Wood County Wisconsin Polluters' Lobby Working Against Citizens

Town of Saratoga, Wisconsin fights factory farm
in central Wisconsin

Secrecy and Corruption Define Wood County Republicans Protecting Ag Polluters

Violations of the Wisconsin Open Meeting and Open Records law mark Wood County Board (Wisconsin) Chair Lance Pliml and his polluters' lobby working against the families of Wood County.

Wood County clean-water advocates and the town government of Saratoga are working to stop a locally notorious polluter, the Wysocki corporation, from operating a massive, industrialized agricultural factory that would inject toxic liquid cow manure into central Wisconsin's environment, "producing as much [untreated] waste as a city with a population of 106,000 people every single day," (Protect Wood County and Its Neighbors).

Clean water advocates want protection of their drinking and surface waters.

No, says the polluters' lobby, many of whom are Republicans in Wood County county government.

Reports Jonathan Anderson in the USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin this week:

Bolstering regulations against water contamination has proved once again to be a highly charged topic among members of the Wood County Board.

The board on Tuesday considered a draft ordinance aimed at penalizing people who contaminate ground and surface waters, partly in response to concerns about a proposed large-scale dairy in Saratoga.

But the measure did not pass and was instead referred to a committee for further consideration, drawing the ire of the legislation’s supporters.

Last year Lance Pliml and Republican allies objected to citizens attending a County Board meeting saying in part, "I think this is an attempt to put pressure on the committee for one point of view," (Madden, Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune), (Mal Contends), after Pliml publicly said he discouraged citizen attendance.

Democracy escapes Pliml. And it's against Wisconsin's Open Meetings law to actively discourage and impede attendance of lawful meetings.

Pro-clean water citizens enjoy popular support, but a Republican operation working with Pliml is fighting the will of citizens. This Republican polluters' lobby demands citizens not come to public meetings and refuses open record requests, in violation of Wisconsin Open Meeting and Open Records laws.

For the privilege of forbidding local democracy, declining property values and the Wysocki corporation's new "forty-nine high capacity wells, capable of drawing 7.3 billion gallons of water from the groundwater aquifer annually," the polluters' lobby is promising to turn central Wisconsin into an economic moonscape, (Protect Wood County and Its Neighbors).

Wysocki owns another CAFO, contaminating water in adjacent Juneau County, (Anderson, USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin) (Mal Contends).

The Wysocki corporate family lives safely away in Custer, Wisconsin and runs operations some 20 miles north in Bancroft, Wisconsin so it's no skin off Wysocki's back if he economically and ecologically kills a region trying to make a come-back with tourism and recreation, (Mal Contends).

Wysocki is not part of the community, he's a parasite.

Criste Greening of Protect Wood County and Its Neighbors made an Open Records request to Wood County Board (Wisconsin) Chair Lance Pliml.

Greening was refused.

Pliml's Repulbican ally, Wood County Corporate Counsel Peter Kastenholz, advocates the dissolution of Wisconsin's Open Records law, (Anderson, USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin).

Below is an edited reproduction of Greening's Open Records update sent to supporters this week:

Friends and Concerned Citizens,

Message 3 of 3

Where do I even begin to bring everyone up to speed on the Wood County Board/Chairman Pliml saga that has unfolded over the past month? I have attempted to form this email three times and each time my temper has gotten the best of me requiring yet another re-write.

As many of you are aware from previous emails shared, Wood County Board Chairman Lance Pliml was served a second (more specific) Open Records Request as a result of his ridiculous response to the first one.  If you missed that email feel free to get caught up HERE.

I have received a response to the second request.  In a nutshell, Chairman Pliml had Corporate Counsel Peter Kastenholz respond to my second Open Records Request stating that I had previously received all pertinent information and that Mr. Pliml was under no obligation to “Memorialize” conversations had with Attorneys regarding the [proposed] Operating Ordinance discussed.  Even though Mr. Pliml has shared publicly on two occasions that he would supply requested information, he now again refuses.

