Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) planned to conduct geotechnical work, such as soil and groundwater testing, in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta as part of preparations for the Delta tunnel project, a major water conveyance initiative. Several municipal, tribal, and public interest groups objected, arguing that DWR could not begin this geotechnical work until it certified that the tunnel project was consistent with the Delta Plan, as required by the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009. The plaintiffs asserted that the geotechnical work was an integral part of the overall project and that separating it constituted impermissible “piecemealing” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).The Superior Court of Sacramento County agreed with the plaintiffs, issuing preliminary injunctions that barred DWR from conducting geotechnical work before submitting a certification of consistency. The court found that the geotechnical work was part of the covered action under the Delta Reform Act and that DWR’s project description in its Environmental Impact Report (EIR) included this work. The court also determined that the plaintiffs had a strong likelihood of success on the merits and would suffer procedural harm if the injunction was not granted.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reversed the trial court’s orders. The appellate court held that the Delta Reform Act does not require DWR to submit a certification of consistency before engaging in geotechnical work that precedes construction. The court reasoned that the purposes of CEQA and the Delta Reform Act differ, and the Act does not incorporate CEQA’s whole-of-the-action requirement or prohibition against piecemealing. The court directed the trial court to vacate the preliminary injunctions and reconsider the motions in light of this interpretation. View "Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist. v. Dept. of Water Resources" on Justia Law

A mining company sought to develop an open pit gold mine in the Kuskokwim River watershed, on lands owned by Alaska Native Corporations. To operate the mine, the company needed state permits for a natural gas pipeline right-of-way across state lands and for water appropriations to dewater the mining pit and support operations. Local tribes objected, arguing that the mine and its associated infrastructure would have significant impacts on the watershed, which is culturally and economically important to them. The Department of Natural Resources approved the pipeline right-of-way and water use permits after considering the impacts of the permitted activities themselves, but not the cumulative impacts of the entire mining project.The tribes appealed the Department’s decisions to the Commissioner, arguing that both the Water Use Act and the Alaska Constitution required consideration of the cumulative impacts of the whole mining project. The Commissioner denied the appeals, finding that the Department was only required to consider the effects of the permitted activities themselves. The tribes then appealed to the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Anchorage. The superior court affirmed the Department’s decisions, ruling that the agency was not required to conduct a cumulative impacts analysis of the entire mine project under either statute or the constitution.On further appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed whether the Department was required to consider the cumulative impacts of the entire mining project when granting the pipeline right-of-way and water use permits. The court held that neither the Water Use Act nor the Right-of-Way Leasing Act required consideration of downstream effects of mining activity enabled by the permits. The court also held that Article VIII of the Alaska Constitution did not require the Department to consider the costs and benefits of developing private resources on private lands when deciding whether to grant permits for the use of state resources. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s judgments. View "Orutsararmiut Native Council v. Boyle" on Justia Law

A train operated by Norfolk Southern carrying hazardous materials derailed near East Palestine, Ohio, in February 2023. The cleanup released toxic chemicals into the surrounding area, prompting affected residents and businesses to file suit against the railroad and other parties in federal court. These cases were consolidated into a master class action, and after extensive discovery and mediation, Norfolk Southern agreed to a $600 million settlement for the class. The district court for the Northern District of Ohio approved the settlement in September 2024. Five class members objected and appealed, but the district court required them to post an $850,000 appeal bond by January 30, 2025, to cover administrative and taxable costs. The objectors did not pay the bond or offer a lesser amount.After the bond order, the objectors filed a motion in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to eliminate or reduce the bond, but did not seek a stay. The Sixth Circuit motions panel explained that, absent a separate notice of appeal, it could only address the bond on a motion to stay, which the objectors expressly disclaimed. The objectors then moved in the district court to extend the time to appeal the bond order, but did so one day after the deadline set by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(A). The district court denied the motion as untimely, finding it lacked jurisdiction to grant an extension.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the deadlines for appealing and requesting extensions are jurisdictional and cannot be equitably extended. The court dismissed the objectors’ appeal of the motion to extend for lack of jurisdiction and granted the plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the objectors’ appeals of the settlement for failure to pay the required bond. View "In re E. Palestine Train Derailment" on Justia Law

