The bill requires a person disposing of PFAS, or transporting PFAS for the purpose of disposal, to attempt to the greatest extent possible to avoid disposing of PFAS in, or transporting PFAS to, any location where such disposal or transportation will contribute to environmental justice concerns and to consider all reasonable alternatives for transport and disposal of PFAS. The bill requires DNR to assist in evaluating the environmental justice impacts of a person’s PFAS disposal or transportation.
Statewide PFAS biomonitoring studies
The bill requires DHS to conduct biomonitoring studies across the state to assess PFAS exposure levels and better understand the factors that affect PFAS levels in residents of different communities. As part of these studies, DHS may survey volunteer participants, test blood samples for PFAS, and analyze the results.
DATCP testing for PFAS
Under current law, DATCP conducts several statewide monitoring programs, sampling programs, and surveys related to testing groundwater quality for agricultural purposes. The bill requires that, when collecting and testing samples under one of these statewide programs, DATCP must also, at its discretion and where appropriate, test samples for the presence of PFAS.
Hazardous substances and environmental cleanup
Revitalize Wisconsin program
The bill creates the Revitalize Wisconsin program, which is administered by DNR and which provides aid, in the form of grants or direct services to local governments, dry cleaners, and private parties, to address the discharge of a hazardous substance or the existence of environmental pollution on the government’s or person’s property. Aid may be provided for sites for which the site’s owner or operator applied for assistance under the dry cleaner environmental response program before the bill’s effective date; brownfields; sites that are exempt from the state’s spills law; and sites that are subject to the spills law but that are owned by private parties. The bill defines “private party” to mean a bank, trust company, savings bank, or credit union; a developer; a nongovernmental organization; or an innocent landowner. The bill defines an “innocent landowner” as a property owner that either 1) acquired the property prior to November 1, 2006, has continuously owned the property since the date of acquisition, and can demonstrate, through documentation, that the discharge or environmental pollution being addressed was caused by another person and that the property owner did not know and had no reason to know of the discharge or pollution when the owner acquired the property or 2) acquired the property on or after November 1, 2006, meets all of the previously stated requirements, and can demonstrate, through documentation, that the property owner conducted all appropriate inquiries in compliance with federal law prior to acquiring the property.
The bill provides that DNR may not award aid to an applicant under the Revitalize Wisconsin program if the applicant caused the discharge or environmental pollution, unless the applicant is a dry cleaner that applied for assistance under the dry cleaner environmental response program before the bill’s effective date. The bill also provides that DNR may require an applicant to provide a match, either in cash or in-kind services, for any aid that is awarded under the program.
Activities for which aid may be provided under the program include removing hazardous substances from contaminated media; investigating and assessing the discharge or environmental pollution; removing abandoned containers; asbestos abatement; and restoring or replacing a private potable water supply.
The bill also allows DNR to inspect any document in the possession of an applicant or any other person if the document is relevant to an application for financial assistance under the program.
Access to information on solid or hazardous waste
Under current law, a person who generated, transported, treated, stored, or disposed of solid or hazardous waste at a site or facility under investigation by DNR must provide DNR with access to certain records relating to that waste. The bill requires a person who generated solid or hazardous waste at a site or facility under investigation by DNR to also provide this information, if the waste was transported to, treated at, stored at, or disposed of at another site, facility, or location.
Kewaunee Marsh remediation funding
The bill appropriates moneys from the general fund to DNR for development of a remedial action plan and for the remediation of arsenic contamination in the Kewaunee Marsh in Kewaunee County.
Amcast superfund site remediation funding
The bill appropriates moneys from the segregated environmental fund to DNR for remedial action relating to the Amcast superfund site in Cedarburg. A “superfund site” is a site identified under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as being contaminated with hazardous substances and requiring cleanup.
5R Processors cleanup funding lapse
Under current law, DNR is appropriated moneys from the environmental fund to contract with third parties to perform assessment, collection, transportation, and disposal of cathode-ray tube glass and related waste generated from activities undertaken by 5R Processors. The bill provides that, of those moneys, any unencumbered amounts are lapsed to the environmental fund.
