Welcome to Oneida County Clean Waters Action
Exploring the issues that affect our rivers, lakes and ground water.
PFAS Update
In light of the recent PFAS issue in the Town of Stella, PFAS is on Oneida County radar once again.
By Eric Rempala January 24, 2023- I recently attended the latest Stella town meeting with the DNR on January 19th. In that meeting the DNR shared information with the town board as well as a substantial crowd of concerned residents. Information was shared on how the DNR will provide temporary water to affected homes as well as potential assistance to homeowners who may need to drill new wells. We have provided an updated DNR press release with our January 20 post which gives affected residents multiple links to access assistance. Also, the DNR shared how they will proceed with investigating the source of the PFAS emphasizing that it may take years to determine. Identifying the source is essential to prevent future contamination. WXPR's Katie Thoreson was on hand and provided an accurate account of the meeting. DNR to provide water for affected Starks residents as further PFAS testing reveals even higher levels of contamination | WXPR
We at OCCWA have come to depend on WXPR and particularly Katie for invaluable coverage of environmental issues in our county.
There are several other issues pertaining to PFAS that should be considered. One being why the Natural Resources Board failed to set PFAS limits on groundwater (well water)? A January 6th article in the Wisconsin Examiner presents several concerning issues for your consideration. Conservation groups lament policy damage of Prehn’s extra time on Natural Resources Board - Wisconsin Examiner
Some recent good news is that the National Resources Board has now decided they can move forward with health-based standards for PFAS in groundwater (well water) as reported by WPR reporter Danielle Kaeding. Policy board says Wisconsin regulators can restart process for crafting PFAS standards in groundwater | Wisconsin Public Radio (wpr.org)
One question asked at the meeting of Senator Felzkowski was what effect the current litigation by Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) might have in limiting the states authority to address PFAS contamination under Wisconsin's Spills Law. Senator Felzkowski chose to not answer citing as a reason that until the litigation was complete it would be only speculation as to the effects. More information on the Wisconsin Spills Act has been covered in a Wisconsin Examiner commentary article by Rob Lee of Midwest Environmental Advocates. Decision in WMC toxic spills lawsuit is a win for public health - Wisconsin Examiner
Here is an excerpt. "Thanks to a recent Waukesha County Circuit Court ruling, thousands of Wisconsin residents whose private wells have been contaminated by toxic PFAS chemicals are sleeping a little better knowing they won’t lose access to the bottled water they rely on." So, you can see in the case of Stella or any other town that may encounter PFAS issues how important this litigation is.
Another excerpt. " The ruling is the latest development in a lawsuit filed by Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC), the state’s largest business lobby. WMC sued the DNR in an effort to limit the agency’s ability to investigate PFAS contamination and require responsible parties to clean up contaminated sites. In April, the circuit court sided with WMC, though it agreed to place a temporary stay on the decision in response to concerns that it could endanger public health." Temporary stay because it could endanger public health? Really? One can see that the court has already sided with WMC, and it is only a temporary stay in the decision which leaves current protection tenuously in place.
There is much information for sure to be digested on PFAS and we all can understand how impactful contaminated well water can be to a community such as ours. As stated by Senator Felzkowski " This is just the tip of the iceberg". intimating that Stella will not be the last community to deal with PFAS contamination. On this point most would agree. I would encourage residents to consider what has been presented and do your own research as there are many facets of this particular issue. As always one should share their concerns with elected officials.
Town of Stella DNR PFAS Press Release
January 20, 2023-
OCCWA attended the January19th Stella town hall meeting with the DNR. We hope to have an update shortly. We are sharing the current DNR news release dated January 20, 2023, below for the convenience of those who may be affected.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Jan. 20, 2023
Contact: DNR Office of Communications
DNRPress@wisconsin.gov
Multiple State Agencies Responding To
PFAS Contamination In Town Of Stella
Editor's Note: The mailing address listed to send alternative water supply agreements was incorrect in the previous release. It has been corrected below.
MADISON, Wis. – The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Department of Health Services (DHS) and Wisconsin Emergency Management (WEM) are taking steps to provide temporary safe drinking water to residents with private wells who are impacted by per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in the Town of Stella in Oneida County.
DHS, in cooperation with the DNR, has issued well-specific drinking water advisories for 24 residences in the Town of Stella due to elevated levels of PFAS in their private drinking water wells.
The DNR and DHS are participating in a meeting with town leadership and residents tonight, Jan. 19, at the Town of Stella town hall to provide updates about the PFAS contamination found in some private wells and information about how those residents can access temporary safe drinking water provided by the DNR.
The state is taking the following steps to assist residents with known PFAS contamination in their private drinking water supply access safe water:
- Providing carryout cases of bottled water: The DNR has made carryout cases of bottled water available to the town for households with PFAS-impacted wells until temporary emergency water agreements are established.
- Providing bottled water to homes: The DNR has contracted with Culligan to provide bottled water delivery in five-gallon containers to the homes of residents with impacted private water supplies. Residents interested in this service are required to request it through the DNR and sign an access agreement with the state and vendor before receiving water delivery. Residents should not contact Culligan directly if they are requesting the DNR to pay for the bottled water.
