Senate Bill 732
Groundwater management, approval of high capacity wells, 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
Jan 29, 2020
-
Committee, stopped here
Stopped here. No public hearing was held.
-
Senate vote, not reached
-
Assembly vote, not reached
-
Governor, not reached
-
Law, not reached
Latest entry in the official record, Apr 1, 2020: “Failed to pass pursuant to ”
It never got a hearing in the Senate Committee on Sporting Heritage, Mining 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.
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 a layer (of rock, for example) above it 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 groundwater and well water levels.
The standards for designating an area with an unconfined aquifer as a groundwater management area are related to stream and water table levels.
Read the full summary Show less
This bill requires the Department of Natural Resources to regularly examine areas that may qualify for designation as groundwater management areas. The department must first consider three specific areas for possible designation as groundwater management areas: one area in and adjacent to Brown County; one area in and adjacent to Waukesha County; and the area known as the central sands region. A person may petition DNR for an area to be designated as a groundwater management area, which DNR must then consider. If DNR concludes that an area qualifies as a groundwater management area, DNR may, by rule, designate the area as a groundwater management area.
After DNR designates an area as a groundwater management area, it must establish a target date by which it is reasonable to expect that groundwater conditions in the area will improve to the point that the area will no longer qualify as a groundwater management area. DNR must also designate conditions to balance groundwater consumption and groundwater replenishment so that there are no significant adverse environmental impacts to surface water or groundwater (sustainable hydrologic conditions).
Planning This bill requires DNR to develop and adopt a groundwater management plan for each designated groundwater management area. The groundwater management plan must be designed to protect surface water and groundwater and to ensure that by the target date the area no longer qualifies as a groundwater management area.
The groundwater management plan must contain measurable goals, requirements for reporting to DNR, water conservation measures, opportunities for public participation in implementing the plan, and any other provision that DNR determines is necessary to meet the designated sustainable hydrologic conditions.
If, in preparing a groundwater management plan, the department conducts evaluation or modeling of the area, the evaluation and modeling must follow the same parameters as the recently completed Little Plover River study, and must use the model that resulted from the Little Plover River study, if applicable.
Rescinding designation After the target date established by DNR for a groundwater management area, the bill requires DNR to consider whether the area still qualifies as a groundwater management area. If DNR concludes that the area no longer qualifies as a groundwater management area, DNR may rescind the designation by repealing the rule designating the area as a groundwater management area.
Grants for voluntary groundwater management areas This bill requires DNR to provide grants to municipalities and certain other entities that are in areas that are not designated as groundwater management areas but that DNR determines are likely to be designated as groundwater management areas in the future. Under the bill, grants can be made for the purposes of developing a groundwater management plan, which DNR must assist in developing, and implementing a groundwater management plan that DNR approves.
High capacity wells Environmental review of proposed high capacity wells Under current law, a person may not construct or operate a high capacity well without an approval from DNR. A high capacity well is a well that, together with other wells on the same property, has the capacity to withdraw more than 100,000 gallons of water per day.
This bill requires an applicant for approval of a high capacity well to publish a notice of the application in a newspaper, identifying the owner and the location of the well.
Current law requires DNR to conduct an environmental review of applications for approval of a high capacity well that is located within 1,200 feet of a trout stream or outstanding or exceptional resource waters (a groundwater protection area); 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 adverse impact on a qualifying spring.
This bill eliminates the environmental review requirement relating to springs, and instead requires DNR to conduct an environmental review of an application for approval of a high capacity well that may have a significant adverse impact on waters of the state.
Conditions in well approvals Under current law, if DNR determines, while conducting an environmental review of a proposed well that meets one of the criteria listed above, that an environmental impact report must be conducted, DNR must generally include conditions in the well approval to ensure that it does not cause significant adverse environmental impact. If a proposed well will be used to provide a public water supply, DNR must include conditions in the approval to ensure that the water supply of the public utility will not be impaired. If it is not possible to ensure that a proposed well will not cause significant adverse environmental impact or impair a public utility water supply, DNR must deny the approval. Current law states that these conditions may include conditions relating to the location, depth, pumping capacity, rate of flow, and ultimate use of the well.
This bill specifically includes monitoring as one of the potential conditions that may be included in such an approval. This bill also provides that, in any high capacity well approval, DNR may require the well owner to implement a monitoring program to evaluate the impacts of the well and may modify the approval based on the results of that monitoring program.