Water quality
Well compensation grant program
The bill makes changes to the well compensation grant program currently administered by DNR.
Under current law, an individual owner or renter of a contaminated private well 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. To be eligible for a grant, the well owner’s or renter’s annual family income may not exceed $65,000. A grant awarded under the program may not cover any portion of a project’s eligible costs in excess of $16,000 and, of those costs, may not exceed 75 percent of a project’s eligible costs, meaning that a grant may not exceed $12,000. In addition, if the well owner’s or renter’s annual family income exceeds $45,000, the amount of the award is reduced by 30 percent of the amount by which the annual family income exceeds $45,000.
The bill increases the family income limit to $100,000. In addition, under the bill, a well owner or renter whose family income is below the state’s median income may receive a grant of up to 100 percent of a project’s eligible costs, not to exceed $16,000. The bill also eliminates the requirement to reduce an award by 30 percent if the well owner’s or renter’s family income exceeds $45,000.
The bill also expands the grant program to allow an owner or renter of a “transient noncommunity water supply” to apply for a grant. A “transient noncommunity water supply” is defined in the bill as a water system that serves at least 25 persons at least 60 days of the year but that does not regularly serve at least 25 of the same persons over six months per year.
Under current law, a well that is contaminated only by nitrates is eligible for a grant only if the well is a water supply for livestock, is used at least three months in each year, and contains nitrates in excess of 40 parts per million. The bill eliminates these restrictions for claims based on nitrates, and instead allows grants to be issued for wells based on contamination by at least 10 parts per million of nitrate nitrogen. The bill also allows grants to be issued for wells contaminated by at least 10 parts per billion of arsenic, or by a perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) in an amount that exceeds any applicable health advisory or standard for that substance.
Under current law, DNR must issue grants in the order in which completed claims are received. Under the bill, if there are insufficient funds to pay claims, DNR may, for claims based on nitrate contamination, prioritize claims that are based on higher levels of nitrate contamination.
Town of Bloom well compensation grant eligibility
Under current law, a city, village, town, county, or special purpose district is not eligible for a grant under the well compensation grant program. The bill provides that the town of Bloom in Richland County may apply for this type of grant, but the grant may not exceed $16,000.
Ballast water discharge
Under current law, DNR may issue a general permit authorizing a vessel that is 79 feet or greater in length to discharge ballast water into the waters of the state. DNR may charge an application fee of $1,200 and a $345 annual fee for the permit. DNR must use collected fees to administer the permit program.
The bill eliminates these provisions and provides that the owner or operator of any commercial vessel subject to the requirements of the federal Vessel Incidental Discharge Act that has operated outside this state must pay DNR $650 per arrival to a port of this state. Under the bill, the owner or operator of a commercial vessel subject to these requirements, including a vessel engaged in coastwise trade, may not be required to pay more than $3,250 in fees per calendar year. DNR must use collected fees for management, administration, inspection, monitoring, and enforcement activities relating to incidental discharges, including ballast water discharges.
Under current law, an employee or agent of DNR may board and inspect any vessel that is subject to requirements relating to environmental protection requirements for tank vessels or open burning on commercial vessels to determine compliance with those requirements.
The bill provides that DNR may enter into a memorandum of agreement with the U.S. Coast Guard authorizing an employee or agent of DNR to board and inspect any vessel that is subject to the requirements under the bill to determine compliance with the federal Vessel Incidental Discharge Act.
Storm water pond safety
Under current law, DNR issues water pollutant discharge elimination system (WPDES) permits and storm water discharge permits and promulgates rules for the administration of both permits. The bill requires that DNR promulgate rules establishing that any pond located in an area with a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile that is constructed as part of an activity for which these permits are required must include one or more of the following safety features: 1) a shallow ledge around the periphery of the pond; 2) vegetation that is at least 24 inches high between the pond and any easy point of access; or 3) any other alternative safety feature authorized by DNR by rule.