Mr. Pliml’s refusal to answer the simple question regarding who he had spoken to comes as no surprise to me or other members of our core group.  Many (including myself) have believed from the very beginning that Mr. Pliml had never truly discussed the [proposed] Operating Ordinance with anyone nor had he actually spoken to “some of the best Attorneys in the state”.  Mr Pliml’s initial response to the first Open Records Request lacked any documentation regarding the Operating Ordinance therefore proving clearly his lack of honesty and integrity.

One would think if Mr. Pliml, as an elected official, had really gone the extra mile for his constituents he would be more than willing to share the information gathered and willingly discuss conversations had.  Chairman Plim instead hides behind Corporate Counsel and refuses to share said information.  The reason is simple - he has nothing to share and never has.

I personally am done dealing with Chairman Pliml and need to stop myself here as I have nothing nice to say regarding his character, ethics, integrity, or professionalism.  I do ask that if you are as irritated as I am with this situation that you share your feelings freely with Chairman Pliml and the entire Wood County Board ... .

Thank you all for your continued support.

Criste Greening

Lake Michigan Shore-located Business and Home Redlined

Pictured is a traveling gun spray irrigating manure. In the practice
of spray irrigation of manure, aerosolized lagoon waste
is reduced into smaller particulate droplets,
which are easily ingested and inhaled by humans and animals.

Hopes of actually selling commercial and residential lakeshore property are 'zero percent'

The destruction wrought by industrialized agriculture is immense and growing, (WisconsinWatch, Door County Pulse).

By Robyn Mulhaney
Kewaunee County Wisconsin

This is a very personal issue for me. As a resident of Kewaunee County with a tourism-based business I am living the nightmare you are trying to stop [in central Wisconsin].

My business is 15-yrs.-old. At the time I built new construction along Lake Michigan, thinking this was my last business venture, there was one WPDES, [Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System], permit in our county, Pagel's Ponderosa [factory farm]. You all know the rest of the story here. Along with 9 other citizens, I stopped one CAFO 2 miles located 2 miles from my business from implementing irrigation of raw manure. I am thinking that will change after his permit is up and he will be permitted in four years.

I listed my home and business for sale during the last year. While no broker, appraiser or banker would come right out and say it, my commercial property values are 2/3 of CONSTRUCTION COSTS 15 years ago because of water quality. My home has 800 ft. of Lake Michigan frontage, a small cove that fills with heaps of algae during the warm months. We are dealing with health issues in our household and want to move out of the area as quickly as possible. My partner will be leaving next month and I am staying behind to dismantle our retail business, providing an empty space for events and weddings as there are 4 acres of cultivated gardens and a lily pond on the property, all established my us. Our local government has offered no support for our situation, basically told us to shut up or leave. My hopes of actually selling either property are at 0%.

My point is, by the time we recognized, or admitted, the changes to our landscape, it was too late. My outdoor inventory gets coated with a black soot each summer from the CAFO 2 miles west. The pollution travels winds from the west, hangs up in the humid lake air, creating a haze of pollution. We smell lagoon odors virtually everyday and we our customers ask/complain about the odors; the source is two miles away! Our business has sustained extensive and expensive vandalism over the last year. Our home has been vandalized and so have vehicles left in our parking lot. The sheriffs department is completely lacking in support. Not until the water kiosk was vandalized at the high school these last couple months have they taken issues of vandalism seriously from the citizens who have spoke out against pollution issues.

Something Stinks in Wisconsin

Aerosolized manure lagoon waste in Wisconsin -
Nothing to see here, says Big Ag. Science, Wisconsin
families and communities say differently

Local Democracies, Families and Communities Are Fighting Big Ag's Industrialized Manure Waste

Wisconsin has an entire political party, (the Republicans (and a few Democrats)), who act as shills for Big Ag's annual dumping of millions of tons of hazardous waste—bacterial, viral, and parasitic fecal pathogens—into Wisconsin waters and the entire biosphere to predictable tragic consequences, (Devlin, Green Bay Press Gazette; Lundstrom, Door County Pulse; Sustain Rural Wisconsin Network; Duhigg, New York Times; Clean Water Council of Northeast Wisconsin).

