Skip to content
Bills from the 2011–12 session

Assembly Bill 177

Procedures for applications and hearings relating to permits and contracts for structures, deposits, and other activities in or near navigable waters

Topics: Natural Resources, Department of: Administration, Waterways and water power

Passed the Assembly, then stopped

The Assembly passed it on Sep 13, 2011, but the Senate never voted on it. A bill has to ⁠. To try again, a lawmaker would have to start a new bill.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Jun 13, 2011

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Assembly vote, passed

    Passed Sep 13, 2011

  4. Senate vote, stopped here

    Stopped here. The Senate never voted on it.

  5. Governor, not reached

  6. Law, not reached

Latest entry in the official record, Mar 23, 2012: “Failed to concur in pursuant to ⁠”

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.

Under current law, an individual permit or contract from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is required to place a structure or deposit in, or withdraw water from, a navigable water or to conduct a certain activity in or near a navigable water unless the structure, deposit or activity is exempt or is authorized by a general permit.

In issuing a permit or approving a contract, DNR reviews the application, determines whether it is complete, and notifies the applicant within 30 days after receiving the application whether the application is complete (30-day review period). If the application is incomplete, the applicant may supplement the application, but DNR may not demand items of information that are not specified in the notice as a condition for determining whether the application is complete, with limited exceptions. Current law imposes no time limits on this process for determining whether an application is complete other than the 30-day review period.

Read the full summary

Once DNR determines the application is complete, current law imposes time limits on the notice and public hearing procedures that apply to the application.

Within 15 days, DNR must provide notice to the public that the application is complete (application notice). If the applicant has requested a public hearing as part of the application, a notice of public hearing shall be included in the application notice.

If the application notice does not contain a notice of public hearing, any person may request a public hearing, or DNR may decide on its own to hold a public hearing if DNR determines that there is a significant public interest in holding a hearing.

The public hearing request must be submitted by the interested person, or DNR's decision to hold a public hearing must occur, within 30 days after DNR provides the application notice. Within 15 days after the public hearing request is submitted by an interested person or DNR makes its decision, DNR must give notice of the public hearing (separate notice of hearing). DNR must hold the hearing within 30 days after the notice of public hearing is either issued as part of the application notice or as an independent separate notice of hearing.

Also, DNR must provide a period to receive public comments. This period last for 30 days after the date on which DNR provides notice to the public that the application is complete or for ten days after the date that a public hearing ends, if one is held. Within 30 days after the public hearing is held or, if no public hearing is held, within 30 days of the 30-day comment period, DNR must render a decision, issuing the individual permit or contract.

Under the bill, the time limits for giving application notice and notice of public hearing are not totally dependent on the date that the application is determined by DNR to be complete. If, upon reviewing the application, DNR determines that the application is complete and that no additional information is needed, DNR shall inform the applicant of that fact within the 30-day review period. The date on which this notice is sent triggers the time limits for the public hearing process and for receiving public comments.

If DNR determines that the application is not complete, it may make only one request for additional information during the 30-day review period. There is no time limit on the applicant for providing the additional information but once it is submitted, DNR must notify the applicant within ten days as to whether the application is complete. Even if the application is not complete, the date on which this second notice is sent triggers the time limits for the public hearing process and for receiving public comments. Under the bill, the term used for such a date that triggers the time limits is a "date of closure." DNR may ask for information to supplement the one-time request for information, but such a request may not affect the date of closure.

The bill shortens some of the time limits under the public hearing and comment process. The 30-day time period for an interested party to request a public hearing or for DNR to make a decision on its own to hold a public hearing is shortened from 30 days to 10 days and the 30-day time period for the rendering a decision is shortened from 30 days to 20 days.

Under the bill, if DNR fails to comply with 30-day and ten-day time limits relating to determining whether an application is complete, the date of closure shall be the last day of the 30-day or ten-day time period. If DNR fails to comply with the time limits relating to the public hearing and comment process, the application for the permit or contract shall be considered to have been approved.

Under rules promulgated by DNR, in an administrative hearing in which an applicant is contesting DNR's decision regarding a permit or contract, the applicant has the burden of proof. Under the bill, DNR has the burden of proof if the applicant is the person who requested the hearing. If the applicant is not the petitioner, the petitioner has the burden of proof.

Who's behind it

15 lawmakers are its ⁠. All 15 are Republicans.

2 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 17 names

Authors (15)

Signed on in support (2)

What it would cost

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

Versions and amendments

Every text the Legislature printed for this bill, including proposed changes. Each opens on the Legislature's site.

