Time to Check Sen. Lasee's Hearing

Over the past several years, the Department of Natural Resources has withstood many attacks from the Wisconsin Legislature and polluters. Extreme personnel cuts during the budget process, attempts to split the agency, ad campaigns attacking the Department, and other tactics have combined in an attempt to weaken the DNR. These attacks, typically spearheaded by polluters hoping to avoid responsibility for the negative impacts they have on our water and air, only hurt the citizens of Wisconsin.

Everything I’ve heard since this committee was announced leads me to believe that this has little to do with the DNR, and much to do with polluters wanting to gut the laws that protect my drinking water, my air, and the places I bike and camp.

I attended the hearing in Green Bay on Tuesday, and I was lucky enough to be able to speak within the first 2 hours. Over the course of the hearing, I noted the following:

1. Kerry Schumann of the Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters submitted her speaking registration slip ahead of mine. I was approximately the 7^th person to speak; at 2:45pm, more than 3 hours into the hearing, Kerry had still not been called to testify.
   
   
2. Two individuals with complaints about the DNR testified at both the Arbor Vitae hearing and the Green Bay hearing. At least one of those individuals arrived at the library auditorium after I had submitted my speaking registration, but was called to testify before I was.
   
   
3. After hearing several complaints, the common theme among them seemed to be a ‘lack of clear communication’ between county and DNR staff; within the DNR staff; and between staff, both county and DNR, and citizens. This theme was articulated by some of the Senators as well.
   
   
4. As one citizen was testifying, there was a dialogue between this citizen and Sen. Lasee, which may have been about permitting or property rights. During this dialogue, a citizen from the audience was inspired to yell, “It’s my river, too!” Sen. Lasee, who had been in the process of getting up from his chair, threw his pencil down and, as he left the stage in an agitated manner, said, “No, it’s not.”

I left the hearing around 2:45pm. At that time, the number of speakers with positive and negative stories was fairly equal. Unfortunately, you wouldn’t have known that from reading the newspaper. I guess that’s why it pays to have your people tell a complaint story for the first 2 hours—before the other side ever gets told, the press will have already left.

One tangible piece of constructive criticism, in my opinion, that came out of the hearings dealt with communication. In any organization, work situation, or, for that matter, personal relationship that I have been in or witnessed, communication has always been an obstacle that can cause tension. Better communication is not, however, something that can be legislated, and it will certainly not be solved by reducing funding or cutting staff. It could be made a staff priority, and I think it should be.

Laws are created to protect the public. In this case, laws that are implemented and enforced by the Department of Natural Resources are intended to make sure that the air we breathe doesn’t trigger asthma attacks in our children or cause cancer. They are intended to ensure that there will be edible fish in our rivers and animals in our forests for future hunters and anglers. They are intended to ensure that we have save drinking water and that we aren’t exposed to toxic chemicals that can cause our babies to be born with physical and mental disabilities. I appreciate the work the DNR does, and I am not willing to see these safeguards compromised.