Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Relator v. City of Winsted, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
2017 Minn. App. LEXIS 18
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- MPCA issued an NPDES/SDS permit to the City of Winsted for its wastewater treatment plant, relocating discharge from an impaired lake to an unnamed creek that flows through Crane Creek into the South Fork of the Crow River.
- MPCA applied Minnesota’s 2014 River Eutrophication Standards (RES), which require both a phosphorus “cause” exceedance and at least one “response” criterion (e.g., chlorophyll-a) to show impairment.
- MPCA performed a reasonable-potential analysis and set a phosphorus water-quality-based effluent limit (WQBEL) of 630 µg/L (monthly average) to protect downstream reaches.
- MCEA challenged the permit administratively and then in court, arguing (1) MPCA failed to analyze reasonable potential for five intervening reaches lacking full data, and (2) MPCA’s assumed background phosphorus concentration (75 µg/L) lacked substantial evidence.
- MPCA responded that (a) the federal regulations do not mandate delaying permits until perfect data exist and allowed use of other scientific information and monitoring to fill gaps, and (b) its background estimate follows agency procedures and is supported by comparable measured data downstream.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed deference standards and affirmed the permit: it deferred to MPCA’s reasonable interpretation of ambiguous federal regulations and found substantial evidence for the background estimate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MPCA must assume exceedance or collect full reach-specific data before issuing a permit under 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(i)-(iii) | MPCA erred by issuing permit without sufficient data for five impacted reaches; must gather data and delay permit | Regulations are ambiguous about required data; MPCA reasonably used available data, science, and monitoring instead of insisting on perfect data | The regulation is ambiguous; MPCA’s interpretation to use best available data and not assume exceedance is reasonable and entitled to deference |
| Whether MPCA’s 75 µg/L background phosphorus estimate is supported by substantial evidence | The chosen background concentration is unsupported and arbitrary | MPCA reasonably derived 75 µg/L based on subtraction method failure (negative assimilative capacity), agency procedure, and comparable downstream measurements | Substantial evidence supports MPCA’s use of 75 µg/L as background concentration |
Key Cases Cited
- Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst, 256 N.W.2d 808 (Minn. 1977) (agency decisions presumed correct; courts defer to agency expertise)
- In re Cities of Annandale & Maple Lake NPDES/SDS Permit Issuance, 731 N.W.2d 502 (Minn. 2007) (agency entitled to deference when federal regulation is ambiguous and agency expertise is needed)
- In re Alexandria Lake Area Sanitary Dist. NPDES/SDS Permit No. MN0040738, 763 N.W.2d 303 (Minn. 2009) (water-quality standards establish desired condition of waterway)
- Minn. Ctr. for Envtl. Advocacy v. Minn. Pollution Control Agency, 644 N.W.2d 457 (Minn. 2002) (definition of substantial evidence)
- In re Request for Issuance of SDS Gen. Permit MNG300000, 769 N.W.2d 312 (Minn. App. 2009) (ambiguity in rule procedure warrants deference to MPCA)