Assisting Big Ag in this project are the Koch brothers which acquired the paper giant Georgia-Pacific in 2005 (Arndt, BloombergBusiness), as corporate and institutional ownership of Wisconsin forests are displacing family-owned woodlands, (Schmid, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel), clear-cutting the way for more hazardous industrialized agriculture.

The map shows increase in annual mean
surface concentration of particulate matter
resulting from ammonia emissions associated with food export.
Populated states in the Northeast and Great Lakes region,
where particulate matter formation is promoted by
upwind ammonia sources, carry most of the cost.
Manure from livestock and fertilizer for crops
release ammonia to the atmosphere.
In the air, ammonia mixes with other emissions
to form microscopic airborne particles,
or particulates
Image: NASA AQAST/Harvard University

As Adams County in central Wisconsin works locally to protect forests (Anderson, USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin), Big Ag and paper giants have cast their eyes on the land, with no regard for surrounding communities and families.

Lights are blinking red among Wisconsin clean water advocates.

"While (Big) ag interests suggest it may be unfair for the county to create forest zoning to cover the communities that have no zoning laws, they don't mention the 10,000 acres of forest clear cut in the past few years near the lakes and streams that support tourism. Adams County ranks #4 in per capita tourism. This proposed zoning is a move to protect the balance of tourism and agriculture, and it needs your support. For too long, we've sat idly by as agriculture interests do the land grab. If you value the nature of our county, please attend the hearing at the Adams County Community Center on March 23rd  at 7:00 PM. You can bet the CAFO operators in New Chester and Richfield, along with their DBA, (the polluters' lobby, the Dairy Business Association), ... will be there," said Don Ystad of Adams County in an email sent this weekend.

Meanwhile Farms Not Factories emails an alert the UW-Extension Spray Irrigation of Manure Workgroup "plans to release its findings very soon and although they've promised they would hold a public hearing and solicit public comments after they compiled their final draft report, they've decided NOT to do so."

Reads the Farms Not Factories email:

In addition, they are rushing to publish the final report. Workgroup members were given the final draft on March 12 and their comments were due by March 19. Keep in mind, the Workgroup convened in 2013 and the members spent many, many hours attending meetings/reading materials/sorting through the facts. Why were they given a week to review and comment on 3 years worth of work??

While Bayfield County banned aerial spraying on manure in early 2015, Ashland County (as well as a majority of counties in Wisconsin) have not banned this form of manure disposal. If I've learned anything in the past year, it's this: Bayfield and Ashland Counties share a watershed, a shoreline and a County border and what happens in Ashland doesn't necessarily stay in Ashland.

The Workgroup members need to hear from the citizens of Wisconsin immediately, please send an email ASAP. Please write them and tell them you expect the UW-Extension Spray Irrigation of Manure Workgroup to schedule a public hearing/allow public comment on their final draft report about this controversial manure disposal practice. Why are they rushing to finalize the report before the citizens have a chance to weigh in?

Template for your email to the Spray Irrigation of Manure Workgroup

Here are the names of the Workgroup members:
Ken Genskow, UW-Madison (chair/facilitator)
Becky Larson, UW-Madison
Carrie Laboski, UW-Madison
Mark Borchardt, USDA-Ag Research Service
Andrew Craig, Wisconsin DNR
Joe Baeten, Wisconsin DNR
Pat Murphy, NRCS
Steve Struss, Wisconsin DATCP
Rob Thiboldeaux, Wisconsin DHS
Suzanne Gibbons Burgener, Wisconsin DHS
Gloria Smedema, Fond du Lac County Public Health
Sarah Grosshuesch, Adams County Public Heath
Jeff Polenske, Agronomist
Jim Vandenbrook, Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Association (WLWCA)
Kenn Buelow, Dairy Farmer
Jeff Sommers, Dairy Farmer
Shelly Mayer, Dairy Farmer and Executive Director, Professional Dairy Producers of Wisconsin (PDPW)
Dana Cook, Professional Nutrient Applicators Association of Wisconsin (PNAAW)
Lynn Utesch

