Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

The case centers on the operations of a chemical manufacturing facility in Parkersburg, West Virginia, owned by The Chemours Company. Chemours used hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA), a member of the PFAS class of chemicals, as a processing aid in polymer production. The company discharged wastewater containing HFPO-DA into the Ohio River under a Clean Water Act (CWA) permit that established specific effluent limits. However, from 2022 onward, Chemours exceeded these limits on multiple occasions. Local water testing showed that HFPO-DA concentrations sometimes surpassed newer, not-yet-enforceable federal health standards but did not exceed West Virginia’s own goals. Chemours entered into an administrative consent order with the EPA to address permit compliance.The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia reviewed a citizen suit brought by West Virginia Rivers Coalition, Inc., seeking a preliminary injunction against Chemours for ongoing permit violations. The district court found that the Coalition had Article III associational standing through a member who avoided boating in the Ohio River due to Chemours’ discharges. The court granted the preliminary injunction, enjoining Chemours from exceeding permit limits and requiring remedial measures. Chemours appealed, challenging both the standing determination and the irreparable harm finding.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit examined both issues. The court agreed that the Coalition had established a substantial likelihood of standing at this stage. However, it found that the district court committed legal errors in its irreparable harm analysis, including incorrectly presuming harm from permit violations and conflating harm to the public with harm to the plaintiff. The Fourth Circuit also found clear error in the factual findings regarding irreparable harm. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction granted by the district court. View "West Virginia Rivers Coalition, Inc. v. The Chemours Company FC, LLC" on Justia Law

A group of Idaho cities, collectively known as the Coalition of Cities, hold junior ground water rights in the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer (ESPA). These cities became involved in ongoing water rights litigation after the Surface Water Coalition (SWC), representing senior surface water right holders, initiated a delivery call in 2005. The SWC argued that junior ground water pumping reduced water availability for senior surface water users due to the hydrologic connection between the aquifer and the Snake River. This dispute led to a series of orders by the Director of the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) that established and modified the methodology for determining whether pumping by junior users caused material injury to senior rights.Following the issuance of the Fifth Amended Final Order (Fifth Methodology Order) and a subsequent Post-Hearing Order, the Director issued a Sixth Methodology Order, which superseded all previous orders. The Cities filed a petition for judicial review in the Snake River Basin Adjudication (SRBA) district court, challenging only the Post-Hearing Order (which addressed the Fifth Methodology Order) and not the operative Sixth Methodology Order. The district court affirmed the Director’s Post-Hearing Order, rejecting the Cities’ challenges to various factual findings and methodological choices.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case. It concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the Cities’ appeal because they failed to timely challenge the Sixth Methodology Order—the operative agency action currently in effect. As a result, the appeal was dismissed. The court awarded costs, but not attorney fees, to the IDWR and SWC, ruling that the statutory basis for attorney fees was inapplicable. The primary holding was that failure to timely appeal the operative final order deprived the court of jurisdiction to grant relief. View "City of Idaho Falls v. Department of Water Resources" on Justia Law

A licensed California fisherman sought public access to fish at the Calaveras Reservoir, which is owned by the City and County of San Francisco and managed by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. The reservoir, a source of drinking water for millions, is governed by a watershed management plan that currently prohibits public access and fishing. After the City determined that, subject to environmental review and regulatory approval, shoreline fishing could potentially occur without compromising water quality, it began planning for a fishing program, which included infrastructure improvements and compliance with environmental laws.Previously, in a related proceeding, the Alameda County Superior Court ordered the City to determine whether fishing could occur without affecting water purity, but it did not require the City to immediately open the reservoir or apply for a permit. The City complied by starting the environmental review and planning process. Dissatisfied with the pace, the fisherman filed a new petition for a writ of mandate, seeking to compel the City to immediately apply for an amended water supply permit and open the reservoir for fishing. The Superior Court denied the petition, finding no ministerial duty requiring the City to proceed immediately and concluding that legal requirements, including environmental review and program planning, must be satisfied first.On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The appellate court held that the plaintiff had not established a clear ministerial duty requiring the City to immediately apply for a permit or open the reservoir for fishing. The court found that the governing statutes and regulations allow for the exercise of discretion and require compliance with environmental and permitting processes before fishing access can be provided. The judgment was affirmed. View "Dummer v. City and County of S.F." on Justia Law

