(C) Wisconsin Watch

(C) Wisconsin Watch
This story was originally published by Wisconsin Watch and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .

PFAS polluters: Efforts to thwart regulation move on parallel tracks [1]

['Bennet Goldstein', 'Wisconsin Watch', 'More Bennet Goldstein', 'Investigative Reporter', '.Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus-Coauthors.Is-Layout-Flow', 'Class', 'Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus', 'Display Inline', '.Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus-Avatar', 'Where Img']

Date: 2024-03-11 16:00:00+00:00

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Last week, a divided Wisconsin Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that limited the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ ability to regulate PFAS and other emerging contaminants under the state’s long-standing spills law.

The case is one of two efforts to weaken the spills law.

The Republican-controlled Wisconsin Assembly and Senate recently passed Senate Bill 312, sending it to Gov. Tony Evers. The Democrat has implied he will veto the legislation because it contains “poison pill” provisions that allow polluters to dodge accountability.

Among those is a measure that would prevent the department from forcing PFAS cleanups on lands not owned by the state unless there is an exceedance of a “promulgated standard.”

“It may just be a coincidence, but think about the similarity between that and what the court is saying here,” said Rob Lee, a staff attorney with Midwest Environmental Advocates. “They would almost effectively accomplish the same end.”

The spills law requires reporting and environmental restoration by entities that pollute air, soil or water or that discover past contamination on their property, but the appeals court affirmed a Waukesha County Circuit Court judge’s 2022 ruling that the department cannot require a party to clean up a substance that was not first subject to rulemaking.

As Wisconsin Watch previously noted, the two supportive judges, Shelley Grogan and Maria Lazar, are backed by conservatives, and the dissenting judge, Lisa Neubauer, is backed by liberals.

The up to 30-month rulemaking process would entail adopting a list of substances and thresholds that make them hazardous — all subject to legislative approval.

The Legislature appears to have little appetite to approve new rules, considering that Republican lawmakers previously added bureaucratic hurdles to do so.

That includes a 2017 law preventing state agencies from developing rules without legislative approval if implementation costs will exceed $10 million over two years.

“You can rest assured if DNR does try to promulgate a rule and comply with the court’s orders, who will be opposing that rulemaking?” Lee said. “The same types of entities that are attacking DNR from all sides right now.”

Following the appeals court ruling, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the state’s largest business lobby, said that it will continue its fight “to protect the public from government overreach.”

WMC has argued in court that it’s “impossible for a party to know when they are required to report” a spill without knowing how the department defines a hazardous substance. The agency “essentially expect(s) the public to read their minds,” WMC contended.

Meanwhile, the department maintained that a court loss would strip its authority to compel cleanups of toxic chemicals, including emerging contaminants like PFAS — a family of 12,000 human-made compounds that don’t readily break down in nature.

The chemicals are found in a bevy of consumer products like nonstick pans, food wrappers and raincoats and are increasingly turning up in public drinking water around the country. In 2022, the EPA released health advisories, suggesting virtually no amount of several PFAS is safe for consumption.

The circuit judge delayed the effect of his order while the state agency appealed. That remains unchanged. The Department of Justice, which is defending the DNR, plans to appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court — testing where the court’s new liberal majority falls on a major environmental issue.

“DNR is really kind of being assaulted on all fronts for simply trying to protect the environment and the public health from what we all know, regardless of the contrived legal definition, are hazardous substances,” Lee said. “What I see are industry — the folks who are really culpable for putting these out into our environment and/or making a profit off of them — they want to continue having society and the public pay the costs.”

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.

Close window X Republish this article This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Scroll down to copy and paste the code of our article into your CMS. The codes for images, graphics and other embeddable elements may not transfer exactly as they appear on our site. *** Also, the code below will NOT copy the featured image on the page. You are welcome to download the main image as a separate element for publication with this story. *** You are welcome to republish our articles for free using the following ground rules. Credit should be given, in this format: “By Dee J. Hall, Wisconsin Watch”

Editing material is prohibited, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and in-house style (for example, using “Waunakee, Wis.” instead of “Waunakee” or changing “yesterday” to “last week”)

Other than minor cosmetic and font changes, you may not change the structural appearance or visual format of a story.

If published online, you must include the links and link to wisconsinwatch.org

If you share the story on social media, please mention @wisconsinwatch (Twitter, Facebook and Instagram), and ensure that the original featured image associated with the story is visible on the social media post.

Don’t sell the story or any part of it — it may not be marketed as a product.

Don’t extract, store or resell Wisconsin Watch content as a database.

Don’t sell ads against the story. But you can publish it with pre-sold ads.

Your website must include a prominent way to contact you.

Additional elements that are packaged with our story must be labeled.

Users can republish our photos, illustrations, graphics and multimedia elements ONLY with stories with which they originally appeared. You may not separate multimedia elements for standalone use.

