Threat!

Aquaculture Given Exemption in State Budget Rider

Fish farming sounds like a harmless, natural activity --- but the creation of artificial fish breeding ponds can actually generate a number of serious environmental problems. 

Unfortunately, despite these concerns,the Joint Finance Committee of the State Legislature has passed a motion by Rep. Sheryl Albers (R), to give the aquaculture industry a special exemption from water quality regulations. 

This rider will be included in the Budget Bill, soon to be considered in the full Assembly. It extends the agricultural use exception under Wisconsin law to fish farming (aquaculture). 

It eliminates DNR review and some associated public comment opportunities for the following: 

(1) diverting water from lakes and streams; 

(2) connecting fish ponds to navigable lakes or streams, either by enlarging the waterway or constructing a surface channel or pipe; 

(3) constructing new ponds within 500 feet of navigable waters; and 

(4) grading on the banks of navigable lakes or streams.

Wisconsin's springs and coldwater streams would be severely compromised due to unregulated surface water diversions into aquaculture ponds.  The cumulative impact could damage or destroy many of our state's trout and smallmouth bass streams.  Exempting aquaculture from Wisconsin's navigable water protection laws would subject all wetlands located within 500 feet of any public water body to indiscriminate dredging for pond construction.  By converting sedge meadows, floodplain forests or other wetland types to ponds, such dredging would damage the state's remaining wetlands and their use by migratory waterfowl, endangered amphibians and reptiles, and other plant and animal life dependent upon wetlands for their survival.

Political Abuse

By including this aquaculture exemption in the new budget bill, public input and debate on the issue is denied.

The process of attaching anti-environmental policies (often totally unrelated to budgetary issues) to a state budget bill is a slap in the face of the democratic process, a blatant abuse of legislative power, and gives favors to special interests.   Not only at issue is the impact to the quality of our state's natural resources, but also, and more importantly, is the growing ability of legislators to pass into law
initiatives that bypass public scrutiny.  Many times we hear about such actions after the fact; once passed, it is a difficult, time-consuming and expensive process to reverse the damage.

A similar attachment proposed by Gov. Thompson in an earlier version of the budget bill that would have exempted a furniture company in Trempeleau County from state regulations for filling a 15-acre wetland has subsequently been eliminated from the bill due to public outcry against this favoritism.

(from information provided by the Wisconsin Wetlands Association) 

What You Can Do

Please write to your elected representatives and tell them how you feel about this legislation.

Gov. Tommy Thompson
Room 22 East, State Capitol
P.O. Box 7848
Madison, WI  53707-7848

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  representatives are, call the Legislative Hotline 1-800-362-9472  on weekdays.) 

Up to Top

QUESTIONABLE Water Quality REPORTS

Agency Insiders Say Official Reports Are 'All Wet'

Official claims of cleaner rivers and streams over the past two decades cannot be supported due to a lack of reliable, scientifically verifiable information, according to a report written by specialists within the EPA and released by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

The PEER report, entitled Murky Waters, gives an insider account of how EPA and its State partners, through a mix of politics, bureaucratic inertia and bad science, perpetuate the fiction that official water quality reports are valid by routinely presenting Congress and the public with conflicting, erroneous and manipulated data containing little accurate information on the actual condition of the nationÕs waterways.

Despite the Clean Water Act's 1972 mandate to create a water quality inventory to measure progress in cleaning the nation's waters today, the data simply does not exist to indicate whether the nationÕs rivers and streams are truly becoming cleaner or more polluted, and why.  As detailed by PEER's report, reported improvements in water quality are far more likely the result of data-rigging than actual pollution reduction:

* States are free to manipulate numbers in order to portray continuing water quality progress when, in fact, what fragmentary reliable data that exist suggest the opposite. 

* States have no incentive to deliver accurate or consistent water quality reports to EPA.  As a result, inconsistencies in miles of waters monitored as well as how impairment is measured, produce little of value in determining national water quality trends;

* States are reporting one set of rosy data on water quality conditions for national inventory purposes and, in the same year, issuing different, more pessimistic numbers in order to obtain federal watershed restoration funds.