To request a temporary alternative water supply from the DNR, please complete an agreement and email it to DNRStellaPFAS@wisconsin.gov or mail it to:
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
c/o Gwen Saliares
625 East County Road Y, STE. 700
Oshkosh, WI 54901
When completing the agreement, residents should indicate if they need a bottom-loading dispenser. Bottom-loading dispensers are generally provided to those who are unable to lift 5-gallon jugs.
Eligible residents who are currently paying for their own bottled-water service should also complete and submit an agreement so the DNR can take over coordination and payments of their service.
Voluntary Sampling of Additional Private Water Supply Wells
The DNR and DHS are evaluating the available information – including existing private sampling results – to develop a sampling plan for additional private water supply wells.
Private well owners are responsible for testing and maintaining their well. Unlike public water systems, private well owners are not required to regularly test their wells or correct water-quality problems. It is the well owner’s choice to decide which test to do and actions to take.
Background Information On PFAS
PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are a group of human-made chemicals used for decades in numerous products, including non-stick cookware, fast food wrappers, stain-resistant sprays and certain types of firefighting foam. These contaminants have made their way into the environment through accidental spills of PFAS-containing materials, discharges of PFAS-containing wastewater to treatment plants and certain types of firefighting foams.
PFAS do not break down in the environment and have been discovered at concentrations of concern in groundwater, surface water and drinking water. These chemicals are known to accumulate in the human body, posing several risks to human health including certain cancers, liver damage and decreased fertility. Information about PFAS can also be found on the DNR’s PFAS webpage and on the Wisconsin DHS website.
More information about the current PFAS contamination in the Town of Stella can be found on the Town of Stella website and the DNR website. For email updates on this situation, subscribe to the PFAS Contamination in the Town of Stella topic.
Below is earlier WXPR coverage of Town of Stella PFAS testing
Private well testing in eastern Oneida County reveals extreme levels of PFAS contamination | WXPR
DNR Grants Flambeau Mine Completion Certificate
Decision is disturbing due to ongoing pollution issues.
January 20, 2023
A joint press release by Deer Tail Scientific, Wisconsin Resources Protection Council, Wisconsin Sierra Club, and Center for Science in Public Participation
DNR Declares Flambeau Mine Reclamation Process “Complete” Despite Ongoing Pollution
-Decision Shows Weakness of Wisconsin’s Mining Laws
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has granted a request from Flambeau Mining Company (FMC) to certify that the company’s restoration of the Flambeau Mine project site near Ladysmith has been successfully completed. The so-called “Certificate of Completion” (COC), originally sought by the company in 2007, was denied earlier due to surface water contamination problems in a Flambeau River tributary that crosses a portion of the project site.
The tributary at issue in 2007 (“Stream C”) remains polluted to the present day, but the DNR nonetheless decided to grant Flambeau Mining Company the certificate, citing provisions in Wisconsin’s mining code that allowed them to do so despite the pollution.
"The DNR's declaration of "complete" reclamation of the Flambeau Mine is just more greenwashing of a polluted mine site," said Al Gedicks, Executive Secretary of the Wisconsin Resources Protection Council and one of the plaintiffs in a 2011 Clean Water Act lawsuit against Flambeau Mining Company. He added, "The company will continue to promote the mine to targeted communities in Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota as an example of an environmental success story while pollution continues at the site."
Background: The Flambeau Mine was an open pit metal-sulfide mine that operated for four years in the mid-1990s in Rusk County, Wisconsin. Constructed on the banks of the Flambeau River, the mine produced copper, gold, silver and a small amount of zinc. It was owned by Rio Tinto/Kennecott (Salt Lake City, UT) and operated by their subsidiary, Flambeau Mining Company (FMC).
When production ceased in 1997, the 32-acre mine pit was backfilled with waste rock, the surface was revegetated with prairie grass, and several recreational trails were constructed for public use. In 1999, two sets of wells were drilled within the backfilled pit to keep track of what’s going on beneath the surface. Ever since, high concentrations of heavy metals have been reported in the groundwater.
In 2002, FMC started to test the water in a Flambeau River tributary that crosses a portion of the restored project site. High concentrations of copper exceeding state water quality standards were reported on a consistent basis for many years and the result was that a half-mile segment of the tributary was eventually added to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) list of Impaired Waters in 2012. It remains listed to the present day.
FMC has tried to clean up the polluted tributary using a variety of different approaches approved by the DNR. Unfortunately, not only has the contamination persisted but in 2022, an additional stretch of the tributary within the project site was added to the EPA’s Impaired Waters list. As noted by Dr. David Chambers, an environmental consultant who has been tracking water contamination problems at the Flambeau Mine project site for many years, “Stream C continues to be contaminated even after the completion of reclamation activities. Both copper and zinc levels exceed water quality standards.”
In handing down its decision to certify that FMC had successfully reclaimed the Flambeau Mine project site, the DNR cited provisions of Wisconsin’s mining code that allowed them to do so. Primarily, they focused attention on their determination that FMC had “completed reclamation in accordance with the approved reclamation plan.”
