Case Title: Curt Andersen v. Department of Natural Resources

Citation: 2011 WI 19

Docket Number: 2008AP003235

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2011-03-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
2011 WI 19 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2008AP3235 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
Curt Andersen, John Hermanson, Rebecca Leighton 
Katers, Christine Fossen Rades, National 
Wildlife Federation and Clean Water Action 
Council of Northeastern Wisconsin, Inc., 
 
          Petitioners-Appellants, 
 
     v. 
 
Department of Natural Resources, 
 
          Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
Reported at: 324 Wis. 2d 828, 783 N.W.2d 877 
(Ct. App. 2010 – Published) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 23, 2011   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
November 3, 2010 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Brown 
 
JUDGE: 
Timothy A. Hinkfuss 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
ABRAHAMSON, C.J. and BRADLEY, J. dissent  
(Opinion filed).   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent-respondent-petitioner the cause was 
argued by Joanne F. Kloppenburg, assistant attorney general, 
with whom on the briefs was J.B. Van Hollen, attorney general. 
 
For the petitioners-appellants there was a brief by 
Elizabeth Lawton, Dennis Grzezinski and Midwest Environmental 
Advocates, Madison, and oral argument by Carl A. Sinderbrand, 
Axley Brynelson LLP, Madison. 
 
 
2 
 
A joint amicus curiae brief was filed by Paul G. Kent, 
Stafford Rosenbaum, LLP, Madison, Michael McCabe and Susan 
Anthony, Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District and Claire 
Silverman, League of Wisconsin Municipalities, Madison, for 
Municipal Environmental Group-Wastewater Division, The League of 
Wisconsin Municipalities and Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage 
District. 
 
An amicus brief was filed by Richard J. Lewandowski, Whyte 
Hirschboeck Dudek S.C., Madison, Todd E. Palmer, DeWitt Ross & 
Stevens S.C., Madison, Steven Heinzen, Godfrey & Kahn S.C., 
Madison, David R. Oberstar, Fryberger, Buchanan, Smith & 
Frederick, P.A., Duluth, and David A. Crass, Michael Best & 
Friedrich LLP, Madison for Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products, 
LP, Wisconsin Paper Council, Inc., Midwest Food Processors 
Association, Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group, Inc., Wisconsin 
Dairy Business Association and Lake States Lumber Association. 
 
An amicus brief was filed by Albert Ettinger, admitted pro 
hac vice, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Chicago, and 
Christa O. Westerberg, McGillivray Westerberg & Bender LLC, 
Madison, 
for 
Wisconsin 
Wildlife 
Federation, 
Milwaukee 
Riverkeeper, Clean Wisconsin, and Sokaogon Chippewa Community of 
Mole Lake.  
 
 
 
2011 WI 19
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2008AP3235 
(L.C. No. 
2006CV726) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Curt Andersen, John Hermanson, Rebecca Leighton 
Katers, Christine Fossen Rades, National 
Wildlife Federation and Clean Water Action 
Council of Northeastern Wisconsin, Inc., 
 
          Petitioners-Appellants, 
 
     v. 
 
Department of Natural Resources, 
 
          Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner. 
 
FILE 
 
MAR 23, 2011 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Reversed.   
 
¶1 
ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, J.   This is a review of a 
published decision of the court of appeals, Andersen v. DNR, 
2010 WI App 64, 324 Wis. 2d 828, 783 N.W.2d 877, that reversed 
an order of the Brown County Circuit Court1 affirming an order of 
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) which denied in part 
                                                 
1 The Honorable Timothy A. Hinkfuss presided. 
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
2 
 
the petitioners' request for a public hearing under Wis. Stat. 
§ 283.63 (2005-06).2   
¶2 
Curt 
Andersen, 
John 
Hermanson, 
Rebecca 
Leighton 
Katers, Christine Fossen-Rades, Thomas Sydow, and James L. 
Baldock (collectively, the petitioners), through legal counsel 
at Midwest Environmental Advocates, petitioned the DNR for 
review of a Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(WPDES) permit that the DNR reissued to Fort James Operating 
Company's (Fort James) Broadway Mill in Green Bay.  The 
petitioners argued that the permit failed to comply with basic 
requirements 
of 
the 
Federal 
Water 
Pollution 
Control 
Act 
Amendments of 1972 (the Clean Water Act) and federal regulations 
promulgated thereunder.  Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 283.63(1)(b), 
the petitioners requested the DNR to hold a public hearing on 
their petition.   
¶3 
To the extent that the petitioners challenged the 
permit as being contrary to federal law, the DNR denied their 
request for a public hearing, concluding that a challenge made 
under Wis. Stat. § 283.63 must be based on Wisconsin law. 
¶4 
The petitioners, then joined by the Clean Water Action 
Council of Northeastern Wisconsin, Inc. and the National 
Wildlife Federation, (collectively, CWAC) filed a petition for 
judicial review of the DNR's order.  The circuit court affirmed.   
                                                 
2 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 2005-06 version unless otherwise indicated. 
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
3 
 
¶5 
CWAC then appealed to the court of appeals, which 
reversed.  The court of appeals concluded that the DNR possesses 
the authority to determine whether conditions in a state-issued 
permit, authorized by state regulations, comply with federal 
law. 
¶6 
The DNR petitioned this court for review.  We now 
reverse the decision of the court of appeals. 
¶7 
The issue in this case is whether Wis. Stat. § 283.63 
requires the DNR to hold a public hearing on CWAC's petition for 
review of the permit reissued to Fort James' Broadway Mill when 
the premise of CWAC's petition is that the permit fails to 
comply with basic requirements of the Clean Water Act and 
federal regulations promulgated thereunder. 
¶8 
We conclude that Wis. Stat. § 283.63 does not require 
the DNR to hold a public hearing on CWAC's petition for review 
of the permit reissued to Fort James' Broadway Mill when the 
premise of CWAC's petition is that the permit fails to comply 
with basic requirements of the federal Clean Water Act and 
federal regulations 
promulgated thereunder.  A conclusion 
otherwise would undermine the careful federal and state balance 
created by the Clean Water Act and would thwart the finality of 
permits properly issued under the WPDES permit program.  If CWAC 
is entitled to a remedy, the remedy rests with the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
¶9 
Fort James' Broadway Mill produces tissue paper from 
wastepaper. 
 
The 
facility 
deinks 
pre- 
and 
post-consumer 
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
4 
 
wastepaper and produces over a thousand tons per day of various 
tissue and toweling paper.  The process results in the daily 
discharge of several millions of gallons of treated wastewater. 
¶10 On May 27, 2005, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 283.39, the 
DNR issued a public notice of its intent to reissue to Fort 
James' Broadway Mill a WPDES permit regulating the discharge of 
pollutants into the Lower Fox River.  The DNR made available the 
proposed permit and a Permit Reissuance Fact Sheet detailing the 
terms of the proposed permit.  Relevant to this case, the 
proposed permit imposed a phosphorous effluent limitation3 of 1.0 
milligrams per liter (mg/L), compliance of which was to be 
determined as a rolling 12-month average.  In addition, the 
proposed permit required Fort James' Broadway Mill to monitor 
its mercury discharge according to the requirements of Wis. 
Admin. Code § NR 106.145 (May 2005).4 
¶11 The public notice advised interested persons that they 
had 30 days to comment on, object to, or request a public 
hearing on the proposed permit.  See Wis. Stat. §§ 283.39(2), 
                                                 
3 An 
"effluent 
limitation," 
promulgated 
by 
the 
EPA, 
restricts the quantity, rate, and concentration of a specified 
substance discharged from a point source into navigable waters.  
33 U.S.C. § 1362(11) (2001); Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91, 
101 (1992).  A "point source" is defined as "any discernible, 
confined and discrete conveyance . . . from which pollutants are 
or may be discharged."  33 U.S.C. § 1362(14) (2001). 
All subsequent references to the United States Code are to 
the 2001 version unless otherwise indicated. 
4 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Administrative 
Code are to the May 2005 version unless otherwise indicated. 
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
5 
 
283.49(1)(a).  The public notice also explained that the EPA is 
allowed up to 90 days to submit comments on or objections to the 
proposed permit.  See 33 U.S.C. § 1342(d)(2); Wis. Stat. 
§ 283.41(2). 
¶12 The 
DNR 
received 
three 
comment 
letters 
on 
the 
reissuance of the permit, one of which was from Midwest 
Environmental Advocates.  The comments by Midwest Environmental 
Advocates 
were 
based 
on 
both 
federal 
and 
state 
law.  
Specifically, Midwest Environmental Advocates commented that (1) 
pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1) (2005),5 the DNR must 
prepare a reasonable potential analysis to determine whether the 
Fort James' Broadway Mill's increase in phosphorous discharge 
will cause or contribute to a violation of water quality 
standards;6 (2) pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 122.45(d) and (f), the 
proposed 
permit 
must 
state 
the 
effluent 
limitation 
for 
phosphorous as a maximum daily and average monthly discharge 
limitation and in terms of a mass limit; and (3) pursuant to 
Wis. Admin. Code § NR 207, the DNR must perform an anti-
degradation analysis to determine whether the increase in 
phosphorous discharge will exceed effluent limitations or 
violate water quality standards. 
                                                 
