Shows›The Todd Allbaugh Show›Defending Against PFAS with Amy Barrilleaux (Hour 2)›Transcript

Transcript

Defending Against PFAS with Amy Barrilleaux (Hour 2)

The Todd Allbaugh Show · Tue Jul 8, 2025

You're listening to Civic Media.

You can tune into any of our live shows on any radio station across the state with the Civic Media app.

Find us in your phone's app store and listen anytime, anywhere.

From the Civic Media World Headquarters in Madison, Wisconsin, it's the Todd Alba Show.

And now, pursuing truth wherever it may lead, here's your host, Todd Alba.

Across Wisconsin on the Civic Media Rated Network and streaming worldwide on the Civic Media app.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Todd Albaugh along with Mr. Aaron Zummers on the board.

It is six minutes past the hour of three o'clock.

Welcome into hour number two of the big program.

It is now six minutes as we said past three on this Tuesday, July 8th, 2025.

It is a great day to be Wisconsinite.

Glad to have you in here at the World Headquarters of Civic Media, downtown Madison on State Street.

Overcast skies, all of some sun peeking through here, pretty seasonal day, some rain showers across parts of the state, maybe a garden variety, thunderstorm.

There's a term that we don't use often enough, Zomers, garden variety.

I like that.

Yeah, or it reminds me of...

What am I thinking?

Like, not your average bear or other phrases like that?

A little yogi

bear.

Yeah, it's a little garden variety, thunderstorms, nothing to worry about.

So Mike Clemens will keep us updated.

The Brewers, Brewers get a big win over the Dodgers.

How about that last night?

It's an excitement around the Dodgers right now.

Around the Brewers right now.

Being with us on Friday, by the way, from the Northern Wisconsin State Fair, Crite Low is going to be along to help us give away.

for Milwaukee Brewer's tickets to a game to be named later in our club level seats be with us on Friday all across civic media for free ticket Friday cannot wait for that coming up in a minute a little what's worse for you first of all little breaking news for you from CNN at this hour the Supreme Court

has backed President Donald Trump's effort to carry out mass firings and reorganizations at federal agencies putting on hold a lower court order that had temporarily blocked the president from taking those steps without approval from Congress in an unsigned order the High Court said that lower courts had stopped the plans based on the administration's general goals rather

then specific agency, quote, reduction in force, unquote, efforts to drastically cut government employees.

Justice Katanjay Brown Jackson, a member of the court's liberal wing, dissented.

The case stems from an executive order Trump signed in mid-February that kicked off the process of significantly reducing the size of federal agencies and issue the president campaigned on last year.

But federal departments are created by law and lower courts have repeatedly held that the White House can't Unilaterally wipe them out or leave them so short staff.

They cannot carry out their legal responsibilities The lawsuit was filed by more than a dozen unions nonprofits and local governments Who have built it as the largest legal challenge to the Trump administration's efforts to downsize the federal work?

Force story is still breaking will be updated again the Supreme Court now saying that Donald Trump Can in fact carry out mass firings in federal agencies at least for now unsigned order

Justice Katanji Brown Jackson, a member of the court's liberal wing, dissented.

I'm not sure, not clear if she is the only justice that dissented.

That will be an interesting part.

Stay tuned.

Maggie Dawn, who is an attorney on the Maggie Dawn Show, can be up immediately following our program.

We'll be here.

My gut tells me that she will be addressing this breaking news and breaking it down for you.

10 minutes now past the hour of three o'clock, coming up at the bottom of this hour, we will be joined by Amy Berrio of Clean Wisconsin on East Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling concerning JCRAR.

You say, Todd, what the heck is JCRAR?

We'll break it down for you.

In essence, it's a subcommittee of the full Wisconsin legislature.

You got a couple of yahoo's on there that said, well, you know, we can just let the power go to our heads and we'll vote in this committee to control certain funds of Wisconsin taxpayer money, even though the full legislature majority said differently, and even though the governor signed that into law, we're on a little power trip here.

and we're going to withhold this money for political clout.

That's a simplistic answer, but we'll break this down more precisely with Amy Berrio at the bottom of the sour and what it means in terms of PFAS.

PFAS and other environmental concerns.

So continue to stay with us, looking forward to that conversation.

And Amy's going to be right here sitting next to us in the studio.

Always fun when that happens.

We have guests right here.

But right now at 11 past three o'clock, time once again for what's worse.

Let's go.

Time once again for what's worse.