That approach was consistent with what FMC had maintained in a legal brief filed in 2007, the first time the company sought COC certification. When making their legal arguments before the judge, the company characterized the COC process as “simple and limited to essentially “checking off” whether FMC has or has not completed certain specified reclamation tasks …”. Absent was any consideration of whether or not the reclamation plan had actually succeeded in protecting public waters.
In 2007, citizens challenged FMC’s interpretation of the law at a contested case hearing and were able to get some concessions from the company. For the most part, however, both the judge and representatives of the DNR agreed with FMC’s reading of the law.
In other words, Wisconsin’s mining laws simply require a mining company to prove they did whatever their reclamation plan said they were going to do. For example, FMC’s plan called for the construction of a stormwater detention basin to filter out contaminants before reaching Stream C, and FMC constructed the basin. The company also backfilled the mine pit with waste rock and added some limestone to try to minimize groundwater contamination, as specified in the plan.
The recent Flambeau Mine decision confirms that the issue of whether or not a mining company’s reclamation plan succeeded in protecting the state’s waters does not factor into a COC decision. When the DNR awarded the COC to Flambeau Mining Company, there was no mention of how the groundwater within the backfilled mine pit is highly contaminated and undrinkable. Nor was there any mention of how FMC’s stormwater detention basin had failed to adequately sequester contaminants and that, as a result, a tributary of the Flambeau River is now impaired.
The only thing the DNR’s decision stated with regard to water contamination issues was that FMC, in acknowledgement of the Stream C pollution problem, will develop a work plan for assessing impacts to the stream in early 2023. As noted by Dave Blouin, State Mining Committee Chair for the Sierra Club, “Wisconsin's environmental community will be watching carefully to ensure that the assessment and any follow-up steps including cleanup or remediation are accomplished to ensure the stream is healthy.” He added, “The impairment of Stream C due to pollution from the mine site demonstrates that the Flambeau Mine is not an example of a successful metal-sulfide mine.”
Laura Gauger, a citizen who submitted comments in opposition to the COC, summed it up like this: “Wisconsin’s weak mining laws have brought us to where we are today. Even though FMC’s restoration of the Flambeau Mine project site has been declared “complete” by the DNR, it doesn’t mean the water over there is clean. Rather, we are left with a polluted stream on the EPA’s Impaired Waters list and a large swath of river frontage with undrinkable groundwater.” She added, “Unfortunately, the public appears to have no legal recourse.”
Salt In Our Lakes?
Rising salt levels in Oneida County lakes are call for concern.
By Eric Rempala January 16, 2023- Yes, yes, what next? As Oneida County reels from a recent PFAS discovery a WXPR piece reveals rising levels of salt in local lakes. What is encouraging is that levels are not so high yet to cause declines in macroinvertebrates and zooplankton which are the bottom of the food chain supporting fish populations.
A recent WXPR article by Katie Thoreson covers this issue in more detail. Rising chloride levels in Lake Julia spur action by Lake Association members to reduce salt use in the area | WXPR
I would like to commend both Sue and Bob Thome as well as the Lake Julia Lake Association for their efforts to bring this issue to the forefront. It is these types of actions from local residents that help protect our water. Let's hope going forward a proactive and effective approach will be implemented.
Pelican River Forest Project Threatened
Anonymous joint finance committee member lodges objection.
Update information- By Eric Rempala January 10, 2023
Recent coverage by WXPR's Danielle Kaeding (see link included) has revealed that there are discussions ongoing with the town of Monico and the Conservation Fund pertaining to lands the town wanted to reserve for future development. If a compromise is reached there should be no reason for Senator Felzkowski's objection to stand and we look forward to the Joint Finance Committee's decision to hold up financing reversed. This type of action supports OCCWA's position on local control pertaining to town input.
Update information- By Eric Rempala January 4, 2023
The anonymous objector on the Joint Finance Committee (JFC) has been identified as State Senator Mary Felzkowski. Contact for Senator Felzkowski is (608 266-2509)
Senator Mary Felzkowski confirms Pelican River Forest vote | Local News | wjfw.com
It is the JFC's responsibility now to have a hearing and make a determination on the Pelican River Forest Project. Past instances of the Committee not addressing issues and failing to have a hearing are numerous. Hopefully the JFC will do their job and come to a final determination on this project rather than choose to not do the job which they accepted as public servants.
Please consider the Take Action link we are sharing for residents to request Governor Evers to direct the DNR to fund the Pelican River Forest Project.
Take Action – Knowles Nelson Stewardship
By Eric Rempala December 9, 2022- For those who are not familiar, The Pelican River Forest Conservation Easement is a proposed conservation easement that will protect the largest remaining unprotected private working forest in Wisconsin. What that consists of is continuing sustainable forestry and permanent public use and access to the forested woodlands. WDNR fact sheet information below.
"The Pelican River Forest Conservation Easement project represents a once in a lifetime opportunity to protect 56,000+ acres of working forestland in Wisconsin. Current owner, The Conservation Fund, is partnering with Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources which will use funding from the Knowles -Nelson Stewardship Program to secure a conservation easement to protect the largest remaining unprotected private working forest in Wisconsin.