Copy and paste these email addresses of the workgroup:
kgenskow@wisc.edu, ralarson2@wisc.edu, laboski@wisc.edu, mark.borchardt@ars.usda.gov, Andrew.Craig@Wisconsin.gov, Joseph.Baeten@Wisconsin.gov, steve.struss@wisconsin.gov, Robert.thiboldeaux@dhs.wisconsin.gov, suzanne.gibbonsburgener@dhs.wisconsin.gov, sarah.grosshuesch@co.adams.wi.us, pat.murphy@wi.usda.gov, gloria.smedema@fdlco.wi.gov, Jeff@TilthAg.com, kennholsum@bugnet.net, jeff.sommers@rpespud.com, smayer@pdpw.org, danacook2000@gmail.com, lnutesch@yahoo.com, Kitty.rhoades@dhs.wisconsin.gov, Laurie.ross@wisconsin.gov

In the town of Saratoga in Wood County, the town is working against Republican-backed legislation that would "override local zoning and put the groundwater and thousands of acres of land in a single township at risk."

For some four years Saratoga residents have opposed the siting of a massive, polluting industrialized CAFO or Concentrated (Confined) Agricultural Operation by the Wysocki corporation.

When the Wysocki corporation officials did a PR gig on July 19, 2012 at a special Saratoga Town Board meeting drawing 100s of people, the local Wisconsin state representative, Scott Krug (R-Nekoosa) told a Wood County resident to "quit your bitching," (Mal Contends).

Krug is scheduled to appear at a Door County water quality hearing on March 31 with another Repulbican, (Door County Daily News). One Door County resident emails, "No, this is not [from] the Onion, the Republican legislative threats to water quality are going to explain to people how to restore the Ahnapee River. This should be good!" 

From a Saratoga January 2016 release opposing Krug-supported legislation:

SARATOGA, Wis. [January 4, 2016] – A pristine aquifer and thousands of acres of pine forest in one rural Wisconsin township are at risk if a proposal before Senate and Assembly committees makes its way through the legislative process, confirmed Attorney Paul Kent representing the Town of Saratoga in Wood County. A public hearing on SB464 is slated for 11a.m. on Tuesday, Jan. 5 in Senate Hearing Room 412E while AB582 comes before the Assembly Committee on Housing and Real Estate on Thursday, Jan. 7.

These bills include a provision that would retroactively apply an expanded concept of vested rights and in so doing limit a local government’s ability to protect the property rights and health of its residents, Kent said.

The Wysocki Family of Companies has proposed siting a 5,300-cow dairy facility in the Town of Saratoga. Known as Golden Sands Dairy, it would encompass almost 6,000 acres in the Town, some 4,660 of which is managed pine forest that would be clear-cut for vegetable production. “If the proposed vested rights language passes, the original Wysocki building permit for six buildings on 98 acres could apply to thousands of additional acres in the Town,” Kent said.

“These bills are being supported by the Wysocki Family of Companies to further its attempt to override the Town’s zoning ordinance and a pending Court of Appeals decision on the scope of that zoning ordinance,” Kent said. “Wysockis would like to sweep local zoning aside so that the only remaining review of the operation would be by the Department of Natural Resources.”

“The Town’s zoning was designed to protect the area’s fragile aquifer and sandy soils and was initiated in its 2007 comprehensive plan long before Golden Sands Dairy was proposed. The problem for the Town, Kent explained, is that this area, as designated by the U.S. Geological Survey, is highly susceptible to groundwater contamination, and more than 5,000 residents depend on the quality of that groundwater. The zoning was intended to protect public health and the property rights of those residents,” he explained.

The Wysocki proposal includes application of 55 million gallons of liquid manure and 25,000 tons of solid manure annually on the 4,660 acres for vegetable production. “Manure application to that extent on those 4,660 acres will compromise the soil and the groundwater in short order,” Kent said, “and threaten more than 500 residential wells in close proximity to those fields.”

These concerns are not hypothetical. In recent months, monitoring wells at Wysocki’s Central Sands Dairy, which is sited on similar soil and located just across the Wisconsin river from Saratoga, have demonstrated nitrate levels as high as 77 parts per million (ppm), or nearly eight times the drinking water standard of 10 ppm, Kent said.

