PFAS trust fund remains unspent as Republicans, Democrats argue over legislation

MADISON – As a trust fund created to help address Wisconsin's "forever chemical" problem languishes, Democrats and Republicans remain at odds over how to spend the money and who should be held responsible for contamination.

The $125 million at the center of the debate was created as a part of the budget process last year, and immediately Republicans proposed legislation that would allot money for grant programs for things such as testing, remediation and research. But notably, it would also potentially constrain the Department of Natural Resources from taking certain actions.

Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, said earlier this week he would veto the bill, a decision Republicans blasted.

"The only alterations to the DNR’s authority is to protect municipalities from getting punished for taking a grant to voluntarily address PFAS contamination and to protect victims of pollution from the threat or issuance of costly enforcement. These parties are not polluters, and they did not cause the contamination!" Sen. Rob Cowles, R-Green Bay said in a statement Tuesday.

Sen. Mary Felzkowski, R-Irma, said in an interview Thursday that Evers' plan to veto the bill was upsetting.

"I think it's one of the largest mistakes he's made since he's been elected, and that says a lot," she said. "I would like to see those funds get out to people, but I also don't want to just create a slush fund for the DNR to not utilize in ways that are not going to best help the citizens."

Democrats introduce PFAS bill they say wouldn't limit DNR

Meanwhile, Sen. Brad Pfaff, D-Onalaska, introduced two bills Thursday aimed at regulating PFAS and banning the substance in manufacturing in the state.

More:2 Republican legislators push to set standards for PFAS in groundwater

The two bills would set standards for PFAS in drinking and groundwater; create grant programs to assist local governments, organizations and private well owners in testing and to clean up the compounds; funding for communities to access clean water supplies, resources for additional testing and clean up and use of the trust fund as a funding source for new grant programs.

The second bill would ban the intentional use of PFAS in cases where the compounds are avoidable, and allow a manufacturer to be fined if they do use them.

“We can’t wait for clean water. This is about keeping families safe in their own homes. Toxic PFAS chemicals are a threat to our health, economy, and communities — whether they are in our water or in everyday household products," Pfaff said in a release.

Pfaff represents the Town of Campbell, which has been dealing with a large-scale contamination spreading out from the La Crosse Regional Airport. Hundreds of private wells on the island have been impacted, and the state has been paying for bottled water for residents for years.

”Families in the Town of Campbell have been forced to drink bottled water for three years because their water has been contaminated with these toxic chemicals," he said in the release. "Their kids can’t take baths with the water coming out of their faucets because it contains PFAS. It is far past time that we ensure the people of Wisconsin have the necessary tools and resources to keep their water safe."

The bill is seemingly in response to the Republican legislation that Evers vowed to veto.

More:Gov. Tony Evers calls out Republicans over 'breathtaking' inaction on PFAS

In particular, Evers and clean water supporters have noted that the innocent landowner protections and limits on DNR testing in some cases could protect the entities that manufactured or used PFAS in the production of their products, something that Republicans have vehemently denied.

Sen. Eric Wimberger, R-Green Bay, one of the authors of the Republican bill, is still calling on Evers to sign it to give a pathway for money from the trust fund to flow. He said Thursday that the Peshtigo Town Board approved a resolution to support the bill. The Peshtigo area has been contending with contamination tied to Tyco Fire Products, based in nearby Marinette.

“This resolution is yet another clear sign that communities devastated by PFAS want the reforms outlined in SB 312," Wimberger said in a release. "It’s clear that Governor Evers has yet to actually take the time to time to listen to the needs of the people and communities impacted by PFAS. If he had, the Town of Peshtigo wouldn’t need to issue resolutions correcting the Governor’s false claims and urging him to sign this needed relief into law.”

Cowles said the Republican bill would only slightly modify the DNR's ability to implement the law invoked when contamination is found on a property, known as the Spills Law. The Republican bill would shield from liability landowners not directly responsible for the presence of PFAS.

"It's not a wholesale obliteration of the Spills Law," he said. "It's a very limited thing, in order to protect what we would characterize, and I think almost everybody else agrees, should be protected, these innocent people."

If a bill isn't passed, what comes next for PFAS funds?

Earlier this year, the DNR submitted a request to the legislature's powerful budget committee to release money from the trust fund to pay for testing, remediation and filtration.

But so far that request has gone unanswered. The committee met Thursday, but addressing PFAS was notably absent from its agenda.

When the trust fund was created, legislators stipulated that legislation was going to be needed to guide how and where the money was spent.

More:'It just makes you wonder': PFAS contamination discovery at Menomonie 3M site raises worries

"We're still trying to convince the governor to sign the bill," Cowles said in an interview Thursday afternoon. "I mean, that's why we're doing this bill."

The Joint Finance Committee could still either release the funding as a whole to the DNR, or the DNR — which has been without a secretary since November — could bring forward proposals on how the funding should be spent and have it approved and released in certain amounts. But it's not clear if that could or would happen if a bill isn't signed into law.

Felzkowski, who is a member of the budget committee, said she may be open to that, but still urged the governor to sign the bill.

"I'm very disappointed that the governor rejected (the bill) because I would think he would want to protect innocent landowners, Felzkowski said. "But if the DNR could bring us something that was workable, and it actually got to the root of the problem and we were helping our constituents, I'd be very open to that."

Laura Schulte can be reached at leschulte@jrn.com and on X at @SchulteLaura.