Studying Time: 7 minutes

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our publication to get our investigative tales and Friday information roundup.

When Ken Koeppler first heard the Wisconsin Division of Pure Assets wished to go to his property, he didn’t suppose he had something to fret about. 

Koeppler, a Madison resident, purchased the constructing in 1987 and lived there for 17 years earlier than turning it right into a rental property. In 2015, the DNR requested Koeppler if it might drill into the basement to test for contamination.  

Previous to the DNR’s inquiry, Koeppler had no thought his property as soon as housed a now-defunct dry cleansing enterprise — or that it was contaminated.

“I stated, ‘In fact, let’s discover out if there’s one thing happening right here,’ and I really feel that they misled me at the moment,” Koeppler stated. “As quickly as they’d taken vapor samples beneath my constructing, they named me the accountable social gathering for all points of something having to do with the contamination that was down there.” 

That willpower has price Koeppler $55,000 and counting. To date, he has lined the value of three monitoring wells and their permits, exhaust followers, in depth testing and authorized companies. Whereas he estimated the overall might eclipse $150,000 within the subsequent few years, Koeppler has dug his heels in on pending prices — hopeful that proposed laws could relieve him of economic legal responsibility as soon as and for all. 

Lawmakers from each events in latest legislative periods have pushed a invoice that may assist “harmless purchasers” pay to wash up contamination they didn’t trigger. Earlier makes an attempt fell via, largely resulting from lack of funding.

This session, a bipartisan group of lawmakers has once more launched the identical invoice — this time with new potential funding choices. Individually, Gov. Tony Evers is proposing in his 2023-25 state finances to supply even broader eligibility for funding to people who can present they totally investigated potential contamination earlier than shopping for a property. 

‘Spills regulation’ at challenge

Beneath Wisconsin’s “spills regulation,” any particular person who causes, possesses or controls a hazardous substance discharge is chargeable for cleansing it up — even when they aren’t accountable for the contamination. 

“I used to be in grade faculty when these individuals had been dumping chemical substances there,” Koeppler stated. 

“I don’t blame the DNR, however … I really feel I suffered for being a great citizen and responding (to them).”

Impressed largely by Koeppler’s story, laws proposed beforehand in 2017 and 2021 would have helped individuals in comparable conditions by creating particular legal responsibility exemptions. 

The invoice would waive patrons’ legal responsibility in the event that they bought their properties within the window between the enactment of the spills regulation in 1978 and necessary disclosure legal guidelines in 1992, which required house owners promoting property to reveal such defects. Failure to report points like contamination to potential patrons can go away sellers and actual property brokers open to litigation.

Wisconsin Watch beforehand reported that whereas public funds exist to assist municipalities and companies clear up environmental contamination, individuals sometimes lack entry to comparable help. 

For instance, Koeppler, as a non-public landowner, couldn’t acquire state or federal funds to cowl prices of mitigation. The town of Madison and the DNR had been in a position to apply for a federal brownfield grant, which supplied $40,000 to construct further monitoring wells and conduct extra testing on the properties of Koeppler’s neighbors. 

Different authorized avenues exist to vindicate personal landowners, nonetheless they are often well timed — and dear — to pursue. 

The Division of Pure Assets has not quantified what number of “harmless purchasers” exist within the state, however the division estimated in 2021 that the invoice would affect 5-10% of 16,600 recognized websites reported below the spills regulation.

‘Robust bipartisan assist’

Sen. Andre Jacque, R-DePere, has supported the laws since its first introduction in 2017.

“It simply is one thing that resonates with of us when it comes to individuals being held accountable for one thing that they’d no position in inflicting,” Jacque stated. “There’s a purpose why we’ve been in a position to proceed to have sturdy bipartisan assist for this proposal.” 

Jacque added the invoice is just not saying “we don’t care about contamination points” however relatively that the state needs to be concerned in remedying them.

One other three-time sponsor, Sen. Lena Taylor, D-Milwaukee, stated the proposal balances environmental safety whereas guaranteeing Wisconsinites usually are not held “unjustly accountable for another person’s error.” 

But, even with bipartisan assist, the invoice has twice failed, largely resulting from a scarcity of presidency funding to pay for cleanups, Jacque stated. 

“It’s irritating that previously, whether or not the DNR has been working below Republican or Democratic administration, there’s been acknowledgement that the conditions that people are positioned in are past their management, and but there hasn’t been a willingness to sort of pursue the monetary finish of the dialog,” Jacque stated. 

Earlier iterations of the invoice have been opposed by the cities of Madison and Milwaukee, in addition to environmental teams together with the Wisconsin Conservation Voters and the River Alliance of Wisconsin. 

In an announcement to Wisconsin Watch final fall, the DNR stated the company didn’t imagine the laws would guarantee safety from contamination and instructed it might generate tons of of properties that can not be used or developed resulting from environmental contamination — higher often known as “brownfields.”