Murky Waters also describes how negative critiques and scathing reviews from EPA's own regional offices, Science Advisory Board and Office of Inspector General are routinely ignored.

This PEER report contains a set of recommendations that do not call for more money to support water monitoring efforts but instead suggest a re-direction of, and quality control system for, the hundreds of millions of dollars spent each year to support the current dubious reporting regime.

The executive summary and order form for Murky Waters is available at www.peer.org/murky.html

PEER is a national alliance of state and federal employees working to improve the environmental performance of their own pollution control, land management or wildlife protection agencies.   Contact: Todd Robins (202) 265-7337

Up to Top

Sheboygan Harbor & River

A long-awaited river  plan is finally available for public input.    You have 60 days to comment on EPA's proposed plan for cleanup of PCBs in the Sheboygan River and Harbor Superfund Site, starting on June 1.   A public meeting will be held on June 30.

Background

The Sheboygan Harbor & River site extends approximately fourteen miles through the communities of Sheboygan Falls, Kohler, and Sheboygan, Wisconsin. The site includes Sheboygan Harbor, located on  Lake Michigan, and the lower Sheboygan River, which discharges into the Sheboygan Harbor. 

In 1977, the  state of Wisconsin detected polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) during routine sampling of fish.Since then, PCBs have been detected in fish, wildlife, surface water, sediments in the harbor and river and in flood plain  soils.   The sediments range from 0.27 ppm to 750 ppm of PCBs.

The highest concentrations of PCBs have been detected in sediments immediately downstream from a die-casting plant (Tecumseh Products Company) in Sheboygan Falls. Concentrations decline farther downstream from the plant. The company excavated PCB- contaminated soils from its property along the river and disposed of them off-site in 1978. 

The Sheboygan River drains into Lake Michigan, the source of drinking water for approximately 58,000 people within the Sheboygan, Sheboygan Falls & Kohler metropolitan area. 

The site is being addressed through Federal, State, and polluter actions. 

Sediments are contaminated with PCBs and a wide variety of heavy metals. Soils and surface water are contaminated with PCBs and heavy metals including arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, and zinc. People who come into direct contact with or ingest contaminated soil, sediments, or surface water may be at risk.

Because fish and wildlife are contaminated with PCBs, people who eat contaminated fish or waterfowl also may suffer adverse health effects. In 1978, the State advised residents not to eat fish from the Sheboygan River and two tributaries, the Mullet and Onion Rivers, because of PCB contamination. In 1987, the state also issued an advisory not to eat wildlife from the area. The advisories are still in effect. 

Cleanup Progress

In 1986, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the State signed a Consent Order with the  PRP, requiring the PRP to conduct an investigation at the site to determine the nature and extent of contamination. Investigative studies were concluded in 1996. Currently, cleanup options for the entire river
are being evaluated. A final cleanup decision is expected by December 1998.

From 1989 to 1990, the PRP dredged approximately 5,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediments from the upper Sheboygan River. The PRP has stored the sediments in two containers on-site: a confined treatment facility (CTF) and a sediment management facility (SMF). The CTF is being used for biodegradation studies to evaluate the feasibility of biodegradation of PCBs in place. The SMF is designed for temporary storage of the remaining dredged sediments until they can be disposed of properly. 

During the period between 1989 and 1990, eight other sediment deposits were 'armored' in the upper Sheboygan River. These areas were covered with several layers of geotextile fabric, run of bank material, cobble and wire cages filled with rock (gabions) in order to prevent the PCB-contaminated sediment from moving downstream. 

Plan Proposed

Now, EPA is proposing several alternative cleanup plans for public review. 
Key Concern

EPA admits the 'optimal cleanup goal' at the site would be 0.05 ppm in the sediment and 0.81 ppm in floodplain soils adjacent to the river, their stated goals for the actual plan are cleanup to only 1 ppm in sediment and 10 ppm in floodplain soils.   These are very weak clean up goals, and  the sediment number is 4 times as high as Wisconsin DNRÕs clean up goal of .25 ppm (250 ppb) of PCBs in Fox River sediments.

The Sheboygan standard could set a very bad precedent for the Fox River, and would not be fully protective of human or wildlife health, even by EPAÕs own admission.

