DAY, J.
This is a review of an order of the circuit court for Dane county, P. CHARLES JONES, presiding.
The issue in this case is whether the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA), sec. 1.11, Stats. 1979, requires the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations (DILHR), to take environmental factors into account when reviewing the plans of a building project for code compliance. We conclude that, while WEPA requires DILHR to consider environmental factors when promulgating building codes, WEPA does not apply to individual code approval decisions.
In 1978, the James Building Corporation (James) announced plans to build one hundred condominium units in Fish Creek, an unincorporated village in Door Coun[643]*643ty, Wisconsin. The plans provided for a sewage treatment facility which would empty into Green Bay. This system required a number of permits from the Department of Natural Resources, (DNR). DNR prepared an environmental assessment screening worksheet (EASW) on the project and concluded that an environmental impact statement (EIS) was not necessary.
Persons opposed to the project, including some of the respondents in this action, commenced a lawsuit in the Door county circuit court, seeking to have the DNR decision reversed. The Door county circuit court issued a stay ordering DNR to halt all proceedings on the project until it reached a decision on the merits. That stay remains in effect.
On September 8, 1980, James submitted plans to DILHR providing for a 186,750-gallon holding tank as an alternative method of sewage disposal. A holding tank does not treat sewage, but stores it temporarily. Holding tanks must comply with chs. H 62-63, Wis. Adm. Code, but do not require DNR approval.
DILHR initially approved the plans, but, after receiving objections from interested parties including respondents, rescinded its approval since the holding tank was in a flood plain but did not meet the code requirements for holding tanks in flood plains. James submitted new plans, providing for a 250,000-gallon holding tank to be placed outside of the flood plain, on October 21, 1980. Respondents petitioned DILHR for a declaratory ruling that WEPA applied to the code compliance decision and asked for a contested case hearing. DILHR denied these requests on November 11, 1980, and approved James’ plans on November 17,1980.
On December 10, 1980, respondents filed a petition in Dane county circuit court for review of DILHR’s approval of the plans, and on January 6, 1981, filed a motion for a stay of DILHR’s approval of the plans. On January 16, 1981, Dane county circuit court Judge P. Charles Jones granted the stay, halting construction. The cir[644]*644cuit court issued its memorandum decision and order on April 20,1981, holding that WEPA did apply to DILHR’s code compliance review and remanding the case to DILHR for WEPA compliance. DILHR petitioned this court to bypass the court of appeals, sec. 808.05(1), Stats. 1979-80. The petition was granted by this court.
DILHR’s decision not to conduct an environmental inquiry when reviewing the project’s holding tank plans for code compliance was a result of its policy of applying WEPA to its rulemaking process but not to its code compliance review decisions. Interpretation of a statute by an administrative agency is a conclusion of law which may be independently reviewed by the supreme court. Bucyrus-Erie Co. v. ILHR Dept., 90 Wis. 2d 408, 417, 280 N.W.2d 142 (1979). However, the construction and interpretation of a statute by the administrative agency which must apply the law is entitled to great weight and if several rules or applications of rules are equally consistent with the purpose of the statute, the court should defer to the agency’s interpretation. Milwaukee County v. ILHR Dept., 80 Wis. 2d 445, 455-456, 259 N.W.2d 118 (1977). In general, the reviewing court should not upset an administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute if there exists a rational basis for that conclusion. Dairy Equipment Co. v. ILHR Dept., 95 Wis. 2d 319, 327, 290 N.W.2d 330 (1980).
The test as to whether an environmental impact study should be conducted is essentially one of reasonableness and good faith, Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade v. Public Service Commission, 79 Wis. 2d 409, 421-423, 256 N.W.2d 149 (1977). Accordingly, the method by which an administrative agency chooses to comply with WEPA’s mandate that it take environmental factors into account when undertaking its statutory duties should be affirmed if that method is a reasonable one in light of [645]*645the purposes of WEPA and the agency’s functions and duties.
