Senate Bill 547
Adaptive management plans for reducing discharges of phosphorus and total suspended solids to the waters of the state and a statewide variance to the water quality standard for phosphorus for certain dischargers. (FE)
Became law
The governor signed it on Apr 24, 2014. It's .
-
Introduced, passed
Feb 3, 2014
-
Committee, passed
Approved
-
Senate vote, passed
Passed Feb 18, 2014
-
Assembly vote, passed
Passed 76 to 19
-
Governor, passed
Signed
-
Law, here now
2013 Wisconsin Act 378
Latest entry in the official record, Apr 24, 2014: “Published 4-24-2014”
Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.
Terms on this page
Wisconsin Act
The number a bill gets when it becomes law, like 2025 Wisconsin Act 12.
Official term: Act. 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
What it does
Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.
This bill provides for a variance to limits on the amount of phosphorus allowed in discharges to water bodies that contain excessive amounts of phosphorus, if conditions specified in the bill are met. The bill also authorizes the use of adaptive management, explained below, to comply with water quality standards for phosphorus and total suspended solids.
Water quality standards and effluent limitations The federal Clean Water Act allows the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to delegate responsibilities under the act, including issuing wastewater discharge permits for point sources (factories and sewage treatment plants, for example), to a state if the state's laws comply with requirements in the act. EPA has delegated these responsibilities to this state.
Read the full summary Show less
Consistent with the Clean Water Act, current state law requires the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to promulgate rules setting water quality standards for the waters of the state. The standards include criteria for specific pollutants. A criterion may be narrative (describing the characteristics that the water should have) or numeric (specifying the maximum concentration of a pollutant).
Under current federal and state law, wastewater discharge permits include restrictions, called effluent limitations, on the amount of various pollutants that may be discharged. One type of effluent limitation is applicable without regard to the quality of the receiving water body and is based on the level of control achieved using treatment technology that is reasonably available (considering cost, among other things) for limiting the discharge of a pollutant. If this kind of limitation (called a technology based effluent limitation) is not sufficient to ensure that a water quality standard for a pollutant will be met in a particular water body, permits for sources that discharge into the water body must generally contain effluent limitations for the pollutant that are more stringent than the technology based effluent limitation and that are designed to ensure that the water quality standard will be met. This kind of limitation is called a water quality based effluent limitation.
Current law allows DNR to grant a permittee a variance to a water quality based effluent limitation if the permittee demonstrates that complying with the effluent limitation is not feasible for one of several reasons, including that applying the effluent limitation to the source would cause substantial and widespread adverse social and economic impacts in the area where the source is located. The term of a variance may not exceed five years. A variance may be renewed, but only for as long as it remains infeasible for the source to comply with the water quality based effluent limitation. Variances are subject to review and approval by EPA.
Phosphorus water quality rules In 2010, DNR promulgated rules adding a numerical water quality criterion to the water quality standard for phosphorus. Some water bodies in Wisconsin do not comply with the water quality standard for phosphorus. DNR's rules include some options for sources that might have difficulty complying with a water quality based effluent limitation for phosphorus, including extended schedules for achieving compliance.
The options in the phosphorus rule also include a variance to water quality based effluent limitations for stabilization pond and lagoon wastewater treatment systems, which DNR indicates primarily serve small communities and small industries. A permittee with one of these systems must provide information showing that compliance would cause substantial and widespread adverse social and economic impacts in the area where the system is located. If the variance is granted, the permit must include an effluent limitation based on the best past performance of the source with regard to phosphorus discharges and a requirement that the permittee investigate techniques that would enable compliance with a water quality based effluent limitation.
Statewide variance for phosphorus discharges This bill requires the Department of Administration (DOA), in consultation with DNR, to consider the costs of compliance with water quality based effluent limitations for phosphorus by sources that cannot achieve compliance without making major facility upgrades. A major facility upgrade is the addition of new treatment equipment and a new treatment process. If DOA determines, after public notice and consideration of public comments, that compliance by these sources is not feasible because it would cause substantial and widespread adverse social and economic impacts on a statewide basis, the bill provides for a variance to a water quality based effluent limitation for phosphorus for a source that was covered by a permit before the phosphorus water quality standard took effect if the permittee certifies that the source cannot comply with the effluent limitation without a major facility upgrade.