5 All 
subsequent 
references 
to 
the 
Code 
of 
Federal 
Regulations are to the 2005 version unless otherwise indicated. 
6 "Water quality standards" are promulgated by the states 
and generally establish the designated uses for a body of water 
and the desired condition of that body of water based upon the 
designated uses.  See 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(2)(A); Wis. Stat. 
§ 281.15(1). 
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
6 
 
¶13 On June 28, 2005, the EPA requested from the DNR the 
full 90 days to complete its review of the proposed permit to 
Fort James' Broadway Mill and "to determine whether the draft 
permit meets the guidelines and requirements of the Clean Water 
Act." 
¶14 On July 21, 2005, the EPA advised the DNR that it has 
reviewed the proposed permit to Fort James' Broadway Mill and 
will not object to the reissuance of the permit as drafted.  In 
addition, the EPA made the following request of the DNR: "When 
the final permit is issued, please forward one copy and any 
significant comments received during the public notice to this 
office at the above address." 
¶15 On August 24, 2005, the DNR issued a final decision 
and response to comments on the permit reissuance to Fort James' 
Broadway Mill.7  The DNR decided to reissue the permit as 
drafted, with only technical corrections.  The permit was 
                                                 
7 The DNR made the discretionary determination not to hold a 
public hearing on the proposed permit reissuance to Fort James' 
Broadway Mill.  Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 283.49(1)(b) and Wis. 
Admin. Code § NR 203.05(2), the DNR is required to hold a public 
hearing on a proposed permit or permit application only (a) if a 
public hearing is requested by the EPA; (b) if a public hearing 
is requested by any state affected by the discharge; (c) upon 
receipt of a petition signed by five or more persons; or (d) if 
the DNR determines that there is significant public interest in 
the permit application.  Otherwise, it is within the DNR's 
discretion to hold a public hearing on a proposed permit or 
permit application.  See Wis. Admin. Code § NR 203.05(1).  In 
this case, only two individual persons requested a public 
hearing on the proposed permit reissuance to Fort James' 
Broadway Mill, and the DNR concluded that significant public 
interest in the permit reissuance was lacking. 
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
7 
 
reissued effective October 1, 2005, and had an expiration date 
of September 30, 2010. 
II. PROCEDURAL POSTURE 
¶16 On October 28, 2005, the petitioners, through legal 
counsel at Midwest Environmental Advocates, petitioned the DNR 
for review of the permit reissued to Fort James' Broadway Mill, 
pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 283.63.  The petitioners reiterated the 
three phosphorous allegations previously raised by Midwest 
Environmental Advocates during the comment period.  In addition, 
the petitioners requested review of the permit's conditions 
relating to mercury, including the reasonableness of the DNR's 
failure (1) to perform a reasonable potential analysis to 
determine whether Fort James' Broadway Mill discharges mercury 
at a level that will cause or contribute to a violation of water 
quality 
standards 
under 
40 
C.F.R. 
§ 122.44(d); 
(2) 
to 
incorporate a water quality-based effluent limit for the 
discharge 
of 
mercury; 
and 
(3) 
to 
require 
more 
frequent 
monitoring for mercury.  Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 283.63(1)(b), 
the petitioners requested the DNR to hold a public hearing on 
the issues they raised. 
¶17 To the extent that the petitioners challenged the 
permit as being contrary to federal law, the DNR denied their 
request for a public hearing, concluding that a challenge made 
under Wis. Stat. § 283.63 must be based on Wisconsin law.8  The 
                                                 
8 The DNR granted the petitioners' request for a public 
hearing 
with 
respect 
to 
the 
phosphorous 
allegation 
that 
implicated only state law.  That portion of the DNR's order was 
not appealed. 
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
8 
 
DNR explained that pursuant to its delegation agreement with the 
EPA, the EPA "accepts WPDES permitting as the legal surrogate 
for federal permitting under the Clean Water Act."  Should a 
WPDES permit fail to comply with federal requirements, the DNR 
maintained that the reviewing authority rests with the EPA: the 
EPA has the authority to object to a state-issued permit, and 
the DNR may not issue a permit to which the EPA has objected.  
Wis. Stat. § 283.31(2)(c).  The DNR informed the petitioners 
that the EPA reviewed the proposed permit to Fort James' 
Broadway Mill and did not object. 
¶18 On April 13, 2006, CWAC filed a petition for judicial 
review of the DNR's order denying the petitioners' request for a 
public hearing.9  CWAC contended that it was entitled to review 
                                                                                                                                                             
In addition, the DNR denied the petitioners' request for a 
public hearing on the mercury allegations, reasoning that an 
issue may be raised at a public hearing under Wis. Stat. 
§ 283.63 only if the issue was first brought up during the 
public comment period under Wis. Stat. § 283.39.  CWAC included 
that portion of the DNR's order in CWAC's petition for judicial 
review, and the circuit court affirmed.  The court of appeals 
reversed, concluding that "[t]he availability of a § 283.63 
hearing is not dependent on whether the DNR has received notice 
of the petitioner's claims during the public comment period."  
Andersen v. DNR, 2010 WI App 64, ¶22, 324 Wis. 2d 828, 783 
N.W.2d 877.  The DNR did not petition this court for review of 
the portion of the court of appeals decision that addressed 
whether an issue may be raised at a § 283.63 public hearing if 
the issue was not brought up during the public comment period 
under Wis. Stat. § 283.39.  Accordingly, we do not address that 
question. 
9 CWAC also sought a judgment declaring that certain state 
regulations conflict with federal regulations promulgated under 
the Clean Water Act.  CWAC later withdrew those claims. 
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
9 
 
under Wis. Stat. § 283.63 of a WPDES permit that allegedly fails 
to comply with federal law. 
¶19 On September 29, 2008, the circuit court affirmed the 
DNR's order.  The circuit court agreed with the DNR that only 
the EPA has the authority to determine whether state-issued 
permits comply with federal law.  Like the DNR, the circuit 
court noted the EPA's oversight of the WPDES permit program and 
the fact that the EPA did not object to the permit reissuance to 
Fort James' Broadway Mill. 
¶20 CWAC appealed.  On April 13, 2010, the court of 
appeals reversed, holding that "the DNR possesses authority to 
determine whether provisions within a state-issued wastewater 
discharge permit comply with federal law."  Andersen, 324 
Wis. 2d 828, ¶33.  The court of appeals reasoned that various 
provisions of Wis. Stat. ch. 283 require the DNR to comply with 
federal law when administering the WPDES permit program.  Id., 
¶29 
(citing 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§§ 283.001(2), 
283.11(2), 
and 
283.31(3)(d)2.).  The court of appeals therefore declined to 
interpret chapter 283 in a manner that "would allow the DNR to 
determine whether rules or permit terms comply with federal law 
at the time of their creation, but not when challenged."   
Andersen, 324 Wis. 2d 828, ¶29.  Moreover, the court of appeals 
noted that Wis. Stat. § 283.63 does not expressly restrict the 
scope of the public hearing to permit challenges grounded in 
state law.  Id., ¶30. 
¶21 The court of appeals deemed its holding consistent 
with 
state 
and 
federal 
case 
law 
that 
"suggest[s] 
state 
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
10 
 
administrative 
agencies 
and 
courts 
may 
determine 
the 
requirements of, and state compliance with, federal law."  Id., 
¶¶31-32 (citing Froebel v. Meyer, 217 F.3d 928, 935-36 (7th Cir. 
2000); N. States Power Co. v. Bugher, 189 Wis. 2d 541, 525 
N.W.2d 723 (1995); Hogan v. Musolf, 163 Wis. 2d 1, 21-22, 471 
N.W.2d 216 (1991); Sewerage Comm'n of Milwaukee v. DNR, 102 
Wis. 2d 613, 627-28, 307 N.W.2d 189 (1981)). 
¶22 In addition, the court of appeals rejected the 
significance of the EPA's failure to object to the permit re-
issuance 
to 
Fort 
James' 
Broadway 
Mill. 
 