Many Alternatives

The EPA uses 9 criteria to evaluate each of the many cleanup alternatives described in the proposed plan.   They are:

• Overall protection of human health and the environment.
• Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs).
• Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence.
• Reduction of Contaminant Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment
• Short-term Effectiveness
• Implementability
• Cost
• State Acceptance
• Community Acceptance

Send written comments by July 31 to:

Susan Pastor
Community Involvement Coord.
Office of Public Affairs (P-19J)
U.S. EPA - Region 5
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL  60604

Up to Top

Public Meeting on Sheboygan Options

Wednesday, June 30 7 pm.

Mead Public Library,
Rocca Meeting Rm
710 North 8th Street, Sheboygan

Native People Describe Huge Industry Project in Mexico

Come learn about the 'Mega-Project' in southern Mexico where 140 different industrial developments are quickly changing the environment and social structure.  Guest speakers are Adrian Ramirez and Zoila Jose Juan, representing the Union of Indigenous Communities of the Northern Zone of the Isthmus (UICZONI), from Oaxaca, Mexico. 

The projects include massive eucalyptus tree plantations replacing native vegetation, to serve major paper industries building there.  International Paper Company had successfully lobbied for relaxing Mexico's forestry laws in 1997.

Saturday, June 19
3:00 p.m.
Fort Howard Theater,St. Norbert College in De Pere

Up to Top

Superfund Under Attack in Congress!

In Washington, Congress is trying to dismantle our nation's law for cleaning up toxic waste sites like the Fox River.  The result could be a disaster for us.

Republican Congressman Boehlert's proposed Superfund bill (HR1300), the Recycle America's Land Act, which has 51 co-sponsors, has already had two hearings in subcommittee. 

If this bill passes it will rollback the polluter pays principle, lower cleanup standards under CERCLA (the official name of Superfund), get rid of the preference for treatment, and create an avalanche of new Superfund litigation to bog down the cleanup process.

Although advertised as a 'brownfields' bill, only 17 of the bill's 166 pages affect the brownfields section of the law, while the vast majority of the bill amends - and severely undercuts - the Superfund program.   (Brownfields are urban sites which need to be cleaned up and rehabilitated to allow for new industrial development or urban renewal projects.) 

This bill weakens cleanup standards, thus undermining protection of public health and the environment, and contains an inappropriate and overly broad exemption from liability for certain groups of polluters. The provisions go directly against the publicÕs strong support for the polluter pays principle as a central component of a vigorous program for cleaning up toxic waste.

Progress is Threatened

As of March, 1999, more than 89% of all sites are undergoing cleanup actions, or construction of the remedy is complete. However, the bill's numerous modifications to the Superfund law would delay current efforts at cleaning up contaminated sites, while spawning increased levels of litigation. Indeed, the bill requires EPA to initiate lawsuits as part of the complex new allocation process.

To promote the efficacy of cleanup actions around the nation, Congress should pass brownfields legislation that ensures strong, uniform protections for public health, environmental quality, community participation, and the public's right to know about toxic contamination in their neighborhood. Unfortunately, H.R. 1300 goes in the opposite direction. It weds a comprehensive Superfund reform bill that rolls back such protections with weak brownfields provisions that do not assure contaminated sites will be adequately cleaned up. 

Americans deserve Congress's continued assurance that polluters will pay to fully cleanup contaminated sites and that protections for environmental quality and public health will be maintained.

H.R. 1300 contains over 20 provisions that automatically exempt, or which make it far easier for polluters to escape from paying to cleanup their toxic waste sites that threaten human health and environmental quality. While it mandates funds for some exemptions, it fails to mandate funds for cleanups. 

1.  Increases Exemptions & Liability Loopholes: This bill exempts from liability such special interests as owners of railroads, livestock, car dealerships, and businesses that negligently handled waste or that disposed of used oil, contaminated metal, and lead-acid batteries.

2.  Rewards Profitable Polluting Practices: H.R. 1300 exempts polluters from liability once they demonstrate that their method of toxic waste disposal which created a Superfund site was a good business practice. However, such practices were by definition good for business since they cut costs. 

