Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

A federal land exchange was mandated by the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act, requiring the United States Forest Service to transfer approximately 2,500 acres of National Forest land, including Oak Flat—a site of religious significance to the Apache—to Resolution Copper Mining, LLC, in exchange for over 5,000 acres of private land. The legislation included requirements for tribal consultation, land appraisal, and the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). Following the issuance of a revised Final EIS in 2025, several environmental and tribal groups, as well as individual Apache plaintiffs, challenged the exchange. Their claims spanned the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and the Free Exercise Clause, alleging procedural and substantive deficiencies.Previously, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona denied the plaintiffs’ motions for a preliminary injunction, finding that they had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on any claims relating to the appraisal process, NEPA, consultation, or the National Forest Management Act. A separate group of Apache plaintiffs brought similar claims, including religious liberty challenges, which were also denied—particularly in light of circuit precedent established in Apache Stronghold v. United States. All plaintiff groups appealed and sought further injunctive relief pending appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial for abuse of discretion and affirmed. The court held that plaintiffs had standing and their claims were justiciable, but that none of their arguments were likely to succeed on the merits or raised serious questions. The court specifically found the appraisals and environmental review sufficient, the agency’s tribal consultation adequate, and the religious liberty claims foreclosed by circuit precedent. The denial of a preliminary injunction was affirmed, and all related motions for injunctive relief were denied as moot. View "ARIZONA MINING REFORM COALITION V. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE" on Justia Law

Cockrell Investment Partners, L.P., owns a pecan orchard in Pecos County, Texas, and relies on several wells to irrigate its trees using water from the Edwards–Trinity Aquifer. Its neighbor, Fort Stockton Holdings, L.P. (FSH), historically used water from the same aquifer for agricultural purposes and later started selling it to nearby cities. FSH sought to significantly increase its permitted water usage, leading Cockrell to object due to concerns about the aquifer’s finite supply. FSH pursued several permit applications and amendments, some of which involved Republic Water Company of Texas, LLC, and ultimately resulted in settlement agreements that altered FSH’s permit terms. Cockrell attempted to participate as a party in administrative proceedings regarding these permit applications but was denied party status by the Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation District.The district court in one instance granted the District’s plea to the jurisdiction, and in another instance granted summary judgment in favor of the District after denying its plea to the jurisdiction. Cockrell appealed both decisions to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth District of Texas. The appellate court affirmed the lower court rulings, determining that Cockrell had not exhausted its administrative remedies because it filed suit before waiting the required 90 days after submitting reconsideration requests, as prescribed by Section 36.412 of the Texas Water Code.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed both consolidated cases. It held that the 90-day exhaustion requirement applies only to permit applicants or parties to the administrative proceeding, which Cockrell was not, since it was denied party status. The Court concluded that Cockrell met all statutory requirements for judicial review under Section 36.251 of the Water Code and properly exhausted its administrative remedies according to local Rule 4.9, which required only a 45-day waiting period. The Court reversed the judgments of the court of appeals and remanded the cases for further consideration. View "COCKRELL INVESTMENT PARTNERS, L.P. v. MIDDLE PECOS GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT" on Justia Law

The case concerns a challenge brought by two renewable fuel industry groups to a 2020 rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program. The challenged rule established the percentage of renewable fuel that refiners and importers must include in their annual fuel output. The groups objected to EPA’s refusal to adjust the 2020 standard to account for renewable fuel shortfalls resulting from past retroactive small refinery exemptions. While the case was pending, EPA issued a new rule in 2022 that recalculated the 2020 standards and reaffirmed its approach of not making up for past exemptions. In addition, Congress altered the statutory framework, granting EPA broader discretion in setting future renewable fuel volumes.Following the issuance of the 2022 rule, most petitioners dismissed their challenges, and the two remaining groups shifted their focus, no longer seeking to set aside the 2020 rule but instead seeking a ruling that would require EPA to change its policy in future rulemakings. They did not challenge the 2022 rule, nor did they request its invalidation.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the case was moot. The court reasoned that the 2022 rule superseded the 2020 rule, eliminating any live controversy over that agency action. The court further explained that the legal landscape had changed due to statutory amendments, so the original dispute no longer presented the same question. Because petitioners were not seeking to overturn any concrete, current agency action, their challenge amounted to a request for an impermissible advisory opinion. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petitions as moot. View "Clean Fuels Alliance America v. EPA" on Justia Law

