State leaders debate latest proposed PFAS legislation

NORTHEAST WIS. – What once was mandated or considered good advice has backfired on countless landowners, regional airports and municipal water/wastewater systems now confronting contaminations of PFAS they foresaw as a problem, according to leaders who spoke at a five-hour public hearing on PFAS legislation Oct. 7 in Madison.

State Sen. Eric Wimberger — (R-Oconto) and author of Senate Bills 127 and 128 — spoke about the challenges when addressing the contaminations when PFAS use continues to be legal. The fear of being held responsible for groundwater contamination is preventing farmers and other landowners from talking about it, he said.

“Farmers up in the central and northern part of Wisconsin are very concerned about this. At the same time, it’s ‘zip the lip,’” he said. “You can’t get anyone to talk about it because once you have actual knowledge, you have all these duties to report. When you have a duty to report, you will get shut down.”

The public hearing before the Committee on Natural Resources (DNR), Veteran and Military Affairs put Marinette and the Town of Peshtigo center stage, as leaders debated the best way to address the cost of cleaning up PFAS spills and biosolids spread on fields and other land.

PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, have been linked to many different health issues, including kidney and testicular cancer, thyroid issues, liver damage, cholesterol issues, hypertension and developmental issues. In parts of Marinette County, PFAS stemming from Johnson Controls Inc.’s Tyco unit has been detected in groundwater used for drinking water. The company has taken responsibility for this in some areas but not in others, where the origin of the PFAS is less certain.

Wimberger and State Rep. Jeff Mursau, a co-sponsor of the legislation in the state assembly, led the discussion.

“It’s not just a health issue but a function of the farm itself,” Wimberger said. “Let’s say the top soil is relatively free of PFAS after a few years. You’re still pumping the water up and putting it on there, which makes your farm dysfunctional,” he said. “It’s essentially creating massive amounts of brown fields in the state once there is knowledge of these things.”

Mursau explained how the problem started. “In my district in Marinette County, it’s 70-plus fields that have for years been told this sludge coming out of the treatment plant is good, and it was a good fertilizer. They didn’t know there was PFAS in it,” Mursau said. “One farm in particular has a well that they feed their cattle from and it is way over the limit for PFAS in that particular well. It is an issue they are absolutely concerned about. If they’re not innocent landowners, are they going to come forward? They’re not.”

Christine Sieger, bureau director of remediation and development at the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, spoke about how the funds would help to address what’s needed. She discussed the importance of providing innocent landowner exemptions to farmers and residential private-property owners, but she cautioned other parties shouldn’t be granted exemptions.

“Let’s make sure the Spills Law stays in effect for industrial, manufacturing and commercial property owners that create or control PFAS, who knowingly spread PFAS contaminated biosolids causing private wells to be contaminated with PFAS as this currently exists in Wisconsin,” she said.

Opponents criticized the legislation for not addressing the underlying issue: the continued use of PFAS, which contributes to ongoing spills and groundwater contamination.

Opponents said the bills fail to address where the money will come from, considering $125 million earmarked for PFAS hasn’t yet been released. The bills contain no specific language on funding, leaving this to the budget or other legislation.

Michael Tiboris, agriculture and water policy director at River Alliance of Wisconsin — a group that empowers people to protect the water at a local level — was among those speaking against the bills.

“These bills aren’t needed and don’t address the contamination,” Tiboris said. “They should provide relief to communities who have been unable to drink their water for many years.”

While PFAS contamination in Wisconsin continues to expand, the people have made it clear they want the problem addressed, he said. The real problem is that forever chemicals don’t go away, he explained.

With landspreading of PFAS-contaminated biosolids on fields, the problem has become magnified and proactive legislation is needed, Tiboris said, including a way to hold responsible parties accountable.

“These bills still do not release the money from the trust fund,” he said. “They exist to provide liability exemptions for possible responsible parties and to prevent the DNR from taking enforcement. It pushes costs to taxpayers and not to responsible parties,” he said.

While the legislature could allocate relief funds, it has refused to do so, he said. State grants top out at $250,000, Tiboris said.

“Tyco has set aside more money for a single site than the entire trust fund. If you let responsible parties off the hook, there just never will be enough money.”

“Wisconsinites shouldn’t support legislation that doesn’t release money from the trust fund and that weakens the Spill Las and local communities,” he said.

In 2021, the DNR notified the airport it was a responsible party. The airport responded with an investigation that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

“We have incurred costs of over $300,000 for site investigations,” she said. The costs are expected to reach tens of millions of dollars, she added.

The most effective solution is to stop using PFAS firefighting foam and purchase new equipment and trucks, but new trucks cost $850,000 to $1 million, Zich said.

Clean Wisconsin’s Government Relations Director Erik Kanter spoke against the legislation as written but said with some changes, the organization could support it. Sara Walling, the group’s water and agriculture program director, also appeared at the public hearing on behalf of the 20,000-member organization.

A recommended modification pertained to an exemption for PFAS-containing firefighting foam used at airports. Clean Wisconsin recommended S.B. 128 state “use of PFAS in firefighting foam is not always necessary.”

The legislation lets some responsible parties off the hook from addressing the underlying cause of the problem, which is prolonging the problem, Clean Wisconsin said.

“Marinette, Peshtigo, [the] Town of Campbell and Stella have waited and waited and waited. They don’t deserve to wait another day,” he said.