Wisconsin Supreme Court rules spills law applies to PFAS
In a 5-2 ruling on Tuesday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the Department of Natural Resources' (DNR) authority to regulate polluters of hazardous substances such as PFAS through the state's toxic spills law.
The court's ruling reverses the decisions of the circuit and appeals courts that could have threatened the DNR's ability to force polluters to pay for the environmental damage they cause. For more than 40 years, the spills law has allowed the DNR to bring civil charges and enforce remediation measures against parties responsible for spills of 'harmful substances.'
The lawsuit was brought by an Oconomowoc dry cleaner and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC), the state's largest business lobby, after the owner of the dry cleaner, Leather Rich Inc., found PFAS on her property.
In preparation to sell the business, Leather Rich had been participating in a voluntary DNR program to remediate contamination on its property in exchange for a certificate of liability protection from the department. During that process, the DNR determined that PFAS should be considered a 'hazardous substance' under the spills law and communicated that on its website.
If PFAS were present on a site, the DNR stated, participants in the voluntary program would only be eligible for partial liability protection.
While conducting a site investigation through the program, Leather Rich determined three of four wells on the property exceeded Department of Health Services standards for PFAS concentration in surface or drinking water. The DNR requested that future reports from Leather Rich to the department include the amount of PFAS found on the property. Leather Rich responded by withdrawing from the program and filing suit.
At the circuit and appeals courts, Leather Rich was successful, with judges at each level finding that the decision by the DNR to start considering PFAS a 'hazardous substance' under the spills law constituted an 'unpromulgated rule' and therefore was against the law. That interpretation would have required the DNR to undergo the complicated and often yearslong process of creating an administrative rule each time it determines that a substance is harmful to people or the environment.
SpillsLawDecision
In the majority opinion, authored by Justice Janet Protasiewicz and joined by the Court's three other liberal leaning justices and conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn, the Court found that the DNR spent nearly 50 years administering the spills law responding 'to about 1,000 spills each year, without promulgating rules listing substances, quantities, and concentrations that it deems 'hazardous substances.''
Protasiewicz wrote that when the Legislature wrote the spills law, it left the definition of 'hazardous substance' intentionally open-ended but required a potentially harmful substance to meet certain criteria if it would apply under the law.
'The definition of 'hazardous substance' is broad and open-ended in that it potentially applies to 'any substance or combination of substances,'' Protasiewicz wrote. 'But the definition is limited in that the substance or combination of substances must satisfy one of two fact-specific criteria.'
She wrote that the law considers 'a substance or combination of substances is 'hazardous' if,' its quantity, concentration or characteristics may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness or may pose a potential hazard to human health or the environment
Leather Rich and WMC had argued that the Legislature's failure to include chemical thresholds in the statutory text left while including the use of terms like 'significantly,' 'serious,' and 'substantial,' meant that the law was ambiguous and therefore any DNR determinations of what counts as hazardous must be delineated in an administrative rule. They argued that under this interpretation of statute, spilling milk or beer on the ground could constitute a toxic spill.
Protasiewicz wrote if that were the case, 'then scores of Wisconsin statutes on a wide range of subjects would be called into doubt,' and that their hypotheticals are undermined by the text of the statute.
'It is possible for an everyday substance like milk or beer to qualify as a 'hazardous substance,' but only if it first satisfies [the statute's] fact specific criteria,' she wrote. 'A mug of beer or a gallon of milk spilled into Lake Michigan may not 'pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment,' but a 500-gallon tank of beer or milk discharged into a trout stream might well pose a substantial present hazard to the stream's fish and environment.'
The majority opinion also found that communications the DNR made on its website and in letters to Leather Rich counted as 'guidance documents' not as rules.
Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley, who once gave a speech to WMC in which she declared to the business lobby that 'I am your public servant,' wrote in a dissent joined by Chief Justice Annette Ziegler that the majority's interpretation of the spills law left the state vulnerable to a 'tyrannical' government that could both create the rules and enforce them.