Winter road safety improvement grant program
The bill requires DNR to administer a program to provide grants to municipalities for eligible expenditures for equipment critical to winter road safety. The bill requires DNR to promulgate rules necessary to administer the program, including rules that specify criteria for determining eligible recipients and expenditures.
Fee for high capacity well approvals
Under current law, no person may construct a high capacity well, which is a well with a capacity of more than 100,000 gallons per day, without prior approval of DNR and payment of a $500 fee. The bill increases that fee to $1,000.
Fee for CAFO permits
Under current law, a person who operates a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) must have a WPDES permit from DNR. A CAFO is a livestock operation that contains at least 1,000 animal units, that discharges pollutants to a navigable water, or that contaminates a well. Current law requires a CAFO operator with a WPDES permit to pay an annual fee of $345 to DNR. The bill increases the amount of this annual fee to $545.
Fee for WPDES general permits
Under current law, a person may not discharge a pollutant into waters of the state without a WPDES permit issued by DNR. In addition to site-specific individual permits, DNR is authorized to issue a general permit that authorizes specified discharges in a designated area of the state. The bill requires DNR to charge a $425 processing fee for these permits.
Storm water permit appropriation
Under current law, a person may need to obtain a permit from DNR to discharge storm water. Current law appropriates money annually from the general fund for the administration of the storm water discharge permit program. Storm water permit fees collected by DNR are credited to the storm water permit appropriation.
The bill changes the storm water permit appropriation from an annual to a continuing appropriation. An annual appropriation is expendable only up to the amount shown in the schedule and only for the fiscal year for which made. A continuing appropriation is expendable until fully depleted or repealed.
Lead service line replacement appropriation
Under current law, DOA and DNR administer the Safe Drinking Water Loan Program (SDWLP), which provides financial assistance from the environmental improvement program to local governmental units and to the private owners of community water systems that serve local governmental units for projects for the planning, designing, construction, or modification of public water systems. DNR establishes a funding list for SDWLP projects and DOA allocates funding for those projects.
The bill creates a continuing appropriation from the general fund to the environmental improvement program for projects involving forgivable loans to private users of public water systems to replace lead service lines.
Environmental improvement fund revenue bonding limit
Current law authorizes the issuance of revenue bonds for the Clean Water Fund Program and the SDWLP under the environmental improvement fund but limits the principal amount of those revenue bonds to $2,597,400,000. The bill increases that limit by $725,900,000, to $3,323,300,000.
Bonding for urban storm water, flood control, and riparian restoration
Under current law, the state may contract up to $61,600,000 in public debt to provide financial assistance for projects that manage urban storm water and runoff and for flood control and riparian restoration projects. The bill increases the bonding authority for these projects by $11,000,000.
Bonding for nonpoint source water pollution abatement
Under current law, the state may contract up to $57,050,000 in public debt to provide financial assistance for projects that control pollution that comes from diffuse sources rather than a single concentrated discharge source in areas that qualify as high priority due to water quality problems. The bill increases the bonding authority for these projects by $10,000,000.
Bonding for Great Lakes contaminated sediment removal
Under current law, the state may contract up to $40,000,000 in public debt to provide financial assistance for projects to remove contaminated sediment from Lake Michigan or Lake Superior, or a tributary of Lake Michigan or Lake Superior, if DNR has identified the body of water as being impaired by the sediment. The bill increases the bonding authority for sediment removal projects by $9,000,000.
Air quality
Fee for stationary source operation permits
Under current state and federal law, certain stationary sources that emit air contaminants are required to receive an operation permit from DNR. Current law requires DNR to promulgate rules for the payment and collection of fees by the owner or operator of a stationary source for which an operation permit is required under the federal Clean Air Act. The bill increases the fee from $35.71 per ton of emissions to $63.69 per ton of emissions.