Under the bill, if a permittee receives the variance, DNR must include in the the permit interim effluent limitations for phosphorus that are generally lower in each successive permit term and must require the source to achieve compliance with the water quality based effluent limitation by the end of the fourth permit term for which DNR approves the variance (generally within 20 years). DNR must also require the implementation of the permittee's choice of three kinds of measures to reduce the amount of phosphorus entering the waters of the state.
The measures from which a permittee that receives the variance may choose are constructing a project or implementing a plan, approved by DNR, to reduce phosphorus pollution from other sources in the basin in which the source is located in an amount equal to the number of pounds by which the amount of phosphorus discharged by the point source exceeds a target amount specified in the bill; having another person construct such a project or implement such a plan, also approved by DNR; or making payments to counties in the basin to provide cost sharing for projects that enable agricultural sources of nonpoint phosphorus pollution (runoff) to comply with state standards for reducing runoff or for staff to implement projects that reduce runoff. The payments are initially $50 times the number of pounds by which the amount of phosphorus discharged by the point source exceeds a target amount specified in the bill. DNR adjusts the amount per pound based on increases in the consumer price index. A county is not required to accept these payments.
If DOA initially determines that compliance with water quality based effluent limitations for phosphorus by sources that cannot achieve compliance without making major facility upgrades is infeasible, the bill requires DOA, in consultation with DNR, to review the determination every five years. If DOA finds that the determination is no longer accurate, the variance terminates. As part of this review, the bill also requires DOA to determine whether cost-effective technology is available that would allow sources to comply with more stringent interim limitations than those specified in the bill. If so, DNR must include those more stringent interim limitations in permits when they are renewed.
Adaptive management Adaptive management is a method for achieving compliance with a water quality standard in a water body that contains excessive amounts of a pollutant.
Under adaptive management, a permittee who is subject to a water quality based effluent limitation implements a plan under which the permittee works with others to reduce the amount of pollution from various point sources and nonpoint sources and uses information from monitoring, modeling, and other sources to adjust the plan as needed. The permittee is subject to less restrictive effluent limitations while the adaptive management plan is being implemented and less restrictive pollutant limits may continue to apply if the water quality standard is achieved.
The bill authorizes DNR to allow a permittee to use adaptive management to achieve compliance with the water quality standard for phosphorus or total suspended solids (particles in the water) and, if it does so, to allow the permittee four permit terms to achieve compliance.
Who's behind it
5 senators are its . All 5 are Republicans.
14 more lawmakers .
See all 19 names Hide the names
Authors (5)
- Rob Cowles · Republican, Senate
- Alberta Darling · Republican, Senate
- Paul F. Farrow · Republican, Senate
- Glenn Grothman · Republican, Senate
- Jerry Petrowski · Republican, Senate
Signed on in support (14)
- Joan Ballweg · Republican, Senate
- Garey Bies · Republican, Assembly
- Mary Czaja · Republican, Assembly
- Dean Kaufert · Republican, Assembly
- John Klenke · Republican, Assembly
- Scott Krug · Republican, Assembly
- Daniel LeMahieu · Republican, Assembly
- Amy Loudenbeck · Republican, Assembly
- Howard Marklein · Republican, Senate
- John Spiros · Republican, Assembly
- Jim Steineke · Republican, Assembly
- Gary Tauchen · Republican, Assembly
- Jeremy Thiesfeldt · Republican, Assembly
- Chad Weininger · Republican, Assembly
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 3 votes on this bill.