'This case is about whether the People are entitled to know what the law requires of them before the government can subject them to the regulatory wringer,' she wrote. 'The majority leaves the People at the mercy of unelected bureaucrats empowered not only to enforce the rules, but to make them. Americans have lived under this unconstitutional arrangement for decades, but now, the majority says, the bureaucrats can impose rules and penalties on the governed without advance notice, oversight, or deliberation. In doing so, the majority violates three first principles fundamental to preserving the rule of law — and liberty.'
After the decision's release, Democrats and environmental groups celebrated its findings as an important step to protecting Wisconsin's residents from the harmful effects of pollution.
'This is a historic victory for the people of Wisconsin and my administration's fight against PFAS and other harmful contaminants that are affecting families and communities across our state,' Gov. Tony Evers said in a statement. 'The Supreme Court's decision today means that polluters will not have free rein to discharge harmful contaminants like PFAS into our land, water, and air without reporting it or taking responsibility for helping clean up those contaminants. It's a great day for Wisconsinites and the work to protect and preserve our state's valuable natural resources for future generations.'
But WMC said the Court's interpretation leaves businesses guessing what substances count as hazardous under the law.
'The DNR refuses to tell the regulated community which substances must be reported under the Spills Law, yet threatens severe penalties for getting it wrong,' Scott Manley, WMC's Executive Vice President of Government Relations, said in a statement. 'Businesses and homeowners are left to guess what's hazardous, and if they're wrong, they face crushing fines and endless, costly litigation. This ruling blesses a regulatory approach that is fundamentally unfair, unworkable, and impossible to comply with.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
E&E News
a day ago
- E&E News
EPA plans on PFAS spur questions about groundwater
The Trump administration has defended its partial rollback of a federal drinking water rule for 'forever chemicals' by pledging to stop the chemicals from entering water supplies in the first place. But the strategy received mixed reviews recently from state and tribal water officials on an EPA advisory panel. Of particular concern is the fact that preventing new discharges of the chemicals will do little to protect people who rely on groundwater for their drinking water. 'We would not immediately benefit from reducing upstream sources of PFAS,' said Steve Elmore, director of the drinking water program in Wisconsin and chair of EPA's National Drinking Water Advisory Council, during the council meeting last month. 'Most of our contaminated systems are contaminated due to historical processes. They are contaminated now.' Advertisement Used in products like firefighting foam, nonstick pans and carpets, forever chemicals now pollute the drinking water of more than 1 in 3 Americans. Scientists have linked the notoriously indestructible chemicals, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, to a slew of concerning health problems, including cancer.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
New study makes concerning discovery after testing samples from nearly 200 homes: 'It's a global problem'
New study makes concerning discovery after testing samples from nearly 200 homes: 'It's a global problem' Many people trust private wells to deliver clean, natural water — but a new study reveals that's not always the case. What's happening? A three-year study from Pennsylvania State University found that nearly one in five private wells tested in Pennsylvania contained PFAS — manmade "forever chemicals" linked to serious health problems. According to WESA, the researchers tested 167 private wells across the state and discovered that 18% showed PFAS contamination, with some exceeding federal safety limits. PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of long-lasting chemicals often used in products like nonstick cookware, water-resistant clothing, and firefighting foam. They're known to build up in the human body and the environment, and they're now showing up in unexpected places — including people's homes. "It's a global problem that I think researchers as a whole should come together to figure out how to support communities who may be impacted vastly," said Faith Kibuye, a water resources extension specialist at Penn State, per WESA. Why is this finding concerning? Research has linked PFAS exposure to increased risk of cancer, weakened immune systems, hormone disruption, and developmental issues in children. With over 1 million households relying on private wells in Pennsylvania alone — many of which are located in rural or underserved areas — this issue has significant public health implications, WESA reported. Since state and federal water regulations don't cover private wells, homeowners must handle testing and treatment themselves. That makes PFAS contamination an invisible threat — one that families may not realize they're exposed to until it's too late. Unfortunately, this isn't an isolated case. One study revealed that nearly half of the U.S. tap water contains PFAS, and experts in the U.K. have called for tighter regulations on the presence of "forever chemicals" in their drinking water. These stories show just how widespread the problem is becoming. What's being done about PFAS in well water? The researchers hope their work will help spread awareness and prompt more homeowners to test their water. "It's also a good thing that we're getting a lot of awareness out there about PFAS in general and what people can do," Kibuye said, per WESA. In Pennsylvania, homeowners can turn to state-certified labs to test their well water for PFAS. If contamination shows up, filtration systems — like activated carbon or reverse osmosis — can help remove the chemicals. On a larger scale, several states have begun tightening regulations on PFAS use. Last year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finalized nationwide limits for six types of PFAS in public water systems, and it confirmed this spring it intends to uphold those regulations under the new administration. Although current regulations exclude private wells, increasing awareness of the issue could help close that gap and give more families peace of mind about the water they rely on every day. Do you worry about having toxic forever chemicals in your home? Majorly Sometimes Not really I don't know enough about them Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet. Solve the daily Crossword
New York Times
5 days ago
- New York Times
So Your Workout Clothes Are Made of Plastic. Now What?