Several individuals whose livelihoods depended on interacting with spinner dolphins challenged a federal regulation that restricted human proximity to these dolphins. The regulation, known as the Approach Rule, was issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The plaintiffs included a psychotherapist who used dolphin encounters in therapy, a boat captain who operated dolphin swim tours, and a dolphin guide and photographer. They argued that the regulation was unconstitutional because it was signed and promulgated by an official who, they claimed, was not properly appointed under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland reviewed the case after the plaintiffs filed suit seeking to invalidate the regulation and enjoin its enforcement. During the litigation, Dr. Richard Spinrad, the Senate-confirmed NOAA Administrator and a principal officer, ratified the regulation, affirming that he independently evaluated and approved it. The district court found that this ratification cured any potential Appointments Clause defect and granted summary judgment in favor of the government. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that, under established principles of agency law, a principal officer’s ratification of a regulation can cure any constitutional defect arising from its initial promulgation by a non-principal officer. The court found that Dr. Spinrad’s ratification was valid and not impermissibly retroactive, as it did not impose new liabilities for past conduct but merely confirmed the regulation’s validity from the time of its original publication. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the suit. View "Wille v. Lutnik" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on groundwater management in the Tulare Lake groundwater subbasin, a high-priority basin under California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (the Act). Local groundwater agencies developed and submitted a sustainability plan for the subbasin, but the Department of Water Resources twice found the plan inadequate. Following these determinations, the State Water Resources Control Board designated the Tulare subbasin as probationary, triggering state intervention and new monitoring, reporting, and fee requirements. In response, Kings County Farm Bureau and other parties filed a writ of mandate and complaint, challenging the State Board’s authority and actions, including the probationary designation and associated fees.The Superior Court of Kings County reviewed the Farm Bureau’s claims. It granted a preliminary injunction halting the State Board’s implementation of the probationary designation and denied in part the State Board’s demurrer to the complaint. Specifically, the trial court dismissed the equal protection claim with leave to amend but allowed the Farm Bureau to proceed on claims alleging improper underground regulations, unconstitutional fees, and general declaratory relief. The State Board then sought appellate review of the trial court’s order overruling its demurrer.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the trial court’s decision de novo. It held that the Act exempts the State Board’s actions under the relevant statutory sections from the Administrative Procedures Act, precluding claims based on alleged underground regulations. The court further found that challenges to the extraction fees as unlawful taxes are barred by the “pay first” rule, requiring payment before judicial review. Finally, the court determined that declaratory relief is unavailable where the Legislature has provided a writ of mandate as the exclusive remedy. The appellate court issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order overruling the demurrer and to grant the demurrer without leave to amend as to the sixth, seventh, and ninth causes of action. View "State Water Resources Control Bd. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

This case concerns the State Water Resources Control Board’s designation of the Tulare Lake groundwater subbasin as a probationary basin under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (the Act). The Act requires local groundwater agencies to develop and implement sustainability plans for high-priority basins, subject to state review. In the Tulare subbasin, five local agencies collaborated on a single plan, which the Department of Water Resources twice found inadequate. Following these findings, the State Board designated the basin as probationary, triggering additional monitoring, reporting, and fee requirements for groundwater extractors. The Kings County Farm Bureau and other plaintiffs challenged the State Board’s actions, alleging the Board exceeded its authority, failed to properly consider requests for exclusion from probationary status, and did not provide adequate notice.The Superior Court of Kings County reviewed the Farm Bureau’s petition and complaint, which included multiple causes of action. The trial court granted a preliminary injunction barring the State Board from enforcing requirements stemming from the probationary designation and imposed only a nominal bond. The court found the Farm Bureau likely to succeed on several claims, including improper denial of the “good actor” exclusion, exceeding statutory authority, and failure to provide required notice. The State Board appealed the injunction and related orders.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that the trial court abused its discretion by issuing an overly broad injunction affecting the entire Tulare subbasin, when only certain claims regarding specific groundwater agencies were likely to succeed. The appellate court found the trial court erred in its analysis of some claims and that the injunction was not properly tailored to the harm at issue. The order granting the preliminary injunction was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. The petition for writ of supersedeas was denied as moot, and costs were awarded to the State Board. View "Kings County Farm Bureau v. State Water Resources Control Bd." on Justia Law

A natural gas pipeline company replaced three aging compressor units along its pipeline, which transports gas from Canada to the Pacific Northwest. The replacements used newer, higher-capacity compressors, but the company initially installed controls to limit their output to match the old units. After completing the replacements, the company sought federal approval to expand pipeline capacity by removing those restrictions and making other upgrades, securing long-term contracts for the added capacity with new customers. The company excluded the cost of the earlier compressor replacements from the expansion’s cost estimate, assuming those costs would remain allocated to existing customers.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved the compressor replacements under its automatic authorization regulation, finding no further environmental review was needed. Later, FERC issued a certificate for the expansion project under the Natural Gas Act, after preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). FERC declined to treat the compressor replacements as part of the expansion for environmental or rate-setting purposes and denied the company’s request for a “predetermination” that expansion costs could be rolled into existing rates in future proceedings. Multiple parties, including two states and environmental groups, sought rehearing and then judicial review, challenging FERC’s decisions on environmental review, rate allocation, and public need.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the consolidated petitions. The court held that the pipeline company had standing and its claims were ripe. On the merits, the court found FERC’s decisions were not arbitrary or capricious. FERC reasonably excluded the compressor replacements from the expansion’s environmental and rate analysis, applied its established policies for rate-setting and public need, and provided sufficient environmental review under NEPA. The court denied all petitions for review. View "Gas Transmission Northwest v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission" on Justia Law

