The Landowner, Darrell Long, insists he would use the well only sporadically to sell bulk water in times of emergencies, such as after a terrorist attack or natural disaster. He describes himself as a Christian whose motivation came from reading the Bible.
“I think God told me to do it,” he said in an interview. (Quoted from Wisconsin state Journal )
I am a god fearing man, and last night as I was sitting on the couch , God told me to run to the top of the highest bluff in Crawford county and yell,
Please send a letter to the Address below or
Lawrence.Lynch@wi.gov
Lawrence Lynch
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
101 S. Webster Street
Madison, WI 53707
RE: Environmental Assessment of the Proposed High Capacity Well in the Town of Utica, Crawford County
Dear Mr. Lynch,
Midwest Environmental Advocates, Wisconsin’s sole public interest environmental law center, is deeply committed to the protection of the state’s groundwater and groundwater-dependent surface waters and natural habitats. As a representative appointed to the Groundwater Advisory Committee, MEA attorney Jodi Habush Sinykin worked with other stakeholders to evaluate Wisconsin’s Groundwater Protection Law (“Act 310”) and contributed to the development of the law’s regulatory program under Natural Resources Chapter 820, Wis. Adm. Code.
Upon consideration of the information set forth in the Environmental Assessment (EA) of the high capacity well proposed by Mr. Darrell Long within 1,200 feet of the North Branch of Copper Creek, a Class 1 trout stream, and of the NR 820 provisions governing the required review, MEA finds that DNR’s assessment, to date, is incomplete and insufficient to determine whether or not significant adverse environmental impacts could result from the operation of the high capacity well at issue.
NR 820.30(6) provides that the DNR may not issue an approval for a high capacity well within a groundwater protection area unless it is able to, and does include, conditions that “ensure that the well does not cause significant adverse environmental impact.” NR 820.30(4)(d) details that these conditions may include pumping capacity, pumpage schedule, months of operation, rate of flow, conservation measures, and “[i]n the case of Class 1, 2 and 3 trout streams. . . flow conditions in the stream shall be maintained such that the fish populations and critical habitat are not adversely affected.” Nonetheless, here, the DNR has neither identified nor included any such conditions for the high capacity well proposed in the instant groundwater protection area.
As such, the Department cannot issue an approval for the proposed high capacity well until it includes approval conditions on the well’s operation that provide the requisite assurance that no significant adverse environmental impact will result in the future, including but not limited to conditions, definitions and parameters relating to (i) proposed “intermittent” uses; (ii) proposed “local emergency” uses; and (iii) well pumping rates and limits necessary to avoid adverse impacts arising from reductions in flow levels of the North Branch of Copper Creek, e.g. temperature or chemistry changes, and to maintain trout population at current levels.
NR 820.30 (5) provides that, as part of a high capacity well approval, the Department may require the owner to implement a monitoring plan to document stream flow conditions in the vicinity of any well located within a groundwater protection area may revise the approval based on results of the monitoring program. Here, the DNR’s environmental analysis and preliminary determination fail to include a monitoring component to establish a baseline or to assess stream flow conditions of the North Branch of Copper Creek in the vicinity of Mr. Long’s proposed high capacity well. MEA requests that this lapse be remedied by requiring Mr. Long to implement a monitoring plan in accord with established field practices, the results of which can be easily accessed (e.g. published on-line) and monitored by DNR and citizen groups as well. The well approval must also include language that outlines a process that facilitates revision of the approval in the event that ongoing monitoring identifies a need for additional resource protection.