WEPA requires that state agencies review the environmental consequences of decisions which may significantly affect the quality of the human environment.1
[646]*646In 1976, an executive order, entitled Revised Order, Guidelines For The Implementation Of The Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act, Executive Order No. 26 (February 12, 1976), instructed all state agencies to categorize the decisions which they make according to the likelihood that they will require a review of their environmental consequences.
To fulfill WEPA’s mandate, DILHR decided to apply WEPA review, including an EASW and, if necessary, an [647]*647EIS, to the code promulgation process but not to code compliance review.2
DILHR is responsible for the adoption and enforcement of building, heating, electrical, ventilation, air conditioning and plumbing codes.3 Pursuant to secs. 145.01 [648]*648(5) and 145.02, Stats. 1979-80, DILHR is responsible for general supervision of plumbing construction, installation and maintenance.4 Sec. 145.02(3) (d) authorizes [649]*649DILHR to promulgate plumbing codes. When the codes are adopted or revised, DILHR applies the WEPA mandated environmental review process as a part of the rulemaking procedure which it undertakes pursuant to ch. 227, Stats.
Secs. 227.011-227.029, Stats., provide a comprehensive framework for administrative rulemaking. Persons may petition an agency to adopt, repeal or revise a rule.5 Fiscal estimates are prepared,6 and the rule is submitted to the legislative council for form, need and validity.7 Hearings are held,8 for which proper notice must be given9 the conduct of which is governed by statute.10 The proposed rules are then submitted to the legislature 11 and published12 before they go into effect.
The administrative rulemaking procedures seem to parallel the consultation, notice and hearing provision of WEPA.13
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
DAY, J.
This is a review of an order of the circuit court for Dane county, P. CHARLES JONES, presiding.
The issue in this case is whether the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA), sec. 1.11, Stats. 1979, requires the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations (DILHR), to take environmental factors into account when reviewing the plans of a building project for code compliance. We conclude that, while WEPA requires DILHR to consider environmental factors when promulgating building codes, WEPA does not apply to individual code approval decisions.
In 1978, the James Building Corporation (James) announced plans to build one hundred condominium units in Fish Creek, an unincorporated village in Door Coun[643]*643ty, Wisconsin. The plans provided for a sewage treatment facility which would empty into Green Bay. This system required a number of permits from the Department of Natural Resources, (DNR). DNR prepared an environmental assessment screening worksheet (EASW) on the project and concluded that an environmental impact statement (EIS) was not necessary.
Persons opposed to the project, including some of the respondents in this action, commenced a lawsuit in the Door county circuit court, seeking to have the DNR decision reversed. The Door county circuit court issued a stay ordering DNR to halt all proceedings on the project until it reached a decision on the merits. That stay remains in effect.
On September 8, 1980, James submitted plans to DILHR providing for a 186,750-gallon holding tank as an alternative method of sewage disposal. A holding tank does not treat sewage, but stores it temporarily. Holding tanks must comply with chs. H 62-63, Wis. Adm. Code, but do not require DNR approval.
DILHR initially approved the plans, but, after receiving objections from interested parties including respondents, rescinded its approval since the holding tank was in a flood plain but did not meet the code requirements for holding tanks in flood plains. James submitted new plans, providing for a 250,000-gallon holding tank to be placed outside of the flood plain, on October 21, 1980. Respondents petitioned DILHR for a declaratory ruling that WEPA applied to the code compliance decision and asked for a contested case hearing. DILHR denied these requests on November 11, 1980, and approved James’ plans on November 17,1980.
On December 10, 1980, respondents filed a petition in Dane county circuit court for review of DILHR’s approval of the plans, and on January 6, 1981, filed a motion for a stay of DILHR’s approval of the plans. On January 16, 1981, Dane county circuit court Judge P. Charles Jones granted the stay, halting construction. The cir[644]*644cuit court issued its memorandum decision and order on April 20,1981, holding that WEPA did apply to DILHR’s code compliance review and remanding the case to DILHR for WEPA compliance. DILHR petitioned this court to bypass the court of appeals, sec. 808.05(1), Stats. 1979-80. The petition was granted by this court.
