This interview continues to receive traffic due to the Huffington Post. The Huffington Post has WI Voices’ interview “Family Called “Collateral Damage” on their list of suggested links “around the web” for education on frac sand mining.

‘These efforts are locally led and they’re getting whacked,’ says Jim VandenBrook, executive director of the Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Association. ‘Farmers don’t want to have runoff problems, but they often get caught in a bind. You need local people who have relationships with them to respond to these local problems.’

Specifically, the governor’s budget proposal reduces funds for two programs in the state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection’s Agriculture Resource Management Division.

VandenBrook’s association is particularly concerned that Walker’s proposal retains a $1.3 million cut that went into effect in the 2011-13 budget cycle for county land conservation departments.

The counties had been receiving $9.3 million annually through 2009-2011 as part of the department’s budget; they now receive $8 million annually. Keeping funding at that level could lead to county conservation staffers losing jobs across the state, VandenBrook says.

Additionally, Walker is recommending DATCP’s budget for soil and water resource management be cut by 50 percent, from $10 million to $5 million over the two-year budget.

This fund provides farmers with money for so-called ‘soft projects,’ which include nutrient management and crop rotation programs, both of which help maintain quality soil and reduce runoff.

. . . . the governor is recommending $7 million in general obligation bonds through segregated funds for counties to implement land and water resource management plans.

VandenBrook, however, stresses that the $7 million in bonds and proposed $5 million for the so-called soft projects related to conservation efforts can’t be used to pay for the same things.

The bond program can only pay for physical structures, like a concrete manure storage bin or digester, while the other pot of money can be used for implementing crop rotation and nutrient management programs.

The latter proves the most effective at preventing soil erosion and runoff issues, VandenBrook says, noting that the 2011 Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts report shows that soil erosion rates had been on the decline for the past decade but are rising again.

‘The changes that have happened since the 1990s haven’t happened because of climate change but because of land-use changes,’ VandenBrook said. ‘At a time when we have budget cuts, we have greater resource challenges.’

Groups like the River Alliance of Wisconsin see the latest round of cuts to land and water conservation efforts as part of a trend that must be stopped because of the negative effects on waterways around the state.

‘It’s the death by a thousand cuts to our farm conservation efforts,’ says Helen Sarakinos, the River Alliance’s water policy program director. ‘The harm it will cause will be more phosphorus, more sediment and more (manure) ending up back in our waters.’

She says farmland conservation is a very labor-intensive issue that requires people who understand the problems, know where to look for very specific money sources, and can negotiate best practices with the farmers.

‘What the county-level conservation staffers do is classic boots-on-the-ground conservation,’ Sarakinos says. ‘In the end, a lot of these practices are helping farmers protect the resources they rely on. It is helping them produce in terms of their crops and it’s helping them make money on their farms. And even that doesn’t seem to resonate with this current administration.’

Critics of the proposed cuts find it troubling that the administration is suggesting fewer dollars go to county staffs at a time when they will soon be tasked with doing more.

Under state law, DATCP is responsible for developing conservation practices to meet the DNR’s performance standards for farms. For that reason, DATCP is currently updating its rules for implementing the agricultural runoff control standards adopted by the DNR in 2011.

According to DATCP’s own fiscal estimate, an additional 40 county land conservation staffers will be needed statewide to achieve compliance with DNR standards.

The additional staff will cost between $2.2 million and $2.6 million per year, according to the fiscal estimate. But Walker is proposing to add no more staffing money in that budget.

‘It’s a recipe for disaster,’ Sarakinos said. ‘They are asking these same county staff to do more than they are already doing, with less.’

DATCP will hold five public hearings on the proposed changes, spokesman Dick said. A hearing will be held from 2:30 to 4:30 p.m. and 6 to 8 p.m., Thursday, April 4, in the State Agriculture Building, Room 106, located at 2811 Agriculture Drive in Madison.”

See: Farmland conservation efforts take double hit in Walker budget, 3/23/2013, Cap Times at http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/writers/jessica_vanegeren/farmland-conservation-efforts-take-double-hit-in-walker-budget/article_f07a214a-9195-11e2-ae76-0019bb2963f4.html

Public input about the application is now being accepted here:
Alex Blackburn, St. Croix County Government Center, 1101 Carmichael Rd, Hudson, WI 54016

Email: Alex.Blackburn@co.saint-croix.wi.us

‘In general, corrections workers feel devalued and at risk,’ Wisconsin State Employees Union executive director Marty Beil told the Assembly Corrections Committee.”
. . .
“New workplace rules, written and put in place by Gov. Scott Walker’s administration, took effect for prison employees in January 2012.

Beil said that resulted in a ‘massive sea change in work rules and working conditions and ultimately the working environment.’ As an example, he said jobs that used to be filled based on seniority no longer are, training is lacking and the formal process for raising work site concerns has been replaced with a less effective system.

And given a large number of vacancies, some workers are putting in so much overtime that they are spending more time with the inmates they guard than their own families, Beil said.”
. . .
“The percentage of vacant jobs in the department, fueled by a spike in retirements in 2011, more than doubled from 2.7 percent in 2008 to 5.7 percent in 2012, said Stacey Rolston, an administrator at the Corrections Department.”

See: Union head says state prisons unsafe, 1/31/2013, Wisconsin State Journal, at: http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/union-head-says-state-prisons-unsafe/article_14d54c12-6bae-11e2-8e7c-0019bb2963f4.html

There are a few helpful references listed but they are mixed in with many anti-frac websites and links to op/eds and other ‘opinion’ based articles.
As for the WDNR budget proposal link – every request for money by an organization or department that I have every been a part of always overstates their case. That is how the game is played. It sounds like the sky will fall if they get 1/2% less than they say they need. One should not honestly use that document as any proof.