Andersen, 
324 
Wis. 2d 828, ¶27.  Citing Save the Bay, Inc. v. Administrator of  
EPA, 556 F.2d 1282, 1286, 1294-95 (5th Cir. 1977), the court of 
appeals opined that the failure to object does not necessarily 
mean that the EPA found no violation of federal law; rather, the 
failure to object may suggest that the EPA did not find a 
violation it deemed substantial enough to warrant a veto.  
Andersen, 324 Wis. 2d 828, ¶¶27-28. 
¶23 The DNR petitioned this court for review, which we 
granted on July 22, 2010.  
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW 
¶24 In an administrative appeal, the scope of our review 
is identical to that of the circuit court and is set forth in 
Wis. Stat. § 227.57.  See City of La Crosse v. DNR, 120 
Wis. 2d 168, 179, 353 N.W.2d 68 (Ct. App. 1984).   
¶25 The extent of the agency's statutory authority is a 
question of law which we review independently and without 
deference to the agency's determination.  Wis. Power & Light Co. 
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
11 
 
v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 181 Wis. 2d 385, 392, 511 N.W.2d 291 
(1994); Rusk Cnty. Citizen Action Group, Inc. v. DNR, 203 
Wis. 2d 1, 6, 552 N.W.2d 110 (Ct. App. 1996).  In this case, the 
DNR denied the petitioners' request for a public hearing under 
Wis. Stat. § 283.63 on the grounds that only the EPA has the 
authority to determine whether a WPDES permit comports with 
federal law.  Because we "owe no deference to an agency's 
determination concerning its own statutory authority," Wis. 
Power & Light, 181 Wis. 2d at 392, we review de novo the 
question of whether § 283.63 requires the DNR to hold a public 
hearing on CWAC's petition for review. 
¶26 In addition, in this case, we are called upon to 
interpret Wis. Stat. § 283.31(3)(d)2.  The interpretation of a 
statute and its application to undisputed facts is a question of 
law that we review de novo.  DOR v. Menasha Corp., 2008 WI 88, 
¶44, 311 Wis. 2d 579, 754 N.W.2d 95.  While we are not bound by 
an agency's conclusions of law, this court has articulated three 
levels of deference that we may accord an agency's statutory 
interpretation and application: great weight deference, due 
weight deference, and no deference.  Id., ¶47 (citing Racine 
Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Wis. Div. of Hearings & Appeals, 2006 
WI 86, ¶12, 292 Wis. 2d 549, 717 N.W.2d 184).  These levels of 
deference reflect the legislature's determination that when 
reviewing an agency's decision, "due weight shall be accorded 
the experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge 
of the agency involved, as well as discretionary authority 
conferred upon it."  Wis. Stat. § 227.57(10).  Accordingly, the 
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
12 
 
appropriate level of deference depends upon the comparative 
institutional qualifications and capabilities of the court and 
the agency.  Racine Harley-Davidson, 292 Wis. 2d 549, ¶14. 
¶27 We accord great weight deference to an agency's 
interpretation and application of a statute when the following 
four elements are met: (1) the legislature charged the agency 
with the duty of administering the statute; (2) the agency's 
interpretation is one of long-standing; (3) the agency employed 
its 
expertise 
or 
specialized 
knowledge 
in 
forming 
its 
interpretation; and (4) the agency's interpretation will provide 
uniformity and consistency in the application of the statute.  
Menasha Corp., 311 Wis. 2d 579, ¶48.  When applying great weight 
deference, we will sustain the agency's statutory interpretation 
as long as it is reasonable, even if we conclude that another 
interpretation is equally or more reasonable.  Id. 
¶28 Due weight deference is appropriate "when the agency 
has some experience in an area but has not developed the 
expertise that necessarily places it in a better position than a 
court to make judgments regarding the interpretation of the 
statute."  Racine Harley-Davidson, 292 Wis. 2d 549, ¶18.  Thus, 
due weight deference is based, not on the agency's expertise, 
but instead on the fact that the legislature has charged the 
agency with enforcement of the statute.  Id.  Under the due 
weight 
standard, 
we 
will 
sustain 
the 
agency's 
statutory 
interpretation if it is not contrary to the statute's clear 
meaning 
and 
if 
we 
determine 
that 
a 
more 
reasonable 
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
13 
 
interpretation does not exist.  Menasha Corp., 311 Wis. 2d 579, 
¶49. 
¶29 Finally, we accord no deference to an agency's 
interpretation and application of a statute when the issue is 
one of first impression or when the agency's position has been 
so inconsistent as to offer no real guidance.  Id., ¶50. 
¶30 As the court of appeals recently observed in Sierra 
Club v. DNR, 2010 WI App 89, ¶27, 327 Wis. 2d 706, 787 
N.W.2d 855, we frequently apply a high level of deference in 
complex environmental cases in which the legislature has charged 
the DNR with the duty of administering the applicable and highly 
technical statutes.  In such cases, a high level of deference is 
appropriate 
because, 
as 
a 
general 
matter, 
the 
DNR 
is 
comparatively more qualified and capable than the court at 
making legal determinations based on the relevant technical and 
scientific 
facts. 
 
See 
id.; 
Racine 
Harley-Davidson, 
292 
Wis. 2d 549, ¶14.  This case is no exception. 
¶31 We 
conclude 
that 
the 
DNR's 
interpretation 
and 
application of Wis. Stat. § 283.31(3)(d)2. is entitled to great 
weight deference.  The DNR meets all four elements of the great 
weight standard.  First, the legislature has expressly charged 
the DNR with the duty of administering the WPDES permit program, 
the provisions of which are comprised in chapter 283.  Wis. 
Stat. § 283.001(2).  Second, the DNR's interpretation and 
application of chapter 283 (and its predecessor, Wis. Stat. ch. 
147) is one of long-standing: the DNR has administered the WPDES 
permit program since the EPA approved the state program in 1974.  
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
14 
 
See, e.g., Sewerage Comm'n of Milwaukee, 102 Wis. 2d at 615.  
Third, the DNR employed its expertise or specialized knowledge 
in forming its statutory interpretation and application to the 
permit reissued to Fort James' Broadway Mill.  The DNR 
considered 
the 
particular 
and 
highly 
technical 
comments 
submitted by the three interested parties, including Midwest 
Environmental 
Advocates, 
and 
provided 
specific, 
detailed 
responses.  Fourth, the DNR's interpretation will provide 
uniformity and consistency in the application of chapter 283.  
There are currently 1,066 WDPES wastewater permit holders: 680 
municipal wastewater permittees and 386 industrial wastewater 
permittees.  Wisconsin DNR, Current WPDES Wastewater Permit 
Holders, 
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/ww/permlists.htm 
(last 
visited Mar. 14, 2011).  Each WPDES permit is issued for a term 
not to exceed five-years, see 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b)(1)(B); Wis. 
Stat. § 283.53(1), which means that permit reissuances are 
constantly on public notice and subject to comments and public 
hearings.  See, e.g., Wisconsin DNR, WPDES Permits on Public 
Notice, 
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/ww/drafts/pubnot.htm 
(last visited Mar. 14, 2011).  The frequency with which the DNR 
issues and reissues WPDES permits compels a uniform and 
consistent application of chapter 283. 
IV. ANALYSIS 
¶32 In Part A, we provide a brief summary of the Clean 
Water Act and the EPA's approval and oversight of the WPDES 
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
15 
 
permit program.  In Part B, we turn to the case now before this 
court and conclude that Wis. Stat. § 283.63 does not require the 
DNR to hold a public hearing on CWAC's petition for review of 
the permit reissued to Fort James' Broadway Mill when the 
premise of CWAC's petition is that the permit fails to comply 
with basic requirements of the federal Clean Water Act and 
federal regulations promulgated thereunder. 
A. The Clean Water Act and the WPDES Permit Program 
¶33 Congress enacted the Clean Water Act "to restore and 
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the 
Nation's waters."  33 U.S.C. § 1251(a); see also Arkansas v. 
Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91, 101 (1992).  To effectuate that 
objective, the Clean Water Act generally prohibits the discharge 
of any pollutant into navigable waters except when done pursuant 
to a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
permit.  See 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a); U.S. Dep't of Energy v. Ohio, 
503 U.S. 607, 611 (1992); Arkansas, 503 U.S. at 102; Am. Paper 
Inst., Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 996 F.2d 346, 348-49 (D.C. Cir. 1993).  
The EPA has express authority to issue NPDES permits.  See 33 
U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1); U.S. Dep't of Energy, 503 U.S. at 611; Save 
the Bay, 556 F.2d at 1285.  The Clean Water Act mandates that 
every permit contain (1) effluent limitations10 that reflect the 
best 
practicable 
control 
technology 
available 
to 
achieve 
pollution reduction, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(1)(A), and (2) any more 
stringent pollutant discharge limitations necessary to meet the 
                                                 
10 See supra note 3. 
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
16 
 
water quality standards11 of the applicable body of water, 
§ 1311(b)(1)(C).  See Am. Paper Inst., 996 F.2d at 349. 
¶34 The Clean Water Act also articulates Congress' policy 
"to 
recognize, 
preserve, 
and 
protect 
the 
primary 
responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and 
eliminate pollution . . . ."  33 U.S.C. § 1251(b); Save the Bay, 
556 F.2d at 1285.  Accordingly, as recognized by the United 
States 
Supreme 
Court, 
the 
Clean 
Water 
Act 
envisions 
a 
partnership between the states and the federal government.  
Arkansas, 503 U.S. at 101; see also United States v. Cooper, 482 
F.3d 658, 667 (4th Cir. 2007) (referring to the Clean Water Act 
as a "scheme of cooperative federalism").  In furtherance of 
that policy, the Clean Water Act empowers each state to 
administer "its own permit program for discharges into navigable 
waters within its jurisdiction . . . ."  33 U.S.C. § 1342(b); 
see also Arkansas, 503 U.S. at 102. 
¶35 If a state wishes to administer its own permit 
program, the governor of that state must submit to the EPA (1) a 
letter requesting program approval; (2) a complete description 
of the proposed program; (3) a statement from the Attorney 
General 
assuring 
that 
the 
state's 
laws 
provide 
adequate 
authority to carry out the program; (4) a Memorandum of 
Agreement with the Regional Administrator of the EPA; and (5) 
copies of all applicable state statutes and regulations, 
                                                 