The Pelican River Forest straddles the Continental Divide between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River watersheds. It contains 68 miles of streams and is located in the headwaters of the Wolf River and the Wisconsin River. Permanent protection will preserve the water quality of these rivers that provide drinking water to over 40,000 people downstream. It will also permanently secure public access for outdoor recreation including hiking, hunting, fishing, trapping, snowmobiling, ATVs/UTVs, and cross-country skiing.
The Pelican River Forest contains hard maple, oak, aspen, spruce, red pine, and jack pine. The Forest grows about 25,000 cords of harvestable volume each year for an estimated annual value of $1.1M. Accounting for 16% of Oneida County’s timber output from private forestland it helps supply 17 mills in Oneida and adjacent counties which support 636 jobs. Additionally, the project guarantees permanent public use and access to the forested woodlands. This includes vehicular access to over 40 miles of maintained interior roads and will be supported by a $1M perpetual road endowment fund for long-term maintenance.
The acquisition will be financed with a combination of funds including a $600,000 gift from The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, a federal Forest Legacy Program grant in the amount of $10,884,000 and the remaining $4,028,000 from the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program."
As you can see from the DNR fact sheet, financing this forest consists of a $600,000 gift from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, $10.88 million form a federal Forest Legacy Program grant, and $4.03 million from our own Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program.
Thank you very much, the DNR Natural Resources Board appreciates your generous gift and approves of the acquisition. See link below
But hold on now. All that is left is for the Wisconsin State Legislature's Joint Finance Committe (JFC) to approve of the Knowles-Nelson funds being used as they were intended. But that's where this story goes off the rails. All it takes is one member of the JFC to anonymously object without giving a reason and this 70,000-acre forest ceases to exist and that's exactly what has happened. Clearly this is a process that is not transparent or democratic. Does anyone vote for a politician thinking they should have this anonymous power? Of course not.
So, what's the solution? Well, Team Knowles Nelson just so happens to have a Take Action page online that allows Wisconsin residents to easily send an objection to the JFC and vote to support the Pelican River Forest. Link provided. Conservation project sabotaged by anonymous legislator – Knowles Nelson Stewardship
We at OCCWA urge you to consider the facts of the JFC process as it applies to environmental issues such as this and voice your opinion.
. More informational links on the Pelican River Forest provided below.
Large Wisconsin forest purchased for conservation | Forest… (forestdatanetwork.com)
Pelican River Forest – Wisconsin | The Conservation Fund
Wisconsin's Green Fire Turns Up Heat
"How Wisconsin is Failing Citizens in Conserving Natural Resources and Protecting our Environment"
By Eric Rempala
September 30 2022- Wisconsin's Green Fire has released a detailed and important policy assessment report on how the legislature, courts and special interests have re-shaped state government in recent years as a tool that benefits special interests and disempowers state agencies and the public on environmental policies.
We at OCCWA have opined in the past that Wisconsin's State Legislature has taken action to strip away local control. We feel it is imperative to return more environmental decision making to the local citizens and towns directly impacted by projects which put their water at risk. This report by Wisconsin's Green Fire documents in great detail how the loss of local control was accomplished. We hope that this report assists in providing information and a path to restore that which has been taken. Below are excerpts from the report of some of these actions.
" * 2011 Wisconsin Act 21, which gave significant new powers to the legislature and limited agency authority in reviewing and approving new administrative rules.
* 2017 Wisconsin Act 57, which further limited agencies’ ability to develop administrative rules by establishing lower thresholds for economic impact analysis and allowing legislative committees to block rules for indefinite periods of time.
* 2017 Wisconsin Act 39, which created a 30-month deadline for development of new administrative rules and nullified all work on any rules not completed in that time frame.
* A series of legislative changes between 2011 and 2018 removed local control from communities, preventing them from developing locally-based standards for environmental protection.
* Coordinated efforts between Wisconsin Senate leadership and appointees of Gov. Scott Walker’s administration to prevent Governor Tony Evers from seating appointees, including seats on the Natural Resources Board. "
We are providing links below of Green Fire's press release and detailed report.
Press Release
Detailed Report
WGF_2022_OppNow_ImbalancePower_Final-web.pdf (wigreenfire.org)
Shoreland Protection Ordinance Under Attack
How far will DNR allow county P&D committee to go in reducing protections?
By Dan Butkus
September 20, 2022- It is understood that ordinances attempt to balance environmental protection and public safety against individual property rights. There is always an ebb and flow depending on the political climate and development of new data. Recently, however, Oneida County has decided to push the pendulum completely to one side in the name of property rights, individualism, and an unorthodox policy that “I can do what I want on my own property”, even if that is to the detriment to a neighbor, or a lake as a whole.
It is said that government can work slowly. And over the years, in Oneida County, this has been very true. Over the last three years, very few protections were incorporated in the Shoreland Protection Ordinance (SPO), and some regulations disappeared, such as the piers and docks ordinance. But they have taken a long time to come to pass and often take a very circuitous route to get there. The recent wholesale revision of the SPO began over two years ago. Who would have guessed it would take a sudden U-turn at the last minute? Instead of bolstering and clarifying the SPO as originally intended, a couple of individuals simply decided to gut the SPO.