Please take some time to explore the reference links within the interview and at the WI Voices reference page (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SqdIAiRqYViZMokJHbkVyf8CNw2tC60-o4CriFpCjGE/edit?pli=1).

WI Voices includes reference links in order to help inform discussion of public policy choices.

For example, the Wisconsin DNR’s budget proposal for 2013-15 is linked to in the interview at “understaffing and underfunding” (http://www.doa.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=9889&locid=166), and on page 71 the DNR writes:

“The rapid increase and expansion of sand mining and processing operations in Wisconsin has created a significant, new workload in a compressed amount of time without additional revenue . . . . While public concern has been expressed over the potential health and environmental impacts resulting from air emissions of sand mining and processing operations, the Department’s Air Management program has insufficient funding and resources to provide complete air pollution control operation permit issuance, compliance assistance and assurance for the sand mining industry.”

…and now lets look at some of the things you say that kind of get some of us worked up:
1. It doesn’t necessarily matter what the DNR was in 2010, what maters is that it does its job, no more no less. And it IS way better with its customer service – better website, great informative emails regarding its hunting and fishing goings-on, etc. Sometimes, (i mean all times) government can use some streamlining so if that is one of their goals, good for all of us as long as it doesn’t mean you break or bend the rules. Ask people (without political agendas) within the DNR if now all of a sudden the rules are circumvented or if the state is open for business now at the cost of the environment. You are taking a far-out-there conspiracy type approach at a new governor’s (who you obviously didn’t vote for…twice) approach at the DNR.
A reduced workforce, when dealing with state employees is a good thing, AND it does not equal less monitoring of industries. What do you expect, wardens posted along the mine boundaries with binoculars working in shifts? The permits still need to be approved and reporting still has to happen in a complete and timely fashion. And I am sure they still make their visits.

How can you be taken seriously when you compare sand excavation to coal mining of the past in Appalachia? seriously? Of course there are impacts associated with frac sand mining but come on, really?

2. Your opinion on Act 21 sounds more like sour grapes to me. Most anti-Walker people complain mostly about this because of its effect on other things like education and public-sector unions, but you managed to apply it here too. If it was still Doyle running the show, power grabs wouldn’t bother all of you so much, IMO.

3. Lets look at your opinion on the Silica Mining in Wisconsin (policy) Report-Jan. 2012. Almost all of the following is opinion and factually wrong/misleading:
‘which was issued by the WDNR expressly for the benefit of frac-sand miners. The WDNR now allows frac-sand miners to pollute our waters at will. Both the WDNR and the miners call waste water (full of fine silica, very toxic chemicals, and at elevated temperature) “wash water”. The WDNR’s new policy report Silica Mining in Wisconsin Report- Jan. 2012 in section 5.2 states: “Wash water may be reused or discharged after washing to the ground surface, or surface waters …”. This is a license for the miners to pollute our creeks, marshes, rivers, and lakes with impunity. ‘

It wasn’t for the frac sand miners – they all know this stuff already
The DNR doesn’t just ‘now’ let anyone pollute anything. rules didn’t change!
That type of water was always called ‘wash water’
The DNR knows what is in the wash water,
there is silica in all murky water runoff from anything in this part of Wisconsin,
they know the chemicals used in the processes which are actually the same chemicals used to treat most cities DRINKING WATER!
And how or why would the water be discharged at an elevated temp? Higher temp than the still water sitting in the Keezie swamp in the summer?

And I think your most misleading comment is how you reference NR815. NR815 is a WDNR chapter used to regulate and permit INJECTION WELLS. As soon as any industry were to try to get a permit for a stormwater pond or infiltration pond (or anything other than an injection well) by using a NR815 permit, the DNR would jump all over them. These site plans get heavily scrutinized before and after approval. To insinuate that what you laid out as a scenario to use NR815 effectively, as a infiltration pond is ludicrous. And you don’t seem to understand what an ‘infiltration pond is…”An infiltration basin is defined as an open impoundment (greater than 15 feet wide in its minimum dimension) created either by excavation or embankment with a flat, densely vegetated floor dedicated to the infiltration of runoff through the ground surface.” Your interpretation is exactly backwards, these ponds are used in stormwater management plans to let water seep naturally into the ground. They need to be a considerable distance ABOVE the water table. They are a good way to REDUCE pollutants. Look it up.

The sand companies in this area are using less than 500 gallons per minute in their large wells. Not 3,000. nobody uses 3,000 gallons per minute, look it up on the dnr website, the well usage is reported… and you are right, there are areas where large wells dry up private wells. But not here. In those areas the DNR wouldn’t approve the well permits. We have a huge aquifer that recharges very rapidly. The DNR studies the possibilities that you are warning us about.
And for the rest of that paragraph above, sounds a bit far-fetched to most of us.

As for ‘Fugitive Dust’ plans. Read WDNR Publication AM-491- 2012. It states:
“Recordkeeping: All industrial sand mining operations, no matter how small, must keep records of:
o monthly hours of operation
o monthly sand production in tons per month
o records that demonstrate you are following your fugitive dust plan

3 Fugitive Dust Control Plan: All sand mining operations must prepare and follow a fugitive dust plan to detect dust and prevent it from becoming airborne. Fugitive dust plans must be written and should be kept on-site to be available for review by a compliance inspector.”

All the companies have these plans in place.

And I am pretty sure they haven’t polluted St. Louis yet.

As for my previous description of you Mr. Drost, once again I apologize.