The dispute centers on land in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, owned by a public entity, where oil and gas exploration occurred for decades under a mineral lease originally granted in 1943. The plaintiff acquired several tracts of this land between 1968 and 1987, with prior owners reserving mineral rights. The mineral lease was assigned multiple times before terminating in 2020. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, or their predecessors, caused environmental damage to the property through oil and gas operations predating the plaintiff’s ownership, and sought damages under both tort and contract theories.Defendants filed exceptions of no right of action, arguing that under the “subsequent purchaser rule” articulated in Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., a property owner cannot recover for damage inflicted before their purchase unless assigned the prior owner’s rights. The trial court denied these exceptions. On appeal, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, reversed in part. It dismissed all claims against one defendant (Honeywell) for preacquisition damage, and limited claims against the other (Texas Pacific) to an 87-day period when both the plaintiff and Texas Pacific’s predecessor simultaneously held interests in one tract.The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted review. It extended the subsequent purchaser rule from Eagle Pipe to cases involving mineral leases, holding that a purchaser of property, absent an assignment or subrogation, has no right of action for preacquisition property damage caused by mineral lessees. However, the court recognized an exception for damages occurring during the period when the plaintiff owned the property and the defendant held lease rights. Additionally, the court held that a current surface owner may enforce the prudent operator standard under Mineral Code article 122 for end-of-lease obligations that become due upon termination, but not for historic operational damage. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "VINTON HARBOR & TERMINAL DISTRICT VS. REUNION ENERGY COMPANY" on Justia Law

Oak Run Solar Project, L.L.C. sought approval from the Ohio Power Siting Board to construct a solar-powered electric generation facility in Madison County, Ohio. The proposed facility would occupy approximately 4,400 acres and include an 800 MW solar array, a 300 MW battery energy storage system, and two transmission lines. Oak Run entered agreements with landowners for the project site and committed to an agrivoltaics program, maintaining agricultural productivity alongside solar generation. Local governments and other parties intervened, raising concerns about environmental, visual, water, plant, wildlife, and safety impacts. The board’s staff issued a report, and a hearing was held, resulting in project approval subject to conditions for landscape screening and safety.Prior to reaching the Supreme Court of Ohio, the Ohio Power Siting Board considered Oak Run’s application and allowed intervenors, including several township boards and the county board of commissioners, to participate. After a hearing and review, the board granted Oak Run’s certificate for construction, finding the statutory requirements satisfied and imposing conditions related to visual screening and emergency response. The local governments filed an application for rehearing, which was denied. They then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, arguing the board failed to obtain necessary information, especially regarding visual impacts and environmental effects.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case, applying a standard of review for “unlawful or unreasonable” board orders. The court held that Oak Run failed to provide required photographic simulations or sketches of substations, as mandated by administrative rules, thereby depriving the board of necessary information to assess visual impacts. The court affirmed the board’s orders in part, reversed in part regarding the visual-impact information, and remanded the matter to the board for further consideration of the project’s visual effects. View "In re Application of Oak Run Solar Project, L.L.C." on Justia Law

A local environmental organization brought a citizen suit against an electric utility company, alleging that the company’s plan to close a large coal ash storage impoundment at one of its plants violated federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. The organization asserted that the plan would leave significant amounts of coal ash in contact with groundwater, causing toxins to leach into the Mobile River and surrounding waterways, which harmed the recreational and aesthetic interests of its members. The plant’s closure plan, already underway, was a cap-in-place strategy rather than removal, and the organization claimed this approach did not satisfy the federal performance standards meant to prevent further pollution.The case was first reviewed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. After briefing and a hearing, the district court dismissed the complaint, holding that the organization lacked standing for failing to establish causation and redressability, and that the claims were not ripe for review because the closure plan would not be completed for several years and its final form was uncertain. The court reasoned that the alleged harms predated the closure plan and that a judicial order would not provide immediate relief.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit disagreed with the district court’s findings. The appellate court concluded that the organization adequately pleaded standing by alleging concrete injuries caused by the utility’s ongoing implementation of a closure plan that did not comply with EPA regulations, and that a compliant plan would likely alleviate those harms. The court also found the claims ripe for review, as the legal issues were fit for decision and delaying consideration would further harm the organization’s members. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Mobile Baykeeper, Inc. v. Alabama Power Company" on Justia Law