The story can be picked up with single incident of shoreland ordinance violations on Two Sisters Lake back in 2019. Complaints were filed with Zoning. A group of citizens along with Zoning and the DNR attempted to tackle the language in the SPO to clarify issues. It took 16 months from the initial complaint to January 2021 when it was first brought to light at a Planning and Development Committee meeting. The revision was presented in February 2021 and rejected with derision. Government works slowly. Eight months pass, and in August 2021, P&D Committee Chair, Scott Holewinski, expounded on what he would like to see in the SPO revision. There was a 26 minute discussion asking for what can and cannot be done in the Access and Viewing Corridor. Most of what was pitched that day would have gotten support from shoreland property owners on not just Two Sisters Lake, but most lakes in the county. The Zoning Department was given instruction. Five more months elapse when the topic appeared on the January, 2022 P&D agenda. It is quickly tabled to an unspecified future meeting date. Two months later, in March 2022, P&D holds a listening session with landscapers. The SPO revisions languished while county board elections take place and Scott Holewinski is elevated to County Chair, still retaining his seat as Chair of P&D. Three months after the listening session, publisher Gregg Walker asked to speak to the P&D Committee while Scott is on holiday in Africa. Mr. Walker spends nearly an hour demanding that the SPO be gutted. July, 2022 an SPO revision appears. It is everything Mr. Walker wanted and contained nothing from the years of work and research that came to pass since the complaints on Two Sisters Lake. Government works slowly, unless and until it doesn’t. Then it moves so rapidly to undo what took years to create.
Effectively, the Shoreland Protection Ordinance revision seeks to strip the ordinance of any permitting requirements for land disturbance, construction, and vegetation removal within the Access and Viewing Corridor. The Wild West is at our doorstep. It was done in the name of simplification. It was done in the name of property rights. But what they won’t tell you is that it was done because they are lazy and find enforcement of ordinances too hard, and beyond their toothless abilities.
This revision is currently before the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for review. Initial talk is that the DNR mostly rejects the revisions. But no matter the final outcome of that review, this is not the end of it. Planning and Development will continue to look for ways to weaken the ordinance. The people of Oneida County should be aware that their lake protections are being gutted. It is time we stand up and oppose this revision. Eventually, it will have to go to a public hearing. Make your voices heard. Write or call your County Supervisor and voice your concerns now.
As for me, I’d like to know whatever became of the ideas Scott Holewinski generated on August 25th, 2021? They were pretty darned good. The tabled discussion was never brought back.
Dan Butkus is a non-resident property owner on Squash Lake. He is the Treasurer for the Squash Lake Protection and Rehabilitation District, and currently serves as a member of the Board of Directors for Wisconsin Lakes, a state-wide organization for lake associations and lake districts. He represents the Northern Region for Wisconsin Lakes. His property on Squash Lake has been in his family for over 65 years. He currently lives in Waunakee, WI with his wife MaryJane and their dog Max. He frequently attends Planning and Development meetings via Zoom and stays actively involved in Oneida County environmental affairs.
PFAS in Drilling Fluids?
The Wisconsin DNR does not physically test approved drilling fluids for PFAS
By Eric Rempala
June 25 2022- Recently I attended several DNR zoom meetings pertaining to PFAS. In the recent light of the state of Colorado banning all PFAS from drilling fluids, one of the questions I had posed was are the DNR's approved drilling fluids used for drilling core samples in mining exploration tested physically for PFAS content. The answer I was hoping for was yes, period, end of story. That unfortunately was not the answer I received.
Below is a recent press release out of Langlade County. Also, at the bottom of this piece are links to the Colorado story and the actual DNR PFAS meetings.
" Langlade County: Wisconsin state regulators do not know if chemicals used for mineral exploration drilling and water well construction are free of PFAS State regulators held two meetings June 17, 2022 during which it became clear that no one is testing drilling fluids and well construction aids for PFAS content. Officials from the Wisconsin DNR confirmed they only look at the Safety-Data-Sheets (SDS’s) supplied by the chemical manufacturers themselves as the sole determination of what is in the products. Most of the products are made by oil & gas industry service companies like Halliburton and Schlumberger. If the SDS doesn’t list “PFAS” as an ingredient, the DNR doesn’t look for it.
Because of an exemption known as the “Halliburton loophole” these chemical manufacturers do not need to disclose the exact make-up of their product mixtures. They simply claim that divulging the true ingredient list would jeopardize trade secrecy and give competitors an unfair advantage. Most drilling fluid Safety-Data-Sheets claim the privilege of not disclosing the full ingredient list because of trade secrecy.
There is another inherent problem with the SDS’s that regulators rely on. OSHA has rules guiding what needs to be listed on SDS’s. If a manufacturer determines that the product contains less than 1% of any ingredient they are not required to list those ingredients. Essentially, what gets shown on an SDS is up to the manufacturer’s own discretion. This discretion is what Wisconsin regulators have been relying on for years.
What about product testing? It was confirmed that state regulators like the Department of Health Services and the Department of Natural Resources do not do any testing to confirm what exactly is in the drilling products. No state agencies do testing for PFAS content or testing to confirm the information on the SDS is accurate.
