Kori Feener
Environmentalists and residents worry about what will happen to the wilderness of the Driftless Area if a large capacity transmission line is built through it.
Near Barneveld off 151, surrounded by farms and at the mouth of a dead end road, is the entrance to the Barneveld Prairie State Natural Area. Part of what is considered the Driftless Area, this spot feels wonderfully wild — western bluebirds chirp happily and flutter about from fence post to fence post, near large rolled-up hay bales and tall grasses.
For Betsy D’Angelo, the area is simply too important to mess with, and not just because of its environmental treasures. “The biggest economic driver is tourism,” says D’Angelo, who lists hunting, fishing, kayaking, snowshoeing and vacationing.
As Isthmus detailed in a March 1 cover story, many believe the biggest threat to the area is the Cardinal-Hickory Creek project, a large capacity transmission line that would cut through it.
The proposal is supposed to get a rigorous environmental review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. But opponents now fear that review is being bought and paid for.
On March 5, the Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, signed an agreement with American Transmission Company (or ATC) and WEC Energy Group that would allow the companies to fund additional staff needed to expedite their pre-application requests, pre-construction notifications and applications for permits submitted under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The agreement does not list the particular projects that will be given exclusive dedication by the ATC- and WEC-funded full-time employee.
“It’s absurd — the fox guarding the henhouse,” says Dave Clutter, executive director of the Driftless Area Land Conservancy, which is opposed to the line. “It has conflict of interest written all over it.”
Mike Van Sicklen, a retired attorney and the Conservancy board president, agrees. “There is widespread concern that ATC is trying to buy outcomes it wants by paying for the costs of such supposedly independent reviews.”
Howard Lerner, the president and executive director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center, questions the legality of the process. “No one is entitled to concierge service — this is regulatory capture.”
In March, Lerner’s organization sent a letter to the Corps of Engineers’ regulatory branch in Wisconsin arguing against expedited permitting. Fast-track expediting “does not meet the requirements of the authorizing statute” the group wrote, because ATC and WEC have not been able to demonstrate factual examples that the projects have a public purpose.
They also argued that the arrangement “violates the procedural due process rights of those whose property interests will be compromised if these projects go forward.”
The letter adds that “fees might be appropriate when users are genuinely purchasing a service from the government. They become problematic when the agency is deciding on a contested permit or license application.”
The Corps has yet to respond to these complaints directly. However, George Stringham, public affairs specialist with the Corps, says that the Water Resources Development Act “allows the Corps to accept funds to expedite the review of permit applications, and national Corps’ guidance includes very specific requirements to ensure that decision-making remains impartial.”
He added that the funding wouldn’t taint the Corps regulatory process. “All applications still go through the same review and public comment process,” he says. “All final decisions must comply with applicable law and regulations and be reviewed at the appropriate level by an official of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to ensure fair and impartial decision-making.”
The companies seeking to build the line also dismiss concerns. “The language in the public notices is clear that this transparent agreement will not impact the decision-making for permit applications and is in the general public’s interest,” says Amy Jahns, spokesperson for WEC Energy Group.
The process continues to move forward, with $189,492 in place to hire one full-time employee equivalent for one year. Stringham did not immediately respond to follow up questions from Isthmus about whether additional staff have yet been hired and what the timeline for the review is.
Because the Corps has not responded directly to the letter from the Environmental Law and Policy Center, the group is assessing the appropriate time to file a lawsuit against what Lerner calls “an unfair and legally flawed process.”
Van Sicklen says that the arrangement will damage trust in the Corps’ decision-making process. “The unusual arrangement by which the Corps is having ATC fund its project costs will cast a dark shadow of doubt about the integrity of the resulting work product and is causing a loss of trust in the process among the general public.”