The plaintiff owned a vacant parcel in Westerly, Rhode Island, and sought to construct a single-family home. To do so, he needed approval from the Department of Environmental Management (DEM) for an onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS). He applied for a variance from DEM’s regulations, asserting that his proposed system satisfied the general standard for granting variances. However, DEM denied the variance because the property’s water table was at zero inches from the original ground surface, failing to meet a specific regulatory requirement.After DEM’s denial, the plaintiff did not appeal to DEM’s Administrative Adjudication Division (AAD), arguing that such an appeal would be futile since the AAD purportedly lacked discretion to overturn the denial and could not adjudicate constitutional claims. Instead, he filed suit in the Superior Court, seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, asserting both as-applied and facial challenges to the OWTS regulations under the Takings, Due Process, and Equal Protection Clauses of the state and federal constitutions. The state moved to dismiss, arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies and the lack of constitutional violations. The Superior Court granted the state’s motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies and the futility exception did not apply.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. The Court held that the plaintiff was required to exhaust administrative remedies for his as-applied challenges and that the futility exception did not apply because the AAD had independent authority to grant variances. For the facial constitutional challenge, the Court determined that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed and the matter remanded. View "DiBiccari v. State of Rhode Island" on Justia Law

This case concerns the approval of Ohio’s Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for phosphorus in the Maumee River watershed, a key regulatory effort to combat harmful algal blooms in Lake Erie. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) approved the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency’s (Ohio EPA) TMDL for this region. Plaintiffs, including Lucas County, the City of Toledo, and the Environmental Law & Policy Center, challenged this approval under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging that it was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.During the litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, several parties sought to intervene. The court allowed environmental groups and the Ohio EPA to intervene but denied intervention to two sets of proposed defendant-intervenors: various agricultural associations (“Associations”) and the Maumee Coalition II Association (“Coalition”). The district court found that neither the Associations nor the Coalition satisfied the criteria for intervention of right because it presumed the U.S. EPA would adequately represent their interests and that neither group overcame this presumption. The court also denied permissive intervention, concluding that their participation would unnecessarily complicate and delay the proceedings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denials. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of intervention for the Coalition, finding it had not shown its interests were inadequately represented by existing parties. However, the appellate court reversed the denial for the Associations, holding that they intended to make specific legal arguments distinct from U.S. EPA’s, thereby overcoming the presumption of adequate representation. The court remanded with instructions to allow the Associations to intervene as of right, while affirming the denial of both intervention of right and permissive intervention to the Coalition. View "Lucas Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs v. Environmental Protection Agency" on Justia Law

The appellants, including trustees of several trusts and Hall Atlas, LLC, held coal mining rights to the Hall Ranch in Wyoming, containing significant coal reserves. In 1985, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) determined that a portion of the Hall Ranch was located on an alluvial valley floor (AVF), which limited mining under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). For decades, neither the appellants nor Exxon Coal Resources, the lessee at the time, pursued a coal exchange. In 2010, Hall Atlas applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a coal exchange. BLM initially rejected WDEQ’s 1985 determination but changed position in 2014, and Hall Atlas submitted a mine plan. In 2016, BLM determined the Hall Ranch AVF coal had a value of $0. In 2017, BLM reiterated its $0 valuation and rejected the appellants’ proposed exchange tract, instead proposing alternatives based on the same valuation.The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed the appellants’ takings claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the claim was time-barred because it was filed more than six years after the claim accrued. The appellants argued that their claim did not accrue until BLM’s 2017 letter, but the court found that the relevant accrual date was in 2016, when BLM finalized its $0 valuation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision. The Federal Circuit held that any takings claim accrued no later than 2016, making the 2023 filing untimely under the Tucker Act’s six-year statute of limitations. The court rejected arguments for equitable tolling and the application of the continuing claim or stabilization doctrines, and concluded the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was correct. The judgment was affirmed and costs were awarded to the appellee. View "WYOMING TRUST CO. v. US " on Justia Law

A group of landowners and mutual water companies in Ventura County, California, claimed rights to groundwater from the Las Posas Valley Groundwater Basin, which supplies water for agricultural, commercial, and domestic purposes. The groundwater basin had been subject to restrictions and management by the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (Fox Canyon), especially in light of overdraft conditions and the requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Disputes arose over groundwater pumping allocations, historical use, and the proper method for determining and allocating water rights among various landowners, mutual water companies, and public agencies.The case was brought as a comprehensive groundwater adjudication in the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County, proceeding in three phases. First, the court established the initial “Total Safe Yield” of the basin and allocated a portion to certain public water suppliers. In the second phase, the court, after a trial and a settlement agreed to by a large majority of parties, allocated the remaining rights among landowners, prioritizing overlying landowners and finding no surplus for appropriators. The third phase established a “physical solution” for basin management, appointing Fox Canyon as watermaster and integrating the settlement into a final judgment. Several parties, including Mahan Ranch and two mutual water companies, objected to aspects of the allocations and the final judgment, raising issues about the treatment of mutual water companies, the handling of dormant rights, and the legality of the court's actions.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case. It held that the trial court properly allocated water rights based on overlying landowners’ rights, not directly to mutual water companies, and that there was no surplus for appropriators. The court found the physical solution and allocations consistent with California law, the Constitution, and SGMA, and that non-stipulating parties were treated equitably. The judgment was affirmed. View "Las Posas Valley Water v. Ventura County Waterworks" on Justia Law

