Posted on January 30, 2018 by Todd E. Palmer
If states are the crucible of policy experimentation, Wisconsin’s regulatory reform efforts deserve attention as the Trump Administration implements its federal deregulatory agenda. Wisconsin has been pushing an aggressive deregulatory agenda for the last five years and its experiences might better inform the federal debate in this area.
The cornerstone of Wisconsin’s regulatory reform effort has been Act 21. Enacted in 2011 during a Special Session of the Legislature, Act 21 prohibits a state agency from implementing or enforcing any requirement, standard or permit term unless it is explicitly required or authorized by statute or administrative rule. Although largely ignored for its first five years, Act 21 has become a significant force in the state. A previous ACOEL blog post highlights a Wisconsin Attorney General opinion that interprets Act 21 as restricting the Wisconsin DNR’s authority to regulated high capacity wells. That issue is working its way through state courts. More recently, Act 21 has been the legal predicate for further limiting state agency regulation in other areas, including:
– A decision issued by the Wisconsin DNR Secretary concluding that her department lacks explicit authority to impose a limit on the number of animals at large livestock operations or to require that monitoring wells be installed around such operations. The Secretary’s decision reversed an ALJ’s opinion to the contrary.
– A State Attorney General opinion that animal unit limits in WPDES permits are unlawful because they are not explicitly authorized by a statute or rule.
– A judicial settlement agreement executed by the State of Wisconsin agreeing to refrain from enforcing any standards applicable to feed storage leachate or runoff management unless promulgated as a rule. The state further agreed to withdraw and not enforce draft program guidance that sought to impose such requirements.
– A State Attorney General opinion that state agencies cannot enforce rules that are not explicitly authorized by statute, even if those rules were promulgated before enactment of Act 21.
– A State Attorney General opinion that state agencies do not possess “any” inherent or implied authority to promulgate rules or enforce standards, requirements or thresholds. The general statements of legislative intent, purpose or policy that are often found in statutory provisions do not confer or augment agency rulemaking authority.
In the wake of these developments, the State Attorney General recently observed that “Act 21 completely and fundamentally altered the balance [of government administrative power], moving discretion away from agencies and to the Legislature.”
As Act 21 forces Wisconsin agencies to create rules to implement their regulatory programs, the State Legislature is turning its attention to the rulemaking process. The Legislature passed its own version of the Reins Act (Regulatory Executives in Need of Scrutiny) which, in the most general of terms, increases the procedural requirements and legislative oversight of the state’s rulemaking process. It now takes roughly three years to pass an administrative rule in Wisconsin.
Having added procedures that delay the rulemaking process, the Legislature is debating bills that would expedite the rule repeal process. These bills would establish an expedited process requiring agencies to inventory and petition the Legislature for repeal of certain rules. For example, one bill would require the repeal of state rules concerning air pollutants that are not regulated under the federal Clean Air Act. Another bill would automatically repeal certain environmental regulations ten years after they take effect. Although the Wisconsin DNR could attempt to readopt an expiring rule, that effort could not commence any sooner than one year before a rule’s expiration.
In the Judicial Branch, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will soon decide whether the state’s practice of deferring to agency interpretations of statutes comports with the Wisconsin Constitution. Recent decisions suggest that the majority of Justices will answer in the negative. A decision should be issued this summer and could impose additional restrictions on agency authority.
Not surprisingly these reforms have been controversial. ENGOs have filed lawsuits challenging permits that fail to include terms and conditions due to the restrictions of Act 21. The regulated community has taken the opposite view, challenging permit terms and conditions that are not explicitly authorized by rule or statute. At some point these roles are likely to reverse since the regulated community often relies upon implicit agency authority to establish permit conditions which it finds favorable.
Much like the federal initiative, Wisconsin’s reforms have been wrapped in the trope of reducing the regulatory burdens placed on state businesses and thereby improve the state economy. So far the state’s economy is doing quite well. These efforts warrant continued monitoring to gauge how the economy and environmental concerns have been balanced while implementing these reforms.
Tags: Regulatory Reform, Deregulation
Legislation | Permitting | States