11 See supra note 6 and infra note 15. 
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
17 
 
including those governing state administrative procedures.  33 
U.S.C. § 1342(b); 40 C.F.R. § 123.21(a).   
¶36 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b) sets forth the requirements that a 
state's proposed permit program must meet in order to gain 
approval by the EPA.  For example, a state's proposed permit 
program shall not be approved if the EPA determines that 
adequate authority does not exist for the state to issue permits 
which apply, and insure compliance with, the requirements of the 
Clean Water Act and of 40 C.F.R. pt. 123.  33 U.S.C. 
§ 1342(b)(1)(A), (2)(A); § 1342(c)(1); 40 C.F.R. § 123.61(b);12 
U.S. Dep't of Energy, 503 U.S. at 611.  In particular, 40 C.F.R. 
§ 123.25 sets forth the permitting requirements that a proposed 
permit program must meet.  Significant to this case, 40 C.F.R. 
§§ 122.44 and 122.45 are included among those permitting 
requirements.  See 40 C.F.R. § 123.25(a)(15), (16).  If the EPA 
determines that the proposed permit program meets the enumerated 
requirements, then the EPA must approve the program.  33 U.S.C. 
§ 1342(b).  Once a state program is approved, the EPA must 
suspend its own issuance of NPDES permits covering the navigable 
waters subject to the state program.  § 1342(c)(1); 40 C.F.R. 
§ 123.61(c); Save the Bay, 556 F.2d at 1285. 
                                                 
12 40 C.F.R. § 123.61(b) provides that "[w]ithin 90 days of 
the receipt of a complete program submission under [40 C.F.R.] 
§ 123.21 the Administrator [of the EPA] shall approve or 
disapprove the program based on the requirements of this part 
and of [the Clean Water Act] and taking into consideration all 
comments received." 
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
18 
 
¶37 The EPA approved the WPDES permit program on February 
4, 1974, marking Wisconsin as the sixth state to gain authority 
to administer its own permit program.  United States EPA, NPDES: 
Specific 
State 
Program 
Status, 
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/statestats.cfm?program_id=45&view=spe
cific#comments (last visited Mar. 14, 2011).  Currently, only 
four states and the District of Columbia are not authorized to 
administer a permit program.  United States EPA, NPDES: State 
Program Status, http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/statestats.cfm (last 
visited Mar. 14, 2011). 
¶38 Still, 
even 
when 
a 
state 
obtains 
approval 
to 
administer its own permit program, the EPA retains significant 
authority through its continuing oversight of the state's permit 
program.  For example, a state's permit program must be revised 
according to changes in the controlling federal statutory or 
regulatory authority.  See 33 U.S.C. § 1342(c)(2) ("Any State 
permit program under this section shall at all times be in 
accordance with this section and guidelines promulgated pursuant 
to section 1314(i)(2) of this title."); 40 C.F.R. § 123.62(a).  
To that end, the state must keep the EPA fully informed of any 
proposed modifications to its permit program.  40 C.F.R. 
§ 123.62(a).  If the EPA determines that the revisions are 
substantial, the EPA must issue a public notice of the revisions 
and provide an opportunity for comments and a public hearing.  
§ 123.62(b)(2).  The EPA then approves or disapproves the 
revisions based upon the requirements of 40 C.F.R. pt. 123 and 
of the Clean Water Act.  § 123.62(b)(3). 
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
19 
 
¶39 In addition, the EPA has the authority to withdraw its 
approval of a state's permit program if the program no longer 
complies with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. pt. 123 and of the 
Clean Water Act, and if the state fails to take corrective 
action.  33 U.S.C. § 1342(c)(3); 40 C.F.R. § 123.63(a); Save the 
Bay, 556 F.2d at 1285.  For example, the following circumstances 
are among those which warrant approval withdrawal: where the 
state's legal authority no longer meets the requirements of 40 
C.F.R. pt. 123, including the state's failure to promulgate or 
enact new authorities when necessary; or where the operation of 
the state program fails to comply with requirements of 40 C.F.R. 
pt. 123, including the repeated issuance of permits which do not 
conform to the requirements of 40 C.F.R. pt. 123.  See 
§ 123.63(a)(1), (2).   
¶40 Of relevance to this case, each state is required to 
send to the EPA a copy of each permit application received by 
the state and must provide notice to the EPA of "every action 
related to the consideration of such permit application, 
including each permit proposed to be issued by such State."  33 
U.S.C. 
§ 1342(d)(1); 
see 
also 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§§ 283.41(1), 
283.43(1)(b).  The EPA then has up to 90 days to comment on, 
object to, or make recommendations on the proposed permit.  33 
U.S.C. § 1342(d)(2); 40 C.F.R. § 123.44(a)(2); Wis. Stat. 
§ 283.41(2).  40 C.F.R. § 123.44(c) lists the valid grounds upon 
which the EPA may object to the issuance of a proposed permit.  
Those valid grounds include, inter alia: (1) when the proposed 
permit fails to apply, or to ensure compliance with, any 
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
20 
 
applicable requirement of 40 C.F.R. pt. 123; (2) when a finding 
made by the state in connection with the proposed permit 
misinterprets 
the 
Clean 
Water 
Act 
or 
any 
guidelines 
or 
regulations thereunder, or misapplies them to the facts; (3) 
when any provisions of the proposed permit relating to the 
maintenance of records, reporting, monitoring, or sampling by 
the permittee are inadequate to assure compliance with permit 
conditions, 
including 
effluent 
standards 
and 
limitations, 
required 
by the Clean Water Act or any guidelines and 
regulations issued thereunder; or (4) when the effluent limits 
of the proposed permit fail to satisfy the requirements of 40 
C.F.R § 122.44(d).  40 C.F.R. § 123.44(c)(1), (4), (5), (8).  If 
the EPA objects to the issuance of a proposed permit, the state 
may not issue the permit as drafted.  33 U.S.C. § 1342(d)(2); 
Wis. Stat. § 283.31(2)(c). 
¶41 With that context in mind, we return to the case now 
before this court. 
B. CWAC's Petition for Review under Wis. Stat. § 283.63 of the 
Permit Reissued to Fort James' Broadway Mill 
¶42 We conclude that Wis. Stat. § 283.63 does not require 
the DNR to hold a public hearing on CWAC's petition for review 
of the permit reissued to Fort James' Broadway Mill when the 
premise of CWAC's petition is that the permit fails to comply 
with basic requirements of the federal Clean Water Act and 
federal regulations promulgated thereunder.  We begin by 
describing the relevant statutes in Wis. Stat. ch. 283.  We then 
apply the facts of this case, and in particular, the issues 
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
21 
 
raised in CWAC's petition for review, to the relevant statutory 
authority. 
1. Wisconsin Stat. ch. 283 
¶43 Wisconsin Stat. ch. 283 espouses a very similar 
objective to that of the Clean Water Act: "to restore and 
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of 
[Wisconsin's] waters to protect public health, safeguard fish 
and aquatic life and scenic and ecological values, and to 
enhance 
the 
domestic, 
municipal, 
recreational, 
industrial, 
agricultural, 
and 
other 
uses 
of 
water." 
 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 283.001(1).  To effectuate that policy, the legislature 
granted to the DNR "all authority necessary to establish, 
administer and maintain a state pollutant discharge elimination 
system . . . consistent with all the requirements of the federal 
water pollution control act amendments of 1972 [the Clean Water 
Act]."  § 283.001(2).  In particular, the legislature charged 
the DNR with promulgating rules on effluent limitations, 
standards of performance for new sources, and other effluent 
prohibitions and pretreatment standards.  § 283.11(1).  Section 
283.11(2) provides generally that all such rules must comply 
with and not exceed the requirements of the Clean Water Act and 
regulations adopted thereunder.   
¶44 Wisconsin Stat. ch. 283 also codifies the WPDES permit 
program.  Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 283.31(1), the discharge of 
any pollutant into any waters in Wisconsin is prohibited unless 
done 
according 
to 
a 
WPDES 
permit 
issued 
by 
the 
DNR.  
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
22 
 
Notwithstanding certain exceptions,13 the DNR may issue a permit 
for 
the 
discharge 
of 
any 
pollutant, 
or 
combination 
of 
pollutants, if the following requirements are met, "whenever 
applicable":  
(a) Effluent limitations.  
(b) Standards of performance for new sources.  
(c) Effluent standards, effluents prohibitions 
and pretreatment standards.  
(d) Any more stringent limitations, including 
those:  
                                                 