For many years, the federal government and private entities engaged in activities at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in Ventura County, resulting in significant environmental contamination. The Boeing Company, which owns much of the site, planned to demolish several buildings within a specific area known as Area IV. California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is authorized to regulate chemical contamination cleanup at the site, and its actions are subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In 2013, after Boeing notified DTSC of its demolition intent, the plaintiffs raised concerns about environmental impacts and filed a writ petition alleging DTSC failed to comply with CEQA.The Superior Court of Sacramento County denied the plaintiffs’ petition, finding that demolition activities were private actions not subject to CEQA’s discretionary approval requirements, and thus not subject to CEQA review. The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed this decision, and the California Supreme Court declined review. During subsequent events, DTSC voluntarily included an environmental analysis of the building demolition in its final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), released after the litigation had concluded.The plaintiffs then sought attorney fees under California’s private attorney general statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5), arguing that their litigation was the catalyst for DTSC’s changed conduct. The superior court denied the fee request, finding the plaintiffs were not a “successful party” under the catalyst theory because their lawsuit had been resolved on the merits against them, and thus there was no “threat of victory” that motivated DTSC’s actions.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed the denial. The court held that attorney fees under the catalyst theory are not warranted where the moving party lost on the merits, and there was no causal connection between the litigation and the agency’s subsequent voluntary actions. DTSC was awarded its costs on appeal. View "Physicians for Social Responsibility - Los Angeles v. Dept. of Toxic Substances Control" on Justia Law

An environmental remediation company and an oil corporation entered into a Master Services Contract in 2008, which included a Texas choice-of-law and venue provision and an indemnification clause requiring the remediation company to defend and indemnify the oil corporation for claims arising from violations of applicable laws. In 2012, it was discovered that the remediation company’s then-president, along with subcontractors, had engaged in fraudulent overbilling for work performed for the oil corporation. Upon discovery, ownership of the remediation company changed hands, and litigation ensued in Louisiana state court. The remediation company’s new owner alleged that the oil corporation’s employee was complicit in the fraud, making the corporation vicariously liable.The oil corporation then filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking a declaratory judgment that the remediation company had a duty to defend and indemnify it in the Louisiana litigation, and also sought attorney’s fees as damages for breach of contract. The district court granted summary judgment for the oil corporation, holding that Texas law applied, the remediation company owed both a duty to defend and to indemnify, and awarding attorney’s fees for both the Texas and Louisiana lawsuits.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings de novo regarding summary judgment and attorney’s fees. The appellate court held that Texas law governed under the contract’s choice-of-law clause since Louisiana did not have a more significant relationship or materially greater interest, and applying Texas law did not contravene Louisiana public policy. The indemnity provision was not void as against public policy or for illegality. The court affirmed the duty to defend and to indemnify, but vacated the judgment to the extent it would require indemnification for punitive and exemplary damages, and remanded for modification. It also vacated attorney’s fees awarded for the underlying Louisiana litigation, affirming only those fees related to the declaratory judgment action. View "Anadarko v. Alternative Environmental Solutions" on Justia Law

A commercial air tour operator, who had previously conducted flights over Bandelier National Monument under interim authority, challenged a final order issued by the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Park Service. This order established an Air Tour Management Plan (ATMP) for Bandelier National Monument, prohibiting all commercial air tours over the site. The agencies’ process included public comment, environmental assessment, and extensive consultation with Native American tribes, who strongly objected to air tours due to cultural and privacy concerns. The operator argued that his flights were minimally intrusive, carefully routed, and brief, and that banning them would negatively impact safety and his business.The agencies initially considered various alternatives, including allowing limited air tours or maintaining previous operations, but ultimately concluded that any commercial air tour flights would create unacceptable impacts to Bandelier’s natural and cultural resources and visitor experience. The agencies’ environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) found no significant impacts for NEPA purposes, but their record of decision emphasized significant adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources under the National Parks Air Tour Management Act (NPATMA).Upon petition for review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act’s “arbitrary and capricious” standard and de novo for statutory interpretation, as required by recent Supreme Court precedent. The court held that NPATMA and NEPA use different significance standards, and that the agency’s path to finding significant adverse impacts under NPATMA was reasonably discernible in the record. The court also rejected the petitioner’s additional statutory and constitutional challenges, finding them either unexhausted or inadequately briefed. The Tenth Circuit denied the petition for review. View "Adams v. FAA" on Justia Law