> requirement that they create 2 acres of additional wetlands elsewhere for every acre they fill in
I did this type of work during high school. The new wetlands are inspected regularly and must meet quality standards to count. After a period of time (10 years in my state), the wetlands are certified and no longer need to be inspected nor maintained. I have visited old projects that the state signed off on. After maintenance stopped, nearly all of the "high quality" wetlands that I worked on rapidly deteriorated into cattail, or worse, reed canary grass monocultures. When I was planting, I believed I was creating valuable habitats, but I was actually just working to check a box on a form.
More info: https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/Does_Wisconsin%27s_Foxcon...
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/25/dnr-...
1. The diversion violates the interstate compact, which says that significant diversions are supposed to have some public or residential benefit. Foxconn's doesn't. It's not inherently problematic for the environment, but it sets a precedent they don't like.
2. Foxconn might pollute Lake Michigan.
That second concern is of course valid, but has nothing to do with the amount of water Foxconn consumes. I found one complaint that claimed consumptive use of water (that is, unlike NIPSCO, water that is diverted from the lake and not fed immediately back) could cause long-term problems because Michigan only replenishes 1% of its water annually. But Foxconn's draw is something like 0.0000002%.
If the lake was ringed with Foxconns from Gary to Mackinaw City, I'd see the problem. And: totally legit to be vigilant about precedent! But I don't see the intrinsic practical impact from Foxconn today (in terms of water usage).
Worth noting: Foxconn came back and cut their water demand in half with a recycling plant. Not that I want to sound like I'm defending Foxconn, because I think this is a really bad deal for Wisconsin.
That’s enough to justify the scale part of the appeal.
(From the factory footprints on the lakeside, sure!)
We're agreed about the Foxconn project in general. I'm just crusading against Michigan water supply alarmism.
There's no indication, moreover, that Foxconn has received waivers from ordinary state and federal rules that regulate dumping heavy metals into the soil. The article misleadingly tries to suggest that by juxtaposing the fact that the LCD panels "require benzene, chromium, etc." with the fact that Foxconn has been authorized to fill in certain wetlands.