Progressive Thinking

The Sylla’s struggle with bad water, caused it seems by a high capacity well operated by a sand mine near their farm. Brown water is coming from their well and a horse died from exposure to toxins likely in the water. A bill in Madison, which would grant the well owner a permit in perpetuity, makes situations worse.

ALMA, WI - What if you woke up one morning turned on the faucet to wash your face and saw brown water coming out of your tap?

Stacy Sylla of rural Lincoln Township in Trempealeau County texted me just such a photo of water the color of sludge. She has gone through three washing machines, dug fistfuls of sand out of the tank of her toilet, and bought an expensive water-filtering device. Her horse, Apples, died of exposure to toxins and pollutants found in her water.

The likely cause of the well problems? A new sand mine just over a half a mile away from Stacy and Mike Sylla’s farm.

Local residents opposed the sand mine. In order to get the mine approved, the cities of Independence and Whitehall annexed land miles from the original city borders. This end-around of the township government left residents with little say about what happens in their neighborhood.

Stacy testified against the mine. She heard from a city council member that, “It’s not affecting my house.” She later told me, “I feel like the state has failed to protect the people.”

Town officials tried to stop the annexation and tried to work with the mine to no avail. The town received many reports of water problems evidently caused by the mine pumping more than the local aquifer could handle.

The story Stacy shared with me became a part of the debate on a high capacity well bill that fortunately failed to pass the Legislature last spring.

The Syllas and their neighbors did receive a bit of a reprieve with cleaner well water when low gas prices resulted in less hydraulic fracturing, and consequently less need for sand. The mine ceased activity and the water in the neighborhood started to clear up.

But this spring both the brown water and the high capacity well bill are back. Last month sand mining started up again. Stacy and Mike are hauling water for their livestock, buying water for cooking and drinking. Now they wonder if bathing in brown water is a health risk.

The sand mine doesn’t appear to take any responsibility for the problem. However, Mike Sylla recently told the Trempealeau County Times, “One day they started blasting and it wasn’t long before our water went bad.”

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) also does not appear to be taking any responsibility. My office was told the state “didn’t have regulatory authority” and the Sylla’s should “test their water.”

With a lack of state action, the Trempealeau County Board started a program of well testing. Toxins released in the water are expensive to detect. The county will pick up most of the cost of the water testing. Information and test kits are available through the Trempealeau County Extension office.

Meanwhile a bill to make matters worse for neighbors with bad wells is moving through the Legislature. Senate Bill 76 would give a high capacity well owner access to water in perpetuity. Currently, the DNR reviews permits and any issues related to the permit when a well owner replaces, upgrades, transfers or replaces a high capacity well.

There is no other system for a regular “check-up” to make sure local wells and waterways are not harmed by the removal of water through the high capacity well. During the Senate debate, my colleagues and I tried to add commonsense “check-ups” for high capacity wells such as a review every ten years or when there is a change in usage (from agriculture to sand mining), and when considering approval of a large number of new wells in the vicinity. All of these amendments were defeated.

Senate Bill 76 recently passed the Senate on a partisan vote. The Assembly may take up the bill as soon as the beginning of May.

Our state Constitution Public Trust Doctrine sets out that Wisconsin’s waters belong to all Wisconsin residents. Senate Bill 76 takes the state in another direction – the one with the biggest straw gets the most water.

State action to pass this bill will make matters worse for the Sylla’s and their neighbors. I urge my colleagues in the Assembly to stop this bill. We need commonsense solutions that allow access to clean water for all Wisconsin residents.

While much of our attention has been on transportation, health care and education spending decisions, Sen. Vinehout also discusses the importance of our modest revenue estimates and lesser known budget realities.

MADISON - When it comes to paying the bills you’ve got to deal with what’s real. You can’t spend rhetoric.

Lawmakers are doubling down to deal with the state budget. Public hearings and town hall meetings are scheduled across the state. Many civic groups are hosting legislators in a discussion of the state budget. Many are burning the midnight oil to get to the bottom of the state’s financial matters.

In all these conversations and the budget votes to come in the Capitol, lawmakers must to deal with what’s real.

People know about the state’s transportation fund. More money is leaving the fund than money coming in to pay for roads. Potholes are real.

In a future column I’ll discuss solutions to fix our roads. But, today, I’d like to focus on lesser known budget realities and possible solutions.