No prize money involved, nothing to give away, but it is your chance to have your voice heard on all 11 news talk, sports stations, the Civic Media Radio Network, the largest radio network in Wisconsin behind only Wisconsin Public Radio.

They're a public publicly held entity.

We're private, so we like the largest private radio network in Wisconsin.

And now in three states, Wisconsin, Minnesota,

and Michigan in the UP.

Up in the UP?

Up in the UP.

how about that?

Yeah, to be finalized.

I mean, it's happening.

It's happening.

It just takes time for this all to happen.

Why were we supposed to say anything?

No, I just mean, technically, we're not there yet.

It's on the

map.

I'm looking out through the glass right now.

No, it's announced.

They put the

markers on the map.

It's just acquisition takes a while with the FCC.

But for all intents and purposes, yes.

I sure just shouldn't have said anything.

No, in fact, I appreciate the fact that you did, because I find it very funny.

We're expanding.

We're expanding the three states.

We're, we're, we're, we're moving on up as they used to say on the Jefferson's.

All right.

This is fantastic because I think a lot of us, uh, you look at the news of the day and you say, I'm just sick.

I'm sick.

And other people say it.

I'm just, I'm physically sore.

I'm ill.

And I like, my friend Sam likes to say, I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired.

So today's what's worse?

Bean sore or bean sick.

What's worse?

Bean sore or bean sick.

855-752-4842.

You can also text us on the Civic Media app.

Download it today at your Apple or Android device.

Simply go to your search engine in your app store.

Type in Civic, CIVIC.

Media it'll pop up a cute cm logo click on that takes less than a minute.

It's free.

It's what CBS is gale king calls a deal the civic media app 8 5 5 7 5 2 4 8 4 2 Let's go to the phone lines mark in prayer to sacks been waiting a long time mark I know you probably want to say something else but before you get into the political stuff How about a little what's worse for us quick here mark being sore or being sick?

What's

worse?

you know, that uh... you can probably get a you know, massage the sword and assault yourself and being sick sometimes you just can't get rid of that and that uh... I'll leave it, leave it there, but what I called in earlier, you know, that Ronald Reagan's speech, even though there was a lot I disagree with Reagan on, and that he was right and I mean the fact that we were going to be spending more on ice

Just

type Mark, I'm gonna let you finish, but for those that weren't listening earlier, I played this cup from Reagan when he left the White House in January 1989, his last public speech as president, and he was saying that the future of America is dependent upon immigrants, and immigrants are in fact the key to making America as great as it is, and that we have to continue to welcome people and enrich our country.

And as I said at the time, even though

folks might disagree with a lot, Reagan said.

I asked people to put their political beliefs aside and just listen to the words.

I think it's key today in 2025 terms, Mark, a sitting president in the White House said that immigration was key to our success and we needed to maintain that.

That's the context.

Go ahead, Mark.

And the important thing to recognize, sir, he wasn't just talking about white Europeans being the immigrants.

He was talking about immigrants from around the planet.

Correct.

I mean, and unless you can, unless you can say that, yes, you know, that agree with what Ronald Reagan was saying right there, because the current Republican Party, they just want to have, it's whites only, whites only, whites only.

And I think what we need to do here is actually have a new civil, recognizing the Gaines Bay during the civil rights movement where we made all Americans Americans, regardless of color, that we need to do this for

the immigrants as well.

And I don't know if it's passive resistance or active resistance like the Indians did in achieving their independence from Great Britain, but we have to oppose what is going on now with ICE in any legal method possible because it is just disgusting that we are going to be spending more on ICE than the Russians spend on their bloody military because it's just becoming Donald Trump's brown shirts.

And why should we respect any Republican who is not condemning that right now?

I mean, I don't care where you're from.

These guys need to be shown the contempt that they trust upon our nation.

And if I can

add to that, Mark, just be reminded of what it used to actually mean to be a Republican.

Ronald Reagan is indisputable in 1989 was the standard bearer of the Republican Party, and that was what he said.

And so if you can't agree with Reagan on what he said about immigration, then you shouldn't be calling yourself Republican today, just pure and simple, in my opinion.

And because remember, the Republican Party was founded as an anti-slavery party.

Right.

to recognize that the people of any color should be recognized as having full rights in this country.

Always appreciate your call, Mark.

Gotta move on, get back to the matters at hand in terms of what we always appreciate Mark's call.

I wanted to get that in because he was waiting a long time.

Thank you, Mark.

Really appreciate it.

