Latest news with #LeatherRich
Yahoo
24-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Wisconsin Supreme Court rules spills law applies to PFAS
The seven members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court hear oral arguments. (Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner) 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
24-06-2025
- Business
Wisconsin top court delivers win for environmentalists in 'forever chemicals' fight
MADISON, Wis. -- The Wisconsin Supreme Court delivered a victory for environmentalists on Tuesday in the fight over 'forever chemicals' known as PFAS, issuing a ruling that advocates said will hold polluters accountable. The liberal-controlled court ruled that state regulators can force landowners to clean up emerging pollutants such as PFAS before they are officially designated as hazardous substances. The 5-2 ruling is a defeat for the state's powerful group representing businesses and manufacturers, which had argued the state couldn't enforce regulations on substances before they were officially designated as hazardous. It is the latest development in a yearslong battle in Wisconsin and nationally involving regulators, environmentalists, politicians and businesses over how to deal with PFAS contamination. Cities large and small across Wisconsin, from Madison to Marinette and La Crosse to Wausau, are grappling with PFAS contamination. PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of chemicals that have been around for decades and have now spread into the nation's air, water and soil. They were manufactured by companies such as 3M, Chemours and others because they were incredibly useful. They helped eggs slide across nonstick frying pans, ensured that firefighting foam suffocates flames and helped clothes withstand the rain and keep people dry. The chemicals resist breaking down, however, which means they stay around in the environment and have a hard time breaking down in the body. There is a wide range of health harms now associated with exposure to certain PFAS, including low birth weight, cancer and liver disease. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in a case brought by the state's largest business group, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, which sued the DNR in 2021 on behalf of Leather Rich, a dry cleaning business in Oconomowoc. Leather Rich became aware of PFAS contamination in 2018 and was working on cleaning it up when the DNR posted a message online in 2019 saying it now considered PFAS chemicals a hazardous substance. The agency ordered the dry cleaner to test its groundwater for PFAS but didn't tell the business which compounds it needed to test for or what levels would be considered dangerous. They argued the DNR can't force businesses to test and clean up contamination from emerging pollutants like PFAS without first designating them as hazardous substances. That process can take years and requires approval from the Legislature. All that time, polluters could harm the environment and put people's health and safety at risk with no obligation to begin cleanup, the DNR argued. But Leather Rich argued that businesses have a right to know which substances are subject to regulation before spending time and money on cleanup. A Waukesha County judge and the state appeals court sided with Leather Rich. The DNR appealed, saying the lower court's ruling would neuter the state's 'spills law,' which was designed to confront pollution. That law, enacted about 50 years ago, requires anyone who causes, possesses or controls a hazardous substance that's been released into the environment to clean it up. 'Wisconsin's Spills Law safeguards human health and the environment in real time by directly regulating parties responsible for a hazardous substance discharge,' Justice Janet Protasiewicz wrote for the majority. No state law required the DNR to implement a rule before requiring Leather Rich to begin cleaning up the site, she wrote. 'The DNR has explicit authority to enforce a threshold for reporting the discharge of hazardous substances,' Protasiewicz wrote. The court's four liberal justices were joined by conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn in the majority. Conservative justices Annette Ziegler and Rebecca Bradley dissented. They said the ruling allows bureaucrats to '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.' Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and environmental advocates hailed the decision. '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," Evers said in a statement. Rob Lee, attorney for Midwest Environmental Advocates, called the ruling 'a victory for the health and wellbeing of the people of Wisconsin" that reinforces 'a bedrock environmental and public health protection that has kept Wisconsinites safe from toxic contamination for almost fifty years." A spokesperson for WMC, which brought the lawsuit, did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment. Since the lawsuit was filed, additional state and federal regulations of PFAS have been put in place. Federal regulators placed the first-ever national standards on PFAS in drinking water last year, but the Trump administration said in May that it planned to weaken those limits. The state has imposed less restrictive limits on PFAS in surface and drinking water, defined as piped water delivered through public systems and noncommunity systems that serve places such as factories, schools and hotels. But it has not implemented PFAS standards for groundwater, the source of drinking water for about two-thirds of Wisconsin residents. The agency stopped efforts to draft them in 2023 after determining that compliance would be too expensive.