First, the reality of revenue; money coming into our state through taxes is increasing, but less money is expected than the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau originally estimated for the same time period a year ago.

When our state budget passed two years ago, the growth between last year and this year was pegged at 3.8%. Based on recent estimates, growth between last fiscal year and the current year is at 2.7%. We won’t know the actual figures until later, but we do know the Bureau’s revenue estimates for this year are reduced downward.

Why? Some changes are due to tax breaks costing more than originally anticipated.

Other changes may be related to Wisconsin’s economy lagging the nation. For example, wages in Wisconsin are lower than 31 other states. Even states like Georgia and Louisiana have higher wages. Economic growth has also lagged. Wisconsin is ranked 23rd among states for economic growth since 2009 according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Second, health costs continue to grow faster than any other part of the budget. Governor Walker’s budget spends about $3 billion more (all funds) than the last budget. Half of this spending goes to health programs.

There are many reasons why health costs are increasing. For the one in five Wisconsinites that receive health care from the state, we can do much more to provide better value for taxpayers.

For many years I’ve advocated for common sense changes to our health system. For example, about half of all births are paid for with Medicaid. We need to make sure all new moms have prenatal care. It’s simple and it saves lives and money.

Finally, lawmakers need a dose of reality in funding schools. Our funding formula is broken. State Superintendent Tony Evers has proposed changes every budget since 2011. This budget, like previous budgets, ignores Mr. Evers’ proposals.

In this budget, the Governor is putting money outside the formula – evidently acknowledging the formula is broken but not fixing it. At best this is a Band-Aid approach that has, and will continue to, result in more referenda and higher property taxes.

Fixing the school funding formula would move Wisconsin forward. School board members would have consistency and be able to plan. Superintendents could count on steady, predictable revenue.

I agree with Mr. Evers in that every school needs a fixed amount of state aid. Evers suggests $3,000 per student. This approach will help both low aided districts and rural schools. Evers raises the amount for students in poverty. This will help both urban districts and poor rural districts.

Small school districts will still cost more money to operate. Maybe we need a conversation about a fixed dollar amount for rural school operation and then add a per student rate. Options are many but let’s have a conversation about solutions.

We do have an increase in revenue. Not as much as we thought a few years ago, and not much more than in past budgets. We are only slowly recovering from the Recession – slower than most of our neighbors.

But let’s be prudent and deal with reality. There are a lot of simmering problems that need our attention.

Sen. Vinehout met with county officials and staff who shared stories about the growing problems of meth use and addiction in western Wisconsin. Counties face a financial burden caring for those addicted and their children and she asks her colleagues to include meth as they consider bills on opioid abuse.

ALMA, WI - “We are up to our gills in meth,” the county worker told me. “Four years ago one quarter of our child-protection cases were related to meth. Now, 92% of these cases are related to meth.”

“Our system just isn’t equipped to deal with the meth problem,” said another social worker.

Recently, more than 400 county supervisors and Health and Human Services staff came to the Capitol. I had visitors from every county in our Senate District. These officials brought me one clear message: Help us deal with the meth problem.

The statistics the county employees shared were staggering. Trempealeau County experienced more than a four-fold increase in child-protection cases in less than two years. Most of these children were living with a meth-addicted parent.

Dunn County officials told me about the increase in people entering treatment. Last September, 35% of those entering treatment were meth addicts and this number steadily grew. By February, 60% of those entering treatment were addicted to meth.

The county staff shared many stories about the impact of meth addiction on children. These children are exposed to the drug because addicts smoke the substance. The drug pollutes the air and surfaces of the home. All workers test children of meth addicts for exposure to meth

“We tested a four-year-old and a one-year-old,” said a social worker. “The two children tested higher than the average meth users.”

The social workers said they are struggling to fill the needs of so many youngsters ravaged by the addiction of their parents. Counties assess the child’s needs but as the county staff explained, it is difficult to tease out what is happening with a child.

Is a child suffering withdrawal symptoms because of second-hand drug exposure or suffering developmentally because of poor nutrition. Has the child experienced emotional or physical trauma? Certainly, the vast majority of children of meth-addicted parents suffer neglect.

A social worker told me that she visited a mom in jail who decided to voluntarily give up her child. The sorrowful mom told the social worker she wished she never did meth, because “it makes you forget you ever had children.”

Helping the large number of suffering children has stretched county budgets thin. The cases are hard. Social workers are difficult to find and often not trained to assist children from drug-troubled homes. Staff turnover is high.