While this change would directly impact the Town of Saratoga, passage of the vested rights language in AB582/SB464 could also severely limit the ability of towns and other local governments to regulate frac sand mining and other land uses throughout the state, he said.
###

About the Town of Saratoga

A township in Wood County, Wisconsin, Saratoga is home to 5,385 residents. It is situated in the southeast corner of the county, bordering Juneau and Adams counties and includes Ten Mile Creek, Ross Lake, a portion of Nepco Lake and Five Mile Creek.  Its predominate land uses are woodlands owned by private landholders, residential subdivisions, limited agriculture (cranberry bogs), commercial developments along highways 13 and 73 and open spaces. The Town is listed on the US Geological Survey map as an area highly susceptible to groundwater contamination. The main aquifer consists of glacial sands and gravels resting approximately 20 feet below the land surface.

Fed Judge's Ruling on Dark Money Moves to State Court Under Cloud

The Wisconsin Governmental Accountability Board (GAB), Wisconsin's election board, and John Doe officials have effectively acceded to a corrupt federal judge's ruling that was expected to be overturned in federal appellate court in a bizarre legal move yesterday.

U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa (corrupted in service to the Koch brothers, Federalist Society, the Bradley Center; nominally of the Eastern District of Wisconsin) issued an ruling in mid-October declaring Wisconsin's campaign finance regulations—prohibiting coordination among political candidates and dark money 'issue' groups—violate the First Amendment and henceforth are unenforceable.

The case is Citizens for Responsible Government Advocates, Inc., v. Thomas Barland (Case No. 14-C-1222).

Randa faced a judicial slap-down and possible ethical investigations in federal appellate court so now all parties have decided to cover up for Randa by moving the case to state court.

The GAB and John Doe officials have reached an agreement with Citizens ... moving the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, (Marley, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel) and narrowing Randa's injunction of Wisconsin campaign finance law under Randa's novel and contrived theory of the First Amendment.

Partisan Republicans enjoy a four-to-three majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which has lost legitimacy as an impartial judicial body.

When the rightwing group, Citizens for Responsible Government Advocates, filed its suit in early October, it gamed the court paperwork so Randa would hear the case, which happened and Randa subsequently fast-tracked the case, instead of waiting until after Election Day (Marley, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel).

"Judge Randa first made news in May when he issued an extraordinary ruling halting the criminal campaign finance investigation into Governor Scott Walker's campaign, declaring that candidates and 'dark money' nonprofits have a First Amendment right to coordinate over ads that don't expressly tell viewers how to vote (and ordering the destruction of evidence). That ruling was reversed by a unanimous decision from the 7th Circuit in September, with conservative jurist Frank Easterbrook calling Randa's decision 'imprudent,' 'unnecessary,' and an 'abuse of discretion,'" notes Brendan Fischer of PR Watch.

Randa's October 14 ruling devastating Wisconsin's campaign finance regulations was issued just weeks before the November 4 election in a clear violation of the Purcell doctrine employed by courts as a guiding principle that election law is not changed close to an election, and certainly not before voting had already begun as is the case in Wisconsin where 1,000s of absentee votes were already cast when Randa issued his ruling in mid October.

The effect of the ruling was to legalize coordination among candidates and dark money, allowing Scott Walker's campaign some three weeks to conspire with whomever it chose.

Randa's ruling, not coincidentally, also would absolve Scott Walker of apparent crimes as indicated by documents released in the John Doe probe that show Walker is suspected to have been at the center of a massive "criminal scheme" Marley, Bice and Glauber, (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel).

Judge Rudolph Randa Stands Naked and Corrupt for Scott Walker

Update II: Group gamed filing federal lawsuit to be assigned to Rudolph Randa. (Marley, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel)

Update: Two other points. Randa has ignored the Pursell principle and changed Wisconsin election law less than three weeks before Election Day. Secondly, through Randa's two rulings against Wisconsin campaign finance law enforcement, Randa has given Scott Walker an arguable defense if the John Doe Probe is allowed to proceed with its investigation though Scott Walker knows what he did is illegal. A federal judge declared what Scott Walker and others did is not illegal, so how can John Doe prosecutors find Walker, for example, guilty of breaking finance law when Randa has imposed ambiguity in the law that will be read against the state in a criminal prosecution.
---
An obscure rightwing group, Citizens for Responsible Government Advocates (CRG), has filed a complaint in federal court based upon a discredited view of the First Amendment to halt virtually all Wisconsin campaign finance law.

That's good enough for U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa who issued a preliminary injunction "before the GAB (Government Accountability Board) and (Milwaukee County District Attorney John T. Chisholm) had even spoken with the attorney assigned to represent them," notes Brendan Fischer at PR Watch. Nor had the GAB and Chisholm's attorney even filed a brief before Randa ruled.

The federal case is Citizens for Responsible Government Advocates v. Barland et al.

Randa wants to engineer the law to work for political allies and specifically shield Scott Walker from getting criminally charged or politically embarrassed by facts of the ongoing John Doe probe.

Randa heard CRG's complaint and issued a ruling today in this naked attempt to protect Scott Walker in what will likely raise corruption and misconduct questions before the supervising Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit after a likely reversal.

"The general election is only three weeks away. Any further delay threatens to negate the effectiveness of CRG’s requested relief," writes Randa.

"Randa issued his latest order even though those who are being sued didn't have an attorney until Monday. Because the lawyer was only recently hired, he has not submitted a brief to the judge explaining his clients' views on campaign finance laws or why they believe they are valid," notes Patrick Marley in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

Randa had already made up his mind.

This is typical Randa, using his position on the federal bench to benefit Scott Walker less than three weeks before Election Day by blocking "enforcement of a Wisconsin election law that's at the center of an investigation into Gov. Scott Walker's 2012 recall campaign and more than two dozen conservative groups." (AP)

Wisconsin law enforcement has more than reasonable doubt to believe that Scott Walker is part of a criminal collaboration scheme that Randa is declaring no longer to be criminal, using this case, Citizens for Responsible Government Advocates v. Barland et al to issue this bizarre ruling today.

"U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa on Tuesday barred state election officials and Milwaukee's top prosecutor from enforcing their interpretation of campaign finance laws limiting the ability of candidates and purportedly independent groups from collaborating," writes Patrick Marley in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. "Earlier this year, Randa expressed similar skepticism toward campaign finance laws and halted an investigation into collaboration between Gov. Scott Walker's campaign and groups backing him. That ruling was thrown out three weeks ago by an appeals court that took Randa to task for his decision, in part because the panel said the case belonged in state — not federal — court."

Randa's earlier campaign finance decision was overturned in September in O'Keefe and Club for Growth, Inc v. Chisholm and Schmitz, with Judge Frank Easterbrook writing for a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that included Judges Diane Wood and William Bauer, "No opinion issued by the Supreme Court, or by any court of appeals, establishes ('clearly' or otherwise) that the First Amendment forbids regulation of coordination between campaign committees and issue-advocacy groups ... ."

Knocked down hard by the appellate court, Randa is apparently not guided by the appellate court's admonitions or its orders. Easterbrook called September ruling "imprudent," "unnecessary," and "an abuse of discretion." (Fischer, PR Watch)

Overturning Randa's decision in O'Keefe and Club for Growth, Inc., Easterbrook wrote, "Until the district court's opinion in this case, neither a state nor a federal court had held that Wisconsin's (or any other state's) regulation of coordinated fundraising and issue advocacy violates the First Amendment. ...It is not possible to treat as 'bad faith' a criminal investigation that reflects (the U.S. Supreme Court's) interpretation of the First Amendment."

This appellate opinion is inconvenient to Randa's political agenda, and could hurt Scott Walker if more evidence of what Scott Walker did goes public.

Randa just thinks up the results of cases and rules, throwing in an opinion at the end.

Critics and most jurists call this "results-oriented" jurisprudence.

Other people call it corruption.

Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, corruption at its worst, also got in the act.

"In a surprising move, Wisconsin's Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen reversed his office's position on the scope of Wisconsin campaign finance law, and declined to represent the GAB and Chisholm in the lawsuit. In a letter to the GAB -- the agency tasked with interpreting and enforcing Wisconsin campaign finance law -- Assistant Deputy Attorney General Dan Lennington called the agency's interpretation of Wisconsin campaign finance law 'tenuous,'" notes Fischer.