Wisconsin High Court Upholds Environmental Protection in Controversy over 'Perennial Chemicals'
PFAS Pollution Fight in Wisconsin: Supreme Court Favors Environmentalists
In a shocking turn of events, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has handed a victory to eco-warriors in the ongoing battle against "forever chemicals" popularly known as PFAS.
The court, with a majority of liberal justices, ruled that state officials can compel property owners to address these dangerous pollutants before they're officially deemed hazardous substances. This decision leaves the state's business community disheartened, which had argued that the state couldn't enforce guidelines for substances not yet designated as hazardous.
The debate over PFAS contamination has been a contentious issue not only in Wisconsin but nationwide, involving regulatory bodies, environmental activists, politicians, and businesses alike.
The PFAS Dilemma
Cities from coast to coast in Wisconsin—Madison, Marinette, La Crosse, Wausau—are facing PFAS contamination head-on[1]. These perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances have been around for decades, silently infiltrating air, water, and soil.
Manufactured by giants like 3M, Chemours, and others, PFAS chemicals were lauded for their amazing properties. They spruced up non-stick frying pans, suffocated flames in firefighting foam, and kept clothes waterproof while keeping dry. Nevertheless, these chemicals prove to be persistent, refusing to break down in the environment or the human body.
Certain PFAS exposures have been linked to a host of health issues, including low birth weight, cancer, and liver disease[1].
The Wisconsin Case Unveiled
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in a lawsuit brought about by the state's leading business group, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce. They sued the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in 2021, representing Leather Rich, a dry cleaning business in Oconomowoc.
Leather Rich discovered PFAS contamination in 2018 and set about cleaning it up when the DNR announced online in 2019 that it deemed PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances. They ordered the dry cleaner to test its groundwater for PFAS but didn't inform the business which compounds it needed to test for or what threshold would be considered dangerous[2].
The DNR maintained that it could force businesses to test and clean up contamination from emerging pollutants like PFAS without first designating them as hazardous substances. That complex process typically requires the approval of the Legislature, taking years. Before regulations are in place, polluters potentially harm the environment and endanger public health with no obligation to begin cleaning up[2].
Leather Rich, however, argued that businesses should know which substances are subject to regulation before investing time and resources in cleanup[2].
A Waukesha County judge and the state appeals court sided with Leather Rich[2]. The DNR appealed, insisting that the lower court's ruling would diminish the effectiveness of the state's "spills law," a legislation enacted over half a century ago to counter pollution.
According to Conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn, writing for the majority, "Wisconsin's Spills Law safeguards human health and the environment in real time by directly regulating parties responsible for a hazardous substance discharge"[2]. He also stated that no state law mandated the DNR to implement a rule before requiring Leather Rich to commence cleaning up the site[2].
Two conservative justices dissented, crucialty claiming that the majority's decision disregarded the rule of law, liberty, and the fundamental principles of fair notice, oversight, and deliberation[2].
Governor Tony Evers and environmental advocates endorsed the decision, with the Governor lauding it as a vital success for the health and welfare of Wisconsin citizens[2]. Rob Lee, Midwest Environmental Advocates' attorney, echoed this sentiment, terming the ruling a win for the well-being of Wisconsin residents that reinforces key environmental and public health protections.[2]
In response to the ruling, the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce declined to comment.
The PFAS Regulatory Struggle Continues
Since the lawsuit's filing, additional state and federal regulations regarding PFAS have been implemented.
Last year, federal regulators introduced the first-ever national standards for PFAS in drinking water, but the Trump administration expressed plans to weaken those limits in May[1].
The state has imposed less strict PFAS limits in surface water and drinking water from public and non-community systems. However, it has yet to develop implementation-ready standards for PFAS in groundwater, the principal drinking water source for approximately two-thirds of Wisconsin residents[1][3]. In 2023, efforts to draft these groundwater standards were abandoned due to concerns over high compliance costs[4].
[1] National Groundwater Association (NGWA) (2021). Fact Sheet: PFAS Groundwater Contamination
[2] American Bar Association (2023). Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules in WMC v. DNR: Limits on PFAS and DNR's Ability to Address Emerging Contaminants
[3] Department of Natural Resources (2019). Clean-Up of Emerging Contaminants, Including PFAS
[4] Department of Natural Resources (2023). Groundwater: Public Water Supply Regulation
[5] Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau (2021). Interim Report: Progress and Challenges in Addressing PFAS Contamination in Wisconsin's Groundwater and Drinking Water Supplies
- The debate over PFAS contamination in the environmental-science sphere has extended beyond Wisconsin, involving regulatory bodies, activists, political figures, and businesses across industries.
- In the realm of personal-finance and investment, businesses and industries involving food-and-drink, home-and-garden, and certain sectors of technology might face unforeseen costs and complications due to emerging PFAS regulations.
- Educational institutions, as part of the education-and-self-development sector, are increasingly including PFAS pollutants in their environmental-science and learning curricula.
- Advances in data-and-cloud-computing and technology sectors provide valuable tools for tracking PFAS pollution, offering insights into risk areas, ideal mitigation strategies, and environmental impact analysis.
- Sports-betting industries may incorporate weather forecasting and climate-change data related to PFAS into their risk models to account for potential environmental and health concerns affecting specific regions.
- Changes in the finance industry could arise as increased awareness and regulation of PFAS chemicals might necessitate new financial products or strategies for guaranteeing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) compliance for companies.
- Businesses may request engagement with energy suppliers offering renewable energy solutions as part of their efforts to reduce their environmental footprint and decrease PFAS chemical use in their production processes.
- Lifestyle choices can play a role in limiting PFAS exposure; choosing products labeled as PFAS-free in the food-and-drink, home-and-garden, and clothing sectors can lower personal exposure to the contaminants.
- In the realm of the healthcare industry, lifestyle modifications, nutritional strategies, and medical treatments may become key aspects of addressing health issues associated with PFAS exposure.