For the addicts themselves, treatment programs are limited. Insurance only pays for a few days of inpatient treatment. To be effective, a meth addict must stay inpatient for at least a month. In my own research, I learned the brain takes at least a year to recover from some damage done by meth. Relapses are common, as is depression and other forms of mental illness.

A few months ago, I first began hearing about meth from law enforcement. Sheriffs told me the combination of mental illness and meth resulted in violence. Community and officer safety was at risk. Treatment options were very limited. Often officers must drive four to six hours one-way to deliver the addict to treatment at one of two state-operated mental health institutions.

Local sheriffs explained how their entire annual budget for transporting the arrested mentally ill person was gone in the first few months of this year because of so many new cases of mental illness and meth-induced violence.

“Opioid users go to the emergency room,” a human services manager told me. “Meth addicts go to jail.”

Lawmakers recently paid much attention to problems associated with heroin and opioid-related drugs. However, the epidemic in western Wisconsin is meth.

Counties need resources to help children who need safe homes. Our region needs treatment and emergency crisis centers. Long-term inpatient treatment is expensive but can be effective. Further, we must help those suffering from mental illness and keep them from turning to addiction instead of mental health treatment.

Lawmakers will soon take up a series of bills to combat heroin. I ask my colleagues to expand their awareness and consider the impacts of meth: on our children, our county budgets, the safety of our communities and the lives of the addicts.

In the spirit of rebirth, Easter and spring, I ask families affected by mental illness or drug addiction to get help. It is not easy. But there is hope.

Some in our Legislature want an Article 5 Constitutional Convention for a "Balanced Budget" amendment, but once opened, those at the convention would not be bound to that proposal and the liberties and freedoms we hold dear, even our system of government, could be changed.

MADISON - What do the League of Women Voters, the American Civil Liberties Union and the John Birch Society have in common? They all think legislation calling for a federal constitutional convention is a bad idea. A very bad idea.

The last time we had a constitutional convention was a long time ago… in 1787 to be exact. At that time, the entire United Stated Constitution was rewritten.

Some lawmakers are calling for a new constitutional convention. They want the convention to consider a Balanced Budget Amendment. However, there are no guarantees that Congress who calls the convention will limit the call to a Balanced Budget Amendment; or that, once called, the convention will limit itself to a Balanced Budget Amendment. Then what?

As the nonpartisan League of Women Voters testified, a convention “is a particularly dangerous path to take.”

First, let’s consider a bit of background.

Article 5 in the US constitution allows two ways to change our Constitution. The first, and the only way used in the last two hundred and thirty years, is to change the constitution one amendment at a time. The specific language of the amendment must pass both Houses of Congress with two-thirds vote and be ratified by three-fourths of the states.

The second way is for two-thirds of the states (34 states) to call for a convention to propose amendments. When the 34-state threshold is reached, Congress issues the convention call. Delegates are selected by states and those delegates decide on rules governing the convention.

About four years ago lawmakers belonging to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) began meeting to discuss how to bring states together for a constitutional convention. Groups supporting the idea targeted 11 states including Wisconsin and Kentucky who are now taking up the issue. If both adopt the proposal, they would be the 30th and 31st states of the required 34.

Last week after a hearing lasting almost eight hours during which dozens of people opposed the idea, our Senate Committee voted to call a convention. My colleague Senator Risser and I were the only “no” votes.

Before the hearing I did some research. Much of what I learned about an Article 5 convention comes from the Congressional Research Service.

Once called, the convention and its delegates write the rules of the convention. They can write any rules upon which they can agree. They can take up any action upon which they can agree. More unsettling, as re-writers of the Constitution, the delegates become the sovereign power of the land. In its analysis, the Congressional Research Service, referred to the doctrine of “constitutional sovereignty” quoting Cyril Brickfield who in 1957 wrote, “… the convention is possessed of sovereign powers and therefore is supreme to all other Government branches or agencies.”

In short, the liberties and freedoms we hold dear, those values that make us uniquely American, even our system of government, could be changed.

Perhaps this is why the conservative John Birch Society (JBS) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) both opposed the bill. Larry Greenley of JBS reminded our committee the last constitutional convention in 1787 not only completely rewrote the Constitution, they also changed the ratification process so that only 9 (not all 13) states had to agree.