General environment
Environmental impacts to covered communities
Under current law, DNR issues various permits for the operation of facilities as part of DNR’s regulation of air and water pollution and hazardous and solid waste. Under the bill, DNR may not issue permits for those facilities located in covered communities unless the permit applicant 1) prepares a report assessing the environmental impact of the facility, 2) makes the report available to the public and provides the report to DNR and to the municipality in which the covered community is located, and 3) conducts a public hearing in the municipality in which the covered community is located. Under the bill, “covered community” means a census tract that is at or above the 65th percentile for share of households with a household income at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level and that meets any other criteria from a specified list.
Water resources account lapses
The bill lapses $1,000,000 to the conservation fund in fiscal year 2025–26. Of that amount, $386,500 is lapsed from the DNR appropriation for state recreational boating projects that provide public access to inland waters; $436,600 is lapsed from the DNR appropriation for state recreational boating projects that provide public access to lakes; and $176,900 is lapsed from the DNR appropriation for river management activities for habitat and recreational projects on the Mississippi and lower St. Croix Rivers and for environmental and resource management studies on the Mississippi and lower St. Croix Rivers.
FIREARMS AND PUBLIC SAFETY
Background checks on all transfers of firearms
Under current law, a federally licensed firearms dealer may not transfer a handgun until the dealer has requested DOJ to perform a background check on the prospective transferee to determine if he or she is prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law. The bill generally prohibits any person from transferring any firearm, including the frame or receiver of a firearm, unless the transfer occurs through a federally licensed firearms dealer and involves a background check of the prospective transferee. Under the bill, the following are excepted from that prohibition: a transfer to a firearms dealer or to a law enforcement or armed services agency; a transfer of a firearm classified as antique; or a transfer that is by gift, bequest, or inheritance to a family member. A person who is convicted of violating the prohibition is guilty of a misdemeanor and must be fined not less than $500 nor more than $10,000, may be imprisoned for not more than nine months, and may not possess a firearm for a period of two years.
Waiting period for handgun purchases
Under current law, a federally licensed firearms dealer may not transfer a handgun until the dealer has requested DOJ to perform a background check on the prospective transferee to determine if he or she is prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law. The bill prohibits the dealer from transferring a handgun to the transferee until 48 hours have passed since the firearms dealer requested the background check.
Self-assigned firearm exclusion
The bill requires DOJ to allow individuals to prohibit themselves from purchasing a firearm. Under the bill, DOJ must maintain a database of individuals who voluntarily prohibit themselves from purchasing a firearm. An individual may request inclusion in the database by submitting a request to DOJ that indicates the length of the prohibition they are requesting: a one-year, irrevocable prohibition; a five-year prohibition, the first year being irrevocable; or a 20-year prohibition, the first year being irrevocable. During a revocable period, an individual may remove the prohibition by submitting to DOJ a request for removal, and DOJ must wait 48 hours and remove the individual from the list. The bill also requires DOJ, when responding to a request for a background check from a licensed firearms dealer regarding an individual who is in the database, to indicate that the individual is prohibited from purchasing a firearm.
Extreme risk protection injunctions
Under current law, a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm, and must surrender all firearms, if the person is subject to a domestic abuse injunction, a child abuse injunction, or, in certain cases, a harassment or an individuals-at-risk injunction. If a person surrenders a firearm because the person is subject to one of those injunctions, the firearm may not be returned to the person until a court determines that the injunction has been vacated or has expired and that the person is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm. A person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under such an injunction is guilty of a Class G felony for violating the prohibition.
The bill creates an extreme risk protection temporary restraining order (TRO) and injunction to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm. Under the bill, either a law enforcement officer or a family or household member of the person may file a petition with a court to request an extreme risk protection injunction. The petition must allege facts that show that the person is substantially likely to injure themself or another if the person possesses a firearm.
Under the bill, the petitioner may request the court to consider first granting a temporary restraining order. If the petitioner requests a TRO, the petitioner must include evidence that there is an immediate and present danger that the person may injure themself or another if the person possesses a firearm and that waiting for the injunction hearing increases the immediate and present danger.