Senate Committee on Government Operations vote on an amendment
Passed, 4 to 3 · Feb 13, 2014
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “Report adoption of Senate Amendment 1 recommended by Committee on Government Operations, Public Works, and Telecommunications, Ayes 4, Noes 3”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Senate Committee on Government Operations vote to recommend it
Passed, 4 to 3 · Feb 13, 2014
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “Report passage as amended recommended by Committee on Government Operations, Public Works, and Telecommunications, Ayes 4, Noes 3”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Assembly vote to pass it
Passed, 76 to 19 · Feb 20, 2014 · 4 didn't vote
See how each of the 99 representatives voted Hide the names
D: Democrat, R: Republican
Yes (76)
- Adam Neylon (R, 15)
- Alvin Ott (R, 3)
- Amy Loudenbeck (R, 31)
- Amy Sue Vruwink (D, 70)
- André Jacque (R, 1)
- Andy Jorgensen (D, 43)
- Bill Kramer (R, 97)
- Chad Weininger (R, 4)
- Chris Danou (D, 92)
- Chris Kapenga (R, 33)
- Christine Sinicki (D, 20)
- Cory Mason (D, 66)
- Dale Kooyenga (R, 5)
- Dan Knodl (R, 24)
- Dana Wachs (D, 91)
- Daniel LeMahieu (R, 59)
- Daniel Riemer (D, 7)
- Dave Murphy (R, 56)
- David Craig (R, 28)
- Dean Kaufert (R, 53)
- Don Pridemore (R, 22)
- Duey Stroebel (R, 20)
- Edward Brooks (R, 50)
- Eric Genrich (D, 90)
- Fred Clark (D, 81)
- Garey Bies (R, 1)
- Gary Tauchen (R, 6)
- Gordon Hintz (D, 54)
- Howard Marklein (R, 17)
- Janet Bewley (D, 25)
- Jeff Mursau (R, 36)
- Jeremy Thiesfeldt (R, 52)
- Jessie Rodriguez (R, 21)
- Jim Ott (R, 23)
- Jim Steineke (R, 5)
- Joan Ballweg (R, 14)
- Joe Sanfelippo (R, 15)
- Joel Kleefisch (R, 38)
- John Jagler (R, 13)
- John Klenke (R, 88)
- John Murtha (R, 29)
- John Nygren (R, 89)
- John Spiros (R, 86)
- Jon Richards (D, 19)
- Kathleen Bernier (R, 23)
- Keith Ripp (R, 42)
- Ken Skowronski (R, 82)
- Kevin Petersen (R, 57)
- Lee Nerison (R, 96)
- Mandy Wright (D, 85)
- Mark Born (R, 37)
- Mary Czaja (R, 35)
- Mary Williams (R, 87)
- Michael Schraa (R, 53)
- Mike Endsley (R, 26)
- Mike Kuglitsch (R, 84)
- Nick Milroy (D, 73)
- Pat Strachota (R, 58)
- Paul Tittl (R, 25)
- Peter Barca (D, 64)
- Rob Hutton (R, 5)
- Rob Swearingen (R, 34)
- Robb Kahl (D, 47)
- Robin Vos (R, 33)
- Samantha Kerkman (R, 61)
- Scott Krug (R, 72)
- Stephen Smith (D, 75)
- Steve Doyle (D, 94)
- Steve Kestell (R, 27)
- Steve Nass (R, 11)
- Thomas Larson (R, 67)
- Thomas Weatherston (R, 62)
- Tod Ohnstad (D, 65)
- Travis Tranel (R, 49)
- Tyler August (R, 31)
- Warren Petryk (R, 93)
No (19)
- Brett Hulsey (D, 78)
- Chris Taylor (D, 76)
- Dianne Hesselbein (D, 27)
- Evan Goyke (D, 18)
- Frederick Kessler (D, 12)
- Gary Hebl (D, 46)
- Janis Ringhand (D, 15)
- Jill Billings (D, 95)
- JoCasta Zamarripa (D, 8)
- Josh Zepnick (D, 9)
- Katrina Shankland (D, 71)
- LaTonya Johnson (D, 6)
- Leon Young (D, 16)
- Mandela Barnes (D, 11)
- Melissa Sargent (D, 48)
- Penny Bernard Schaber (D, 57)
- Sandy Pasch (D, 10)
- Sondy Pope (D, 80)
- Terese Berceau (D, 77)
Didn't vote (4)
- Bob Kulp (R, 69)
- Dean Knudson (R, 30)
- Debra Kolste (D, 44)
- Erik Severson (R, 28)
Official motion: “Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 76, Noes 19”. Official record · This vote on its own page
What happened
-
Apr 24, 2014
The new law was published.
