Document ByJOa1okGo1e12JeM9E9w3OYj

State of Wisconsin DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 101 S. Webster Street Box 7921 Madison Wl 53707-7921 Scott Walker, Governor Cathy Stepp, Secretary Telephone 608-266-2621 Toil Free 1-888-936-7463 TTY Access via relay - 711 June 19, 2017 AHnadnrsoewn.AHnadnrseown @epa.gov Dear Mr. Hanson, (Tp"1W9rWh.oaIpaWntDokeserNeysdaoRolusr)foupftlohtrehreetavtoUnhioknaeumiyitsneoeldvynuidtsSfiuotntabhrgtmeettashdi"kteetie(fnSWidgntaicOottoiueoTmrnoUmpfoSaWef)snt"ditWcssucoroomaintnnemsgNrisentohnov(etWfesm"tthEiosbe.cOehUore.nna1s1rii4tt3n.e,1d)T23t0h2So1etFa4sWutee(bdasime"strtcia(aotWclnichssoOmeimndT)CmD,UoweeSnpnh)satiu(scrjlhtotrmaeintgeiidtanolerytnndoritMnifeflgNieeeeatadhtstieuencdrogdan"belcfyhRienertehilnsdteisoouotnhnracoAetfspthreil scEauonnbndvmsipuriulottnbacmltoiismoehnnmetdwaelinftoPthrsrtoprhteueegbcastltriiaocdtnicenosAg,mggtmheenenecednyretaf(iliEnlnyPit,thAiaoen)ndFaoenwdfdeitrWthhaoleOuRUtTenWUgitSiisestdaceosrSnaotsnanitneeA,sxpscCpreioelllrce2pinf1sit,coea2fxl0laEy1m,n4g)WpilwneeeaoevsrfiesdEwe(PvUteAShlo'AisspCnendeEeww)wociotnophmpoMoumarttrituscmunhfieft2niyc5ti,t,eo2n0t14 tEhcroonuogmh iAcdGmrionwistthrabtoyrRPervuiiettw, ianngdtbhye virtue of President Trump's Executive `Waters of the United States' Rule" to rOeradffeirrm13t7h7e8s"taFteeds'ecroanlisstmit,uatinodnal role in administering laws, solving problems, and serving people. Tcohnistinanueextociptirnogtetcitmtehethcaittipzernovsiodfesthuiss an excellent opportunity to review our regulatory climate to ensure country, while at the same time ensuring our regulatory structure is we not unnecessarily burdensome. We truly appreciate both the approach and opportunity. In response to your specific requests for feedback and input, Wisconsin has the following comments: tdp1hae)efritnsicteeudplaa2rHnpfdoerwaiomtpuwoproeslueesdmlodrerynuiomlteeu?dp?lliikcHaeottiwoonswseoeoufthladenyycoosunuccleihkpeatsptpoorfsoe"aercehtlhaeestivathegaleytntpchieeersmaiganentneercnpiter"setasnh"dcoou"nlcdsoisnbtteeinnmutiownudistfhus"luroSfcfaaicnleiadc?eovnAenrleeocptthiinoegrne" We believe that Wisconsin with the opinion o f Justice AisntthoenipnerSfceacltiaexianmRpalpeaonfows hv.erUeniintteedrpSrtaettiensg, 33 U.S.C. 1362(7) in a manner consistent 547 U,S. 715 (2006) would allow for Wgreiascteorncsoinm'smwoantesresn.sWe filsecxoinbsiilnitywwouhlidlebceonintifnauvionrgotfoipnrteorvpidreeticnogmthperechoenncseipvetseonfv"irroenlamtievnetlaylpperromteacntieonnt"oafnd "continuous surface connection" in a manner that would allow for the greatest flexibility for Wisconsin to directly regulate waters within perennial streams only oaunrdjuwreitsldaincdtisondiwreicthtloyuttouunchniencgesjsuarrisydaicntdiodnuapl lwicaatteirvse).fedWerisaclornesgiunlarteimonasinasnodnoevoerfstihgehtfe(wi.e., NstoartethsetrhnatCcouorkreCntolyunrteygu(SlaWteAisNolCaCte)d,v.noUn.S-f.edAerrmalywCeotlrapnsdosffEolnlgoiwnienergst,h5e31deUci.sSi,on15i9n Solid Waste Agency of (2001). Also, Wisconsin more broadly defines "Waters of the State" to include "those portions of Lake Michigan and Lake Superior within tmhaerbshouesn,dwaariteesrcoofutrhsiesss,tdartea,inaangdeaslyl sltaekmess, bays, rivers, streams, springs, ponds, wells, impounding reservoirs, and other surface water or groundwater, natural or artificial, public or private, within definitions and this state case law oarssiotscijautreidsdwicittihonR.a"p(aWnoiss. Stat. and its 281.01(18)). progeny are As a result, even duplicative to the the existing controlling regulatory approach in dnr.wi.gov w isco n sin .g o v Naturally W ISCONSIN Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 ED 002061 00068638-00001 Page 2 Wisconsin significant fdoerlapyrsotaencdtinreggouulartocrityizceonn'fsuwsiaotnerws.hTehnistrdyuinpglitcoatsiuopnenroimt opnolsye leads to wasted a "one size fits regulatory effort, but also all" approach to our State. 