Skip to content
Bills from the 2009–10 session

Assembly Bill 844

Groundwater management, water conservation, and granting rule-making authority

Topics: Commerce, Department of, Lakes, Natural Resources, Department of: Environmental protection, Public Service Commission, Regional planning, Water supply, Water: Pollution, Waterworks, Wells

Stopped in committee

It had a but no committee vote, so it never came up for a vote. To try again, a lawmaker would have to start a new bill.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Mar 12, 2010

  2. Committee, stopped here

    Stopped here. It had a hearing but no committee vote.

  3. Assembly vote, not reached

  4. Senate vote, not reached

  5. Governor, not reached

  6. Law, not reached

Latest entry in the official record, Apr 28, 2010: “Failed to pass pursuant to ⁠”

It sat with the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources.

Read the bill

Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.

What it would have done

Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.

Groundwater management areas Designation This bill establishes standards and a process for designating areas in this state as groundwater management areas. The standards vary depending on whether an area has a confined aquifer or an unconfined aquifer. An aquifer is a water bearing geologic formation. A confined aquifer has above it a layer (of rock, for example) through which water does not pass easily. An unconfined aquifer does not have such a layer above it.

The standards for designating an area with a confined aquifer as a groundwater management area are related to effects that the pumping of groundwater has caused in reducing the level to which water would rise in an open well or in reducing the water level in wells while pumps are operating. The standards for designating an area with an unconfined aquifer as a groundwater management area are related to reductions in stream flows caused by pumping and to declines in water tables.

Read the full summary

Current law provides for a Groundwater Coordinating Council (GCC), consisting of the secretaries of agriculture, trade and consumer protection, natural resources, commerce, and transportation, and the president of the University of Wisconsin System, or their designees; the state geologist; and a person to represent the governor. This bill requires the GCC to appoint a subcommittee on groundwater area review (council subcommittee), consisting of individuals with technical expertise in the area of groundwater science and management.

The bill requires the council subcommittee to examine areas that may qualify for designation as groundwater management areas and to forward its conclusions to the GCC. If the council subcommittee forwards a conclusion that an area qualifies as a groundwater management area and the GCC agrees with that conclusion, the bill requires the GCC to recommend that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) designate the area as a groundwater management area. If DNR receives such a recommendation from the GCC, DNR may, by rule, designate the area as a groundwater management area.

The bill requires the council subcommittee to first consider two areas, one in and adjacent to Brown County and one in and adjacent to Waukesha County, for designation as groundwater management areas.

After DNR promulgates a rule designating an area as a groundwater management area, it must establish a date by which it is reasonable to expect that the groundwater conditions in the area will improve sufficiently that the area will cease to qualify as a groundwater management area (a target date).

Planning The bill requires a local groundwater management council to be appointed after an area is designated as a groundwater management area. If the groundwater management area is entirely in one county, the county executive, or, if the county does not have a county executive, the chairperson of the county board, appoints the groundwater management council. If the groundwater management area includes all of part of more than one county, the bill requires the appointment of a groundwater management council according to an agreement negotiated by the counties. If a groundwater management council is not appointed within six months of the designation of a groundwater management area, the bill requires DNR to appoint a groundwater management council for the groundwater management area.

The bill requires a groundwater management council to develop a groundwater management plan for the groundwater management area. The plan must be protective of surface water and groundwater and be designed to ensure that by the target date the area no longer qualifies as a groundwater management area. The plan must contain measurable goals, requirements for reporting to DNR, water conservation measures, and other provisions specified by DNR by rule.

Once a groundwater management council completes a groundwater management plan for a single-county groundwater management area, it submits the plan to the county board for approval. For a multicounty groundwater management area, the council submits the plan to all of the county boards for approval. After a plan is approved by the county board or, for a multicounty groundwater management area, all of the county boards, the groundwater management council submits the plan to DNR for approval.

The bill requires DNR to review and approve or disapprove a groundwater management plan for a groundwater management area. DNR may approve a plan only if it complies with the requirements described above. If, 36 months after the groundwater management area was designated, a groundwater management plan has not been approved by DNR, the bill requires DNR to develop a groundwater management plan for the groundwater management area.

Effect of groundwater management plan Under current law, a person may not construct a high capacity well without an approval from DNR. A high capacity well is a well that, together with all other wells on the same property, has the capacity to withdraw more than 100,000 gallons of water per day.

Under this bill, after DNR approves or develops a groundwater management plan for a groundwater management area, DNR may not approve a high capacity well in the groundwater management area unless the high capacity well is consistent with the groundwater management plan. Also see the description below concerning the review of existing high capacity well approvals.