All right, at hand, what's worse, being sore or being sick?

eight five five seven five two four eight four two eight five five seven five two four eight four two or text us on the civic media app just like DJ did up a beautiful law saw on WXCO says uh Todd I am so sick of being sore football wrecked my back and I'm paying for it every damn day DJ in the saw

DJ, I hope you find a chiropractor, a massage therapist, or something there, because that's no fun at all.

I feel you, my friend.

Megan, listening in Sun Prairie on WMDX says being sick is definitely worse.

Ibuprofen can fix being sore, but cold medicine can't always.

fix all the symptoms.

Thank you very much, Megan.

Appreciate that.

Sean, one of our great UPS drivers in the RC, Richland Center.

Let's see the RCE back in the drift list says 30 years at UPS.

I'm sore every day, but I can't take being sick.

Sick is worse.

Thank you, Sean, and to all of our people out there delivering those packages for all the different companies.

Yeah, when I worked at LLP, I used to try to help out our drivers as much as possible, loading and unloading, because, yeah, those men and women who are doing that.

Uh, wow, it is hard work and we take them for granted.

So, uh, try to get some recovery there, Sean.

Uh, what's worse being sick or being sore?

8-5-5-7-5-2-4-8-4-2 on the text line, Len in Madison and WMDX says being sick is potentially worse than being sore.

Assuming one can attribute the soreness to an immediate prior activity or exertion.

I feel I was out.

then R.C.

this weekend weeding mom's flower garden, helping her.

So a little sore, because I need to get back in the gym.

That's what I need to do.

John, listening on Oshkosh, W-I-S-S, says, sick is way worse.

Usually when I'm sore, it's because I was doing something fun.

Working out, cutting firewood, hiking, et cetera.

All great reasons to feel sore.

Well, there you go.

That's my point.

Well said, John.

If you're a little sore, it's usually because you did something fun.

I agree with that.

Robert McFarland, listening on WMDX says, when I did competitive strongman, I love being sore.

It meant I worked hard.

I usually still lifted sick, but it sucked.

So sick sucks.

I'll go along with that.

All right, more was worse on the other side.

8-5-5-7-5-2-4-8-4-2.

Bean sore, bean sick.

Regardless, come on back on the Civic

Media.

Welcome back to the Taliban show on the civic media radio network this will get you up and get you going It's like a good workout song little aerobic song little Jane Fonda workout She was very big bombers for a long time the Jane Fonda workouts.

You probably don't remember that

I am aware of this unlike some other yeah things that you often bring up

I Am aware of this he says unlike a lot of other things you bring up

That's a very polite way of saying, man, you're old.

The Jane Fonda warrior is very music just like that.

And she had the, uh, the, uh, the leotard.

And then she put the leg, leg warmers were very big back in the eighties.

And then she'd, uh, she'd do all kinds of aerobics.

And then he had Suzanne summers.

from three's company fame and she had the thigh master for a long time and she'd she'd lay there for 30 minutes and and you know men would watch her watch her do her thighs with the thigh it was like a big paper clip she'd put between her thighs and people bought them in droves it was the early days of the infomercial for susan summers and and so then jade finally had a big movie career of course

political activist and now she's still alive and going strong and now retired women they try to copy Jane Fonda's hairstyle and they say they take pictures in and say make my hair look like Jane Fonda and some of these poor women were not even born yet when Jane Fonda was big as like who who's Jane Fonda but yet she endured but yet she endured What's worse being sore or being sick?

Being sore or being sick 8-5-5-7-5-2-4-8-4-2 8-5-5-7-5-2-4-8-4-2 Julie in Wasall listening on WXTO says being sick is worse because I might be contagious So I'm stuck at home.

Good point

Another listener on WMDX here in Madison depends on your age being sore when you're young will only last a day or two Now being sore my last weeks and even might last weeks or even months I'd choose your average sickness any day.

All right I'll just keep going summers up the up the old screen there if we can please every go like Greg and beautiful Genesee Depot says being sick

is worse.

Being a little sore, I can still keep up with the wife, if you know what I mean.

We'll leave it there, Greg.

We'll leave it there.

But yeah, I know what you mean.

Mike in Madison, listening on WMDX, a brand new listener and text.

We appreciate that.

Mike, thank you for listening, for dialing us in.

Great to have you along.

Mike in Madison says, you can drink a good bottle of wine when you're sore.

Not so much when you're sick.

Now, that's a great point, Mike.

A man after my own heart.

Good.

