Can decentralized treatment be a “prudent and feasible alternative” to a wastewater treatment plant expansion in order to prohibit an expanded discharge to an Outstanding Resource Value Water? Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Minn. App. No. A04-1324) (May 17, 2005). MPCA rules prohibit a new or expanded sewage discharge to an “Outstanding Resource Value Water” unless there is no “prudent and feasible alternative.” Further, if permitted, the discharge must be restricted to the extent necessary to preserve the characteristics for which the water qualifies as an ORVW. The Court of Appeals reversed MPCA’s grant of a permit for an expanded discharge to the Rum River from the City of Princeton wastewater treatment plant. Despite the deference due the agency, it found the MPCA’s decision to lack “substantial evidence” to support it because of inadequate consideration of an option combining a smaller expansion with decentralized wastewater treatment. The Court also found that while high water quality is one basis for the Rum River’s ORVW designation, the MPCA had not made findings that the permit would preserve water quality. Finally, the Court agreed with MCEA that before the MPCA can find that a proposed permit will preserve the “existing high water quality” of an ORVW, it first must define that “existing high quality” in terms of the levels of specific pollutants or other means it finds in its technical judgment to be appropriate.
|
||
 |
||