3.  Exempts Dumpers Of  Dangerous Wastes: This bill goes beyond current law by exempting anyone from liability if they dumped dangerous types and amounts of industrial or institutional wastes into municipal landfills. 

4.  Invites Fraud: This bill excuses from liability pre-1980 purchasers of
property that failed to inquire about contamination when buying a site and thereafter failed to prevent the spread of such contamination. It also creates a Òsafe harborÓ from liability for any owner that purchased property after a site was placed on a list of archived sites or after a state agency signaled no further action on a site was needed. These provisions invite fraud by businesses that bought contaminated property on the cheap, allowed  pollution to spread, and then expected to make a profit.

5.  Funds Liability Relief, Not Cleanups: In a drastic attack on the Superfund's central purpose, the cleaning up of contaminated sites, H.R. 1300 mandates funds to pay for liability exemptions, while failing to mandate money for cleanups. Public health and environmental quality must be protected prior to funding any liability exemptions. 

6.  Lowers Cleanup Standards: H.R. 1300 guts SuperfundÕs main protection for human health and environmental quality and replaces them with an anemic balancing test for determining how to cleanup a site and weak provisions for maintaining any long term protections. These changes will increase the number of people that live with contamination in their neighborhoods, allow clean groundwater to become contaminated, and decrease protections for human health and environmental quality. 

7.  Undoes Superfund's Main Protection For Public Health & Environmental Quality:   Ends the preference for treating contamination.  It replaces this with a variable balancing test that will produce weak cleanups which favor containing wastes on-site.    This will increase costs for monitoring and controlling of  wastes and the long-term risks to humans and the environment.   Cheaper in the short-term, but more costly over time.

8.  Elevates Polluter Cost Considerations: H.R. 1300's balancing test that determines cleanup actions at a site gives polluter cost considerations the same weight as protecting public health.  Under Superfund, the costs that polluters pay to cleanup their contamination is considered, but without compromising compliance with Federal and State environmental protections, ensuring protection for human health and environmental quality, and maintaining such protections over time. Under H.R. 1300, when assessing the adequacy of a cleanup, the cost that polluters must pay to clean up their contamination is given equal weight as protecting public health.

So how valuable is your family's health when compared to company profits?    Who do you trust to answer this question?

9.  Allows Clean Groundwater To Become Contaminated:  Ends a requirement that cleanups be consistent with some state laws, such as drinking water quality standards. It also requires the EPA to consider cleanups that occur in a 'reasonable time,' with 'reasonable points of compliance,' and to treat only contamination sources, rather than contaminated media like groundwater. Since cleaning groundwater can take decades or longer, these provisions will allow clean groundwater to become contaminated, thereby sacrificing an vital resource and inflating the costs and problems associated with future cleanups.

10.  Minimal Public Protections When Waste Is Left On-Site: H.R. 1300 would increase reliance on institutional controls, such as deed restrictions, to protect public health.  In other words, the property would forever be prohibited from certain uses, such as food growing or kidsÕ playgrounds, which would allow toxic contamination levels to be left behind. 

Worse yet, the bill allows some controls to be purely voluntary and precludes the use of Superfund to force future owners of a site to cleanup contamination if the owner refuses to comply with a control. These provisions threaten public health and environmental quality and limit the utility of otherwise valuable landand waterways.

11. Invites Increased Litigation H.R. 1300's litany of unwieldy new terms will result in increased litigation under Superfund.   For example, currently, the EPA can only recover for cleanup costs that are not inconsistent with regulations that dictate the cleanup process.    However, the bill invites increased litigation by adding that such costs must be 'not unnecessary.' Polluters can argue that virtually any cost is unnecessary because there was a less costly way to conduct an action. It also gives large polluters an automatic right to challenge small party settlements.    Additionally, it contains an allocation process that would spawn litigation and increase costs for small parties.  Other examples of such litigious language and unwise provisions abound in the bill.

Up to Top

Paper Industry Influence in Washington

While the paper industries have us occupied with the local debates over Fox River cleanup, they're spending millions of dollars in Washington, DC, to undercut and dismantle the federal programs most likely to achieve a cleanup.  (See previous article.)