If we send you a request to change or remove Wisconsin Watch content from your site, you must agree to do so immediately. *** Also, the code below will NOT copy the featured image on the page. You are welcome to download the main image as a separate element for publication with this story. *** You are welcome to republish our articles forusing the following ground rules. For questions regarding republishing rules please contact Jeff Bauer, digital editor and producer, at [email protected] Efforts to thwart regulation of PFAS polluters move down parallel tracks <h1>Efforts to thwart regulation of PFAS polluters move down parallel tracks</h1> by Bennet Goldstein / Wisconsin Watch, Wisconsin Watch March 11, 2024 Last week, a divided Wisconsin Court of Appeals <a href="https://wisconsinwatch.org/2024/03/wisconsin-pfas-contamination-environment-appeals-court-ruling/">upheld</a> a lower court <a href="https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=772722">ruling</a> that limited the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ ability to regulate PFAS and other emerging contaminants under the state’s long-standing spills law. The case is one of two efforts to weaken the spills law. The Republican-controlled Wisconsin Assembly and Senate recently <a href="https://wisconsinwatch.org/2024/02/wisconsin-legislature-pfas-governor-evers-assembly-senate/">passed</a> <a href="https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2023/proposals/sb312">Senate Bill 312</a>, sending it to Gov. Tony Evers. The Democrat has <a href="https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/WIGOV/bulletins/38d8ec0#:~:text=Rather%2C%20SB%20312,against%20the%20polluter">implied</a> he will veto the legislation because it contains “poison pill” provisions that allow polluters to dodge accountability. Among those is a measure that would prevent the department from forcing PFAS cleanups on lands not owned by the state unless there is an exceedance of a “promulgated standard.” “It may just be a coincidence, but think about the similarity between that and what the court is saying here,” said Rob Lee, a staff attorney with Midwest Environmental Advocates. “They would almost effectively accomplish the same end.” The spills law requires reporting and environmental restoration by entities that pollute air, soil or water or that discover past contamination on their property, but the appeals court <a href="https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=772722">affirmed</a> a Waukesha County Circuit Court judge’s 2022 ruling that the department cannot require a party to clean up a substance that was not first subject to rulemaking. As Wisconsin Watch <a href="https://wisconsinwatch.org/2024/02/wisconsin-election-voters-judges-court-of-appeals-judiciary/">previously noted</a>, the two supportive judges, Shelley Grogan and Maria Lazar, are backed by conservatives, and the dissenting judge, Lisa Neubauer, is backed by liberals. The up to 30-month rulemaking process would entail adopting a list of substances and thresholds that make them hazardous — all subject to legislative approval. The Legislature appears to have little appetite to approve new rules, considering that Republican lawmakers previously added bureaucratic hurdles to do so. That includes a 2017 law preventing state agencies from developing rules without legislative approval if implementation costs will exceed $10 million over two years. “You can rest assured if DNR does try to promulgate a rule and comply with the court's orders, who will be opposing that rulemaking?” Lee said. “The same types of entities that are attacking DNR from all sides right now.” Following the appeals court ruling, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the state’s largest business lobby, said that it will continue its fight “to protect the public from government overreach.” WMC has argued in court that it’s “impossible for a party to know when they are required to report” a spill without knowing how the department defines a hazardous substance. The agency “essentially expect(s) the public to read their minds,” WMC contended. Meanwhile, the department maintained that a court loss would strip its authority to compel cleanups of toxic chemicals, including emerging contaminants like PFAS — a family of 12,000 human-made compounds that don’t readily break down in nature. The chemicals are found in a bevy of consumer products like nonstick pans, food wrappers and raincoats and are increasingly turning up in public drinking water around the country. In 2022, the EPA released health advisories, suggesting virtually no amount of several PFAS is safe for consumption. The circuit judge delayed the effect of his order while the state agency appealed. That remains unchanged. The Department of Justice, which is defending the DNR, plans to appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court — testing where the <a href="https://wisconsinwatch.org/2024/03/wisconsin-supreme-court-justices-operating-procedures/">court’s new liberal majority</a> falls on a major environmental issue. “DNR is really kind of being assaulted on all fronts for simply trying to protect the environment and the public health from what we all know, regardless of the contrived legal definition, are hazardous substances,” Lee said. “What I see are industry — the folks who are really culpable for putting these out into our environment and/or making a profit off of them — they want to continue having society and the public pay the costs.” This <a target="_blank" href="https://wisconsinwatch.org/2024/03/pfas-wisconsin-pollution-contamination-spills-law-environment/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://wisconsinwatch.org">Wisconsin Watch</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://i0.wp.com/wisconsinwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/cropped-WCIJ_IconOnly_FullColor_RGB-1.png?fit=150%2C150&quality=100&ssl=1" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;"><img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="https://wisconsinwatch.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=1288188&ga4=G-D2S69Y9TDB" style="width:1px;height:1px;"> Copy to Clipboard

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://wisconsinwatch.org/2024/03/pfas-wisconsin-pollution-contamination-spills-law-environment/

Published and (C) by Wisconsin Watch
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons BY-ND 4.0 Intl.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/wisconsinwatch/