Bills · 2021-2022 Regular Session
Relating to: nitrates under the well compensation program; eligibility for producer-led watershed, lake, and river protection grants; and the annual allocation plan for county conservation grants. (FE)
Agriculture trade and consumer protection department of Farmer Lakes Natural resources department of — Environmental protection Soil and soil conservation Water supply Waterways and water power Waterworks Wells Wild turkey
- Introduced, stopped here
- Passes Assembly, not reached
- Passes Senate, not reached
- Governor signs, not reached
- Law, not reached
Unfamiliar terms? Glossary
What this bill does
Plain-language analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau
This bill expands eligibility for nitrate-contaminated wells under the well
compensation grant program; expands eligibility for producer-led watershed
protection grants, lake protection grants, and river protection grants; and creates a
factor to be considered during preparation of the annual allocation plan for soil and
water resource conservation grants to counties.
Nitrates under the well compensation grant program
The bill makes changes to the well compensation grant program administered
by the Department of Natural Resources. Under the program currently, an
individual owner or renter of a contaminated private well, subject to eligibility
requirements, may apply for a grant from DNR to cover a portion of the costs to treat
the water, reconstruct the well, construct a new well, connect to a public water
supply, or fill and seal the well.
Under current law, a well that is contaminated only by nitrates, and not by any
other substance, is eligible for a grant only if the well is a water supply for livestock,
is used at least three months in each year, provides more than 100 gallons of water
per day for consumption by livestock, and contains nitrates in excess of 40 parts per
million. The bill removes the requirements that a water supply contaminated only
by nitrates be used for livestock, provide more than 100 gallons of water per day, and
contain nitrates in excess of 40 parts per million in order to be eligible for a grant
under the program. Under the bill, a well that is contaminated only by nitrates is
eligible for a grant if the well is used at least three months in each year.
Current law requires DNR to allocate money for payments of claims under the
program according to the order in which claims are received. The bill retains this
requirement but provides that, among claims for contamination only by nitrates,
DNR must allocate payments according to a specified priority ranking based on
levels of nitrate contamination.
Also under current law, a residential well that is contaminated only by bacteria
is not eligible for a grant unless the well is in an area that is contaminated by fecal
bacteria and the contamination is caused by livestock. The bill eliminates this
restriction.
The bill also requires DNR to award grants under the program only for the
remediation method that is most effective for the health and welfare of the claimant.
Finally, the bill requires DNR to report to the Joint Committee on Finance after the
end of each fiscal year on the number of applicants under the well compensation
program and the number and amount of grants provided during that fiscal year.
Producer-led watershed protection grants
Under current law, the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer
Protection administers a program to provide watershed protection grants to
producer-led groups made up of farmers located in one watershed. The bill allows
grants under the program to be awarded to producer-led groups that are made up
What it would cost
Fiscal estimates filed by state agencies, as official PDFs
Sponsors
Introduced by: Conley (D) , Considine (D) , Hong (D) , Kitchens (R) , Krug (R) , Milroy (D) , Mursau (R) , Neubauer (D) , Novak (R) , Ohnstad (D) , Oldenburg (R) , Penterman (R) , Petryk (R) , Plumer (R) , Pope (D) , Shankland (D) , Spiros (R) , Spreitzer (D) , Subeck (D) , Tauchen (R) , Tranel (R) , Tusler (R) , Vining (D)
Votes
Assembly: Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by Committee on Agriculture, Ayes 13, Noes 0
Passed 13–0 Mar 10, 2022 official source full pageNo individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Assembly: Report passage as amended recommended by Committee on Agriculture, Ayes 13, Noes 0
Passed 13–0 Mar 10, 2022 official source full pageNo individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Full history
- Dec 2, 2021 · Assembly
Introduced by Representatives Kitchens, Novak, Tranel, Shankland, Krug, Hong, Milroy, Mursau, Neubauer, Oldenburg, Penterman, Plumer, Tauchen, Petryk, Subeck, Spiros, Considine, Pope, Vining, Spreitzer, Ohnstad, Conley and Tusler; cosponsored by Senators Cowles, Testin, Ballweg, Bernier, Petrowski, Pfaff, Ringhand, Roys, Smith and Wimberger
- Dec 2, 2021 · Assembly
Read first time and referred to Committee on Agriculture
- Dec 22, 2021 · Assembly
Assembly Amendment 1 offered by Representative Kitchens
- Jan 4, 2022 · Assembly
Representative Vruwink added as a coauthor
- Jan 5, 2022 · Assembly
Public hearing held
- Jan 12, 2022 · Assembly
Fiscal estimate received
- Feb 8, 2022 · Assembly
Executive action taken
- Mar 8, 2022 · Assembly
Representative Brostoff added as a coauthor
- Mar 10, 2022 · Assembly
Referred to committee on Rules
- Mar 10, 2022 · Assembly
Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by Committee on Agriculture, Ayes 13, Noes 0
- Mar 10, 2022 · Assembly
Report passage as amended recommended by Committee on Agriculture, Ayes 13, Noes 0
- Mar 15, 2022 · Assembly
Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1