As one snapshot of the bigger picture, the Center for Responsive Politics reports that in 1997, the Forestry & Forest Products Industry (which includes pulp and paper industries) spent $11,962,052 on lobbying in Washington.  That's almost $12 million in only one year.

At the same time, they donated $2,582,609 for election campaign contributions --- with 82% of the donations going to Republicans and only 18% going to Democrats.

A few specific industries with local connections are mentioned in the report.  From 1997-1998, Fort James Corporation (with several mills on the Fox River) gave PAC contributions of $32,500 to federal candidates ($29,500 to Republicans and only $3,000 to Democrats).

During the same period, International Paper Co. (which operates Thilmany in Kaukauna and Nicolet Paper in De Pere) gave $251,819 ($226.819 to Republicans and only $25,000 to Democrats). 

In 1997, Fort Howard Corporation (now merged into Fort James Corporation) spent an additional $140,000 on lobbying in Washington, hiring several different lobbying firms (Akin, Gump, et al; EOP Group, Inc.; McDermott, Will & Emery; Williams & Jensen; and in-house lobbyists). 

The company's reported lobbying purpose was to target such issues as 'Environment & Superfund,' 'Clean Air & Water Quality,' and 'Taxation & Internal Revenue Code.'   This lobbying data was compiled using 1997 mid-year and year-end lobby disclosure reports and amendments filed under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

During 1997, Fort James Corporation is also listed as spending an additional $320,000 (for Akin, Gump et al; Perkins Coie, Grace Terpstra, and in-house lobbyists).  Again, the purpose was to influence Congress on 'Environment &Superfund,' 'Clean Air & Water Quality,' 'Taxation & Internal Revenue Code,' and 'Energy & Nuclear.'

The high-stakes paper industry influence in Washington has been supplemented with thousands of dollars of campaign donations and lobbying by Labor Unions serving the paper industry.   This past year, the unions sent a whole team of paper workers to Washington DC for a week of lobbying against Superfund, and they've organized several media campaigns and petition drives locally as well.    The union representatives sound exactly like the corporation lobbyists.

Many of the paper industry people were upset when Clean Water Action Council received a $50,000 Technical Assistance Grant from EPA to allow us to hire a technical advisor.   But even with this grant, our financial resources canÕt begin to match the raw money power used by the paper industry.

All we can hope is that lots of ordinary citizens will keep sending their letters to Congress, Legislators, EPA and DNR --- and make sure that true citizen concerns are heard. Always remember: people power can match money power, if only we use it.

Up to Top

Money for Mergers but not the River?
by Rebecca Katers

In its federal PAC report, Fort James Corporation describes the acquisition of Fort Howard Corp. by James River Corp., forming Fort James Corp. and states, 'While the aquisition has bolstered Fort James' product lines and its international clout, restructuring charges for the business have cost around $500 million.' 

This same amount of money could have paid for fully half of the Fox River cleanup.

This raises several questions: 

1.  Benefits?  --- How did Wisconsin and the Fox River Valley benefit from this $500 million expense?   The old Fort Howard Corp. headquarters was shut down in Green Bay, the Menasha mill was closed, and the Ashland mill was closed --- throwing hundreds of people out of work.  In addition, the corporate tax base was moved out of Wisconsin to Illinois.

2.  Cleanup Threatens Economy? We hear a lot of complaining from the paper industry about the 'excessive' cost of the proposed Fox River cleanup, and how these costs threaten jobs and the vitality of the Fox River economy.    Yet, the merger blew $500 million on an effort which deeply hurt our local communities, and they gave our economy and workers no consideration or consultation in the process.
The merger seems a greater threat, but we hear no apologies.

3.  Forgetting Its Roots?   Fort Howard Corporation was founded in Green Bay and was made into a major multinational corporation, due to the hard work of local citizens.   Our communities have given many tax incentives, political perks, and other concessions to allow the company to thrive here.   Now, where's the gratitude?   Instead of spending the money here to clean up the toxic mess the company made, they take the dollars they make here and invest them in other countries and states.