Given the vital ecological and economic concerns raised by the proposed high capacity well within 1200 feet of this designated Groundwater Protection Area, MEA further recommends that the DNR not rush to complete this approval process without first eliciting additional expert input from hydrogeologists and biologists to more thoroughly evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed withdrawal—including effects upon stream flow, water temperature, water chemistry, aquatic life in the North Branch as it flows into the rest of Copper Creek, and other nearby surface waters. Given the critical nexus between flow levels and biological considerations, the DNR’s approval must specify ecological parameters and include enforceable language to allow cessation of pumping if it were demonstrated that fish populations or critical habitat were adversely impacted.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment and your further careful attention to this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Jodi Habush Sinykin
"PLEASE WAKE UP !HE OWNS A BOTTLED WATER COMPANY IN OHIO! "
So if your in Wisconsin Bluff Country and you hear someone high atop a bluff yelling at the top of his lungs , it's little old
ME
ME
Here is another letter to Lynch
Please send a letter to the Address below or
Lawrence.Lynch@wi.gov
Lawrence Lynch
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
101 S. Webster Street
Madison, WI 53707
RE: Environmental Assessment of the Proposed High Capacity Well in the Town of Utica, Crawford County
Dear Mr. Lynch,
Midwest Environmental Advocates, Wisconsin’s sole public interest environmental law center, is deeply committed to the protection of the state’s groundwater and groundwater-dependent surface waters and natural habitats. As a representative appointed to the Groundwater Advisory Committee, MEA attorney Jodi Habush Sinykin worked with other stakeholders to evaluate Wisconsin’s Groundwater Protection Law (“Act 310”) and contributed to the development of the law’s regulatory program under Natural Resources Chapter 820, Wis. Adm. Code.
Upon consideration of the information set forth in the Environmental Assessment (EA) of the high capacity well proposed by Mr. Darrell Long within 1,200 feet of the North Branch of Copper Creek, a Class 1 trout stream, and of the NR 820 provisions governing the required review, MEA finds that DNR’s assessment, to date, is incomplete and insufficient to determine whether or not significant adverse environmental impacts could result from the operation of the high capacity well at issue.
NR 820.30(6) provides that the DNR may not issue an approval for a high capacity well within a groundwater protection area unless it is able to, and does include, conditions that “ensure that the well does not cause significant adverse environmental impact.” NR 820.30(4)(d) details that these conditions may include pumping capacity, pumpage schedule, months of operation, rate of flow, conservation measures, and “[i]n the case of Class 1, 2 and 3 trout streams. . . flow conditions in the stream shall be maintained such that the fish populations and critical habitat are not adversely affected.” Nonetheless, here, the DNR has neither identified nor included any such conditions for the high capacity well proposed in the instant groundwater protection area.
As such, the Department cannot issue an approval for the proposed high capacity well until it includes approval conditions on the well’s operation that provide the requisite assurance that no significant adverse environmental impact will result in the future, including but not limited to conditions, definitions and parameters relating to (i) proposed “intermittent” uses; (ii) proposed “local emergency” uses; and (iii) well pumping rates and limits necessary to avoid adverse impacts arising from reductions in flow levels of the North Branch of Copper Creek, e.g. temperature or chemistry changes, and to maintain trout population at current levels.
NR 820.30 (5) provides that, as part of a high capacity well approval, the Department may require the owner to implement a monitoring plan to document stream flow conditions in the vicinity of any well located within a groundwater protection area may revise the approval based on results of the monitoring program. Here, the DNR’s environmental analysis and preliminary determination fail to include a monitoring component to establish a baseline or to assess stream flow conditions of the North Branch of Copper Creek in the vicinity of Mr. Long’s proposed high capacity well. MEA requests that this lapse be remedied by requiring Mr. Long to implement a monitoring plan in accord with established field practices, the results of which can be easily accessed (e.g. published on-line) and monitored by DNR and citizen groups as well. The well approval must also include language that outlines a process that facilitates revision of the approval in the event that ongoing monitoring identifies a need for additional resource protection.
Given the vital ecological and economic concerns raised by the proposed high capacity well within 1200 feet of this designated Groundwater Protection Area, MEA further recommends that the DNR not rush to complete this approval process without first eliciting additional expert input from hydrogeologists and biologists to more thoroughly evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed withdrawal—including effects upon stream flow, water temperature, water chemistry, aquatic life in the North Branch as it flows into the rest of Copper Creek, and other nearby surface waters. Given the critical nexus between flow levels and biological considerations, the DNR’s approval must specify ecological parameters and include enforceable language to allow cessation of pumping if it were demonstrated that fish populations or critical habitat were adversely impacted.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment and your further careful attention to this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Jodi Habush Sinykin
This still amazes me. This person is lost and has not only has lost their moral compass, but their mind as well.
ReplyDelete