TO: The State Assembly Committee on Environment
FROM: Marty Ochs, President of Green Bay Innovation Group (GBIG)
DATE: January 21, 2026
RE: Oral Testimony Regarding Assembly Substitute Amendment 1, to Assembly Bill 131
Good morning, Chair Goeben, Ranking Member Palmeri, and members of the Committee. My name is Marty Orchs, and I am the President of the Green Bay Innovation Group (GBIG). GBIG is a Northeast Wisconsin–based coalition of businesses representing the paper, packaging, printing, converting, plastics, petroleum-related, and other manufacturing sectors, often grouped together as the 5P industries. Our members include manufacturers, suppliers, and service providers that support thousands of jobs and form a critical part of Wisconsin’s manufacturing and economic base. These industries are deeply interconnected, capital-intensive, and rooted in local communities across the state. GBIG’s mission is to strengthen collaboration, innovation, and long-term competitiveness across these sectors.
I appreciate the opportunity to share our perspective today on Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 131, particularly as it relates to how the PFAS spills-law provisions added in this Substitute Amendment could affect manufacturers and the broader industrial ecosystem in Wisconsin. PFAS are everywhere. They exist broadly in modern commerce, consumer products, recycled feedstocks, municipal systems, and historical industrial processes. In many cases, PFAS were used decades ago, lawfully and intentionally, before risks were fully understood. In other cases, facilities received PFAS unintentionally through recycled materials or municipal wastewater, without any ability to control or prevent that exposure.
This is where our concern lies. When legacy or passive exposure becomes the basis for open-ended liability, without regard to intent, control, or current practices, it creates significant uncertainty. Facilities that are operating responsibly today may face liability for conditions created long ago, or for PFAS they never introduced. That uncertainty discourages reinvestment, redevelopment, and innovation, and can make companies reluctant to acquire or modernize sites with any historical connection to PFAS.
We have seen similar challenges emerge with other complex, emerging issues such as microplastics. These are systemic problems involving many industries and society as a whole. Assigning disproportionate responsibility to one party in this case manufacturing does not solve the problem; it risks fragmenting responsibility and slowing progress.
Wisconsin’s manufacturers want to be part of the solution. Industry brings technical expertise,
operational knowledge, and innovation capacity that can help address PFAS challenges effectively. Rather than relying primarily on expanded liability frameworks, we believe Wisconsin would benefit from approaches that encourage collaboration, including industry-academic partnerships, research hubs, and open dialogue among regulators, universities, and manufacturers.
To move forward sustainably, policy must be sensitive to legacy conditions, current compliance realities, and the interconnected nature of modern manufacturing. A balanced approach that supports remediation, protects communities, and keeps Wisconsin competitive will best serve the long-term interests of the state.
In closing, the PFAS spills-law provisions added in Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 would affect far more than a single sector. Exposing interconnected 5P industries to expanded liability, despite lawful operations and, in many cases, no intentional PFAS use, risks creating uncertainty that could hinder investment, innovation, and economic stability statewide.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would be happy to provide additional information or discuss potential modifications that help Wisconsin move forward responsibly and sustainably.
Respectfully,
Marty Ochs
Executive Director
Green Bay Innovation Group