4.  Future Security?   What if Fort Howard had invested this $500 million in the Fox River?  Imagine the tremendous local economic boost as hundreds of workers would be hired to conduct the cleanup.  And when completed, imagine how it would boost our tourism economy and quality of life, allowing us to attract other, clean investments. 

Write a brief letter to your elected Congress members and tell them what you think:

Senator Russ Feingold
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C.   20510

Senator Herb Kohl
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C.   20510

Congressman Mark Green or 
Thomas Petri
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.  20515

Up to Top

As a result of citizen input, the Wisconsin LegislatureÕs Joint Finance Committee approved the amendment to the governorÕs budget bill that would require the design and testing of the Pesticide Database System (PDS).   The impact of citizen contacts with legislators was evident.

Northeast Wisconsin members of the committee who voted in support of the database were:  Sen. Rob Cowles (R-Green Bay), Sen. Kevin Shibilski (D-Stevens Point), Sen. Russ Decker (D-Schofield), Rep. Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah), and Rep. Greg Huber (D-Wausau). 

Rep. John Gard (R-Peshtigo) voted against the database.

The bill now goes to the full Legislature for a vote in June.  Please contact your legislators!

Background

Wisconsin's Environmental Decade and Citizens for a Better Environment have teamed up to hire former Public Intervenor Tom Dawson to spearhead a major  proposal to set up a new Pesticide Database system in Wisconsin, similar to  ones in California, New York, Arizona, and New Hampshire. 
Arguments in support:

• Allow people in Wisconsin to make more informed choices about the level of pesticides they and their kids are exposed to.
• Help researchers establish important baselines for health studies and draw comparisons between different regions, communities, schools, and other settings.
• Give people concerned about pesticide impacts a way to educate themselves and others, and to protect their families health, the water they drink, and the environment.
• Require annual pesticide use reporting of all commercial and institutional applications of pesticides in Wisconsin to the Pesticide Database System, including agriculture, schools and day care centers, lawn care companies, along roads and utility lines, golf courses, and in buildings.
• Begin assessing household pesticide use by recording sales, developing pesticide use surveys and studies, and conducting environmental monitoring.
• Make this information accessible to the public, health and environmental researchers, and others by posting it on the Internet.

Up to Top

The Energy Fair

Each year around the time of the summer solstice, thousands of people from around the world come to Amherst, Wisconsin to attend the Energy Fair.  This three day festival is the world's largest venue to learn about renewable energy, energy efficiency, and sustainable living.

Exhibits and Demonstrations

Fair attendees can view the purchase renewable energy and environmental products from over 80 different vendors.   A model home display demonstrates energy efficient appliances, lighting and construction methods.  Working PV and wind systems provide electricity for the workshops and entertainment. Sustainable living is demonstrated in the Eco-Village which features a variety of lifestyle demonstrations including solar food drying, organic gardening, and strawbale construction.

Workshops

The Energy Fair features over 90 different interactive workshops for all knowledge levels.   Workshop presenters are experts in their fields and represent a variety of types of businesses and organizations from across the country. Topics include:

Solar electric systems
Wind electric systems
Solar cooking
Alternative housing
Fuels & transportation
Organic gardening
Simple living

Alan Weisman will present the keynote address Saturday, June 19 at 1:30 p.m. Weisman, author of Gaviotas, a Village to Reinvent the World, is a veteran correspondent who was part of a journalist team who, in 1994, were funded by Ford Foundation to document solutions to the worldÕs greatest environmental crises.

Alternative Transportation

A variety of alternative vehicles are displayed at the Energy Fair.   1999 displays will include home built and manufactured electric, natural gas, and hybrid vehicles.

Home Tours

Guided bus tours of alternative powered homes are scheduled on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday and cost $7 per person.  Tickets are available before and during the Fair on a first come, first served basis.

Children's Events

Workshops and entertainment for children are a major component of the Fair.  Children will enjoy playing with solar powered LEGOs, making art objects out of recycled materials, and singing along with Energy Fair favorite, Tom Pease.

Midwest Renewable
Energy Fair

June 18 - 20

Portage County Fairgrounds
Amherst, Wisconsin
For more information:
phone: 715-824-5166
e-mail: mreainfo@wi-net.com
Webpage: www.mrea.org

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.)