Wisconsin Senate Bill SB46

Wisconsin 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/14/23
• Refer: 2/14/23
• Failed: 4/15/24

Caption

The responsibility of a property owner for discharge of a hazardous substance by another.

Impact

The bill represents a significant change to existing environmental liability laws in Wisconsin. Currently, property owners are required by law to take action to remediate contamination on their properties, as established by prior legal rulings. By limiting the liability of certain property owners, the bill aims to relieve them of the burden of environmental cleanup costs associated with hazardous discharges they were unaware of and did not cause. This legislative change may impact future development and real estate transactions, as it could make property ownership less risky for certain individuals.

Summary

Senate Bill 46 aims to modify the responsibilities held by property owners in Wisconsin regarding the discharge of hazardous substances on their property. Specifically, the bill exempts non-corporate property owners from liability for hazardous substance discharges that occur without their knowledge if they acquired the property before September 1, 1992. To qualify for this exemption, property owners must provide evidence that the discharge was caused by an external party and that the property was not listed as contaminated in the state's database. Furthermore, similar exemptions are provided for counties acquiring contaminated properties under specified conditions.

Contention

Points of contention surrounding SB 46 focus primarily on environmental responsibility and public health concerns. Supporters of the bill argue that it provides necessary protection for property owners who inadvertently acquire contaminated land, thereby enabling them to manage their properties without the overwhelming fear of potential liability. Conversely, critics express concern that the bill may undermine existing environmental protections by allowing owners of contaminated properties to evade responsibility. This tension highlights the broader debate between encouraging development and safeguarding environmental health.