How lawmakers voted

There were 4 votes on this bill.

Assembly Committee on Housing vote on an amendment

Passed, 7 to 0 · Aug 2, 2011

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by committee on Housing, Ayes 7, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote on an amendment

Passed, 61 to 36 · Sep 13, 2011

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 laid on table, Ayes 61, Noes 36”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote on an amendment

Passed, 61 to 36 · Sep 13, 2011

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Assembly amendment 3 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 laid on table, Ayes 61, Noes 36”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote to pass it

Passed, 65 to 32 · Sep 13, 2011 · 1 didn't vote

See how each of the 98 representatives voted

D: Democrat, I: Independent, R: Republican

Yes (65)

Didn't vote (1)

Official motion: “Read a third time and passed, Ayes 65, Noes 32”. Official record · This vote on its own page

What happened

  1. Mar 23, 2012

    The session ended, and the bill died with it.

  2. Sep 14, 2011

    Sent to the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Environment.

  3. Sep 14, 2011

    The Senate received it.

  4. Sep 13, 2011

    The Assembly passed it, 65 to 32.

  5. Sep 13, 2011

    The Assembly adopted it.

  6. Sep 13, 2011

    “Placed at the foot of the calendar of 9-13-2011” (the official wording)

  7. Aug 2, 2011

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.

  8. Aug 2, 2011

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 6 to 1.

  9. Jul 6, 2011

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  10. Jun 22, 2011

    The committee held a public hearing.

  11. Jun 13, 2011

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Housing.

  12. Jun 13, 2011

    Introduced in the Assembly.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Jun 13, 2011 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Steineke, Rivard, Bies, Brooks, Craig, Endsley, Jacque, Kaufert, Krug, Litjens, Petryk, Pridemore, Tiffany, Tranel and Weininger;Cosponsored by Senators Lasee and Galloway

  2. Jun 13, 2011 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on Housing

  3. Jun 22, 2011 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  4. Jun 28, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 1 offered by Representative Steineke

  5. Jun 29, 2011 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  6. Jul 6, 2011 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  7. Aug 2, 2011 · Assembly

    Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by committee on Housing, Ayes 7, Noes 0

  8. Aug 2, 2011 · Assembly

    Report passage as amended recommended by committee on Housing, Ayes 6, Noes 1

  9. Aug 2, 2011 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  10. Sep 8, 2011 · Assembly

    Placed on calendar 9-13-2011 by committee on Rules

  11. Sep 13, 2011 · Assembly

    Placed at the foot of the calendar of 9-13-2011

  12. Sep 13, 2011 · Assembly

    Read a second time

  13. Sep 13, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly substitute amendment 1 offered by Representative Steineke

  14. Sep 13, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 offered by Representative Hulsey

  15. Sep 13, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 laid on table, Ayes 61, Noes 36

  16. Sep 13, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 2 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 offered by Representatives Steineke and Molepske Jr

  17. Sep 13, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 2 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 adopted

  18. Sep 13, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 3 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 offered by Representatives Bewley, Hebl, Bernard Schaber and Pope-Roberts

  19. Sep 13, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 3 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 laid on table, Ayes 61, Noes 36

  20. Sep 13, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly substitute amendment 1 adopted

  21. Sep 13, 2011 · Assembly

    Ordered to a third reading

  22. Sep 13, 2011 · Assembly

    Rules suspended

  23. Sep 13, 2011 · Assembly

    Read a third time and passed, Ayes 65, Noes 32

  24. Sep 13, 2011 · Assembly

    Ordered immediately messaged

  25. Sep 14, 2011 · Senate

    Received from Assembly

  26. Sep 14, 2011 · Senate

    Read first time and referred to committee on Natural Resources and Environment

  27. Sep 14, 2011 · Senate

    LRB correction (Assembly Substitute Amendment 1)

  28. Sep 28, 2011 · Senate

    LRB correction (Assembly Amendment 1)

  29. Sep 28, 2011 · Senate

    LRB correction (Assembly Substitute Amendment 1)

  30. Mar 23, 2012 · Senate

    Failed to concur in pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1

Terms on this page

Second chamber's vote

A bill has to pass both the Assembly and the Senate in the same form before it goes to the governor.

Official term: Concurrence. 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

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary

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

Second chamber's vote

A bill has to pass both the Assembly and the Senate in the same form before it goes to the governor.

Official term: Concurrence

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

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote