Assembly Bill 477
Approvals for high capacity wells, designation of sensitive resource areas, providing exemptions from emergency rule procedures, and granting rule-making authority. (FE)
Stopped in committee
It never got a , so it never came up for a vote. To try again, a lawmaker would have to start a new bill.
-
Introduced, passed
Nov 4, 2015
-
Committee, stopped here
Stopped here. No public hearing was held.
-
Assembly vote, not reached
-
Senate vote, not reached
-
Governor, not reached
-
Law, not reached
Latest entry in the official record, Apr 13, 2016: “Failed to pass pursuant to ”
It never got a hearing in the Assembly Committee on Environment and Forestry. See every bill that never got a hearing this session.
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
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. 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
What it would have done
Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.
Overview This bill makes various changes to the laws regulating high capacity wells, which are wells that, together with all other wells on the same property, have the capacity to withdraw more than 100,000 gallons of water per day. Current law requires a person to obtain approval from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) before constructing or operating a high capacity well. This bill specifies the conditions that DNR may impose or modify in an approval for an existing high capacity well and those that it may impose in an approval for a new high capacity well. The conditions vary depending on certain circumstances such as whether the well will be, or is, located in a sensitive resource area (SRA) designated by the legislature by statute.
The bill establishes a procedure, more fully described below, under which an area may be designated as an SRA by statute. Generally, under the bill, DNR is required to evaluate and model the hydrology of (study) certain lakes, and the areas surrounding those lakes, that are located in Waushara County (specified Waushara County lake areas). Those lakes are Pleasant Lake, Plainfield Lake, Long Lake, and Huron Lake. In addition, if DNR receives certain information showing that cumulative groundwater withdrawals in an area of the state are collectively causing or may be likely to collectively cause certain adverse impacts to streams and lakes, DNR must request approval from the Joint Committee on Finance (JCF) to study that area. If DNR conducts the study, DNR must issue a decision upon conclusion of the study on whether to recommend that the area be designated as an SRA. DNR must hold a public hearing on its decision. Upon conclusion of the hearing and all administrative and judicial reviews, DNR must submit a report to the legislature on whether it recommends that the area be designated as an SRA. If it recommends such a designation, it must prepare and submit an additional report specifying any measures that it recommends be conducted to prevent or remedy certain adverse impacts to streams and lakes in the area.
Read the full summary Show less
Under the bill, an area may be designated as an SRA only by statute.
Environmental review Current law requires DNR to conduct a specific type of environmental review (special environmental review) of applications for approval of a high capacity well that is located in an area within 1,200 feet of a trout stream or an exceptional or outstanding resource water; a high capacity well with a high water loss, in which less than 5 percent of the water withdrawn is returned after use to the basin from which it is withdrawn; and a high capacity well that may have a significant environmental impact on a qualifying spring.
This bill provides that DNR is required to conduct this special environmental review under these circumstances only if the high capacity well is located in an area designated by statute as an SRA. If it is not located in an SRA, DNR may, but is not required to, conduct this special environmental review.
The bill also changes the distance threshold that applies to a special environmental review for a high capacity well located near a trout stream or an exceptional or outstanding resource water. Under the bill, that review is required if the well is located within 1600 feet of such a stream or water.
Deadlines This bill provides that DNR must approve an application for a high capacity well approval within 65 business days from the date on which the application is filed, if no special environmental review is conducted, and within 130 business days from the date of application if a special environmental review is conducted. These deadlines do not apply to an application for a high capacity well approval located in an SRA.
Rescinding and modifying existing approvals This bill changes the statutory language under which DNR may rescind or modify a high capacity well approval. Under current law, DNR may rescind a high capacity well approval if the well does not conform with standards or conditions applicable to the approval for the well. This bill provides that DNR may not rescind the approval unless the well or the use of the well does not conform with conditions contained in the approval.
Current law also provides that DNR may modify a high capacity well approval if the well does not conform with standards or conditions applicable to the approval.
This bill changes current law with respect to the modification of a high capacity well approval by providing that DNR may not impose new or modified conditions on an existing well unless a hearing examiner determines that these conditions are necessary in order to abate an infringement of public rights in navigable waters. The bill provides that if the high capacity well is located in an SRA, DNR may also impose new or modified conditions if DNR is authorized by statute to impose those conditions. The bill also provides that DNR may impose or modify a condition in an existing high capacity well approval if the well owner agrees to the imposition of the new or modified condition.
Conditions in new approvals Under current law, if an application is one for which DNR conducts a special environmental review, or if the application is for approval of a high capacity well that DNR determines may impair a public water supply, DNR may not approve the application unless it includes certain conditions in the approval. The conditions must ensure that, depending on the location of the well, the public water supply is protected, the well does not cause significant environmental impact, or the environmental impact is balanced by the public benefit of the well.
Generally, this bill provides that DNR may impose conditions in a high capacity well approval only to ensure that the well will not cause a significant adverse environmental impact to a navigable water and to require the owner of the high capacity well to remedy unreasonable harm to another person's well that is not a high capacity well and that was in existence on the date of the application for approval of the new high capacity well. The bill also provides that in reviewing an application for a high capacity well approval, DNR may not impose conditions on any other existing well, regardless of the location of the existing well.
This bill limits the conditions that DNR may impose in any approval issued for a new high capacity well, other than one located in an SRA. Among the conditions that DNR may impose are restrictions on the location, depth, and pumping capacity of the well and conditions consistent with DNR standards for the construction of high capacity wells. The bill provides that DNR may also require monitoring as a condition in an approval for a new high capacity well if monitoring is necessary in order for DNR to ensure that the groundwater withdrawal will not exceed the allowable amount or rate under the laws regulating high capacity well approvals.
