Our Legacy of Victory
Air Pollution Lawsuit: Clean Wisconsin v. EPA
In 2015, the EPA set its National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for harmful ground-level ozone at 70 parts per billion. In 2018, the agency finalized its county designations for the new standard, detailing which counties were in “nonattainment,” or failing to meet the new standard.
But after initially labeling nine counties in southeastern Wisconsin as “nonattainment” areas, the EPA’s final list narrowed that designation to just a few Wisconsin counties along the Lake Michigan shoreline. Washington, Waukesha, and Racine counties — which were in nonattainment according to air quality monitors — had been taken of the list altogether.
Clean Wisconsin filed suit against the EPA in May of 2018, arguing the EPA must follow the science and data, which clearly shows that Wisconsin residents are living in areas with unsafe levels of pollution.
In 2020, a federal appeals court judge agreed ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency had failed to protect Wisconsin residents from ozone pollution when determining which counties met health standards for the pollutant.
Why It Matters
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to designate “nonattainment areas” in counties where air quality fails to meet federal health standards for ozone. The states must then take steps to reduce the amount of ozone smog in the air.
Ozone pollution is linked to the same diseases as smoking, such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis. It is most harmful for the very young, very old, and those with respiratory issues. But even healthy people are advised to stay indoors on days when ozone levels are high.
Clean Wisconsin’s lawsuit against the EPA showed that the agency failed to protect Wisconsin residents from ozone pollution when determining which counties met the agency’s health standards for the pollutant. The case brought by Clean Wisconsin challenged the agency’s data and methods, emphasizing the need for science-based public health policy. Clean Wisconsin argued the EPA’s determinations of which counties met health standards for ozone pollution were “arbitrary and capricious” and lacked data to back up its claims. Our legal victory reinforced not only that air pollution from ozone is a major health hazard, but also reinforced the need for data-driven environmental protections.
