Will Wisconsin Manufacturing Survive?
Greetings,
In late January, the Great Lakes Timber Professionals Association (GLTPA) testified before the Assembly Committee on the Environment on Assembly Bills 130 and 131, legislation addressing contamination caused by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS. GLTPA participated in the hearing at the request of the Wisconsin Paper Council and because we are deeply concerned that, as currently drafted, these bills could further destabilize Wisconsin’s already fragile timber and forest products industry.
Let me be clear from the start: PFAS contamination is real, and it needs to be addressed. Families whose drinking water has been affected deserve help, and Wisconsin should play a strong role in fixing those problems. GLTPA supports practical, science-based solutions that protect water quality and public health.
But how those solutions are designed matters—especially for industries that did not create the problem.
As explained at the hearing, the concern for paper mills is that under the legislation as amended, mills are effectively treated as PFAS “users,” even when PFAS enters their systems passively and unavoidably—through recycled fiber, municipal wastewater, or landfill-derived materials. Paper mills do not manufacture PFAS and often have no practical way to control what comes in from upstream sources that date back decades or originate outside Wisconsin.
More simply put, the bills treat mills as responsible for PFAS simply because it passes through their systems. At the same time, many other parties involved in those same material streams are shielded from responsibility. That imbalance puts paper mills squarely in the crosshairs and creates real financial risk for facilities that are already operating in a challenging environment.
We see a similar contradiction in global energy policy. Manufacturers are told they must build solar panels, wind turbines, and massive battery systems to fight climate change. Yet when turbine blades can’t be recycled or solar panels are destroyed by hail and end up in landfills, those same manufacturers are suddenly told they alone are responsible for the environmental consequences. They are forced to comply or risk losing financing and then forced again to shoulder responsibility for outcomes they neither intended nor fully controlled.
That is exactly the position paper mills are being placed in today. Mills are required—by law, rule, or permit—to use recycled fiber, to manage biosolids, and to operate under state-approved processes. Recycled materials may contain PFAS through no fault of the mill, yet mills are now being targeted as if they caused the problem.
This is not just a paper industry issue—it is a Wisconsin timber and forest products industry issue.
Wisconsin’s paper mills are the backbone of our timber markets. When mills struggle or shut down, the impacts ripple quickly and painfully through our communities. We have seen it firsthand with the closures in Wisconsin Rapids and Park Falls, as well as Duluth just across the border. Those closures didn’t just eliminate mill jobs; they reduced demand for wood, disrupted hauling networks, and put pressure on logging businesses, truckers, and forest landowners across the region.
When mills close or pull back, harvesting slows. When harvesting slows, forest management suffers. Landowners delay thinning and regeneration. Natural mortality increases. Forest health declines. A strong paper sector is essential not only for jobs and rural economies, but for keeping Wisconsin’s forests actively managed, resilient, and productive.
The PFAS provisions in Assembly Bill 131 risk adding another layer of uncertainty at a time when the industry can least afford it. If mills are exposed to open-ended cleanup responsibility for PFAS they did not create and cannot control, investment decisions will be delayed or canceled. That uncertainty sends a signal—one that makes Wisconsin a harder place to do business.
We have seen how this plays out elsewhere. Companies rarely leave overnight. Chevron’s recent decision to relocate major operations out of California, citing an increasingly adversarial business climate, was years in the making. Other manufacturers have quietly made similar decisions. When policies become unpredictable and responsibility is shifted onto businesses for issues beyond their control, companies eventually look elsewhere.
The same question must be asked here: if manufacturers in Wisconsin are held responsible for problems, they became part of inadvertently, how long will they stay? And just as importantly, why would a new manufacturer ever choose to locate here?
It is also worth remembering that Wisconsin has already set aside significant funding to address PFAS contamination. The challenge is not whether to act, but how to act in a way that solves real problems without creating new ones.
GLTPA’s message to lawmakers is straightforward: Wisconsin can protect water quality and still protect its forest products industry. The focus should be on fixing contamination not shifting responsibility onto businesses that followed the rules and used approved materials. Passive participants in the supply chain should not be treated as polluters.
I appreciated the opportunity to testify and remain committed to working with legislators, state agencies, the Wisconsin Paper Council, and other stakeholders to find a balanced solution. The long-term health of Wisconsin’s manufacturing base, rural communities, and forests depends on getting this right.
Until next month,
Henry