Proponents of the Wisconsin efforts say their plan is to only take up a balanced budget amendment. But after repeated questioning from Senator Risser, no one could describe how such amendment might be worded or how, if passed, the amendment might work. We heard, instead, the convention itself would decide the rules and the specific language of any proposals. The safeguard, if one could call it that, was that the states would have to ratify what the convention proposed.

At odds with this reasoning was the history Mr. Greeley pointed to – the 1787 convention invented its own ratification process. The hearing left me agreeing the idea was “a dangerous path to take.”

A more prudent approach, one we have always taken since 1787, is to change the Constitution, when necessary, one specific amendment at a time.

While Congress did not repeal the Affordable Care Act, problems remain. Sen. Vinehout writes about options states could take to address some of these issues and provide affordable health insurance for people.

MADISON - “Obamacare is the law of the land,” House Speaker Paul Ryan told the nation. “We’re going to be living with Obamacare for the foreseeable future.”

The much-maligned Affordable Care Act (ACA) passed in 2010 will stay in place.

Self-employed older Americans and state budget directors breathed a sigh of relief. The Republican plan would have raised rates for older people on Healthcare.gov, shifted taxes away from the well-off, and shifted to states more costs for low-income, disabled and elderly (through Medicaid).

But the problems of the ACA – rising premiums, customers left with little choice and insurance companies leaving the marketplace in some states – still remain.

Why do these problems exist? Is there anything Wisconsin can do to improve things?

Insurance companies act to share risk. Inevitably, healthier patients subsidize the less fortunate sicker patients. This has been the case since Benjamin Franklin invented the first American insurance company (that I’m aware of) when he created a “mutual fire aid society” to help defray the risk of fire.

Insurance companies are betting you will stay healthy, you are betting you’ll get sick.

When companies entered the healthcare.gov market place, they kept premiums low. Conservative columnist David Brook wrote in 2015 “Health care inflation has been at historic lows.” Quoting expert Jason Furman, Brooks wrote prices were growing as an annual rate of 1.6% since 2010, “the slowest rate for such a period in five decades.” Federal government health expenses slowed too.

For a number of reasons, the low inflation was not sustainable. Young people were not buying their own policies but staying on their parents plan as long as possible. Many people who got insurance for the first time had numerous costs due to delayed care. Insurance companies didn’t make the money they expected, and decided to either drop providing coverage in the exchange or raise premiums to cover the higher costs.

Covering self-employed or small businesses (known in the insurance industry as “individual coverage”) has always been expensive. Administrative costs are high; risk is high. The ACA protected consumers in many ways, such as not being charged more if you had cancer but are now healthy. However, the rules left fewer ways for insurance companies to recoup costs. So, they raised premiums or completely left the individual market.

The result is higher cost insurance, less choice and in some cases no choice.

Wisconsin historically has a competitive insurance market with many competing plans, especially in the southeast. Many players should give us lower costs (however, the health care market does not follow normal economic patterns), but seeking an unprofitable venture does not make a good business model.

Which may lead us to one option. Some insurance companies are not-for-profit; some have very low overhead. Everything else being equal, these companies should be better at competing. However, so much depends on the luck – or lack of it – in taking care of a high cost patient.

We could return to a successful plan that helped health insurance companies manage risk. In 2013, Governor Walker eliminated the state’s “Health Insurance Risk-Sharing Plan” known as HIRSP. This was a mistake.

The HIRSP plan was paid for with funds from insurance companies. We could create a similar plan to allow people with conditions that require expensive care to continue under their own insurance plan. Their insurance company could use a plan like HIRSP to share risk with other companies. Basically HIRSP 2.0 could work seamlessly in the background to help manage high-risk patients.

A recent National Governor’s Association briefing suggested states could save up to 15% on insurance premiums if they created such a plan. Other state innovations could include promoting enrollment in the healthcare marketplace, and focusing on methods to reduce the cost of care.

In a 2015 report, Citizen Action of Wisconsin proposed several changes that could bring down health insurance premiums. Medicaid expansion could cover an estimated 81,000 Wisconsinites through existing federal law and bring many high cost patients into a less expensive system. Creation of a Wisconsin-based marketplace, state scrutiny over premium hikes, use of state purchasing power to gain value – lower costs and better care – are all options that merit investigation.

Healthcare policy is complex. But solving problems is possible. If those in Washington have given up, let’s consider new ideas at our state Capitol. We might land on an idea that really works.