I wouldn't necessarily recommend drinking a bottle, but, but, you know, a couple of glasses of a nice Cabernet or this time, you may, maybe, uh, I don't know, maybe a little prayerful may from wall or shine winery here in Wisconsin, great local Wisconsin winery.

Uh, Tony, listening and watching on Facebook.

Tony, we appreciate you being along today says.

You've not been sore until you've been constantly Been in back pain sore despite the meds and the insurance company refusals for medical intervention sore is worse boy.

I I have had Bouts of back pain, but nothing like debilitating.

I know people who are basically on on medical permanent medical leave because of back injuries like that.

So yeah, that is not fun at all This might be my favorite bill

Watching on on YouTube says depends on where on your body is sore.

I like

that.

Yeah, like you got a you got a sore arm.

You got a back.

Yeah.

Exactly.

It depends where Bill says on your body is sore.

That makes the that will depend on whether which is worse being sore or being sick.

This is this is in large part why I love this segment because part of it is just because I get amused I I myself am amused at this bit.

I don't care about anybody else.

It's just me And I hope that everybody else is of course amused as well But this is part of why I love this bit is because people from all over the state all over the country will give us their opinions and many times they're witty

and double entendres and this type of thing.

And I find that enormously amusing.

That, by the way, Zombers, what we say, pursuing truth and having fun doing this, this is the having fun doing it part.

As it turns out.

All right, Zombers, being sore, being sick, what's worse?

This is a tough one.

And I think as Tony on Facebook and a few other people have mentioned, if it's a chronic condition, obviously for you, that's going to be worse.

But.

I don't know.

I feel like for me, I'm a person who, when I get sick, I usually get pretty sick.

Like since I've been little, anytime I get a fever, it's usually like, it ends up going up to 102 to 104.

Like I get high fevers.

It's like this song, Hot Blooded, got a fever 103.

Yeah, it's not ideal.

And I'm just out of it completely, like mentally not there.

But also, sometimes, you know, you get sore and your joints hurt and then you can't do anything and you just got to sit there and watch TV or something.

I am going to say, I think being sick is worse because I think you can do more about being sore when, again, when it's not a chronic condition.

Yeah, I'll agree with that.

I think being sick is worse, largely what you other people said, that unless it's a chronic soreness, which is really, really terrible, but if it's just like, oh, I worked in the garden too much, that'll eventually go away and you can still do other things.

But boy, if you're like dog, sick as a dog, as they say.

If you're sick as a dog, you're just gonna not be able to do anything.

Matt Milton says, having a sk...

Sciatica.

Oh, thank you.

Having sciatica, I can say without a doubt that being sore is worse as sick.

This is always temporary.

We'll see there again sciatica.

That's like a chronic thing.

My former colleague at WRCO, Ray Schrader, he'd come in and say, Jesus, my sciatica is driving me crazy.

You always complain about the sciatica.

Robert, and that's not to make fun of anybody with real sciatica stuff.

Robert McFarlane says, I don't know if you guys have done this question yet, but if you really want to kick the bee's nest, dogs or cats, which are better, watch them roll in.

All right, have we done that?

I don't

remember.

All right, maybe we'll have to do a dogs and cats in the future.

Well, we always take entries.

Thank you, Robert.

Come on back.

We are going to talk about Supreme Court ruling in Wisconsin that could affect all of us after this is the title ball show across Wisconsin on the civic media.

Welcome back to the title ball show on the civic media.

Working is 35 minutes past the hour of three o'clock here on this July 8th.

2025, Zomers on the Board.

That's from Sinners, right, Zomers?

Yes, that is Wang Dang Doodle.

Not original.

It's not one of the original songs for the movie, but a fun

one.

I've heard this is a great movie.

You said you've seen it, Zomers?

Yeah, I first saw it this weekend, finally.

Very good.

All right, our next guest was talking to Zommerz about this as well.

And so we'll get into that in a minute.

But before we bring Amy Berrio on from Clean Wisconsin, want to set this up a little bit.

This is from WisPolitics, our friends over at WisPolitics.com, says a split state supreme court today.

overturned the legislature's power to suspend administrative rules, ending decades of lawmakers having the power to at least temporarily block agency regulations.

In a four or three decision, the court found the statutes giving those powers to the joint committee for review of administrative rules, better known as JCRAR by the acronym.

It violates the Wisconsin Constitution's requirement

for bicameralism and presentment, which mandates any law to pass both houses of a legislature and be presented to the governor.

During oral arguments, conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn said overruling the process would mean reversing years of precedent the court had set.

He called it the most consequential case he'd seen in five years on the bench.

