Michigan Farm Bureau, et al. v. Department of Environmental Quality, 292 Mich. App. 106 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011)

(defendant's rule (Rule 2196) which requires confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in the state to either seek and obtain an NPDES permit (irrespective of whether such CAFO actually discharges pollutants) or demonstrate no potential to discharge is within the scope of state's Natural Resources Environmental Protection Act, is consistent with legislative intent and is not arbitrary or capricious; court determined that 2005 decision in Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc., et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 399 F.3d 486 (2d Cir. 2005) inapplicable because EPA had granted state authority to administer its own NPDES program, thus the validity of state CAFO regulations was to be addressed solely in accordance with state law and immaterial that portions of federal regulations were invalidated by Waterkeeper decision; state law gave defendant authority to pass regulations designed to protect state water resources from waste disposal; defendant properly and sufficiently supported its claim that expanded rule necessary to protect environment and rule rationally related to defendant's responsibility under state law to protect water resources from pollution). 

CALT does not provide legal advice. Any information provided on this website is not intended to be a substitute for legal services from a competent professional. CALT's work is supported by fee-based seminars and generous private gifts. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in the material contained on this website do not necessarily reflect the views of Iowa State University.

RSS​ Facebook Twitter