It was also confirmed that the preeminent testing authority in the nation does not test products used for exploration drilling and well construction for PFAS content. The NSF confirmed that they ‘may’ only test for PFAS content if it is one of the listed ingredients on the chemical labeling. Even though there are over 180 drilling products that carry the NSF logo indicating they are allowed to come in contact with drinking water, this full product listing does not include testing for PFAS content.
Since the manufacturers are incentivized to not list the full ingredient list, this eliminates their need to test drilling fluids for full chemical content. Why would an oil & gas industry supplier test their products to determine if they contain PFAS? If found it would be the end of sales for those products. Conversely, if the manufacturers know their products contain PFAS, but they are allowed to not disclose the full ingredient content, why would they list exactly what is in there? If the SDS or the labeling listed PFAS as an ingredient it would be a giant red flag that the product is not safe.
Who is testing products that are used for drilling holes into the water aquifer? Answer: No one.
There isn’t any comprehensive testing occurring to make sure drilling fluids do not contain PFAS. This reveals the major health concern that from the time a hole is drilled in the search for minerals or water, the chances are high this is when the PFAS contamination cycle begins.
Is anyone doing something about this? Not in Wisconsin – yet. However, on June 3, 2022 Colorado decided to move forward with a law that bans the use of drilling fluids that contain PFAS. Going forward; any manufacturer who wants to offer drilling fluids for drilling exploration holes or water well construction, is going to need to prove it first that the products do not contain PFAS. The burden of full chemical content testing and factual certification is on the manufacturer – not the tax-payer. If the manufacturer wants to sell their products in Colorado they are going to have to prove they are free of PFAS.
These developments should serve as a call to action for Wisconsin state regulators and law-makers to follow the lead of Colorado. If Wisconsin wants to get ahead of the seemingly unending emerging PFAS contamination problem, they need to make sure that the chemicals used from day-one of well drilling are not the source of the problem. Wisconsin needs to ban the use of drilling fluids that contain PFAS – right now."
Colorado article
DNR PFAS technical meeting
https://wiseye.org/2022/06/17/pfas-technical-group-meeting-2/
DNR PFAS external advisory group
https://wiseye.org/2022/06/17/pfas-external-advisory-group-2/
Politics and Environment?
Politically Limiting Local Control of Environmental Issues
By Karl Fate
June 10 2022- Over the last 35 years I have attended many meetings in the Oneida County Courthouse and the proceedings were never overtly about partisanship or political ideology, but about issues impacting the County, that is how County business is supposed to be conducted.
That all changed when State politician Tom Tiffany decided to meddle in a County Board election. Since that time a certain threatening atmosphere began permeating our Courthouse whenever Tom Tiffany wanted Supervisors to vote a certain way. This culminated in a threat being heard in our County, that the State would take over the Lynne Site and strip the County of local control, if the referendum question on leasing the Lynne Site failed. Fortunately, the voters didn’t fall for the threat, and they voted the question down. It was an empty threat, they all were.
When Supervisors vote against local control, it doesn’t matter what their political party or political ideology is. When Supervisors vote to spend $60,000 to remove protections from their own County, it doesn’t matter what their political party or political ideology is. Everyone in Oneida County should be wondering, who is it that benefits by pitting neighbor against neighbor based on politics? Could it be that someone wants to distract us from what is really going on in our own Courthouse? It is despicable that a local newspaper has been stoking these divisions.
There are several new Supervisors in Oneida County. Most of the incumbent Supervisors voted to remove an important local control from much of the County, and to eliminate several important protections, while spending $60,000 to do it. Some of them were all in on removing these protections, others perhaps, were intimidated into going along.
What is most troubling about what a prior Board did, is that protections for their own County, and the people who live and work here, were removed to promote one the most destructive activities on the Planet, Sulfide Mining, in one of the most water-rich regions of the Planet. And to top it all off, they paid tens of thousands of dollars to have these protections removed and were persuaded to do so with arguments that were utter hogwash.
These are mistakes that can be fixed, but will the new Board have the wisdom to do it?
New Sulfide Mining Threat For Oneida County
Will Oneida County become Wisconsin's mining district?
By Eric Rempala
April 7, 2022- A new start-up mining company has renewed the threat of changing Oneida County into Wisconsin's Mining District. Green Light Metals (GLM) has begun the process of establishing multiple sulfide mines in North Central Wisconsin. GLM's initial attempts will occur at the Bend Deposit in Taylor County and the Reef Deposit in Marathon County, with plans for development of two Oneida County properties named Lobo and Black. GLM's recent power point presentation (see link provided below) illustrates clearly how Oneida County with its multiple deposits would become a part of a mining district, potentially changing the county's landscape going forward. Reviewing the presentation clearly shows the location of two properties in the town of Schoepke and multiple other deposits.
We at OCCWA have spent the last two years attempting to educate the towns as to the threat that Metallic Sulfide Mining poses by having them adopt a resolution to repeal Act 134 and reinstate the Prove It First Law. Nine towns plus the city of Rhinelander have adopted our resolution or some form thereof.
