Skip to content
Bills from the 2013–14 session

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 ⁠.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Feb 3, 2014

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Senate vote, passed

    Passed Feb 18, 2014

  4. Assembly vote, passed

    Passed 76 to 19

  5. Governor, passed

    Signed

  6. Law, here now

    2013 Wisconsin Act 378

Latest entry in the official record, Apr 24, 2014: “Published 4-24-2014”

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 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

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

Authors (5)

Signed on in support (14)

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

D: Democrat, R: Republican

Yes (76)

Didn't vote (4)

Official motion: “Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 76, Noes 19”. Official record · This vote on its own page

What happened

  1. Apr 24, 2014

    The new law was published.

  2. Apr 24, 2014

    The governor signed it. It became 2013 Wisconsin Act 378.

  3. Apr 22, 2014

    Sent to the governor.

  4. Feb 20, 2014

    The Assembly passed it too, 76 to 19.

  5. Feb 18, 2014

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.

  6. Feb 18, 2014

    The Assembly received it.

  7. Feb 18, 2014

    The Senate passed it.

  8. Feb 18, 2014

    The Senate adopted it.

  9. Feb 13, 2014

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 4 to 3.

  10. 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)

  11. Feb 6, 2014

    The committee held a public hearing.

  12. Feb 4, 2014

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  13. Feb 3, 2014

    Sent to the Senate Committee on Government Operations, Public Works, and Telecommunications.

  14. Feb 3, 2014

    Introduced in the Senate.

See the official record, word for word
  1. 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

  2. Feb 3, 2014 · Senate

    Read first time and referred to Committee on Government Operations, Public Works, and Telecommunications

  3. Feb 4, 2014 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. Feb 6, 2014 · Senate

    Public hearing held

  5. Feb 12, 2014 · Senate

    Senate Amendment 1 offered by Senator Farrow

  6. Feb 13, 2014 · Senate

    Executive action taken

  7. Feb 13, 2014 · Senate

    Report adoption of Senate Amendment 1 recommended by Committee on Government Operations, Public Works, and Telecommunications, Ayes 4, Noes 3

  8. Feb 13, 2014 · Senate

    Report passage as amended recommended by Committee on Government Operations, Public Works, and Telecommunications, Ayes 4, Noes 3

  9. Feb 13, 2014 · Senate

    Available for scheduling

  10. Feb 17, 2014 · Senate

    Placed on calendar 2-18-2014 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)

  11. Feb 18, 2014 · Senate

    Read a second time

  12. Feb 18, 2014 · Senate

    Senate Amendment 1 adopted

  13. Feb 18, 2014 · Senate

    Ordered to a third reading

  14. Feb 18, 2014 · Senate

    Rules suspended

  15. Feb 18, 2014 · Senate

    Read a third time and passed

  16. Feb 18, 2014 · Senate

    Ordered immediately messaged

  17. Feb 18, 2014 · Assembly

    Received from Senate

  18. Feb 18, 2014 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on Rules

  19. Feb 18, 2014 · Assembly

    Placed on calendar 2-20-2014 by Committee on Rules

  20. Feb 20, 2014 · Assembly

    Read a second time

  21. Feb 20, 2014 · Assembly

    Ordered to a third reading

  22. Feb 20, 2014 · Assembly

    Rules suspended

  23. Feb 20, 2014 · Assembly

    Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 76, Noes 19

  24. Feb 20, 2014 · Assembly

    Ordered immediately messaged

  25. Feb 21, 2014 · Senate

    Received from Assembly concurred in

  26. Mar 6, 2014 · Senate

    Report correctly enrolled

  27. Apr 22, 2014 · Senate

    Presented to the Governor on 4-22-2014

  28. Apr 24, 2014 · Senate

    Report approved by the Governor on 4-23-2014. 2013 Wisconsin Act 378

  29. 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

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