DILHR’s decision not to conduct an environmental inquiry when reviewing the project’s holding tank plans for code compliance was a result of its policy of applying WEPA to its rulemaking process but not to its code compliance review decisions. Interpretation of a statute by an administrative agency is a conclusion of law which may be independently reviewed by the supreme court. Bucyrus-Erie Co. v. ILHR Dept., 90 Wis. 2d 408, 417, 280 N.W.2d 142 (1979). However, the construction and interpretation of a statute by the administrative agency which must apply the law is entitled to great weight and if several rules or applications of rules are equally consistent with the purpose of the statute, the court should defer to the agency’s interpretation. Milwaukee County v. ILHR Dept., 80 Wis. 2d 445, 455-456, 259 N.W.2d 118 (1977). In general, the reviewing court should not upset an administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute if there exists a rational basis for that conclusion. Dairy Equipment Co. v. ILHR Dept., 95 Wis. 2d 319, 327, 290 N.W.2d 330 (1980).
The test as to whether an environmental impact study should be conducted is essentially one of reasonableness and good faith, Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade v. Public Service Commission, 79 Wis. 2d 409, 421-423, 256 N.W.2d 149 (1977). Accordingly, the method by which an administrative agency chooses to comply with WEPA’s mandate that it take environmental factors into account when undertaking its statutory duties should be affirmed if that method is a reasonable one in light of [645]*645the purposes of WEPA and the agency’s functions and duties.
WEPA requires that state agencies review the environmental consequences of decisions which may significantly affect the quality of the human environment.1
[646]*646In 1976, an executive order, entitled Revised Order, Guidelines For The Implementation Of The Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act, Executive Order No. 26 (February 12, 1976), instructed all state agencies to categorize the decisions which they make according to the likelihood that they will require a review of their environmental consequences.
To fulfill WEPA’s mandate, DILHR decided to apply WEPA review, including an EASW and, if necessary, an [647]*647EIS, to the code promulgation process but not to code compliance review.2
DILHR is responsible for the adoption and enforcement of building, heating, electrical, ventilation, air conditioning and plumbing codes.3 Pursuant to secs. 145.01 [648]*648(5) and 145.02, Stats. 1979-80, DILHR is responsible for general supervision of plumbing construction, installation and maintenance.4 Sec. 145.02(3) (d) authorizes [649]*649DILHR to promulgate plumbing codes. When the codes are adopted or revised, DILHR applies the WEPA mandated environmental review process as a part of the rulemaking procedure which it undertakes pursuant to ch. 227, Stats.
Secs. 227.011-227.029, Stats., provide a comprehensive framework for administrative rulemaking. Persons may petition an agency to adopt, repeal or revise a rule.5 Fiscal estimates are prepared,6 and the rule is submitted to the legislative council for form, need and validity.7 Hearings are held,8 for which proper notice must be given9 the conduct of which is governed by statute.10 The proposed rules are then submitted to the legislature 11 and published12 before they go into effect.
The administrative rulemaking procedures seem to parallel the consultation, notice and hearing provision of WEPA.13 Persons or organizations with opinions as to the environmental effect of a rule can make their views known to the rulemaking body, and the ch. 227 procedure [650]*650provides a framework for a comprehensive consideration of environmental factors.
Assuming, without deciding, that DILHR has authority to apply WEPA considerations to code compliance reviews,14 the question is: Has DILHR complied with WEPA in applying its provisions only to its code promulgation functions. DILHR has in effect focused its environmental review on the program or policy level rather than the specific project level. This mode of analysis provides for review, on a broad scale, of agency decisions which individually might be overlooked as environmentally insignificant.15 It also assures that environmental considerations are taken into account before significant resources are expended on a project.