It is clear that the county that we know with clean water, tourism, and vacation property would be severely impacted by acid mine drainage, blasting, and heavy equipment road use. We encourage residents and property owners to oppose this type of development and make your position known to your town, county, and state representatives.
https://www.greenlightmetals.com/_files/ugd/298d0d_4e7316d0915340578b2895381f76521e.pdf
Below is a link to WPR coverage of the potential mines.
https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2022/03/21/drilling-for-gold-in-wisconsin/
Also below is coverage of Minnesota's attempt to prevent Metallic Sulfide Mining by instating a Prove It First Law of their own. Understanding that Minnesota is a mining friendly state but want no part of this type of mining in water rich areas.
https://www.friends-bwca.org/sulfide-mining/
Change Knowles Nelson Stewardship?
Oneida County politicians seek changes
By Eric Rempala
March 18, 2022- A recent attempt to change the Knowles Nelson Stewardship has caught our attention here at OCCWA. Assembly Bill 852 presented by Calvin Callahan and Senate Bill 802 presented by Mary Felzkowski on January 18th proposed changes that would make it easier to sell land acquired with Knowles Nelson funding. The Bills were quickly contested by multiple conservation groups and private citizen comments and drawn back for reconsideration. If not for this immediate push back these Bills may have proceeded to vote.
What is Knowles Nelson? A direct quote from their webpage " The Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program is one of Wisconsin’s proudest achievements. Since 1989, Wisconsinites have come together to care for our state’s land and water as well as build the trails, campgrounds, and boat launches that allow us to get out and enjoy Wisconsin. Knowles-Nelson is a rare bipartisan success story. It is an invaluable program that will continue to thrive only with a strong community of supporters who ensure that Wisconsin’s legislators continue to prioritize protected land, clean water, and access to outdoor recreation for every Wisconsin resident."
We in Oneida County have benefitted greatly from the Knowles Nelson program. Since inception Oneida County has had 88 projects supported with a dollar amount of just under $42 million. Projects consisting of land maintenance, trail construction, and upkeep, to land acquisition. Notable areas include Willow Flowage Scenic Waters Area, American Legion State Forest, Northern Highland State Forest, and Bearskin State Trail. Here is a link to a Knowles Nelson project map. https://knowlesnelson.org
Even the most recently proposed Pelican River State Forest is set to receive funding from the Knowles Nelson Stewardship. https://www.conservationfund.org/impact/press-releases/2589-largest-unprotected-forest-in-wisconsin-secured So one wonders what exactly these two recently proposed Bills by two of our county's state reps is truly trying to accomplish and does it reflect the will of their constituents? We will continue to monitor the situation and help to keep you apprised going forward, though not much is expected now until next year.
Below is a link to an article on the attempted Bill proposals
.https://www.wortfm.org/new-bills-would-allow-cities-to-sell-parks-from-knowles-nelson-stewardship/
A REFERENDUM ON LOCAL CONTROL?
Supervisors voting records on mining challenged
By Karl Fate
Mar. 4, 2022- Are the water resources of our County important enough that we should vote for their protection? Is local control important enough that we should expect our elected officials to vote in favor of it?
When we cast our votes on April 5th, we should keep these issues in mind. We can examine the voting record for some candidates while they were on the Board, and we can ask the position of candidates that have no voting record.
A new metallic mining ordinance went to public hearing on June 6th, 2018, and was put before the County Board on June 19th, 2018. The new ordinance removes several important protections and is detrimental to local control, allowing metallic sulfide mining and any related infrastructure, as a matter of right, in multiple zoning districts across much of the County. This change precludes a mining company from having to petition to rezone large areas of our County before constructing a sulfide mine, removing an important local control. These changes were widely condemned at the public hearing and before the County Board, but these concerns mostly fell on deaf ears.
Supervisors who voted for this ordinance were, Robb Jensen, Greg Pence, Billy Fried, Lance Krolczyk, Tom Kelly, Jack Sorensen, Dave Hintz, Greg Oettinger, Mike Timmons, Mitchell Ives, Ted Cushing, Bill Liebert, Russ Fisher, Scott Holewinski and Bob Almekinder. Only supervisors Jim Winkler, Alan VanRaalte, Steven Schreier, Bob Mott, and Bob Metropulos, voted against this wildly unpopular mining ordinance. Sonny Paszak was absent for the vote.
This is a voting record on the critical issues of water and local control. Please take this record into consideration when you cast your vote on April 5th.
The following supervisors voted for this ordinance that removed these protections and are challenged on the April 5th ballot: Robb Jensen, Mitchell Ives, Ted Cushing, Bill Liebert, and Scott Holewinski.
Candidates for April 5th 2022 link below:
Local Control
Explanation of how towns lost input
By Eric Rempala
Mar. 4, 2022- So what are we at OCCWA referring to when we mention local control?
Simply put, it is the ability of the towns in Oneida county to have a say in what is allowed in their town. This ability has been severely impacted by the passage of the Oneida County Mining Ordinance in June 2018. In particular the change in zoning that was a part of the ordinance.