In April 2006, an oil tanker owned or operated by Ernst Jacob GmbH & Co. KG and insured by Shipowners Insurance & Guaranty Company, Ltd. ran aground off the coast of Puerto Rico. Although no oil was spilled, the response efforts to free the vessel and prevent a potential spill caused significant damage to coral reefs. The United States, acting through NOAA and in coordination with Puerto Rico’s Department of Natural and Environmental Resources, undertook restoration and assessment of the damaged natural resources. After unsuccessful attempts to secure payment from the responsible parties and their insurers, NOAA sought compensation from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which paid out restoration and assessment costs. Subsequently, the United States filed suit against the vessel’s owner and insurer to recover both compensated and uncompensated damages for injury to natural resources under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA).The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico bifurcated the case into liability and damages phases. Without allowing discovery, the District Court granted partial summary judgment to the United States on liability, finding that the Coast Guard’s Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) had determined the grounding posed a “substantial threat of a discharge of oil,” and that this determination was not arbitrary or capricious. The court applied a deferential standard of review to the FOSC’s decision and did not address whether the damaged natural resources were “managed or controlled” by the United States, as required by OPA.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3) due to the presence of admiralty claims. The court vacated and reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that liability under OPA requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence, not merely deference to the FOSC’s determination, and remanded for further proceedings, including resolution of whether the United States “manages or controls” the natural resources at issue. View "US v. Ernst Jacob GmbH & Co. KG" on Justia Law

In 1991, the predecessor to the plaintiffs conveyed land to the United States in a land exchange but retained certain water rights that could only be accessed through the conveyed property, now managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The conveyance documents did not mention these water rights or provide any right of access. Over the years, the plaintiffs and their predecessors sought permits from the Forest Service to access and develop the water rights, but the agency repeatedly expressed concerns about environmental impacts and indicated it had the authority to deny access. In 2010, the Forest Service formally opposed the plaintiffs’ efforts to maintain the water rights in state court, asserting it would not grant the necessary land use authorization.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims under the Quiet Title Act (QTA) and the Declaratory Judgment Act (DJA). The court found the QTA claim time-barred by the statute’s twelve-year limitations period, reasoning that the plaintiffs or their predecessors were on notice of the government’s adverse claim well before the suit was filed in 2022. The court also dismissed the DJA claim, holding it was essentially a quiet title claim subject to the same limitations period.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Tenth Circuit held that the QTA claim was untimely because, by 2006 at the latest, the Forest Service had asserted exclusive control sufficient to put the plaintiffs on notice of its adverse claim, causing the limitations period to expire before the suit was filed. The court also held that it lacked jurisdiction over two of the plaintiffs’ requests for declaratory relief and that the third, alleging a taking, was not ripe because the plaintiffs had not first sought compensation under the Tucker Act. View "Purgatory Recreation I v. United States" on Justia Law

The case concerns the City of San Diego’s approval of a 2022 ballot measure to remove the longstanding 30-foot building height limit in the Midway-Pacific Highway Community Planning area. This height restriction, established by a 1972 voter initiative, was intended to preserve coastal views, community character, and mitigate issues such as congestion and pollution. In 2018, the City updated the community plan and prepared a program environmental impact report (PEIR) under the assumption that the height limit remained in effect. In 2020, the City attempted to remove the height limit via a ballot measure, but the measure was invalidated for failing to adequately consider environmental impacts as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).Following the invalidation, the City prepared a supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR) and approved a second ballot measure in 2022. Save Our Access, a nonprofit, challenged this new measure, arguing that the City’s environmental review remained inadequate. The Superior Court of San Diego County denied Save Our Access’s petition for writ of mandate, finding that the City’s SEIR sufficiently addressed the environmental impacts by focusing on visual effects and neighborhood character, and by relying on the 2018 PEIR for other impact categories.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, found that the City’s SEIR was inadequate under CEQA. The court held that the City failed to meaningfully analyze the environmental impacts of allowing buildings above 30 feet, such as effects on noise, air quality, biological resources, and geological conditions. The court concluded that relying on the prior PEIR and deferring analysis to future site-specific projects did not satisfy CEQA’s requirements. The judgment was reversed and remanded, with instructions to grant Save Our Access’s petition and direct the City to comply with CEQA. View "Save Our Access v. City of San Diego" on Justia Law