Under current law, which implements the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact, beginning on December 8, 2011, a person may not withdraw groundwater or surface water in the Great Lakes basin in an amount that averages 100,000 gallons per day or more in any 30-day period unless the withdrawal is covered under a water use permit issued by DNR. The law requires DNR to include requirements for water conservation in water use permits. This bill requires DNR to make the conservation measures for withdrawals in a groundwater management area consistent with the area's groundwater management plan.

This bill also requires DNR to include water conservation requirements in the approvals, required under current law, for certain surface water withdrawals in a groundwater management area that is outside of the Great Lakes basin. The bill requires DNR to make the conservation requirements for these withdrawals consistent with the groundwater management plan for the groundwater management area.

Current law requires DNR to administer a water supply planning process for public water supply systems in this state. A water supply plan specifies the area for which the public water supply system will provide water and how the system will provide the water. The law requires a public water supply system that serves a population of 10,000 or more to be covered by a water supply plan approved by DNR no later than December 31, 2025, but systems may obtain approval of plans before that date.

This bill requires the operator of a public water supply system that serves a population of 10,000 or more and that is located in a groundwater management area to be covered by a water supply plan approved by DNR no later than four years after DNR designates the groundwater management area and requires the water supply plan to be consistent with the groundwater management plan for the area.

Rescinding designation After the target date established by DNR for a groundwater management area, the bill requires the council subcommittee to consider whether the area still qualifies as a groundwater management area. If the council subcommittee concludes that the area no longer qualifies as a groundwater management area, it must forward that conclusion to the GCC. If the GCC agrees that the area no longer qualifies as a groundwater management area, the GCC must recommend that DNR rescind the designation. If the GCC makes that recommendation, DNR may rescind the designation by repealing the rule designating the area as a groundwater management area.

Groundwater attention areas Designation This bill establishes a standard and a process for designating areas in this state as groundwater attention areas. An area qualifies for designation as a groundwater attention area if, based on water use trends, the area is likely to qualify for designation as a groundwater management area within 20 years.

The process for designation of a groundwater attention area is similar to the process for designating a groundwater management area. First the council subcommittee determines whether an area qualifies for designation and forwards that determination to the GCC. The GCC reviews the council subcommittee's determination that an area qualifies for designation as a groundwater attention area. If the GCC agrees with the determination, the GCC must recommend to DNR that the area be designated as a groundwater attention area. If DNR receives such a recommendation from the GCC, DNR may designate the area as a groundwater attention area. Unlike for a groundwater management area, the bill does not require that the designation of a groundwater attention area be made by rule. The bill requires DNR to publish a notice of the designation of a groundwater attention area in a newspaper likely to give notice in the area.

Planning The bill does not require groundwater planning for a groundwater attention area. The bill gives the county or counties in which the area is located the option to appoint a groundwater management council (in the same manner as in a groundwater management area). If a groundwater management council is appointed, it may develop a groundwater management plan. If a groundwater management council for a groundwater attention area develops a plan, it must submit the plan to the county board or county boards for the county or counties in which the area is located. The plan must be protective of surface water and groundwater and be designed to ensure that by the target date the area no longer qualifies as a groundwater attention area.

A groundwater management council that develops a groundwater management plan for a groundwater attention area may recommend to the county board or county boards that DNR be requested to approve the plan and to apply the plan to approvals of high capacity wells. If the county board agrees, or all of the county boards for a multicounty groundwater attention area agree, the plan is submitted to DNR and DNR must review and approve or disapprove the groundwater management plan. DNR may approve a plan only if it complies with the requirements described above.

Effect of groundwater management plan Under this bill, after DNR approves a groundwater management plan for a groundwater attention area (upon the request of the county or counties in which the area is located), DNR may not approve a high capacity well in the groundwater attention area unless the well is consistent with the groundwater management plan.

Also see the description below concerning the review of existing high capacity well approvals.

Rescinding designation After the target date established by DNR for a groundwater attention area, the bill requires the council subcommittee to consider whether the area qualifies for designation as a groundwater management area and, if not, whether the area still qualifies as a groundwater attention area. If the council subcommittee concludes that the area qualifies as a groundwater management area, it must forward that conclusion to the GCC and the process for designating an area as a groundwater management area proceeds as described above. If the council subcommittee concludes that the area no longer qualifies as a groundwater attention area, it must forward that conclusion to the GCC. If the GCC agrees that the area no longer qualifies as a groundwater attention area, the GCC must recommend that DNR rescind the designation. If the GCC makes that recommendation, DNR may rescind the designation of the groundwater attention area.

