When it Comes to Pollution, How Much is Too Much?

A hand above a stream

The late Justice Crooks once wrote for a majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court that “general standards are common in environmental statues . . . [and] the fact that [they] are broad standards does not make them non-existent ones.” That principle is about to be tested in both the United States Supreme Court and the Wisconsin Supreme Court. General standards (or, as their opponents often call them, vague standards) may be “common in environmental statutes,” but they are also becoming extremely controversial, as demonstrated in a pair of current cases.

The first is a federal matter, City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, in which the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari on May 28. The case concerns regulatory agencies’ authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to issue “narrative” standards, or statements that describe a water quality goal when numeric standards are too difficult to quantify. The permit provision at issue prohibits a wastewater treatment facility from “causing or contributing to” a violation of water quality standards, and from discharging substances that “create pollution, contamination, or nuisance.” The appellant municipalities say those standards are too vague, because they create no specific numerical requirements that provide a yardstick as to when the water has been sufficiently treated to avoid running afoul of the CWA—no way to know “how much is too much” pollution. In other words, the argument is that the municipalities cannot design treatment technologies without more definite standards.

Last term in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Court struck down EPA’s broad interpretation of the term “waters of the United States” in the CWA, sharply curtailing the agency’s authority to regulate discharges into wetlands. And in the meantime, the court overruled its longstanding principle of deferring to agencies’ legal interpretations of statutory terms, known as Chevron deference. Together, those decisions may not bode well for EPA’s position in the San Francisco case.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s endorsement of “general” standards described at the beginning of this post came in response to a challenge of the Department of Natural Resources’ general authority under the Wisconsin statutes and the public trust doctrine to “protect, maintain and improve” the waters of the state. In the case, Lake Beulah Management District v. DNR, the court held that the DNR could rely on general legislative grants of authority such as that to place conditions on permits issued for the operation of high-capacity wells. The court reached a similar conclusion a decade later in 2021, in two decisions relating to DNR’s authority to regulate Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and high-capacity wells, both captioned Clean Wisconsin v. DNR. In the Clean Wisconsin cases, the court held that agency authority that is stated in broad terms nevertheless qualifies as actionable, “explicit” authority within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 227.10(2m), which prohibits the agency from implementing or enforcing a permit condition not “explicitly required or explicitly permitted” by statute or by rule.

That position will be tested again should the court accept the pending petition for review in Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, Inc. and Leather Rich, Inc. v. DNR. The case concerns Wisconsin’s “Spills Law,” Wis. Stat. § 292.11. The Spills Law requires a person who causes the discharge of a “hazardous substance,” or who possesses or controls a hazardous substance that has been discharged, to notify DNR of the spill and then to “take the actions necessary to restore the environment.” There is no list of “hazardous substances” – instead, the statute broadly defines the term to include almost any substance “which may pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment . . . .” In practice, DNR has enjoyed substantial flexibility in determining what qualifies as a “hazardous substance.” The dispute in Leather Rich arose over DNR’s amendment of an ongoing remediation plan to include emerging contaminants such as PFAS, the “forever chemicals,” within the definition of “hazardous substances.”

The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court for Waukesha County’s order finding that the DNR “ha[s] the responsibility to determine . . . what the hazardous substances are by statute,” which “mean[s] that there has to be a rule-making function by the department . . . so that the individuals have notice as to what the law is and how the law is going to be implemented.” The court of appeals also affirmed the circuit court’s conclusion that DNR’s enforcement of the Spills Law with respect to PFAS without making a list of “hazardous substances” was “an unlawfully adopted rule and is invalid and unenforceable.”

In its Petition for Review, the Wisconsin Department of Justice argued that the decision “implies that agencies cannot enforce open-ended statutes without [promulgating] rules explaining their view of what exactly the statutes cover.” This effectively ignores the Clean Wisconsin cases, the state argued, and could end any Spills Law enforcement whatsoever.

Both cases—San Francisco at the federal level and Leather Rich at the state level—will require courts of last resort to analyze broad provisions in environmental protection statutes to delineate an agency’s implementation and enfacement authority. For both the regulated community and the environment, the stakes could hardly be higher.

Continue ReadingWhen it Comes to Pollution, How Much is Too Much?

Remembering President Lovell’s Leadership on Water Issues

Marquette President Michael R. Lovell

On September 19, 2014, Dr. Michael R. Lovell delivered his inaugural address upon taking office as Marquette University’s 24th president. That day Dr. Lovell announced that Marquette would expand its role in the water sector, encouraging Marquette faculty, staff, and students to develop water solutions “that will change the world.” This was not an isolated commitment; it extended Dr. Lovell’s history of strong support for water initiatives and continued during the decade he spent at Marquette’s helm.

With the news of his untimely passing last week, my purpose here is to reflect on the significant legacy Dr. Lovell leaves behind in the water sphere, as most recently embodied in Marquette’s evolution as a center for work aimed at helping to solve the world’s water problems.

Today, the growth in Marquette’s interdisciplinary water research team evidences the university’s unwavering commitment to the subject. The group includes faculty members from a variety of disciplines including biology, economics, education, engineering, law, and political science. Its members have expertise in water and wastewater treatment technologies, stormwater management, materials and sensors, sustainable and resilient communities, water law and policy, hydrology, and many other areas.

Dr. Lovell was always proud to mention the interdisciplinary projects the team was pursuing, often making it a point to note how many different academic units were involved from across campus under the guiding hand of Dr. Jeanne Hossenlopp, Vice President for Research and Innovation. Most recently, the water group secured Marquette’s largest ever federal award for water research, a large-scale interdisciplinary research partnership with the United States Army Corps of Engineers to promote healthier environments for both military personnel and civilians. 