-
Apr 24, 2014
The governor signed it. It became 2013 Wisconsin Act 378.
-
Apr 22, 2014
Sent to the governor.
-
Feb 20, 2014
The Assembly passed it too, 76 to 19.
-
Feb 18, 2014
Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.
-
Feb 18, 2014
The Assembly received it.
-
Feb 18, 2014
The Senate passed it.
-
Feb 18, 2014
The Senate adopted it.
-
Feb 13, 2014
The committee voted to recommend passing it, 4 to 3.
-
Feb 13, 2014
“Report adoption of Senate Amendment 1 recommended by Committee on Government Operations, Public Works, and Telecommunications, Ayes 4, Noes 3” (the official wording)
-
Feb 6, 2014
The committee held a public hearing.
-
Feb 4, 2014
A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.
-
Feb 3, 2014
Sent to the Senate Committee on Government Operations, Public Works, and Telecommunications.
-
Feb 3, 2014
Introduced in the Senate.
See the official record, word for word Hide the official record
- Feb 3, 2014 · Senate
Introduced by Senators Cowles, Farrow, Petrowski, Grothman and Darling; cosponsored by Representatives Loudenbeck, Krug, Steineke, Spiros, Bies, Marklein, Czaja, Ballweg, Tauchen, Thiesfeldt, LeMahieu, Weininger, Kaufert and Klenke
- Feb 3, 2014 · Senate
Read first time and referred to Committee on Government Operations, Public Works, and Telecommunications
- Feb 4, 2014 · Senate
Fiscal estimate received
- Feb 6, 2014 · Senate
Public hearing held
- Feb 12, 2014 · Senate
Senate Amendment 1 offered by Senator Farrow
- Feb 13, 2014 · Senate
Executive action taken
- Feb 13, 2014 · Senate
Report adoption of Senate Amendment 1 recommended by Committee on Government Operations, Public Works, and Telecommunications, Ayes 4, Noes 3
- Feb 13, 2014 · Senate
Report passage as amended recommended by Committee on Government Operations, Public Works, and Telecommunications, Ayes 4, Noes 3
- Feb 13, 2014 · Senate
Available for scheduling
- Feb 17, 2014 · Senate
Placed on calendar 2-18-2014 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)
- Feb 18, 2014 · Senate
Read a second time
- Feb 18, 2014 · Senate
Senate Amendment 1 adopted
- Feb 18, 2014 · Senate
Ordered to a third reading
- Feb 18, 2014 · Senate
Rules suspended
- Feb 18, 2014 · Senate
Read a third time and passed
- Feb 18, 2014 · Senate
Ordered immediately messaged
- Feb 18, 2014 · Assembly
Received from Senate
- Feb 18, 2014 · Assembly
Read first time and referred to committee on Rules
- Feb 18, 2014 · Assembly
Placed on calendar 2-20-2014 by Committee on Rules
- Feb 20, 2014 · Assembly
Read a second time
- Feb 20, 2014 · Assembly
Ordered to a third reading
- Feb 20, 2014 · Assembly
Rules suspended
- Feb 20, 2014 · Assembly
Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 76, Noes 19
- Feb 20, 2014 · Assembly
Ordered immediately messaged
- Feb 21, 2014 · Senate
Received from Assembly concurred in
- Mar 6, 2014 · Senate
Report correctly enrolled
- Apr 22, 2014 · Senate
Presented to the Governor on 4-22-2014
- Apr 24, 2014 · Senate
Report approved by the Governor on 4-23-2014. 2013 Wisconsin Act 378
- Apr 24, 2014 · Senate
Published 4-24-2014
Terms on this page
Wisconsin Act
The number a bill gets when it becomes law, like 2025 Wisconsin Act 12.
Official term: Act. 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
Wisconsin Act
The number a bill gets when it becomes law, like 2025 Wisconsin Act 12.
Official term: Act
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
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