The ruling stems from a challenge by Democratic Governor Tony Evers filed by two actions.

filed two two actions by JCRAR indefinitely blocking commercial building codes administered by the Department of Safety and Professional Services in suspending for more than three years the ruling of the Marriage and Family Therapy Professional Counseling and Social Work Examining Board issued that served as a de facto ban on conservative therapy.

Take a breath, everybody.

I know that's a lot and I know it's very nuanced.

I'm gonna put it in Todd terms.

JCRAR is a subcommittee of the entire legislature.

And basically this joint review over administrative rules basically had the power to at least temporarily block votes by the majority of legislature and things signed into law by the governor.

And the two, this was I think called Evers versus Markline.

Yes, that Howard Markline, co-chair of the Joint Finance Committee.

So what the Supreme Court today at a four or three-year-long party line said was, no, this small band of legislators cannot usurp the power of the full legislature.

and the governor, and it lists these two specific cases, one of which was saying that it was making the way basically for future possible, keyword possible legislation on banning conversion therapy, as they say.

That's another bottle of wine.

Here to speak specifically about what this means to Wisconsin's environment after all of that is Amy Berrio of Clean Wisconsin.

Glad to have you back on the program.

Amy, thanks for letting me set that up, because I think the context is important to our discussion.

Yeah, and I want to add that, yes, the JCRAR, this committee we're talking about, has had this authority since the 1970s, but that was really supercharged in 2017 to the point

where at this point, up until now, the committee could indefinitely block or oppose rules.

So it wasn't just, we can temporarily block this for 30 days, it was then we can block it again and again and again.

And that had a really chilling effect on all kinds of rules, but because we pay attention to the environment, we pay attention to the environmental rules that were stymied because of the power of this small.

I'm

really glad you made that point, Amy, because it's super important, and I missed it, and you're 100% right.

There have been, is it fair to say, kind of a collegial, institutional respect of folks on this committee up until 2017, where, okay,

We have a little power here, but we're not gonna abuse it.

And after Tony Evers became governor, the Republicans of the legislature, again, Todd terms, basically really abused this to its hilt.

And I think that's what brought on this lawsuit.

Is that fair to say?

I mean, I think it got to the point where agencies had to think about, okay, if we make a rule, how is it gonna get through the...

entities that this small group of legislators are listening to, the special interests.

And it absolutely became abused.

It was an authority that obviously was unconstitutional and was ruled that way today.

And you had this, you know, I can count on both hands the number of lawmakers who had control over rulemaking.

And that sounds super boring, especially the way it was kind of,

written up today in some articles, but it is not boring.

It is the way that laws impact our lives, the way that they touch us.

So when you think about, I want protection from pollution and

groundwater.

I want protection from our beautiful lakes and streams from being polluted.

How do those things happen?

Who sets the limits?

How are these things implemented?

It's all through rules.

So it's basically taking these big laws and bringing them down to the everyday.

And that was what was getting blocked for years and years.

And again, for folks that might not follow this stuff as closely as you and I, you make another important point.

We have laws.

a bill, just like the old schoolhouse rock.

Somebody starts a bill.

It goes through both houses of the legislature.

If it passes, it goes to the governor.

He either, he or she can veto that or sign it into law.

And so we all have heard about, oh, that's a law.

We can't do that, you know, 55 miles per hour.

That's the law.

You can't, unless you're on other, you know, interstates or whatever.

But then we have these rules.

And explain, if you can, in terms of at least to give the example of the environment, what's the difference between what the legislature passes and the governor may sign and created a law regarding to the environment and an administrative rule?

So the rule just governs the way those laws are implemented on the ground.

So, you know, a law could be that the DNR has to ensure that

that our water is safe, right?

Maybe our groundwater, for example.

And then it's like, well, say from what?

What are the contaminants and at what levels?

And the legislature is not gonna do that.

They're not gonna be studying every new contaminant that's out there and then go, well, what are the health impacts and at what level?

And how should we do this?

And what are the ways that we implement all this?

That is what the agency is for.

That's what we pay taxes for, for the DNR and the DHS to figure these things out.

And then there's this huge process that happens when these rules are

promulgated, as they say.

So, you know, there are experts that come in and testify.

There are public hearings.

It is months to years-long process to get these rules where they need to be.

And what we saw happen was, it would be all this whole process, like what happened with the commercial building codes, for example, in 2023, this huge process that

you know, all the eyes were dotted and the T's were crossed, and that's what the agency follows.