Of course, these research efforts are only one aspect of Marquette’s commitment to water innovation. The university also has become a leader in water education, sustainability, and community engagement and partnerships. It is training future generations of water leaders in a variety of academic disciplines.

Some of this work had been ongoing prior to Dr. Lovell’s arrival at Marquette, such as the formation of the Water Quality Center in the College of Engineering and the Law School’s active engagement in the Milwaukee regional water initiative since its creation in the early 2000s. But with Dr. Lovell’s call—and challenge—to all units of the university for greater engagement with matters involving water, these efforts flourished. For example, the Law School announced an expanded Water Law and Policy Initiative that now offers students a wider suite of courses and fieldwork opportunities, regularly hosts public events and conferences, and pursues independent and funded research opportunities.

A discussion of Dr. Lovell’s water legacy would be incomplete without mentioning his work prior to his arrival at Marquette. As chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, he was a driving force behind the establishment of The Water Council, a key Milwaukee-based organization dedicated to establishing the region as a global hub dedicated to solving critical water challenges. Also under Dr. Lovell’s leadership, UWM announced a plan to create the nation’s first School of Freshwater Sciences.

In closing, it seems appropriate to mention that President Lovell’s focus on water issues was likely rooted in his strong Catholic faith. He often was interested in discussing Pope Francis’s encyclical letter confirming that water is “a fundamental right” that is “indispensable to human life,” and calling for engagement in an “open and respectful dialogue” about water policies, laws, and technologies. Dr. Lovell also signed the St. Francis Pledge, committing Marquette to join many other academic institutions recognizing a duty to care for the environment and protect the poor and vulnerable, among other things. With Dr. Lovell’s passing, it is up to us to steadfastly carry on this important work.

Continue ReadingRemembering President Lovell’s Leadership on Water Issues

Will Water Recycling Come to the Midwest?

Existing drinking water sources are under increasing strain due to overuse, climate change and other threats. Water recycling, also known as water reuse, may play a significant role in creating the sustainable cities of the future. Millions of people around the country are already being asked to drink recycled water, either indirectly (through a process in which treated wastewater is discharged to an environmental buffer such as groundwater or surface water and is later taken into the water distribution system) or even directly (when treated wastewater is immediately discharged into the water distribution system without an environmental buffer). At an April 10 conference sponsored by the Law School’s Water Law and Policy Initiative, several experts discussed the history and future of such technologies, and whether they are likely to emerge in Wisconsin or remain limited to the more arid parts of the county.

Noted author and journalist Peter Annin opened the event with a summary of his new book, Purified: How Recycled Sewage is Transforming Our Water. Annin described a significant water crisis facing many parts of the country, leading also to trouble in the production of food and energy, sectors long intertwined with water. Annin cited only two realistic options for “new” water supply­­­­—desalination and water reuse. Reuse is the far more sustainable option, he said.

Annin covered numerous historical case studies involving efforts communities have made to introduce recycled water into their water supply portfolios. Some were successful (Orange County), others less so (San Diego, at least at first). But Annin explained that careful examination of the United States Drought Monitor reveals that water shortages are not only a problem in the arid West. As a result, water reuse projects have been implemented or at least attempted in the more humid parts of the country too—in Norfolk, Virginia and Tampa, Florida, among other places.

In reviewing the lessons learned from all these efforts, Annin identified several keys to successful implementation of water recycling projects, including effective strategies for communicating with the public, rigorous monitoring of the water produced, and reliable technologies to ensure public safety.

In Wisconsin, at least so far, such technologies are more a matter of interest than necessity. “Nobody recycles water because it’s cool,” said Theera Ratarasarn, a panelist reacting to Annin’s presentation who is Chief of the Public Water Engineering Section for the Drinking Water and Groundwater Program at the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Instead, they do it because they have no other choice; it is a last resort.  In Wisconsin, Ratarasarn said, “everywhere you look, you find water.”  Thus, he said, it isn’t necessary to resort to water recycling. In fact, it would run afoul of a Wisconsin legal requirement that the public drinking water supply come from “the best available source practicable.” As a result, Wisconsin regulators are more concerned about other pressing issues like PFAS, lead, and nitrate pollution.

Another panelist, Rachel Havrelock, who is Professor of English and director of The Freshwater Lab at the University of Illinois at Chicago, observed that most people are accustomed to “single-use water,” and this view drives our discomfort with water recycling. In fact, she said, water recycling more closely emulates nature and the multiple-use water cycle. In most places, she said, there is already de facto water reuse, with treated wastewater returned to surface water and soon thereafter reclaimed for drinking water treatment a short distance away. Havrelock’s team has proposed a separate water reuse-driven supply for agricultural and industrial purposes in Chicago and the surrounding areas. “We don’t need to drink recycled water here,” she said, but reuse can still make a big difference by reducing the load on the portion of the water supply that will be used for drinking. She cited a “groundwater emergency” in many parts of the Midwest. “Water reuse is part of climate change adaptation,” she concluded, and the “legal world is absolutely vital at this juncture” to regulate the practice.

Michael Duczynski, a research civil engineer with the United States Army Engineer Research and Development Center, confirmed that from the military perspective there are plenty of avenues for non-potable reuse. The military, he said, has large critical infrastructure needs at many of its installations around the world, including everything from cooling towers to data centers. The resilience of those installations—and of civilian communities— can be increased through water reuse options, he said. Duczynski described a new project through which the military is discerning the regulatory requirements for a spectrum of potential reuse applications spanning different levels of treatment, different end uses, and different jurisdictions. Employing some of these projects could save millions of gallons of water, he predicted.

Video of the full program is available here (click the “watch now” button).

Continue ReadingWill Water Recycling Come to the Midwest?