Advertisement

May 24, 2013

Wisconsin Supreme Court Limits WDNR’s Authority Regarding WPDES

In a 5-2 decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court declared that Wisconsin Department of Natural Resource’s (“WDNR’s”) authority and the scope of its administrative review of Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“WPDES”) permit challenges is limited to challenges based on state law.  Practically speaking, the WDNR need not accept for administrative review a challenge to a WPDES permit on the basis that the permit fails to comply with federal law

In 1974 WDNR was delegated authority by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to implement and enforce an EPA-approved state-level program to meet all standards and requirements of the federal Clean Water Act (“CWA”). The state legislature enacted Wis. Stat. ch. 283 and WDNR adopted a comprehensive administrative rule package which included the EPA approved WPDES permit program. 

Petitioners in this case challenged a WPDES permit issued to the Fort James' Broadway Mill, claiming, among other things, that the permit did not comply with federal law and that state statutes require WDNR to ensure all WPDES permits comply with federal law. The WDNR refused to grant a hearing on the federal law challenges, arguing WDNR’s authority only allowed it to review WPDES permit challenges based on state law. Petitioners appealed WDNR’s refusal to grant a hearing to the circuit court, which agreed with WDNR’s position; Petitioners then appealed to the court of appeals, which agreed with Petitioners; WDNR then appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Throughout the case, the Wisconsin Department of Justice defended WDNR and its decision not to accept review of Petitioner’s federal law challenges. A number of municipal and industry associations, including the Wisconsin Dairy Business Association, Wisconsin Paper Council, Midwest Food Processors Association, Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group, Lake States Lumber Association and Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products, submitted amicus briefs to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in support of WDNR’s position.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court gave great weight deference to WDNR’s statutory interpretation and agreed with the agency that, if followed to its logical conclusion, Petitioner’s position would render Wisconsin’s delegated CWA authority and its WPDES permit program moot.  In other words, if WDNR is required to review every WPDES permit for compliance with federal law, as opposed to its own EPA approved state statutes, why bother having state statutes at all?  The court noted that EPA has authority to review and object to every single WPDES permit issued by WDNR. In this case, EPA reviewed the proposed WPDES permit and also reviewed Petitioner’s claim that the permit failed to comply with federal law, yet EPA found no reason to object to the permit.  Moreover, the court clarified that the proper remedy for Petitioner’s federal law challenges is to petition EPA to review or object to the WPDES permit issuance, and thereafter to appeal any EPA decision in the appropriate federal district court.  

The majority opinion was authored by Justice Ziegler. Chief Justice Abrahamson, joined by Justice Bradley dissented stating that they would have upheld the court of appeals decision.  

Another important issue that was decided by the court of appeals, but not a subject of WDNR’s appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, is whether a petitioner may challenge a WPDES permit and request a public hearing on an issue that was not brought up during the public comment period. The court of appeals held thatany issue, regardless of whether it was identified or addressed in public comments, may be the subject of an administrative challenge and hearing request. Practically speaking, this means that WDNR will be required to address issues in an administrative challenge that it never had the opportunity to address or remedy before the permit was issued. The court of appeals’ holding on this issue, and WDNR’s failure to appeal, injects a significant layer of uncertainty into the WPDES permit process.

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

About the Author

linda h, bochert, partner, michael best law firm
Partner

As a partner in the firm’s Land and Resources Practice Group, Linda Bochert helps her clients establish and maintain effective working relationships with state and federal environmental regulatory agencies. She serves in various policy advisory roles to state agencies, including the Wisconsin Departments of Natural Resources, Agriculture and Revenue. Her clients benefit from her unique understanding of the workings of regulatory agencies and her ability to develop mutually beneficial solutions to regulatory issues. Ms. Bochert also co-chairs our firmwide Sustainability Initiative.

608-283-2271

About the Author

David A. Crass agribusiness law attorney Michael best Law Firm
Partner

David Crass is chair of the firm's Agribusiness, Food Processing and Distribution Group, a leader in the firm's Renewable Energy practice and a member of the firm’s Management Committee. Mr. Crass has served as the Managing Partner of the firm's Madison Office (2005-2008) and as chair of the firm's Land and Resources Practice Group (2003-2005). He focuses his practice primarily in the areas of environmental and energy law, climate change counseling, agricultural and food industries and renewable energy project development. Mr. Crass has represented clients in a...

608.283.2267

About the Author

Michael P. Screnock Michael Best Friedrich LLP
Associate

Michael Screnock is an associate in the Madison office and a member of the Land and Resources Practice Group. Drawing from a vast municipal government background, Mr. Screnock’s practice focuses primarily on land use, environmental and regulatory matters. Mr. Screnock represents clients before the Public Service Commission in matters relating to public utility ratemaking. He also represents clients before other state and federal agencies with respect to permitting, licensing and regulatory matters. Mr. Screnock’s practice also includes client representation in commercial real...

608-283-2245

About the Author

Anna J. WIldeman Michael Best Friedrich Attorney Law Firm
Associate

Anna Wildeman is a member of the Land and Resources Practice Group and the Agribusiness, Food Processing & Distribution Group in the Madison office. Her practice focuses on environmental, administrative and energy law, issues related to climate change, agriculture and renewable energy. Ms Wildeman has assisted both buyers and sellers in assessing environmental issues in real estate and corporate transactions and has been actively involved in securing state and local permits for a number of projects throughout Wisconsin.

608-283-0109

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.