Provocative title? Although I originally am from Kansas I spent several years working and living in Wisconsin so I know the area fairly well. Remember the book called “What’s the Matter with Kansas” by Thomas Frank? It seems like he might want to publish a new edition that takes a look at the roots of the current crisis in Madison.
A movie might be an even better idea:
Consider, for example, the recent announcement of a clean water bill.
…the rules were developed after years of research and public input, including extensive stakeholder input from farmers, municipal water treatment systems, manufacturers, food processors, local governments and environmental groups. Organizations that supported passage of the rules included the Wisconsin Farm Bureau, the Dairy Business Association, the Potato and Vegetable Growers Association, the Wisconsin State Cranberry Growers Association, the Wisconsin Corn Growers Association, the Wisconsin Pork Association, the Wisconsin Cattlemen’s Association, the Municipal Environmental Group (representing local wastewater systems), Clean Wisconsin, Midwest Environmental Associates, the Wisconsin Association of Lakes, the Wisconsin River Alliance, Wisconsin Environment, and the Sierra Club.
[DNR Secretary Matt] Frank added, “We are currently working with all stakeholders on implementation guidelines as well as the design of a pollutant trading system that will lower the cost of compliance even further.”
Wow, that’s a broad-base of industry and organizations who have taken a careful and long-term approach to managing risk. Frank offers this explanation for the popular support.
“Wisconsin’s lakes and rivers are the foundation for our economy, our environment and our quality of life. Stakeholder groups came together to preserve that foundation by addressing phosphorus pollution comprehensively. Under this rule, Wisconsin can look forward to cleaner beaches, more swimmable lakes, improved public health, healthier fisheries and wildlife habitat.
Cleaning up waters polluted by excessive phosphorus is crucial to protecting our $12 billion tourism economy and our $2.75 billion fishing industry. Reducing phosphorus will protect private property values and local tax base, as shown by state and national research linking higher property values with water clarity.
Ok, the quality (safety) of water is essential to the state economy. This is not just based on conjecture and theory. Milwaukee has had a host of water contamination issues from heavy metals to a catastrophic water crisis of 1993.
The massive outbreak of waterborne cryptosporidiosis in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1993 is an example of how contaminated water distributed through a municipal water system can lead to a major public health crisis. As a result of the Cryptosporidium contamination, an estimated 403,000 Milwaukee residents developed diarrhea reflecting an attack rate of 52% of the population with more than 4,000 requiring hospitalization. Cryptosporidiosis was listed as the underlying or contributory cause of death in 54 residents following the outbreak, severely impacting susceptible populations most at risk. An estimated 725,000 productive days were lost as a result of the water contamination event and more than $54 million in lost work time and additional expenses to residents and local government resulted from the waterborne disease outbreak
So Wisconsin has some very real and local data on the harm from a failure to protect their water supplies, which include death and economic disaster. The 2010 Water Quality Report shows warnings for mercury and industrial contaminants for most of the state and shows how regulations have helped document, assess and reduce risk.
It all makes sense so far. Here’s the problem: Republicans in both the House and Senate of Wisconsin recently have tried to kill a bill that regulates phosphorous pollution in their water — a bill wanted by industries to protect and preserve water quality.
Believe it or not, despite the data and analysis I quote above, the Republicans argue that protecting water is too expensive a burden to the economy. They think municipal governments can not afford the security.
But their analysis fails on two very obvious and simple points:
- It is far more expensive and disruptive to clean up pollution in the environment than to prevent it.
- The state has developed their own localized approach after careful study and time for comment and feedback. A failure to follow-through will set themselves up for hasty and less palatable reaction to a disaster (e.g. 1993). A federal approach may also become necessary. An unwillingness to solve obvious health risks at the state level will not make solutions any easier or less expensive.
Perhaps the real reason they are intent on stopping state regulation is because they do not fear #2. They believe there will not be any federal investigation or regulation to prevent the next water quality crisis because of recent legal decisions, such as Rapanos vs. the United States in 2006, that block the government from testing for contamination in “non-navigable” water.
New York’s Assistant Commissioner for Water Resources James M. Tierney told The New York Times that the court decision creates a big problem. “There are whole watersheds that feed into New York’s drinking water supply that are, as of now, unprotected.” The EPA says that over 100 million Americans are drinking water that comes from unguarded sources.
That still leaves problem #1.
Perhaps the short-term blind-eye approach to contamination is best understood by looking at an obscure wetlands strategy by the new Wisconsin Governor. Government oversight for “every wetland in Brown County, both federal and nonfederal, of less than 3 acres in size” was declared “over regulation” — as if security is an impediment to business development.
Gov. Scott Walker has proposed exempting a parcel of Brown County wetlands owned by a Republican campaign donor from water quality standards.
The donor is said to seek the Governor’s assistance with relaxation of state security standards because he intends to fill in 2 acres of wetlands and build…a Bass Pro Shops store to sell fishing supplies. Really.
WTF is wrong with Wisconsin?
The Governor seems to think that ruining the security and economic base of the state by ignoring long-term damage from the contamination and destruction of resources is a good business plan. That’s like lighting your store on fire and then charging admission to watch it burn down. Not the best business strategy. You might end the day with a few more dollars in your pocket, but then what?
Applying just a tiny bit of common sense would make fishing store developers want to preserve and protect natural resources. I mean perhaps the Governor could use the same emphasis he has put into halting wind energy innovation (supposedly based on concern for the purity of the environment) and just apply it to water?