13 Wisconsin Stat. § 283.31(2) sets forth the circumstances 
under which the DNR may not issue a WPDES permit: 
No permit shall be issued by the [DNR] for the 
discharge into the waters of the state of any of the 
following:  
(a) Any radiological, chemical or biological 
warfare agent or high-level radioactive waste.  
(b) Any discharge which the secretary of the army 
acting through the chief of the army corps of 
engineers has objected to in writing on the ground 
that anchorage and navigation would be substantially 
impaired.  
(c) Any discharge to which the U.S. environmental 
protection agency has objected to in writing pursuant 
to s. 283.41.  
(d) Any discharge from a point source which is in 
conflict with any existing area-wide waste treatment 
management plan approved by the department.  No area-
wide waste treatment management plan may require the 
abandonment of existing waste treatment facilities 
which meet the requirements of this chapter unless the 
abandonment of such facilities clearly represents the 
most efficient and cost-effective method of providing 
waste treatment for the entire planning area. 
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
23 
 
1. Necessary to meet federal or state water 
quality 
standards, 
or 
schedules 
of 
compliance 
established by the department; or  
2. Necessary to comply with any applicable 
federal law or regulation; or  
3. Necessary to avoid exceeding total maximum 
daily loads established pursuant to a continuing 
planning process developed under s. 283.83.  
(e) 
Any 
more 
stringent 
legally 
applicable 
requirements necessary to comply with an approved 
areawide waste treatment management plan.  
(f) Groundwater protection standards established 
under ch. 160. 
§ 283.31(3). 
¶45 Wisconsin Stat. § 283.63 provides the procedure to 
which interested persons14 may petition the DNR for review of any 
"denial, modification, suspension or revocation" of a WPDES 
permit, or of "the reasonableness of or necessity for any term 
or condition of any issued, reissued or modified permit."  
§ 283.63(1).  Pursuant to § 283.63(1)(b), the DNR must hold a 
public hearing at which the petitioner must present evidence in 
support of the allegations made in the petition for review.  At 
the public hearing, all interested persons are given the 
opportunity to present facts, views, or arguments relevant to 
the issues raised by the petitioner.  § 283.63(1)(b).  Then, 
within 90 days of the public hearing, the DNR must issue its 
decision on the petition for review.  § 283.63(1)(d).   
                                                 
14 Specifically, 
"[a]ny 
permit 
applicant, 
permittee, 
affected state or 5 or more persons" may secure review by the 
DNR of a WPDES permit.  Wis. Stat. § 283.63(1).  In this case, 
CWAC qualifies as a group of "5 or more persons." 
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
24 
 
¶46 Significant to this case, rules promulgated under Wis. 
Stat. § 281.15, which set forth water quality standards,15 may 
                                                 
15 Wisconsin 
Stat. 
§ 281.15(1) 
charges 
the 
DNR 
with 
promulgating rules setting water quality standards:  
The department shall promulgate rules setting 
standards of water quality to be applicable to the 
waters of 
the 
state, recognizing that different 
standards may be required for different waters or 
portions thereof.  Water quality standards shall 
consist of the designated uses of the waters or 
portions thereof and the water quality criteria for 
those waters based upon the designated use.  Water 
quality standards shall protect the public interest, 
which include the protection of the public health and 
welfare and the present and prospective future use of 
such waters for public and private water systems, 
propagation of fish and aquatic life and wildlife, 
domestic and recreational purposes and agricultural, 
commercial, industrial and other legitimate uses.  In 
all cases where the potential uses of water are in 
conflict, water quality standards shall be interpreted 
to protect the general public interest. 
The 
federal 
counterpart 
of 
§ 281.15(1) 
is 
33 
U.S.C. 
§ 1313(c)(2)(A).   
As both the state and federal statutes make clear, water 
quality standards "have two primary components: designated 
'uses' for a body of water (e.g., public water supply, 
recreation, agriculture) and a set of 'criteria' specifying the 
maximum concentration of pollutants that may be present in the 
water without impairing its suitability for designated uses."  
Am. Paper Inst., Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 996 F.2d 346, 349 (D.C. Cir. 
1993). 
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
25 
 
not be reviewed under Wis. Stat. § 283.63.16  § 283.63(5).  Only 
"[t]he application of rules promulgated under s. 281.15 may be 
reviewed" under § 283.63.  Id. 
¶47 Here, CWAC seeks review under Wis. Stat. § 283.63 of 
the permit reissued to Fort James' Broadway Mill.  The scope of 
review under § 283.63 is the crux of this case. 
2. CWAC's Petition for Review 
¶48 In order to properly apply the facts of this case to 
the relevant statutory authority, it is necessary to have a 
basic understanding of the issues raised in CWAC's petition for 
review.  CWAC's petition for review raised three issues based on 
federal law: (1) the reasonableness of the DNR's failure to 
prepare a reasonable potential analysis to determine whether the 
Fort James' Broadway Mill's increase in phosphorous discharge 
will cause or contribute to a violation of water quality 
standards under 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1); (2) the reasonableness 
of the permit's failure to state the effluent limitation for 
phosphorous as a maximum daily and average monthly discharge 
limitation and in terms of a mass limit, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 
§ 122.45(d) and (f); and (3) the reasonableness of the DNR's 
failure to perform a reasonable potential analysis to determine 
                                                 
16 In 
Sewerage 
Commission 
of 
Milwaukee 
v. 
DNR, 
102 
Wis. 2d 613, 
627-28, 
307 
N.W.2d 189 
(1981), 
this 
court 
determined that a challenge to the validity of a rule on which a 
permit is based was available under Wis. Stat. § 147.20 (1975-
76), the predecessor to Wis. Stat. § 283.63.  However, at that 
time, the equivalent to Wis. Stat. § 283.63(5) did not exist.  
The legislature created Wis. Stat. § 147.20(5), the predecessor 
to Wis. Stat. § 283.63(5), in 1987.  See 1987 Wis. Act 60, § 15. 
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
26 
 
whether Fort James' Broadway Mill discharges mercury at a level 
that will cause or contribute to a violation of water quality 
standards under 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d).17  Thus, at its most basic 
level, CWAC's petition for review alleged that the permit 
reissued to Fort James' Broadway Mill fails to comply with 40 
C.F.R. §§ 122.44(d) and 122.45(d) and (f).  Accordingly, we 
briefly describe those two provisions. 
¶49 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d) provides generally that each 
NPDES permit must include conditions that meet the requirements 
of 
water 
quality 
standards, 
"when 
applicable." 
 
Section 
122.44(d) is applicable to the WPDES permit program via 40 
C.F.R. § 123.25. 
¶50 40 C.F.R. § 122.45(d) provides that for continuous 
discharges, all permit effluent limitations, including those 
necessary to achieve water quality standards, shall be stated as 
maximum daily and average monthly discharge limitations, "unless 
impracticable." 
 
Section 
122.45(f)(1) 
provides 
that 
all 
pollutants limited in permits shall have their limitations 
expressed in terms of mass, with certain exceptions.  Again, 
section 122.45 is applicable to the WPDES permit program via 40 
C.F.R. § 123.25. 
                                                 
17 In its response brief to this court, CWAC described its 
petition for review under Wis. Stat. § 283.63 as "alleg[ing] 
that [the] DNR failed to follow state law requiring the agency 
to comply with applicable federal regulations requiring a 
reasonable potential analysis for phosphorous and mercury, and 
the inclusion of daily maximum and average monthly limits for 
phosphorous."  CWAC then cited to 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.44(d)(1) and 
122.45. 
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
27 
 
¶51 CWAC acknowledges that the issues it raises implicate 
water quality standards and that the DNR's rules setting forth 
water quality standards may not be reviewed under Wis. Stat. 
§ 283.63.  See § 283.63(5).  Accordingly, CWAC maintains that it 
is not seeking review of any rule promulgated by the DNR.  
Instead, CWAC argues, it is challenging the permit reissued to 
Fort James' Broadway Mill on the grounds that the permit fails 
to 
comply 
with 
40 
C.F.R. 
§§ 122.44 
and 
122.45——federal 
requirements which, according to CWAC, are imposed upon the 
permit via state statutes. 
¶52 Specifically, 
CWAC 
points 
to 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 283.31(3)(d)2. and argues that the statute's plain language 
requires all WPDES permits to comply with "any applicable 
federal law or regulation."18  Therefore, CWAC asserts that the 
DNR was obligated to comply with 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.44 and 122.45 
when establishing the terms of the permit reissued to Fort 
James' Broadway Mill.  According to CWAC, it would be illogical 
for the legislature to require the DNR to issue permits that 
comply with federal law while at the same time precluding the 
DNR from reviewing a permit's compliance with federal law under 
Wis. Stat. § 283.63.  
¶53 The DNR, on the other hand, argues that CWAC's 
position upsets the system of checks and balances created by the 
Clean Water Act.  Because the EPA approved the WPDES permit 
                                                 
18 For the same general proposition, CWAC cites to Wis. 
Stat. §§ 283.001(2), 283.11(2), and 283.13(5). 
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
28 
 
program and therefore determined that Wisconsin's statutory and 
regulatory program is consistent with federal law, the DNR 
contends that a permit issued according to Wisconsin's statutory 
and regulatory program necessarily complies with federal law——
unless and until the EPA determines otherwise.  As the DNR 
points out, in this case, the EPA reviewed the proposed permit 
to determine whether it meets the federal guidelines and 
requirements, and the EPA did not object. 
¶54 The DNR further contends that CWAC's interpretation of 
Wis. Stat. § 283.31(3)(d)2. renders meaningless the WPDES permit 
program. 
 