San Francisco Chronicle
24-06-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Wisconsin Supreme Court delivers win for environmentalists in fight over ‘forever chemicals'
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Supreme Court delivered a victory for environmentalists on Tuesday in the fight over 'forever chemicals' known as PFAS. The liberal-controlled court ruled that state regulators can force landowners to clean up emerging pollutants such as PFAS before they are officially designated as hazardous substances. The 5-2 ruling is a defeat for the state's powerful group representing businesses and manufacturers, which had argued the state couldn't enforce regulations on substances before they were officially designated as hazardous. It is the latest development in a yearslong battle in Wisconsin and nationally involving regulators, environmentalists, politicians and businesses over how to deal with PFAS contamination. The PFAS problem Cities large and small across Wisconsin, from Madison to Marinette and La Crosse to Wausau, are grappling with PFAS contamination. The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that at least 45% of the nation's tap water is contaminated with PFAS. PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of chemicals that have been around for decades and have now spread into the nation's air, water and soil. They were manufactured by companies such as 3M, Chemours and others because they were incredibly useful. They helped eggs slide across nonstick frying pans, ensured that firefighting foam suffocates flames and helped clothes withstand the rain and keep people dry. The chemicals resist breaking down, however, which means they stay around in the environment and have a hard time breaking down in the body. There is a wide range of health harms now associated with exposure to certain PFAS, including low birth weight, cancer and liver disease. Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and Republican legislators have been at odds over how to address the problem for years, with both sides blaming the other for not earmarking more money for clean up efforts. The Wisconsin case The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in a case brought by the state's largest business group, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, which sued the DNR in 2021 on behalf of Leather Rich, a dry cleaning business in Oconomowoc. Leather Rich became aware of PFAS contamination in 2018 and was working on cleaning it up when the DNR posted a message online in 2019 saying it now considered PFAS chemicals a hazardous substance. The agency ordered the dry cleaner to test its groundwater for PFAS but didn't tell the business which compounds it needed to test for or what levels would be considered dangerous. They argued the DNR can't force businesses to test and clean up contamination from emerging pollutants like PFAS without first designating them as hazardous substances. That process can take years and requires approval from the Legislature. A Waukesha County judge and the state appeals court sided with Leather Rich. The DNR appealed, arguing that it could unilaterally force testing because state law gives the agency broad authority to protect the environment. It also argued that the lower court's ruling would neuter the state's 'spills law,' which was designed to confront pollution. That law, enacted about 50 years ago, requires anyone who causes, possesses or controls a hazardous substance that's been released into the environment to clean it up. Wisconsin Supreme Court weighs in 'Wisconsin's Spills Law safeguards human health and the environment in real time by directly regulating parties responsible for a hazardous substance discharge,' Justice Janet Protasiewicz wrote for the majority. No state law required the DNR to implement a rule before requiring Leather Rich to begin cleaning up the site, she wrote. 'The DNR has explicit authority to enforce a threshold for reporting the discharge of hazardous substances,' she wrote. The court's four liberal justices were joined by conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn in the majority. Conservative justices Annette Ziegler and Rebecca Bradley dissented. They said the ruling allows bureaucrats to '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.' Fight over PFAS regulation Since the lawsuit was filed, additional state and federal regulations of PFAS have been put in place. Federal regulators placed the first-ever national standards on PFAS in drinking water last year, but the Trump administration said in May that it planned to weaken those limits. The state has imposed less restrictive limits on PFAS in surface and drinking water, defined as piped water delivered through public systems and noncommunity systems that serve places such as factories, schools and hotels. But it has not implemented PFAS standards for groundwater, the source of drinking water for about two-thirds of Wisconsin residents. The agency stopped efforts to draft them in 2023 after determining that compliance would be too expensive.
Winnipeg Free Press
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
Wisconsin Supreme Court delivers win for environmentalists in fight over ‘forever chemicals'
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Supreme Court delivered a victory for environmentalists on Tuesday in the fight over 'forever chemicals' known as PFAS. The liberal-controlled court ruled that state regulators can force landowners to clean up emerging pollutants such as PFAS before they are officially designated as hazardous substances. The 5-2 ruling is a defeat for the state's powerful group representing businesses and manufacturers, which had argued the state couldn't enforce regulations on substances before they were officially designated as hazardous. It is the latest development in a yearslong battle in Wisconsin and nationally involving regulators, environmentalists, politicians and businesses over how to deal with PFAS contamination. The PFAS problem Cities large and small across Wisconsin, from Madison to Marinette and La Crosse to Wausau, are grappling with PFAS contamination. The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that at least 45% of the nation's tap water is contaminated with PFAS. PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of chemicals that have been around for decades and have now spread into the nation's air, water and soil. They were manufactured by companies such as 3M, Chemours and others because they were incredibly useful. They helped eggs slide across nonstick frying pans, ensured that firefighting foam suffocates flames and helped clothes withstand the rain and keep people dry. The chemicals resist breaking down, however, which means they stay around in the environment and have a hard time breaking down in the body. There is a wide range of health harms now associated with exposure to certain PFAS, including low birth weight, cancer and liver disease. Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and Republican legislators have been at odds over how to address the problem for years, with both sides blaming the other for not earmarking more money for clean up efforts. The Wisconsin case The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in a case brought by the state's largest business group, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, which sued the DNR in 2021 on behalf of Leather Rich, a dry cleaning business in Oconomowoc. Leather Rich became aware of PFAS contamination in 2018 and was working on cleaning it up when the DNR posted a message online in 2019 saying it now considered PFAS chemicals a hazardous substance. The agency ordered the dry cleaner to test its groundwater for PFAS but didn't tell the business which compounds it needed to test for or what levels would be considered dangerous. They argued the DNR can't force businesses to test and clean up contamination from emerging pollutants like PFAS without first designating them as hazardous substances. That process can take years and requires approval from the Legislature. A Waukesha County judge and the state appeals court sided with Leather Rich. The DNR appealed, arguing that it could unilaterally force testing because state law gives the agency broad authority to protect the environment. It also argued that the lower court's ruling would neuter the state's 'spills law,' which was designed to confront pollution. That law, enacted about 50 years ago, requires anyone who causes, possesses or controls a hazardous substance that's been released into the environment to clean it up. Wednesdays Columnist Jen Zoratti looks at what's next in arts, life and pop culture. Fight over PFAS regulation Since the lawsuit was filed, additional state and federal regulations of PFAS have been put in place. Federal regulators placed the first-ever national standards on PFAS in drinking water last year, but the Trump administration said in May that it planned to weaken those limits. The state has imposed less restrictive limits on PFAS in surface and drinking water, defined as piped water delivered through public systems and noncommunity systems that serve places such as factories, schools and hotels. But it has not implemented PFAS standards for groundwater, the source of drinking water for about two-thirds of Wisconsin residents. The agency stopped efforts to draft them in 2023 after determining that compliance would be too expensive.
Yahoo
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Wisconsin Supreme Court delivers win for environmentalists in fight over ‘forever chemicals'
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Supreme Court delivered a victory for environmentalists on Tuesday in the fight over 'forever chemicals' known as PFAS. The liberal-controlled court ruled that state regulators can force landowners to clean up emerging pollutants such as PFAS before they are officially designated as hazardous substances. The 5-2 ruling is a defeat for the state's powerful group representing businesses and manufacturers, which had argued the state couldn't enforce regulations on substances before they were officially designated as hazardous. It is the latest development in a yearslong battle in Wisconsin and nationally involving regulators, environmentalists, politicians and businesses over how to deal with PFAS contamination. The PFAS problem Cities large and small across Wisconsin, from Madison to Marinette and La Crosse to Wausau, are grappling with PFAS contamination. The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that at least 45% of the nation's tap water is contaminated with PFAS. PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of chemicals that have been around for decades and have now spread into the nation's air, water and soil. They were manufactured by companies such as 3M, Chemours and others because they were incredibly useful. They helped eggs slide across nonstick frying pans, ensured that firefighting foam suffocates flames and helped clothes withstand the rain and keep people dry. The chemicals resist breaking down, however, which means they stay around in the environment and have a hard time breaking down in the body. There is a wide range of health harms now associated with exposure to certain PFAS, including low birth weight, cancer and liver disease. Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and Republican legislators have been at odds over how to address the problem for years, with both sides blaming the other for not earmarking more money for clean up efforts. The Wisconsin case The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in a case brought by the state's largest business group, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, which sued the DNR in 2021 on behalf of Leather Rich, a dry cleaning business in Oconomowoc. Leather Rich became aware of PFAS contamination in 2018 and was working on cleaning it up when the DNR posted a message online in 2019 saying it now considered PFAS chemicals a hazardous substance. The agency ordered the dry cleaner to test its groundwater for PFAS but didn't tell the business which compounds it needed to test for or what levels would be considered dangerous. They argued the DNR can't force businesses to test and clean up contamination from emerging pollutants like PFAS without first designating them as hazardous substances. That process can take years and requires approval from the Legislature. A Waukesha County judge and the state appeals court sided with Leather Rich. The DNR appealed, arguing that it could unilaterally force testing because state law gives the agency broad authority to protect the environment. It also argued that the lower court's ruling would neuter the state's 'spills law,' which was designed to confront pollution. That law, enacted about 50 years ago, requires anyone who causes, possesses or controls a hazardous substance that's been released into the environment to clean it up. Fight over PFAS regulation Since the lawsuit was filed, additional state and federal regulations of PFAS have been put in place. Federal regulators placed the first-ever national standards on PFAS in drinking water last year, but the Trump administration said in May that it planned to weaken those limits. The state has imposed less restrictive limits on PFAS in surface and drinking water, defined as piped water delivered through public systems and noncommunity systems that serve places such as factories, schools and hotels. But it has not implemented PFAS standards for groundwater, the source of drinking water for about two-thirds of Wisconsin residents. The agency stopped efforts to draft them in 2023 after determining that compliance would be too expensive. Scott Bauer And Todd Richmond, The Associated Press
