18622_Authority_August_Web

54 The Authority | August 2025 potential upstream and downstream environmental effects. Therefore, the D.C. Circuit vacated both the EIS and the final approval for the project. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and found that NEPA simply prescribes the necessary process for an agency’s environmental review of a project and that the role of a court is to ensure that the agency has addressed the environmental effects of a project and any feasible alternatives. In so doing, the Supreme Court found that the EIS did not need to address the environmental effects from the upstream and downstream projects, noting that these projects were separate in time and place from the railway project itself. Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, Inc. v. Wisconsin Natural Resources Board A June, 2025 decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court raises more issues regarding how PFAS chemicals are addressed in the environment. In this case, a Wisconsin law (the “Spills Law”) requires those responsible for a discharge of hazardous substances on their property to immediately notify the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”). Under the same law, the responsible party must initiate actions that are necessary to restore the environment to the extent practicable and to minimize the harmful effects from any discharge to the environment. The issue before the Wisconsin Supreme Court was whether the DNR must promulgate rules identifying every substance that qualifies as a hazardous substance before responsible parties must comply with the Spills Law. Here, the substances in question are PFAS and other emerging contaminants, which have not been, by regulation, deemed to be hazardous substances under Wisconsin state law. The parties’ arguments in this case were diametrically opposed. The DNR argued that if it must promulgate rules identifying each substance deemed to be hazardous, enforcement of the Spills Law will be impacted, and during the time period required for promulgation of a rule, hazardous substances could be discharged into the environment without any party being responsible to begin the necessary remediation. On the other hand, the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, Inc. (Respondents in this case) argued that parties have a right to know which substances are regulated under the Spills Law before they expend time and money remediating a discharge. In this case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the DNR does not have to promulgate rules before determining that PFAS and other emerging contaminants satisfy the state definition of hazardous substance and, as a result, DNR could use the Spills Act to require remediation. To support