That 
is, 
according 
to 
the 
DNR, 
if 
§ 283.31(3)(d)2. means simply that all state-issued permits must 
comply with any federal law or regulation, then there would be 
no need for Wisconsin's own statutory and regulatory program; 
when issuing a permit, the DNR would have to look only to the 
Clean 
Water 
Act 
and 
the 
federal 
regulations 
promulgated 
thereunder.   
¶55 The DNR advances a very different interpretation of 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 283.31(3)(d)2. 
 
First, 
the 
DNR 
looks 
to 
§ 283.31(3)(a)-(d)1. and argues that those subsections require 
the DNR to issue permits that meet the following state 
requirements, whenever applicable: "[e]ffluent limitations"; 
"[s]tandards of performance for new sources"; "[e]ffluent 
standards, effluents prohibitions and pretreatment standards"; 
and "[a]ny more stringent limitations" necessary to meet state 
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
29 
 
water 
quality 
standards.19 
 
Then, 
the 
DNR 
looks 
to 
§ 283.31(3)(d)2. and argues that that particular subsection 
requires the DNR to issue permits that meet the requirements of 
"any applicable federal law or regulation" that the EPA has 
promulgated over a state rule——that is, a federal law or 
regulation that is "more stringent" than the limitations 
provided in § 283.31(3)(a)-(c).20  The parties agree that no such 
overpromulgated federal laws or regulations are applicable in 
this case. 
¶56 As previously explained, the DNR's interpretation of 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 283.31(3)(d)2. is 
entitled 
to 
great 
weight 
deference.  See supra Part III.  Accordingly, we will sustain 
the DNR's statutory interpretation as long as it is reasonable.  
See Menasha Corp., 311 Wis. 2d 579, ¶48.  We conclude that it 
is.   
¶57 Importantly, the DNR's interpretation of Wis. Stat. 
§ 283.31(3)(d)2. gives meaning to certain language that CWAC 
reads out of the statute: all WPDES permits must meet "[a]ny 
                                                 
19 See 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(1) (providing that every permit 
contain effluent limitations for point sources and "any more 
stringent limitation, including those necessary to meet water 
quality standards"); Wis. Stat. § 283.11(1) (charging the DNR 
with promulgating rules on effluent limitations, standards of 
performance 
for 
new 
sources, 
and 
effluent 
standards 
or 
prohibitions and pretreatment standards); Wis. Stat. § 281.15 
(charging the DNR with promulgating rules setting water quality 
standards). 
20 See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. § 132.6(f)-(j) (expressly applying 
certain federal requirements to the Great Lakes System in the 
State of Wisconsin). 
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
30 
 
more stringent limitations, including those . . . [n]ecessary to 
comply 
with 
any 
applicable 
federal 
law 
or 
regulation."  
(Emphasis added.)  If, as CWAC argues, § 283.31(3)(d)2. means 
simply that all WPDES permits must comply with "any applicable 
federal law or regulation," then the condition that such federal 
law or regulation provide a "more stringent limitation[]" would 
be 
meaningless. 
 
By 
the 
statute's 
plain 
language, 
the 
"applicable federal law or regulation" must provide for a "more 
stringent limitation[]" than something else.  It is therefore 
reasonable to interpret the language of "[a]ny more stringent 
limitations" as referring back to the previous subsections; that 
is, pursuant to § 283.31(3)(d)2., all WPDES permits, whenever 
applicable, must meet more stringent limitations than the state 
requirements provided in § 283.31(3)(a)-(c), including those 
necessary 
to 
comply 
with 
any 
applicable 
federal 
law 
or 
regulation.  The DNR interprets the "more stringent" language to 
mean any applicable federal law or regulation that the EPA has 
promulgated over a state rule.  That interpretation is not 
unreasonable.  We therefore sustain the DNR's interpretation of 
§ 283.31(3)(d)2. 
¶58 While 
our 
interpretation 
of 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 283.31(3)(d)2. weakens CWAC's position, it does not resolve 
the central issue in this case.  We must still determine whether 
Wis. Stat. § 283.63 requires the DNR to hold a public hearing on 
CWAC's petition for review when the premise of CWAC's petition 
is that the permit fails to comply with 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.44(d) 
and 122.45(d) and (f).  We conclude that Wis. Stat. § 283.63 
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
31 
 
does not require the DNR to hold a public hearing on a petition 
for review when the premise of the petition is that the permit 
fails to comply with basic requirements of the federal Clean 
Water Act and federal regulations promulgated thereunder. 
¶59 Requiring the DNR to hold a public hearing on CWAC's 
petition for review would undermine the careful federal and 
state balance created by the Clean Water Act.  For purposes of 
this appeal, the parties do not dispute that the permit was 
properly reissued to Fort James' Broadway Mill under the state's 
statutory and regulatory authority.  Indeed, CWAC is adamant 
that it is not challenging any rule promulgated by the DNR but 
instead is challenging the permit itself as being contrary to 40 
C.F.R. §§ 122.44(d) and 122.45(d) and (f).  However, we agree 
with the DNR that because the permit was properly reissued under 
the state's statutory and regulatory authority, then the permit 
necessarily complies with federal law——unless and until the EPA 
determines otherwise.  This point is best demonstrated by 
considering the two federal regulations at issue in CWAC's 
petition for review: 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.44(d) and 122.45(d) and 
(f). 
¶60 When the EPA approved the WPDES permit program, the 
EPA 
deemed Wisconsin's statutory and regulatory authority 
adequate to issue permits that comply with the requirements of 
the Clean Water Act and of 40 C.F.R. pt. 123.  See 33 U.S.C. 
§ 1342(b)(1)(A), (2)(A); § 1342(c)(1); 40 C.F.R. § 123.61(b).  
40 C.F.R. § 123.25 sets forth the permitting requirements that a 
proposed permit program must meet.  Significantly, both 40 
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
32 
 
C.F.R. §§ 122.44 and 122.45 are included among those permitting 
requirements.  See 40 C.F.R. § 123.25(a)(15), (16).  Thus, when 
the EPA approved the WPDES permit program, the EPA necessarily 
determined that the program complies with 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.44 
and 122.45.   
¶61 Similarly, any substantial revisions to the WPDES 
permit program have been, and will continue to be, subject to 
the EPA's approval.  See 40 C.F.R. § 123.62(a).  The EPA 
approves 
or 
disapproves 
the 
revisions 
based 
upon 
the 
requirements of the Clean Water Act and of 40 C.F.R. pt. 123——
requirements which, again, include 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.44 and 
122.45.   
¶62 Finally, the EPA reviewed the permit reissuance to 
Fort James' Broadway Mill and did not object to the permit as 
drafted.  Valid grounds for objection include when the proposed 
permit fails to comply with the requirements of the Clean Water 
Act or any regulations issued thereunder, or in particular, when 
the proposed permit fails to satisfy the requirements of 40 
C.F.R § 122.44(d).  See 40 C.F.R. § 123.44(c)(1), (5), (8).  
Thus, on the very grounds espoused by CWAC, the EPA itself did 
not object to the permit reissued to Fort James' Broadway Mill.  
Indeed, before the permit was reissued, the EPA was apprised of 
CWAC's allegations that the proposed permit failed to comply 
with federal law.  As previously mentioned, the EPA requested 
and received copies from the DNR of any significant comments the 
DNR received during the public notice period.   
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
33 
 
¶63 Stated otherwise, by approving the WPDES permit 
program and by failing to object to the permit, the EPA 
effectively determined that the permit complies with 40 C.F.R. 
§§ 122.44(d) and 122.45(d) and (f).  In spite of the EPA's 
determination, CWAC asks this court to construe Wis. Stat. 
§ 283.63 as requiring the DNR to subsequently determine whether 
the permit complies with those same federal regulations.  We 
decline to do so.  To adopt CWAC's interpretation of Wis. Stat. 
§ 283.63 would be to empower the DNR to undercut the EPA's 
determination.  Given the careful system of checks and balances 
envisioned by the Clean Water Act, the legislature could not 
have intended for the DNR to have the final say on a permit's 
compliance with federal law.21 
                                                 