Cumulative impacts Current law provides that a high capacity well approval, or application for approval, cannot be challenged based on DNR's lack of consideration of the cumulative impacts of the proposed well and existing wells. This bill requires DNR, when considering whether a high capacity well may have a significant adverse environmental impact on waters of the state, to consider the cumulative impacts of that high capacity well together with existing withdrawals.
Expiration of approvals Under current law, a high capacity well approval generally remains in effect indefinitely, unless modified or rescinded by DNR. This bill provides that an approval issued after the effective date of the bill may not remain in effect for more than ten years. An approval issued prior to the effective date of the bill remains in effect for a longer period, depending on how long before the effective date of the bill it was issued.
High capacity wells in groundwater management areas Under this bill, after DNR 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 for the area.
This bill also requires DNR, after it develops a groundwater management plan, to review approvals for high capacity wells in the groundwater management area that were issued before the plan went into effect. The bill authorizes DNR to modify these approvals to ensure that they are consistent with the groundwater management plan.
High capacity wells and mining operations Current law generally prohibits DNR from approving a high capacity well, for mining purposes, that will result in the unreasonable detriment of public or private water supplies or of public rights in the waters of the state. However, current law allows DNR to approve such a high capacity well if DNR is able to include conditions in the approval or the mining permit that ensure that these detriments will not occur.
These conditions may include providing a replacement water supply, providing additional water to the harmed water supply, or temporarily augmenting the quantity or quality of the harmed waters of the state. This bill removes DNR's authority to approve a high capacity well, for mining purposes, that will result in the unreasonable detriment of public or private water supplies or of public rights in the waters of the state.
Other provisions Fees for certain withdrawals Current law imposes an annual fee of $125 on a person whose water supply system has the capacity to withdraw an average of 100,000 gallons per day in any 30-day period from the waters of the state. This bill increases that annual fee to $250.
DNR has also established, by rule, water use fees for users who withdraw more than 50,000,000 gallons per year from the Great Lakes basin. This bill directs DNR to establish such fees for users who withdraw more than 50,000,000 gallons per year from any waters of the state.
Water conservation This bill also requires DNR to include water conservation requirements in the approvals required for certain withdrawals from lakes or streams or relating to water or sewerage systems or sewage and refuse disposal plants, if the withdrawal is in a groundwater management area, and requires those conservation requirements to be consistent with the groundwater management plan for the groundwater management area.
Hydrologic study The bill also eliminates the provisions under current law that require DNR to study and recommend special measures relating to groundwater for adoption by the legislature.
Groundwater and mining operations Current law prohibits DNR from requiring a mining permit applicant to generate a hydrologic model of the proposed mining waste site that examines a period of more than 250 years after closure of the mining waste site. The bill eliminates this prohibition.
The bill also eliminates the current law provision that prohibits DNR from applying groundwater enforcement standards at a mining operation at any point in the Precambrian bedrock below which the groundwater is not reasonably capable of being used for human consumption.
Who's behind it
5 senators are its . All 5 are Democrats.
6 more lawmakers .
See all 11 names Hide the names
Authors (5)
- Tim Carpenter · Democrat, Senate
- LaTonya Johnson · Democrat, Senate
- Chris Larson · Democrat, Senate
- Mark Miller · Democrat, Senate
- Fred A. Risser · Democrat, Senate
Signed on in support (6)
- Jimmy Anderson · Democrat, Assembly
- Gary Hebl · Democrat, Assembly
- Sondy Pope · Democrat, Assembly
- Christine Sinicki · Democrat, Assembly
- Shelia Stubbs · Democrat, Assembly
- Lisa Subeck · Democrat, Assembly
What it would cost
State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.
What happened
-
Apr 1, 2020
The session ended, and the bill died with it.
-
Feb 18, 2020
A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.
-
Jan 29, 2020
Sent to the Senate Committee on Sporting Heritage, Mining and Forestry.
-
Jan 29, 2020
Introduced in the Senate.
See the official record, word for word Hide the official record
- Jan 29, 2020 · Senate
Introduced by Senators Miller, Carpenter, Johnson, Larson and Risser; cosponsored by Representatives Hebl, Anderson, Pope, Sinicki, Stubbs and Subeck
- Jan 29, 2020 · Senate
Read first time and referred to Committee on Sporting Heritage, Mining and Forestry
- Feb 18, 2020 · Senate
Fiscal estimate received
- Apr 1, 2020 · Senate
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