And then at the last minute, with no explanation, no transparency, a legislative committee can say, nope, not happening.

And so what you had was a total lack of transparency.

You had, you know, it was ripe for kind of dark special interest groups to come in and do whatever they needed to do behind the scenes to kill something.

And then it really had a chilling effect on agencies

planning on how how are we going to get lost through you know if we get if we plan for this uh contaminant to be regulated at this level is that going to get through jc uh rar which is kind of ridiculous because again there are 10 people on that committee and it wasn't even a majority you know it wasn't even all of those that had to agree for a rule to be killed and so um what we saw was

you know, we don't even know how many environmental rules could have been promulgated, could be in effect right now, that just we're not pursued because these agencies don't have all the time in the world to go through this huge process just to have something killed at the end.

And when we use the word promulgate,

that's just

a fancy word,

a way of

saying put into effect, essentially.

It just means that, all right, now this is gonna be the law of the land, and the people up the street here like to use the word promulgate, and it's gonna become the vernacular.

But a lot of

people listening like,

What the heck does that mean, Ryan?

It's a little jargon.

Yeah, exactly.

But no, I really appreciate your deep knowledge on this.

Talk with Amy Berrio from Clean Wisconsin.

So specifically, Amy, one of the main things that you and the good folks at Clean Wisconsin, what are you really looking from this ruling?

What does it mean in terms of PFAS?

And again,

for

people that might not follow this, let's do a 30 second or one minute explanation on what PFAS are.

Absolutely.

And then what does this ruling by the state supreme...

mean to that today.

So PFAS are a group

of chemicals, man-made chemicals that were invented in the 1940s, that are used on everyday products like non-stick cookware, upholstery, they make things stain resistant, non-stick, they're also used in firefighting foam, so they have tons of uses, they are found everywhere.

And some of these are extremely toxic, they've been found to be toxic at very low levels in the parts per trillion.

So, there are starting to be...

drinking water standards and water standards for PFAS.

No, that

was great.

That's a great explanation of what PFAS are and why they're important because because now we've seen in places like Warsaw and other places This has

been

coming up and so it was been proven correct me if I'm wrong keep be honest and scientists has said look if we ingest too much of this It ain't gonna be good.

It could cause cancer and a lot of other things So today's ruling by the state Supreme Court in terms of saying okay this one little subcommittee in the Capitol cannot change

how this is implemented, what does that mean for how Wisconsinites and local municipalities deal with addressing the known PFAS in Wisconsin's drinking water today?

Right, thank you for asking that again.

So PFAS.

are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

So for municipalities, they are following the current Safe Drinking Water Act standards.

But if you live in a community like Pestigo or Marinette or French Camp or some of these other ones in rural Wisconsin that have experienced extremely high levels of PFAS in their drinking water, they are getting their drinking water from private wells.

Those are not

governed by the Safe Drinking Water Act.

In Wisconsin, groundwater standards, so basically they get their drinking water from the aquifers considered groundwater, those are the standards that will help folks.

who are dealing with huge amounts of PFAS contamination in their groundwater, in their drinking water wells.

And we don't have groundwater standards for PFAS in Wisconsin.

The DNR pursued a groundwater standard, time ran out on that, and now they're planning to pursue it again.

Again, you know, the DNR up until today is thinking, how are we going to get this groundwater standard around these?

handful of folks at JCRAR Now that the Supreme Court has had that made that ruling

we are incredibly hopeful that there will be a standard that gets through finally the rulemaking process.

It's still gonna take a long time, because again, they have to start all over with this process.

It's a meaningful standard, some that are actually at levels that will protect people.

And can you stay through the break over a segment?

Sure.

I just wanna make sure I'm not being respectful of your time.

We've got a couple of minutes before the break here.

Let's start this discussion.

As I understand it, what are the main sticking points why we didn't get

firm legislation on PFAS is because the governor wanted to hold people accountable that might have been proven that helped cause this and Republicans said we're too afraid that whether it's farmers or whatever that they're gonna be wiped out and there was this there's conflict they could come to an agreement on who's gonna pay for this in part who's gonna be held liable does this ruling today mean that

The rule can be or the law can be implemented and get get through this or or where does this leave us?

Okay, you want to break or you want to

ask me?

We got we got we got a break.

Zobbers give me the break.

See, I asked that completely terribly because I gave you no time to answer.

We'll come back.

We'll restate the question and Amy Berrio will give us a wonderful answer.

Don't go anywhere.

It's the town all about show across Wisconsin.