2) What opportunities and challenges exist for your state or locality with taking a Scalia approach? jpgrwAptsarAuhtienerrgeasragnodortitiatdletsenceaerrdriceoesncd"laesitagtcsdoinelmiwntu,donstpiglto.,oneeeaoarnEsWrxtsFebomaaPiaoeozrvibmrAdiyvvseotercee,epiofcrrbdoc,cliahaeateuntasdlahinsrsonltweariaalcffneewgluanholnt'ner"tshndihtengstliesdphftryescieonewressidcrreutof.adeieoisntcFnaynrrendwliai,itcofltvnelouitopiareaoinwrsupnpvlnrcielloepoyelqdflruonlvo,outitdhnfirccuuieariaaae"nnpwnnetenlWidriglmdt.doyoeytawnEhetrltbeatwnoePeteaccythrteAknwdtslsiet,adevhhoowfoRnSeroaiofdfn,ckhesvvcasteigcieetoh.ccloiiriwmooeohiImalsnonnahSmhatpmpoWto5opaepaoofpnaretniiiWnnearsrsdlei"cotgsmctOsiohaeuvdiernnncirTenifenehrssflgUsoaaeyei,Weunuctt,Sbetel,trsoai.oilnnoWsydtCtiTcehilcnuouoioslIhgmpuntttnniaihD.ldscotspibeoeeciANnainlnsasEicsodRsttjtcfbPrhidteurvooajhdoAisenuett.matueiccnoasadBnoteinnnjfrbnityudAoaqdnoeerrlusrinlcAmioneyeesioruxgmrm,ldanyrmdaifiafaocmseepaubyletvdfdesipildiFoeriCdnenlnrmneeribgoatgteeoyriliuodsatoprsnabfEidnfesnndeowdglsPgdoher,uimAhrtcaclOusieaavootrssrRltapietnrieotanteeeaeeraetngrerlgeycfainvaildattaolevaiugi,aurxnopiaedworapinnpleonbn5lfrcinomdl(icoieCnvmeaaeeistuActneriinhvntFoadeetnOas,le,lr) should establish an intergovernmental agreement to allow for one agency and one process in issuing approvals related to wetlands. 3) Do you response scope) implementation aornefgtsiactaripdteaintpgeroaCgnWryaAcmhsjauunrngisdedseirtcotthitoehneC? sWIcnoApade(deo.igtfi.yo, on3u,0rh3os, tw3a1twe1o,oru4l0ldo1ca,a4lS0pc2arolaiganrdaamp4p0sr4o()e?a.cgIh.f, pssoota,tetwunhtteiaastloltyyr paeemfsfeeocrtfgteahncetciyons do you anticipate would be needed? If the Scalia approach is adopted, it would allow Wisconsin to be more targeted and flexible, by allowing the use osfetfadcteeormalalmwju,ornaissdsneiconttsieeodnraeogbvuoelvraetw.oTraytheearrpsepowrfootahucelhdUesbn,eiwtelihdtitclSehtaowrteinsllowlecoahudaldntognebotetotctmehraancnogyoepotehfreoaurtreivgseutaleatnetvooirrryolnoomvceaerlnspitgarhol gtp,rraaomstebsc.otitLohinmthuietnindDgeNr R aevnadluDaAteTwChPaht aavdedirteiognualal tciohnasngaedsdtroessstiantge water quality within waters of the law, if any, would be necessary to sitdaetne.tifWy gisacposnasinndwoopuplodrtnueneidtietso for new approaches, 4) The agencies' economic analysis for step 2 intends to review programs under CWA 303, 311,401, 402 and not b4e04c.apAtrueretdheirnesauncyh other programs specific an economic analysis? to your region, state or locality that could be affected but would tWo ewwhaotumldanyeneodttboesceaeptthuerepdr,oagnradmwsopurldopaopspedrefcoiarterdevgieewttibnyg EthPoAseapnrdopthoeseUdSpAroCgEra) mins oarsdseorotno adequately respond as is practicable. Wisconsin appreciates the the USACE. We would be opportunity to provide these happy to provide additional comments and information or chloapriefsictahtaiotntsh.ey will be helpful to EPA and Since: Deputy Secretary Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 ED 002061 00068638-00002