21 We do not question that administrative agencies and state 
courts are competent to interpret and apply federal law.  
Froebel v. Meyer, 217 F.3d 928, 935-37 (7th Cir. 2000) 
(concluding that the plaintiff was required to first raise in 
state court his claim that the DNR violated the Clean Water Act 
by discharging a pollutant without a permit); Am. Paper Inst., 
Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 890 F.2d 869, 875 (7th Cir. 1989) ("The state 
courts are perfectly competent to decide questions of federal 
law."); N. States Power Co. v. Bugher, 189 Wis. 2d 541, 558-59, 
525 N.W.2d 723 (1995) (concluding that the plaintiff's federal 
constitutional claims were barred by claim preclusion because 
they were not raised before the Tax Appeals Commission); Hogan 
v. Musolf, 163 Wis. 2d 1, 21-22, 471 N.W.2d 216 (1991) ("Where 
the United States Supreme Court has held that another state's 
taxing scheme, which is substantially similar to Wisconsin's, 
violates federal law or the constitution, we conclude that the 
Department [of Revenue] and the [Tax Appeals] Commission have 
the authority to determine whether the continued application of 
the Wisconsin taxing scheme also violates federal law or the 
constitution."). 
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
34 
 
¶64 Furthermore, requiring the DNR to hold a public 
hearing on CWAC's petition for review would thwart the finality 
of permits properly issued under the WPDES permit program.  When 
the DNR properly issues a permit under the state's statutory and 
regulatory authority, the permittee should be able to rely on 
the validity of the permit's terms and conditions.  In other 
words, when there is no dispute that a permit's terms and 
conditions comply with state statutes and regulations, and when 
the 
permittee 
acts 
in 
accordance 
with 
those 
terms 
and 
conditions, the permittee is entitled to assurance that it is 
complying with the Clean Water Act.  Indeed, Congress expressed 
that very point in 33 U.S.C. § 1342(k).  Section 1342(k) 
expressly provides that compliance with a permit issued under 
§ 1342 is deemed compliance with the Clean Water Act.  Likewise, 
"compliance 
with 
a 
state-administered 
permit 
is 
deemed 
compliance with the [Clean Water Act]."  U.S. Dep't of Energy, 
503 U.S. at 634 (citing § 1342(k)) (White, J., concurring in 
part, dissenting in part).  As recognized by the United States 
Supreme Court, the purpose of § 1342(k) is to give permits 
finality.  E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 112, 
138 n.28 (1977) ("The purpose of § 402(k) seems to be to 
                                                                                                                                                             
However, the fact that administrative agencies and state 
courts are competent to interpret and apply federal law does not 
resolve the issue presented in this case: whether Wis. Stat. 
§ 283.63 requires the DNR to hold a public hearing on a petition 
for review when the premise of the petition is that the permit 
fails to comply with basic requirements of the Clean Water Act 
and federal regulations promulgated thereunder.   
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
35 
 
insulate permit holders from changes in various regulations 
during the period of a permit and to relieve them of having to 
litigate in an enforcement action the question whether their 
permits are sufficiently strict.  In short, § 402(k) serves the 
purpose of giving permits finality.").  In this case, there is 
no dispute that the permit was properly issued under the WPDES 
permit program, and CWAC does not question Fort James' Broadway 
Mill's compliance with the permit's terms and conditions.  Given 
these circumstances, if we were to construe Wis. Stat. § 283.63 
as requiring the DNR to determine whether the permit complies 
with the Clean Water Act, we would thwart the finality of the 
permit that Fort James' Broadway Mill is entitled to rely on 
under 33 U.S.C. § 1342(k). 
¶65 Our holding does not leave CWAC without an avenue of 
relief.  We merely foreclose Wis. Stat. § 283.63 as one avenue.  
If CWAC is entitled to a remedy, the remedy rests with the EPA.  
For instance, an aggrieved person may seek limited judicial 
review in federal district court of the EPA's decision not to 
object to a permit.  See Save the Bay, 556 F.2d at 1295-96.  
While such judicial review is available on only two narrow 
grounds, one of those grounds is particularly relevant to this 
case: an aggrieved person may claim in federal district court 
that a proposed permit violates applicable federal guidelines 
that the EPA failed to consider.22  See id. at 1296.  In 
                                                 
22 The second ground for relief is a claim that unlawful 
factors tainted the EPA's decision not to object to the permit.  
Save the Bay, Inc. v. Adm'r of the EPA, 556 F.2d 1282, 1286, 
1296 (5th Cir. 1977). 
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
36 
 
addition, any interested person may seek judicial review in the 
federal courts of appeals of the EPA's action "in making any 
determination as to a State permit program . . . ."  33 U.S.C. 
§ 1369(b)(1)(D);23 see also Am. Forest & Paper Ass'n v. U.S. EPA, 
137 F.3d 291, 295 (5th Cir. 1998).  For example, an interested 
person may seek review of the EPA's decision to withdraw or not 
to withdraw authorization of a state's permit program.  Sierra 
Club v. U.S. EPA, 377 F. Supp. 2d 1205, 1208 (N.D. Fla. 2005).  
As previously explained, one of the circumstances in which the 
EPA may withdraw its approval of a state's permit program is 
when the state issues permits that do not comply with the 
federal regulations.  See 40 C.F.R. § 123.63(a)(2). 
V. CONCLUSION 
¶66 We conclude that Wis. Stat. § 283.63 does not require 
the DNR to hold a public hearing on CWAC's petition for review 
of the permit reissued to Fort James' Broadway Mill when the 
premise of CWAC's petition is that the permit fails to comply 
with basic requirements of the federal Clean Water Act and 
                                                 
23 Federal courts of appeals have agreed that their original 
jurisdiction under 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1) does not cover review 
of the EPA's discretionary determination to object or not to 
object to a state-issued permit.  See, e.g., Am. Paper Inst., 
890 F.2d at 874-75 (concluding that § 1369(b)(1)(F) does not 
provide federal courts of appeals with the power to review the 
EPA's objections to state-issued permits); Save the Bay, 556 
F.2d at 1291-92 (concluding that the federal courts of appeals' 
jurisdiction under § 1369(b)(1)(F) does not encompass review of 
the EPA's action in failing to object to a state-issued permit).  
As explained above, the aggrieved person may instead seek 
limited judicial review in federal district court.  See Save the 
Bay, 556 F.2d at 1295-96. 
No. 
2008AP3235   
 
37 
 
federal regulations 
promulgated thereunder.  A conclusion 
otherwise would undermine the careful federal and state balance 
created by the Clean Water Act and would thwart the finality of 
permits properly issued under the WPDES permit program.  If CWAC 
is entitled to a remedy, the remedy rests with the EPA. 
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 
reversed. 
 
No.  2008AP3235.ssa 
 
1 
 
 
¶67 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.   (dissenting).  I agree 
with the court of appeals and would affirm its decision. 
¶68 The ultimate issue presented is whether the DNR is 
authorized to determine whether, on challenge, terms of a state-
issued wastewater discharge permit comply with federal law.   
¶69 The majority opinion defers to the DNR, agreeing that 
the petitioners' remedy for a violation of federal law rests 
with the federal Environmental Protection Agency.1  I agree with 
the court of appeals that the DNR has authority to determine 
whether a state-issued permit complies with federal law.  
¶70 The majority opinion errs in two fundamental ways:  
First, the majority misinterprets the balance created between 
federal oversight and state application and enforcement of the 
Clean Water Act.  Second, by inverting the federal/state 
balance, the majority has left the petitioners in the present 
case, as well as future challengers, with no effective forum in 
which to express their concerns that terms in a state-issued 
permit do not comply with federal law. 
* * * * 
                                                 
1 Contrary to the majority opinion, I conclude that the 
DNR's statutory interpretation is not entitled to any deference.  
The 
instant 
case 
does 
not 
present 
a 
decision 
on 
the 
applicability or administration of a highly technical statute 
regulating water pollution.  Instead the instant case presents a 
question of the DNR's scope of authority.  Furthermore, the DNR 
does not have a long or consistent interpretation of Wis. Stat. 
§§ 283.31(3)(d)2. and 283.63 relating to the facts of the 
instant case.      
No.  2008AP3235.ssa 
 
2 
 
¶71 The Clean Water Act establishes a partnership between 
the federal government and the states to eliminate water 
pollution across the country.  Save the Bay, Inc. v. Adm'r of 
EPA, 556 F.2d 1282, 1284 (5th Cir. 1977).  The partnership 
promotes a delicate balance between the federal government and 
state governments in administering the Clean Water Act.2  The 
majority opinion inverts this balance between federal and state 
regulation, thereby effectively eliminating the petitioners' 
access to a review of the terms of the permit.     
¶72 The balance under the Clean Water Act is clear: 
Congress 
intended 
the states to play the lead role in 
administering water pollution control laws.3   
¶73 The Clean Water Act delegates to the states the 
authority to issue permits.  33 U.S.C. § 1342(b).  Wisconsin's 
permit program was authorized by the federal government in 1974, 
                                                 
2 The federal fifth circuit court of appeals described the 
partnership and balance in the oft-cited Save the Bay, Inc. v. 
Administrator of EPA, 556 F.2d 1282, 1296-97 (5th Cir. 1977), as 
follows:   
 