In a memorandum for the 2021 laws, the Wisconsin Brownfield Research Group, composed of scientists, authorized specialists and researchers, wrote: “The place a viable causer doesn’t exist, absolution of environmental legal responsibility for the ‘harmless proprietor’ doesn’t handle the basis contamination drawback — who can pay to analyze and remediate the contamination to be able to shield public well being and restore the surroundings.”

Separate laws, Evers’ finances supply funding choices

Potential funding choices would be the key to the laws’s third spherical.

Jacque has launched separate laws to create an environmental hazard mitigation fund below the STORM Act, a federal revolving mortgage program managed by the Federal Emergency Administration Company. If handed, Jacque stated he plans to discover if a part of the fund might go towards serving to “harmless purchasers” pay for remediation.

Unveiled in February, Evers’ 2023-25 finances additionally proposes spending over $5.3 million in fiscal yr 2024 and one other $2.85 million in fiscal yr 2025 to determine the Revitalize Wisconsin program. 

Revitalize Wisconsin would supply direct companies or funds to native governments, dry cleaners and different personal events to assist handle environmental contamination. Within the finances invoice, the “personal events” definition consists of harmless landowners.

Not like the “harmless purchaser” laws, which might apply throughout an outlined 14-year interval, Revitalize Wisconsin would broaden eligibility to people who bought properties previous to 2006 and who might show they “didn’t know and had no purpose to know of the discharge or air pollution” on the time of buy. 

After 2006, this system would additional broaden eligibility to landowners who might show they adopted the federal requirement to pursue “all acceptable inquiries” to find out if a property they plan to buy is contaminated.  

In an announcement to Wisconsin Watch, the DNR stated Revitalize Wisconsin would operate as a brand new grant program, sunsetting the long-backlogged dry cleaner environmental response fund program, known as DERF. That program reimburses former and working dry cleaner house owners to pay for cleanups — together with these accountable for contamination who observe necessities to attenuate future spills.

Within the first fiscal yr, all backlogged dry cleaner claims — at present estimated at $3.2 million — can be paid. Then, the DNR would think about different eligible candidates on a “project-by-project foundation.”

If an applicant is accepted, the DNR would pay for the wanted mitigation work upfront. The one candidates assured eligibility are these already eligible for DERF. Websites beforehand eligible for DERF will proceed to obtain precedence till all these websites are closed. 

Since its inception in 1997, the state has paid $21.8 million in reimbursements to dry cleaners. This system stopped accepting new purposes in 2008. 

Funding questions loom massive

Even with the potential funding mechanism, the political viability of both choice stays unknown. 

Jacque expressed basic assist for the Revitalize Wisconsin program’s essential targets. 

“I respect that the administration has lastly acknowledged the unjust hardship it has positioned upon harmless landowners by its prior place, to the extent that they even create a definition of ‘harmless landowner’ inside the Revitalize Wisconsin proposal,” Jacque stated. 

Nevertheless, Jacque raised issues that the finances merchandise doesn’t explicitly handle lingering authorized legal responsibility questions for harmless landowners. He additionally wish to see if different federal funding could possibly be tapped to assist mitigate the issue.

“With so few tips, will this proposal simply turn out to be a boon to the division’s chosen few … and go away the overwhelming majority of harmless landowners out to dry?” Jacque requested.

Taylor doubts the laws will get monetary assist from the state Legislature — or that Evers’ Revitalize Wisconsin proposal will survive the Republican-controlled finance committee, whose leaders have vowed to toss out Evers’ finances and begin from scratch.

Even Koeppler’s personal consultant, Kelda Roys, D-Madison, opposes the invoice, saying in a letter to his lawyer that it “fails to realize a very powerful aim, which needs to be remediating the contamination to forestall additional hurt.” Nevertheless, Roys provided to work with Koeppler’s lawyer to craft laws she might assist. 

Taylor stated she sees Evers’ program as one of the simplest ways ahead, because it might take the place of the “harmless purchaser” laws with funding already constructed into the proposal. The DNR stated it believes Revitalize Wisconsin supplies a definition that comes with harmless landowners. 

“It could possibly be a win-win,” Taylor stated. “The query is whether or not or not the co-chairs of finance and management agree.” 

Whereas politicians debate how one can assist property house owners like Koeppler, he stated the contamination and cleanup prices at his constructing proceed to take a toll. He had hoped to retire by now, however the accountability for the cleanup has him trapped. 

“I can’t promote that property,” stated Koeppler, who’s 71. “I just about should be a landlord till the day I die.”

The nonprofit Wisconsin Watch (www.WisconsinWatch.org) collaborates with WPR, PBS Wisconsin, different information media and the College of Wisconsin-Madison College of Journalism and Mass Communication. All works created, revealed, posted or disseminated by Wisconsin Watch don’t essentially mirror the views or opinions of UW-Madison or any of its associates.