Originally mining was only permitted in areas zoned Manufacturing & Industrial. The ordinance added zones 1A Forestry and General Use to where mining would now be permitted. Manufacturing and Industrial only makes up a small fraction of the land in Oneida County, whereas 1A Forestry and General Use makes up the bulk. By adding these two zones to permit mining the County Board added thousands of acres where mining would now be permitted simply by filling out an application to mine. You may access a map of your town zoning at http://oneida.ncwrpc.info/ZoningMap/
This change in zoning removed a great protection to the towns. That protection being the town's ability to give input into or deny a rezone for land that is being targeted for a mine. The towns carry substantial input in rezoning land but have little to no input when land is being used for what it is zoned for.
Mind you, changing this zoning back to the original Manufacturing & Industrial only, would not prevent mining. If a town so desired a mine, they could simply petition the county to rezone the land.
Please note that these zoning changes are only viewable in the mining ordinance. Actual Oneida County zoning has yet to reflect these changes. It has been explained to me that until zoning is changed the mining ordinance takes precedent.
I hope this explanation will help you better understand what we mean by "Local Control".
This type of control could also apply to other permitting such as CAFO's. It is an important tool for the towns to be able to protect their water.
Included below is an Oct 2021 Northwoods Star Journal article by Karl Fate which delves into more of the history of how we arrived where we are now.
https://starjournalnow.com/2021/10/27/reader-oneida-county-should-stop-promoting-mining/
How to create a sulfide mining district, and fail
By Karl Fate
Oct. 20, 2021--In 2009, an obscure “mining interest” called Tamerlane approached Oneida County, seeking to acquire the rights to a known mineral deposit on County Forest lands on the western side of the county, called the Lynne Deposit. The Lynne Deposit was formed well over a billion years ago and then eroded and twisted for many million years more, before being buried beneath a vast column of water and layers of sand and gravel when the glaciers receded over 10,000 years ago, forming the foundation for our lakes, streams, and wetlands.
Our county government reacted to Tamerlane’s request by rubber-stamping a failed, old policy Resolution that was used a decade previously to open the County Forest to metallic mining. A Mining Oversight/Local Impact Committee was formed to consider developing a leasing plan, and although, over the course of three years the Committee spent considerable time, energy and resources, it was never especially interested in the existing information base, nor the considerable public concerns and opposition that it heard meeting after meeting.
Fortunately, the full County Board was listening, and in February 2012 the leasing plan was stopped. The Committee's recommendation was turned back two more times that summer, the last being the defeat known as the “Shidell Resolution,” which ended metallic mining as a policy goal of the County government.
Despite no longer pursuing “mining as a policy goal,” the county was back promoting a mine at Lynne within a month of the defeat of the “Shidell Resolution.” This time it was the Planning and Development Committee proposing to allow metallic mining in areas zoned “1-A Forestry.” The County Forest at Lynne is zoned “1-A Forestry” and the Town of Lynne was opposed to rezoning the area to “Manufacturing and Industrial,” a change necessary to have a mine there. Planning & Development wanted to allow metallic mining in “1-A Forestry” to circumvent the need for a rezone, thus stripping the town of a critical protection.
It was at this 9/11/2012 P&D Committee meeting where the idea of weaponizing the zoning districts in retaliation against a town that opposed a mine was first developed. Although the committee would eventually drop the proposal because of public opposition, it had another chance to go after local control within five years, thanks to Tom Tiffany, then the region's District 12 state senator.
The Mining Moratorium Law was always popular, but Tom Tiffany was able to successfully repeal it in late 2017. Once the law was repealed, it was widely, but inaccurately, construed as opening Northern Wisconsin to massive sulfide mining as a matter of right, and it was clear that there was a coordinated effort to establish sulfide mining anew in the Northwoods. There were promotional mine tours, a promotional “Mining 101” seminar, and then the counties were pressured into developing a compliant mining ordinance, which removed several key protections.
In Oneida County, vast areas were opened to metallic sulfide mining by precluding a mining company from having to petition to rezone those areas. This was done by allowing metallic mining as a “Permitted Use” in areas zoned “1-A Forestry” and “General Use.” It was already allowed in areas zoned “Manufacturing and Industrial.” This means that in addition to the permitted use specified, “services essential to the permitted use, and its accessory uses shall be permitted in that district as a matter of right.”
When you couple this with the fact that the new ordinance removed prohibitions on smelting, refining, solution mining, and dumping mine wastes in the county, generated from outside of the county, the new mining ordinance was a blueprint for turning the region into a mining district. Under this scenario, the Lynne mine would have likely been used as a central processing center, eventually receiving ore, and generating waste on site from other mines, including from outside of the county.
Once Oneida County removed these protections with the new mining ordinance, there was only one more step to open the door for a mine at Lynne. The supervisors pushing the mine at Lynne have always wanted a referendum question on the issue. They finally got it, and it did not go their way when their referendum question failed substantially during the November 2018 election. Without “social license” for a mine at Lynne, the centerpiece for a mining district in our county collapsed.
Since the failure of the Noranda experiment in the 1990s, our county government has, on three occasions, spent considerable time, effort and resources promoting one mining scheme or another in our county, always with considerable public opposition, and always to no avail.
It’s time for our county government to take a sober, objective look at this issue, and ponder its priorities. It makes no sense for our county government to continue squandering its fiscal resources to remove protections from itself, while pushing something that people do not want, and which threatens the integrity of our high quality natural resource base.