Michigan Water Protection: AG Nessel Applauds Supreme Court Ruling on CAFO Permits

Photo byAnnie SprattonUnsplash

Lansing, Michigan - In a landmark decision, the Michigan Supreme Court has upheld the authority of the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) to enforce more stringent water protection measures through general permits for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). This ruling marks a significant victory for environmental protection efforts in Michigan.

Court's Decision

The case, Michigan Farm Bureau v Department of Environment, Great Lakes, And Energy (EGLE), centered on whether EGLE could impose permit conditions for CAFOs that are more protective than existing promulgated rules. The Michigan Farm Bureau, supported by other industry groups and some CAFOs, argued that these conditions constituted unlawful rulemaking. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, affirming EGLE’s discretionary authority to set these conditions and requiring the agency to justify them in contested case proceedings.

Attorney General Nessel's Statement

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel hailed the ruling as a crucial step forward in preserving the state’s vital water resources. "This decision is a critical step forward in protecting our state’s invaluable water resources," said AG Nessel. "While this is a significant procedural victory for environmental protection, we will continue to vigorously defend EGLE’s position and demonstrate the need for these permit conditions in contested cases."

Understanding CAFOs and NPDES

CAFOs, or concentrated animal feeding operations, are large-scale livestock facilities that fall under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program. These facilities are regulated to prevent water pollution, and the permits set specific conditions to control discharges into water bodies.

The controversy arose from the 2020 CAFO General Permit, which introduced more protective conditions. The Court clarified that these permit conditions do not constitute binding rules but are rather guidelines that are further specified in individual certificates of coverage issued to each facility based on site-specific considerations. These certificates, along with the general permit, can be contested through legal proceedings.

Support from Environmental Groups

The Department of Attorney General represented EGLE in this case, receiving support from several environmental organizations. Groups such as the Environmental Law and Policy Center, the Michigan Environmental Council, and others intervened in support of EGLE, highlighting the broad backing for stronger environmental protections.

Implications for Water Quality

This ruling has significant implications for Michigan’s water quality, affirming the state’s ability to impose stricter conditions to safeguard its water resources. As Michigan continues to face environmental challenges, the decision empowers EGLE to take proactive steps in protecting the state's lakes, rivers, and streams from industrial pollution.

Conclusion

The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision is a testament to the state’s commitment to environmental stewardship. With AG Nessel and EGLE leading the charge, Michigan is poised to continue its efforts to protect and preserve its precious water resources for future generations.