In a significant recent legal development, the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) in Michigan suffered a setback when a divided panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals held that they violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by promulgating a novel rule which set drinking water standards for seven PFAS1 compounds. The ruling took place on August 22, 2023, and challenged Michigan’s approach to local environmental regulations. JD Supra provides a comprehensive breakdown of the case.
The dispute largely centered on the fact that the EGLE did not consider the compliance costs that would arise from a change in cleanup standards, a change that would be a natural consequence of the adoption of these new drinking water standards. This oversight was held to be a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, which necessitates a thorough assessment of procedural propriety before enacting new regulatory measures.
This pivotal ruling underscores the significance of adherence to the procedural stipulations of the APA. Importantly, this setback for the EGLE could also have potential implications for future PFAS drinking water standards across US jurisdictions.
The ruling illustrates the importance of proper compliance with the APA, often considered a cornerstone of any state-level administrative function. It maintains a check on the due process for legal vetting, which sets a precedent for regulatory bodies on their duty of care when proposing new rules.
The full impact of this decision will be monitored closely by environmental lawyers and policy makers across the United States, as it may indicate a shift in the judicial perspective on the balance between environmental protection and the financial implications of regulatory measures. More developments on this topic can be expected in the coming months.