High capacity wells Environmental review of proposed high capacity wells As explained above, under current law, a person may not construct a high capacity well without an approval from DNR. Current law requires DNR to conduct an environmental review of applications for approval of all the following:

1. A high capacity well that is located in a groundwater protection area, that is, an area within 1,200 feet of a trout stream or waters designated by DNR as outstanding or exceptional resource waters.

2. A high capacity well with a high water loss, which means that less than 5 percent of the water withdrawn is returned after use to the basin from which it is withdrawn.

3. A high capacity well that may have a significant adverse impact on a qualifying spring.

Under current law, if DNR determines that an environmental impact report must be conducted for a proposed well that meets one of these criteria, DNR must generally include conditions in the approval of the well to ensure that the well does not cause significant adverse environmental impact or, if it is not possible to ensure that, must deny the application. If a proposed well will be used to provide a public water supply and DNR determines that there is no reasonable alternative location for the well, DNR must include in the approval conditions to ensure that the environmental impact of the well is balanced by the public benefit of the well.

This bill changes the criteria for determining which springs are qualifying springs under the high capacity well law. Under current law, to be a qualifying spring, a spring must result in a flow of at least one cubic foot per second at least 80 percent of the time. The bill requires DNR to conduct an inventory of large springs in this state and to report the results of the study to the legislature. Once DNR reports to the legislature, a spring that results in a flow of at least 0.25 cubic foot per second and that is perennial, as defined by DNR by rule, is a qualifying spring.

This bill expands the environmental review provisions of current law so that they apply to a proposed high capacity well in a groundwater management area before DNR approves or develops a groundwater management plan for the area.

(After DNR approves the groundwater management plan, as explained above, DNR may not approve a high capacity well in the groundwater management area unless the high capacity well is consistent with the groundwater management plan.) The bill also provides that the environmental review provisions apply to any proposed high capacity well for a water bottling facility.

Under this bill, any person may file a petition with DNR requesting environmental review of a proposed high capacity well that does not meet any of the criteria for which environmental review is specifically required, on the grounds that the well is reasonably probable to result in significant adverse environmental impact to surface waters. A person filing a petition must provide information showing that the well is reasonably probable to result in significant adverse environmental impact to surface waters. If DNR determines that the information is adequate, the current environmental review provisions apply to the well.

Down Down /2009/related/proposals/ab844 true proposaltext /2009/related/proposals/ab844 proposaltext/2009/REG/AB844 proposaltext/2009/REG/AB844 section true Menu » 2009 » Related Documents » Proposal Text » AB844: Bill Text × Details for PDF view Link (Permanent link) Bookmark this location View toggle Go to top of document Search in this chapter Search in this section Search in this agency Search in this chapter group Search in this chapter Search in this section Cross references for section Acts affecting this section References to this 1970 Statutes Annotations Appellate Court Citations Administrative Code Index Reference lines Clear highlighting $(document).ready(function () {

$('[data-toggle=tooltip]').tooltip({ container: 'body' });

});

Who's behind it

18 lawmakers are its ⁠. All 18 are Democrats.

6 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 24 names

Authors (18)

Signed on in support (6)

What it would cost

State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.

What happened

  1. Apr 28, 2010

    The session ended, and the bill died with it.

  2. Apr 8, 2010

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  3. Mar 31, 2010

    The committee held a public hearing.

  4. Mar 31, 2010

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  5. Mar 29, 2010

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  6. Mar 17, 2010

    1 more senator signed on in support.

  7. Mar 12, 2010

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources.

  8. Mar 12, 2010

    Introduced in the Assembly.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Mar 12, 2010 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Black, Mason, Clark, Hebl, Milroy, Pasch, A. Williams, Soletski, Pocan, Parisi, Pope-Roberts, Zepnick, Berceau, Dexter, Roys, Smith, Hixson and Fields;Cosponsored by Senators Miller, Jauch, Robson, Lehman and Risser

  2. Mar 12, 2010 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on Natural Resources

  3. Mar 16, 2010 · Assembly

    LRB correction

  4. Mar 17, 2010 · Assembly

    Senator Taylor added as a cosponsor

  5. Mar 29, 2010 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  6. Mar 31, 2010 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  7. Mar 31, 2010 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  8. Apr 8, 2010 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  9. Apr 28, 2010 · Assembly

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1

Terms on this page

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

More in the glossary

Public hearing

A meeting where anyone can speak to a committee about a bill, or send written comments.

More in the glossary

Senate Joint Resolution 1

The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.

Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1. More in the glossary

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate. More in the glossary

From the Wisconsin Legislature's official record, checked Sep 15, 2026. See the source

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

Public hearing

A meeting where anyone can speak to a committee about a bill, or send written comments.

Senate Joint Resolution 1

The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.

Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate