David Michael Miller
Gov. Scott Walker's proposed cuts to the state Department of Natural Resources would halt essential field research and leave the state's lands vulnerable to corporations, conservationists say.
"This is the worst conservation budget in 20 years," says George Meyer, who was DNR secretary under Gov. Tommy Thompson and is now executive director of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation.
Walker's budget would cut 66 positions from the DNR, and of those, 18.5 positions would be eliminated from the agency's Bureau of Scientific Services, says DNR spokesman Bill Cosh. The bureau has 59 budgeted positions, although nine are currently vacant.
Walker spokeswoman Laurel Patrick says the changes "are part of the governor's proposal to streamline state government services and make government more efficient, more effective and more accountable."
But conservationists say the cuts will reduce the role of objective, science-based research in decisions about the state's environmental future.
The science bureau conducts long-term studies on topics like wildlife population management and environmental restoration building on generations-old datasets, says Kimberlee Wright, executive director of Midwest Environmental Advocates, a nonprofit law center based in Madison.
"Our DNR has a long, long history of amazing field biology," Wright says. "It's one of the best science agencies in the country."
But if the bureau is cut, much of that research will simply stop. One such casualty could be an upcoming study on the long-term impacts of frac sand mining in western and central Wisconsin. The industry has expanded more than tenfold in the last four years, growing from 10 facilities in 2010 to 135 in 2014. The industry's growth has outpaced what the DNR can inspect and regulate, and a recent report showed that more than half of frac sand facilities violated environmental regulations.
"There's almost no regulation, no cumulative impact science," Wright says of the booming frac sand industry. "Back in the day, when [the DNR] was independent and functioning, no way would an industry like that have been able to take over without some sort of plan, data [and] impact study on public health."
Supporters of the governor's budget have suggested that some of the work could be handled by UW System researchers, but Meyer says the bureau's workload is too much for the academics to take on.
Plus, the "nuts and bolts" nature of the DNR's field research is not necessarily of interest to university researchers, Meyer continues, adding that it would likely be more expensive to contract the work out than to do it in-house.
"It won't get done," Meyer says.
In a state with historical ties to some of the nation's most prominent conservationists -- Aldo Leopold, John Muir, Gaylord Nelson -- the departure from science-based environmental protection research came as a shock to many. However, prominent Republicans have been calling for an overhaul of the DNR for years.
"From what we've been able to ascertain, the focus on cutting the science division came at the initiative of Sen. Tom Tiffany of Hazlehurst," Meyer says.
Tiffany, a Republican, has openly criticized the agency for its big-game population management strategies and objected to a report showing potential environmental hazards of the proposed Gogebic Taconite iron-ore mine in Ashland County, saying it was biased against the mine.
But conservationists say the report was not biased -- nor is any scientific research undertaken by the independent agency.
"These [studies] are things that any farsighted and prudent natural resource agency would do," Meyer says. "Policymakers don't have to follow it, but [they should] at least have that information before them when they make decisions. Otherwise, you're shooting in the dark."
