Opinion ID: 2192258
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: legislative pre-emption

Text: The threshold inquiry which we must address is whether, in enacting a maximum limitation (8.7%) on the nutrient phosphorus content in cleaning agents, the Legislature intended to preclude an administrative agency from establishing further, more stringent standards. Clearly, if the Legislature sought to reserve to itself the regulation of the nutrient phosphorus, and therefore declined to delegate this regulatory power to any agency, subsequent challenges to the rule promulgated by the NRC become moot. It is beyond debate that the sole source of an agency's power is the statute creating it. [4] If a certain power, e.g., regulation of phosphorus content in detergents, is withheld in the statute, the agency may not act. However, our reading of the cleaning agents act fails to disclose an intent by the Legislature to retain exclusive control over phosphorus pollution. The cleaning agents act, which seeks to regulate the content of cleaning agents in order to protect water quality, is short and specific. Section 1 set forth the relevant definitions, including: `Cleaning agent' means a laundry detergent, dishwashing compound, household cleaner, metal cleaner, degreasing compound, commercial cleaner, industrial cleaner, phosphate compound or other substance intended to be used for cleaning purposes. `Nutrient' means a substance or combination of substances that, when added to any waters of the state in sufficient quantities, provides nourishment that promotes the growth of aquatic vegetation in the waters to such densities as to interfere with or be detrimental to their use by man or by any animal, fish or plant useful to man. MCL 323.231; MSA 3.533(301). Section 2 of the act establishes the maximum limit of the nutrient phosphorus in cleaning agents at 8.7%. After July 1, 1972, a person shall not sell or distribute for use in this state a cleaning agent which contains phosphorus in any form in excess of 8.7% by weight expressed as elemental phosphorus. MCL 323.232; MSA 3.533(302) (emphasis added). Section 3 delegates to the WRC the authority to enforce the act through promulgation of rules which may further restrict the nutrient content of cleaning agents. Section 3 states in pertinent part: The water resources commission shall promulgate rules in accordance with and subject to [the Administrative Procedures Act of 1969]. The rules may further restrict the nutrient content and other contents of cleaning agents and water conditioners, to prevent unlawful pollution and control nuisance growths of algae, weeds and slimes which are or may become injurious to other lawful water uses, to prevent cleaning agents and water conditioners, separately or in combination with other substances, from rendering or tending to render any waters of this state harmful or inimical to public health, or to animal or aquatic life, or to beneficial water uses, and to minimize any hazard to the health or safety of users of the cleaning agents or water conditioners. MCL 323.233; MSA 3.533(303). And, finally, § 4 forbids the sale of detergents and cleaning agents containing those substances identified by the WRC as having a deleterious effect on water quality or human health. Phosphorus is excluded from this section, having already been legislatively designated as an unlawful pollutant in § 2. Section 4 reads: A person shall not sell detergents or cleaning compounds containing any substance other than phosphorus that may cause unlawful pollution of the waters when discharged thereto, if the water resources commission determines that the other substance will cause unlawful pollution under the circumstances of its expected use and disposal or will pose a hazard to human health and safety. MCL 323.234; MSA 3.533(304). The principal rule of statutory construction is that the Legislature intends the meaning that is clearly expressed; [5] an unambiguous statute does not need interpretation. [6] Equally fundamental is the rule that every word, sentence and section should be given effect if possible. [7] Applying these principles, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found that a plain reading of the statute revealed the legislative intent of allowing an administrative agency to further restrict the phosphorus content of cleaning agents. The trial court found it clear that the in excess of 8.7% language of § 2, read in conjunction with the authority to further restrict the nutrient content by rule in § 3, established a ceiling, rather than a floor on phosphorus regulation. Additionally, the lower court found that § 3 delegated to the administrative agency the discretionary power to regulate phosphorus content of cleaning agents below the 8.7% ceiling. The Court of Appeals was even more explicit in its interpretation of the statute: The crucial words in this statute are `further restrict the nutrient content of cleaning agents'.