If DNR requires monitoring, the monitoring condition may only be imposed to allow DNR to assess the water levels of the navigable waters in the area or groundwater quality. If the approval is for a high capacity well located in an SRA, DNR may also impose other conditions in the approval if DNR is authorized to impose those other conditions by statute.
The bill also provides that if the approval application is one for which DNR conducts a special environmental review, or is for a well that DNR determines may impair a public water supply, DNR must also impose conditions for the purposes required in those cases under current law.
Minimum water levels; sensitive resource areas This bill requires DNR to promulgate rules establishing a method for determining the minimum rate of flow of a stream and the minimum water level of a lake (minimum level) necessary to prevent endangerment of certain fish and aquatic life, impairment of navigation typically conducted on a stream or lake, deterioration of water quality, infringement upon a riparian owner's reasonable expectation of access to a lake, and impairment of any existing surface water diversions from a stream or lake.
This bill also establishes a procedure under which DNR may determine whether a geographic area of the state should be designated as an SRA. The bill provides that if DNR has information or data from a professional geologist, hydrologist, or hydrogeologist showing that cumulative groundwater withdrawals from high capacity wells in an area of this state are collectively causing, or may be likely to collectively cause a reduction of a stream's or lake's rate of flow or water level below its minimum level, DNR must request approval from JCF to study the area.
The bill also requires DNR to study specified Waushara County lake areas without requesting approval from JCF.
The bill provides that if JCF approves DNR's request, or allows DNR to proceed without a JCF meeting to approve the request, DNR must conduct a study of the area for which the request is made. If upon conclusion of the study of that area, or of a specified Waushara County lake area, DNR determines that special measures relating to groundwater withdrawal are necessary in that area to prevent or remedy a reduction of a stream's or lake's rate of flow or water level below its minimum level, DNR must issue a decision on whether it recommends designation of the area as an SRA. If DNR issues a decision recommending designation of the area as an SRA, DNR's decision must contain certain information including a description of the geographical boundaries of the area and a description of the extent to which DNR has determined that cumulative groundwater withdrawals in the area cause, or are expected to cause, a reduction of a stream's or lake's rate of flow or water level below its minimum level. The decision must also include any proposed measures that DNR recommends be taken in the area to prevent or remedy a reduction of a stream's or lake's rate of flow or water level below its minimum level. These measures may include proposed regulations such as the use of conservation measures, the imposition of limits on groundwater withdrawals, the use of a groundwater withdrawal credit system, or other means of regulation.
The bill provides that after DNR issues its decision, it must hold a public hearing to solicit comments on its decision. The bill provides that any person may request that the hearing be treated as a contested case hearing and any person may be made a party to the hearing if the person makes a timely request to be made a party. After the exhaustion of the period of time established by law for all administrative reviews and judicial reviews of a final decision in a contested case, DNR must prepare, and submit to the legislature, a report on whether the area should be designated as a sensitive resource area. If DNR recommends that the area be designated as an SRA, DNR must prepare an additional report specifying any measures that it recommends be conducted in the area to prevent or remedy a reduction of a stream's or lake's rate of flow or water level below its minimum level.
Modification of previously issued approvals This bill also allows certain owners of existing high capacity wells to obtain modification of a previously issued approval. Under the bill, if DNR issued an approval for a high capacity well on or after July 6, 2011, and before the effective date of the bill, DNR must, upon the well owner's request, review the conditions in that approval. If the conditions are not consistent with DNR's authority under this bill, DNR must remove or revise those conditions consistent with that authority.
Activities exempt from approval This bill also provides that no additional approval is needed for the owner of an approved high capacity well to repair or maintain the well; to reconstruct the existing high capacity well if the reconstructed well meets certain conditions; or to transfer the approval at the same time as the owner transfers the land on which the approved high capacity well is located. The bill also provides that under certain circumstances an additional approval is not required to replace an existing high capacity well. The new high capacity well must be constructed in accordance with DNR standards that apply to the construction of new high capacity wells on the date that construction of the replacement begins and must satisfy certain other requirements. Either the well replacement must be undertaken to remedy or prevent contamination or the replacement well must be drilled to substantially the same depth as the existing well and be located within a certain radius of the existing well. No additional fee is required for any of these actions, but the owner of the existing approved high capacity well must notify DNR of any replacement, reconstruction, or transfer. The owner may not take any of these actions if they would be inconsistent with the conditions of the existing high capacity well approval. The conditions of the approval issued for the existing high capacity well continue to apply after any of these actions are taken.
Who's behind it
2 representatives are its . All 2 are Republicans.
3 more lawmakers .
See all 5 names Hide the names
Authors (2)
- Joel Kitchens · Republican, Assembly
- Scott Krug · Republican, Assembly
Signed on in support (3)
- Rob Cowles · Republican, Senate
- Luther S. Olsen · Republican, Senate
- Jerry Petrowski · Republican, Senate
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.
What happened
-
Apr 13, 2016
The session ended, and the bill died with it.
-
Nov 12, 2015
A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.
-
Nov 4, 2015
Sent to the Assembly Committee on Environment and Forestry.
-
Nov 4, 2015
Introduced in the Assembly.
See the official record, word for word Hide the official record
- Nov 4, 2015 · Assembly
Introduced by Representatives Krug and Kitchens; cosponsored by Senators Cowles, Olsen and Petrowski
- Nov 4, 2015 · Assembly
Read first time and referred to Committee on Environment and Forestry
- Nov 12, 2015 · Assembly
Fiscal estimate received
- Feb 5, 2016 · Assembly
Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 offered by Representative Krug
- Apr 13, 2016 · 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.
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. 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
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