We conclude WEPA does not compel DILHR, which has complied with WEPA in the rulemaking process, to also apply WEPA review to code compliance decisions. Building codes are contained in Chs. INd. 50-64 and H 62-63, Wis. Adm. Code. They contain detailed and comprehensive specifications which must be adhered to before a permit may be issued.. Sec. INd. 50.14 provides for an interim permit to start construction, which may be issued by the department upon submission, but prior to approval, of the plans. While someone who starts construction based upon the interim permit runs the risk that the department may not approve the plans, this risk is minimized by the specificity of the codes, which enable the builder who has diligently incorporated the code provisions into his plans to start work, confident that the plans will be approved.
[651]*651DILHR has estimated that it makes around 12,000-code compliance decisions a year. Respondents did not take issue with this assessment. Review on such a scale is possible because of the detail of the codes. The straight forward and nondiscretionary process by which plans are reviewed for code compliance was commented on by this court in Dunn v. State, 125 Wis. 181, 190-191, 102 N.W. 935 (1905) :
“It is clear from the uncontradicted facts in evidence that the application by the Pabst Brewing Company for a permit to erect this bottling house involved no exercise of any discretion by the accused as building inspector. He informed Mr. Pabst, and insisted upon the trial, that he could not grant the permit applied for, because the plans and specifications obviously violated the building regulations of the city, in that the floor areas within the specified walls were largely in excess of what was permitted and allowed by such regulations; nor does the plaintiff in error dispute or claim but that such was the fact, and that no permit could properly be granted to build the structure pursuant to the plans and specifications submitted. Under these facts and circumstances it is apparent that no question of discretion arose in passing upon the application for a permit to erect this building, . . .”
Other jurisdictions have held that a person who is refused a building or plumbing permit is entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling the issuance of the permit if he shows that the project complied with applicable codes.16 This reflects the role of codes as detailed norms which a builder must incorporate into a project rather than as nebulous indicators of social policy to guide a [652]*652quasi-adjudicative decision maker in determining the worth of a building project.
Incorporation of social policy values by DILHR, such as those reflected in WEPA, is here done by code promulgation rather than code compliance review. This policy is reflected by Sections INd. 50.21-22, Wis. Adm. Code (1980),17 wherein DILHR has delegated code compliance review to certain municipalities. WEPA by its terms applies only to decisions by state agencies. Local deci[653]*653sions are outside of its scope. If WEPA were interpreted to apply to the code compliance review process, applicants for building permits in the municipalities to whom DILHR delegated code review, would not be subjected to its provisions.18 This would defeat the statewide uniformity goal underlying the state building code,19 and envisioned in the Environmental Policy Act. In contrast to code compliance review, all code promulgation is done at the statewide level and consideration of WEPA at this level would not undermine uniformity.
DILHR’s application of WEPA to code promulgation and not to code compliance review is consistent with prior interpretations of WEPA. In Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, supra, we held that WEPA did not require one specific mode of compliance and that program wide, or generic, impact statements were not merely acceptable, but may be preferable in certain situations.
“[W]e are not insensitive to the possibility that the environmental issues may in fact be complex and that a comprehensive consideration of these issues might consume considerable time. We have indicated that the [654]*654obligations imposed by sec. 1.11, Stats., are not inherently discretionary or flexible. However, we think an agency possesses a reasonable amount of discretion as to the precise mode by which compliance is effected. We think such discretion includes the Commission’s developing a generic or ‘programmatic’ EIS for rate proceedings. Indeed, the case-by-case or project-by-project approach to the threshold question of whether an EIS is required may in certain areas be too limited.” Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, supra, 79 Wis. 2d at 439.
Agency discretion in its mode of WEPA compliance was emphasized in Holtz & Krause, Inc. v. DNR, 85 Wis. 2d 198, 215, 270 N.W.2d 409 (1978), in which this court found no WEPA violation where DNR conducted an inquiry which was the “functional equivalent” of an EIS.
We hold that DILHR in applying WEPA to its code promulgation function and not to individual code compliance review conforms to the requirements of the Environmental Policy Act. We conclude that DILHR was not in violation of that act in approving the sewage holding tank at issue here.
By the Court. — Order reversed and cause remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint.
Abrahamson, J., took no part.