If the petitioner requests a TRO, the court must hear the petition in an expedited manner. The judge must issue a TRO if, after questioning the petitioner and witnesses or relying on affidavits, the judge determines that it is substantially likely that the petition for an injunction will be granted and the judge finds good cause to believe there is an immediate and present danger that the person will injure themself or another if the person has a firearm and that waiting for the injunction hearing may increase the immediate and present danger. If the judge issues a TRO, the TRO is in effect until the injunction hearing, which must occur within 14 days of the TRO issuance. The TRO must require a law enforcement officer to personally serve the person with the order and to require the person to immediately surrender all firearms in their possession. If a law enforcement officer is unable to personally serve the person, then the TRO requires the person to surrender within 24 hours all firearms to a law enforcement officer or a firearms dealer and to provide the court a receipt indicating the surrender occurred.
At the injunction hearing, the court may grant an extreme risk protection injunction ordering the person to refrain from possessing a firearm and, if the person was not subject to a TRO, to surrender all firearms he or she possesses if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person is substantially likely to injure themself or another if the person possesses a firearm. An extreme risk protection injunction is effective for up to one year and may be renewed. A person who is subject to an extreme risk protection injunction may petition to vacate the injunction. If a person surrenders a firearm because the person is subject to an extreme risk protection TRO or injunction, the firearm may not be returned to the person until a court determines that the TRO has expired or the injunction has been vacated or has expired and that the person is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm.
A person who possesses a firearm while subject to an extreme risk protection TRO or injunction is guilty of a Class G felony. In addition, a person who files a petition for an extreme risk protection injunction, knowing the information in the petition to be false, is guilty of the crime of false swearing, a Class H felony.
Persons prohibited from possessing a firearm following a conviction for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
Under federal law, a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm if he or she has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Under state law, a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal or state law may not purchase a firearm or be issued a license to carry a concealed weapon. State law requires DOJ, before approving a handgun purchase or issuing a license, to conduct a background check on the prospective purchaser or applicant to determine if the person is prohibited from possessing a firearm. To determine if the person is prohibited under federal law, DOJ must review court records of all of the person’s criminal convictions to identify if any conviction qualifies as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under federal law. DOJ must review the record to determine if the relationship between the offender and the victim qualifies as a domestic relationship and if the offender engaged in violent conduct when committing the crime. The bill reorganizes two statutes—the crime of disorderly conduct and the definition of domestic abuse—so that DOJ is able to more easily determine if a conviction qualifies as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under federal law.
First, under current law, a person is guilty of disorderly conduct if the person engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, or otherwise disorderly conduct and if the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance. A person who has been convicted of disorderly conduct is prohibited from possessing a firearm if the disorderly conduct was a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence—that is, if the person engaged in violent conduct and if the relationship between the person and the victim was domestic. The bill reorganizes the disorderly conduct statute to separate “violent” conduct from the other types of disorderly conduct so that the court record clearly indicates that the crime was a violent crime.
Second, under current state law, “domestic abuse” is defined as certain actions taken against a victim if the victim is related to the actor, has a child in common with the actor, or currently resides or has resided with the actor. Unlike state law, federal law does not define a crime as domestic violence if the only relationship is that the victim currently resides or has resided with the actor. The bill reorganizes the statute defining domestic abuse so that a court record would indicate the exact nature of the relationship. Therefore, under the bill, the court record would indicate when a person who is guilty under state law of a crime of domestic abuse is not guilty under federal law of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Undetectable firearms
The bill prohibits the manufacture, transportation, sale, possession, and carrying of firearms that cannot be detected by metal detectors or airport x-ray machines or scanners. Federal law currently has a comparable prohibition; under the bill, the person would violate state law as well. A person who violates the state prohibition is guilty of a Class G felony.
The bill prohibits the sale, posting, provision, or possession of plans for manufacturing an undetectable firearm. A person who violates the prohibition is guilty of a Class H felony.
The bill also prohibits the possession of a frame or a receiver of a firearm that is not marked with a serial number. A person who violates the prohibition is guilty of a Class I felony.
Prohibition on firearm accessories that accelerate the rate of fire