It's true that some synthetic fabrics commonly used in workout clothing, such as polyester, nylon, and spandex, might expose you to a range of potentially harmful chemicals. 'These chemicals are not necessarily present in all synthetic fabrics, but they are commonly used or can be residues from manufacturing processes associated with these materials,' said José Domingo, professor emeritus of toxicology at the Universitat Rovira i Virgili School of Medicine in Spain, in a written response. They may include skin irritants that could trigger contact dermatitis, such as azobenzene disperse dyes, which are commonly used to color synthetic fabrics, and formaldehyde releasers, which are often used in wrinkle-free textiles. Synthetic clothing may also contain some endocrine-disrupting chemicals, which are linked to a range of health impacts that affect reproduction, physical development, neurodevelopment, metabolism, and immune system function, as well as cancer risk. These chemicals include phthalates; bisphenols such as BPA; benzothiazoles, used in chemical processing; antimony, a catalyst residue often found in polyester; and aromatic amines from dyes. Some may also contain PFAS, a broad class of chemicals linked to cancer, pregnancy complications, and weakened immune function, though they may also appear in other types of fabrics. (And, in fact, some states have already started banning PFAS in clothing.) The presence of all these chemicals 'depends on specific manufacturing processes, dyes, and finishing treatments used,' said Domingo. And not all synthetic textiles are alike. There are petroleum-based fabrics, including polyester, nylon, spandex, and acrylic, which are often found in clothing items like leggings and sports bras. Plasticized bio-based fabrics, such as some bio-based nylon and polyamide, use corn or other plant materials but may be mixed with petroleum-based plastic and chemicals (similar to bio-based plastic bags), said Alden Wicker, a journalist who covers environmental health and sustainability in fashion. Cellulosics, such as rayon (sometimes called lyocell or modal), are another category of synthetics. They may be used in exercise clothes, as well as blouses, dresses, slacks, and other garments. These are made primarily from woody plant pulp that has been chemically dissolved and processed into a textile. From an individual health perspective, cellulosics may be less concerning than petroleum-based or bio-based fabrics, Wicker said, though they do require chemical-intensive processing. Many experts I spoke with said that natural fibers are less likely to have high concentrations of some of those potentially harmful chemicals, like azobenzene disperse dyes and antimony. But broadly, there's no guarantee that clothes made with 100% cotton or other natural fibers are automatically lower in harmful chemicals than synthetic ones, said Miriam Diamond, an environmental scientist and professor at the University of Toronto's School of the Environment. Diamond noted that even 100% cotton has been found to sometimes contain chemicals, such as bisphenol. Complicating matters, manufacturers aren't required to disclose chemicals in clothes, and 'they may not even know themselves given the complexities of global supply chains,' said Justin Colacino, associate professor of environmental health sciences at the University of Michigan, in an email interview.