We have been called upon to examine a statutory scheme 
that 
has 
the 
potential 
for 
the 
optimum 
of 
federalism. . . . The 
success 
of 
their 
federalist 
venture will depend not only upon the grace, but also 
the substance of movement by both partners in the 
ballet.  We have endeavored to ink a most self-
effacing role for the federal judiciary, one which 
should foster a harmonious background to the dance and 
necessitate 
intervention 
only 
when 
a 
point 
of 
unmelodious 
discord 
seriously 
threatens 
the 
contrapuntal balance.   
3 Save the Bay, Inc. v. Adm'r of EPA, 556 F.2d 1282 (5th 
Cir. 1977); District of Columbia v. Schramm, 631 F.2d 854 (D.C. 
Cir. 1980). 
No.  2008AP3235.ssa 
 
3 
 
and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has been 
administering the permit program since that time.4  To obtain 
approval for its permit program, Wisconsin had to show that its 
permit program ensures compliance with the requirements of the 
Clean Water Act.  33 U.S.C. § 1342(b)(1)(A).  The Wisconsin 
statutes also require that the permit program comply with the 
Clean 
Water 
Act 
whenever 
applicable. 
 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 283.31(3)(d)2.  
¶74 After the Environmental Protection Agency approves a 
State's plan, the State takes the primary role in issuing 
permits and administering and enforcing the laws.5  "[The] 
legislative 
history, 
more 
explicit 
and 
unequivocal 
than 
generally found, leans in almost every expression toward a 
                                                 
4 States applying for authority must show that their 
permitting programs will be at least as stringent as the federal 
permitting program.  33 U.S.C. § 1342(b)(1)(A) (state permit 
programs must show that they "insure compliance with" all 
provisions of the Clean Water Act).  Once a state has 
illustrated that its permit program will comply with the 
requirements of the Clean Water Act, it is authorized to issue 
and enforce its own permits for water pollution.  
5 The delegation of power to the State of Wisconsin is 
explicit:  "The program that you conduct pursuant to this 
authority must at all times be in accordance with Section 402 of 
the 
Act, 
all 
guidelines 
promulgated 
pursuant 
to 
Section 
304(h)(2) of the Act, and the Memorandum of Agreement between 
the 
Regional 
Administrator 
of 
EPA's 
Region 
V 
and 
the 
Administrator of the Division of Environmental Protection, 
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources . . . ."  Letter from 
Russell E. Train, U.S. E.P.A., to Governor Patrick J. Lucey, 
dated Feb. 4, 1974, granting authority to conduct a State Permit 
Program. 
No.  2008AP3235.ssa 
 
4 
 
minimal federal intervention when a state plan has been 
approved."6 
¶75 The State must provide the Environmental Protection 
Agency with notice of all proposed permits.  Wis. Stat. 
§ 243.41(1).  It did in this case.  The federal Environmental 
Protection Agency retains the authority to object to state-
issued permits that it finds fall outside the requirements of 
the Clean Water Act.  33 U.S.C. § 1342(d)(2); see also Save the 
Bay, 556 F.2d at 1294.  The Environmental Protection Agency's 
oversight and review of Wisconsin-issued permits is, however, 
wholly discretionary.   
¶76 The Environmental Protection Agency is not required to 
but may, in its discretion, enforce state compliance with 
federal requirements by objecting to state-issued permits. Thus 
the EPA may decide that a state-issued permit is not in 
compliance with federal law but nevertheless does not warrant an 
objection.  As the Wisconsin court of appeals explained, the 
legislative history shows that the Clean Water Act envisioned 
that the Environmental Protection Agency would not veto every 
permit out of compliance with federal law and would use what 
power it had over state-issued permits "judiciously."7   
¶77 That the Environmental Protection Agency did not 
object to the permit in the instant case is not, as the majority 
opinion asserts at ¶63, an "effective determination" that the 
                                                 
6 Save the Bay, 556 F.2d at 1294. 
7 Andersen v. DNR, 2010 WI App 64, ¶27, 324 Wis. 2d 828, 783 
N.W.2d 877.  
No.  2008AP3235.ssa 
 
5 
 
permit complies with federal law.  The Environmental Protection 
Agency's failure to object means only that the Environmental 
Protection Agency decided not to object.   
¶78 The majority opinion attempts to pass off judicial 
review of the state-issued permit to the federal courts.  
Majority op., ¶65 ("If CWAC is entitled to a remedy, the remedy 
rests with the EPA.").  The federal courts are not, however, 
willing to receive the pass.    
¶79 In fact, the federal courts of appeals, including the 
Seventh Circuit court of appeals, have made it clear that they 
are ineligible receivers.  If the Environmental Protection 
Agency does not exercise its discretion to review the state 
permit, the federal courts will not act.  "Congress spread 
across the record clear and convincing evidence of legislative 
intent to preclude federal review of state-issued permits."  Am. 
Paper Inst. Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 890 F.2d 869, 875 (7th Cir. 1989).  
¶80 I 
conclude 
that 
petitioning 
the 
Environmental 
Protection Agency for review of a permit's terms does not 
represent a significant avenue in which to review compliance 
with federal law.  The Environmental Protection Agency's 
discretionary decision not to object to permit terms cannot 
effectively be challenged in federal court.8 
¶81 Meaningful federal judicial review is not available 
and 
the 
majority 
opinion 
eliminates 
the 
opportunity 
for 
meaningful review in state courts to determine whether the terms 
                                                 
8 District of Columbia v. Schramm, 631 F.2d 854 (D.C. Cir. 
1980).  
No.  2008AP3235.ssa 
 
6 
 
of a DNR-issued water pollution permit comport with federal law.  
The majority reads the statutes to mean that once the state has 
issued a permit and the Environmental Protection Agency has 
chosen not to veto that permit, further state review of 
challenges based on federal law would be superfluous.     
¶82 The majority opinion inverts the balance created 
between the state's application and enforcement of permitting 
and federal oversight, leaving the petitioners in the present 
case, as well as future petitioners, with no forum in which to 
meaningfully express their concerns that a state permit does not 
comply with federal law. 
¶83 Under the Clean Water Act, the states have significant 
authority to monitor their own programs to assure compliance 
with state and federal laws.  This level of state autonomy to 
issue permits, with judicious federal oversight, necessitates 
the ability of interested parties to ensure compliance with both 
state and federal water pollution control regulations within the 
State permitting process.      
¶84 Nonetheless, the majority opinion accepts the DNR's 
position that the DNR does not have authority to review permit 
terms' compliance with federal law.  The law is clear, however, 
that 
state 
courts 
and 
state 
administrative 
agencies 
may 
interpret and apply federal laws, and the legislature has 
No.  2008AP3235.ssa 
 
7 
 
directed that permits issued comply with federal law.9  Wis. 
Stat. §§ 283.31(3)(d)2., 283.63. 
¶85 As a result of the majority opinion, the petitioners 
in the instant case have no effective remedy.  Parties affected 
by a permit in violation of federal law cannot hold the DNR 
accountable through 
the administrative review process and 
judicial review in state courts.  The underlying theme of the 
majority opinion is to restrict meaningful review of state-
issued permits.  Wis. Stat. §§ 283.31(3)(d)2., 283.63.  The 
majority opinion denies meaningful review in the name of 
finality for permit holders.  Majority op., ¶64.   
¶86 Restricting review of permits issued in Wisconsin 
affects permit holders, businesses, other government entities, 
and concerned citizens alike.  These interested parties must be 
afforded some avenue to challenge permits that are issued in 
violation of federal law.  The majority opinion does not agree, 
and instead leaves the petitioners in the present case, and all 
future challengers of Wisconsin-issued water pollution permits, 
without a forum to bring an effective challenge that the terms 
                                                 
9 N. States Power Co. v. Bugher, 189 Wis. 2d 541, 525 
N.W.2d 723 (1995) (holding federal claims were precluded because 
they should have been raised during state administrative 
proceedings); Hogan v. Musolf, 163 Wis. 2d 1, 471 N.W.2d 216 
(1991) (Department of Revenue and Tax Appeals Commission have 
authority to determine whether state tax laws violate federal 
laws); Froebel v. Meyer, 217 F.3d 928 (7th Cir. 2000) (federal 
Clean Water Act claim should have been brought in state 
administrative and court tribunals, not federal courts); Am. 
Paper Inst. Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 890 F.2d 869, 875 (7th Cir. 1989) 
(state courts are competent to decide questions of federal law). 
No.  2008AP3235.ssa 
 
8 
 
of a permit are unreasonable based on a violation of federal 
law.  
¶87 Because 
the 
majority 
inverts 
the 
federal-state 
partnership and the balance set forth in the Clean Water Act and 
effectively eliminates a meaningful forum for the petitioners, I 
dissent.  I would instead hold that the DNR has the authority to 
determine whether permit conditions it established comply with 
federal law, and that the DNR should provide the petitioners 
with a public hearing on the permit in question.  
¶88 Because I agree with the decision of the court of 
appeals, I dissent. 
¶89 I am authorized to state that Justice ANN WALSH 
BRADLEY joins this opinion. 
No.  2008AP3235.ssa 
 
 
 
1