A private company operating a hotel sought the renewal of a one-year, revocable state land permit for property fronting its hotel. A member of the public, who had long used the area for recreation, objected to the permit's renewal, particularly the practice of presetting hotel lounge chairs, which he argued deterred public use. He requested a formal contested case hearing on the permit renewal, asserting a property interest in the recreational and environmental quality of the public land. The Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) denied his request for such a hearing, instead allowing only written and oral testimony at a public meeting.The objector appealed to the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, which upheld the BLNR's denial, finding that he had been afforded due process through the public meeting process. On further appeal, the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) reversed, holding that the appellant had a constitutionally protected interest in a clean and healthful environment and was entitled to a contested case hearing before the permit could be renewed. Because the permit had expired, the ICA remanded the case to the circuit court to determine what relief, if any, remained available. The ICA granted costs but denied the appellant’s request for attorney fees under the private attorney general (PAG) doctrine, reasoning that the requirements for such fees were unmet since the scope of relief was not yet determined.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i vacated the ICA’s denial of attorney fees. The court held that the PAG doctrine does not require the prevailing party to obtain final relief before becoming eligible for attorney fees. Determining that all three prongs of the PAG test were met, the court remanded the matter for the ICA to determine the reasonableness of the appellant’s attorney fees and whether the hotel company was liable for them. View "Ralston v. Board of Land and Natural Resources." on Justia Law

Decabromodiphenyl Ether (decaBDE) is a flame retardant used in numerous products, including electronics, vehicles, and appliances, and is known for its persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxic effects on human and environmental health. In response to concerns about such chemicals, Congress amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 2016, adding a subsection mandating expedited risk-management rules for certain chemicals, including decaBDE. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated rules in 2021 and amended them in 2024, regulating some uses of decaBDE but declining to regulate exposures arising from recycling, disposal, wastewater, and sewage sludge in several contexts.Following the 2021 rule, several petitioners challenged the EPA’s approach in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The EPA voluntarily sought a remand to reconsider aspects of its rule, which the Ninth Circuit granted. After seeking additional public comment, the EPA issued the 2024 amendments, which still did not address all the petitioners’ concerns, particularly regarding the areas of recycling, disposal, wastewater discharges, and sewage sludge. The petitioners renewed their challenge, arguing that EPA’s failure to regulate these areas violated TSCA’s mandate.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that the EPA’s decisions not to further regulate decaBDE exposures in recyclable articles, disposal, wastewater, and sewage sludge were not supported by substantial evidence as required by TSCA. The court held that EPA could not justify a failure to regulate based on low exposure levels or general policy preferences and found the agency had not adequately addressed evidence in the record. The court granted the petition for review, remanded the rule to the EPA for renewed rulemaking and further proceedings, but left the 2024 rule in place during the remand. View "YUROK TRIBE V. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY" on Justia Law

The case concerns two organizations that advocate for environmental health and public employee interests. They filed suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), alleging that the EPA failed to meet its statutory obligations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to address risks associated with perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a harmful chemical formed during the fluorination of plastic containers. The plaintiffs argued that, by March 2023, the EPA had sufficient information about the dangers of PFOA to trigger a nondiscretionary duty to act under TSCA section 4(f), and, alternatively, a duty under section 7(a)(2) to pursue enforcement actions against a specific company involved in the fluorination process.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia reviewed the suit. It found that the EPA had fulfilled any nondiscretionary duty under section 4(f) by publishing a request for public comment, making the primary claim moot. Regarding section 7(a)(2), the court doubted that it imposed a nondiscretionary duty on the EPA but, even if it did, found that the duty had not been triggered under the circumstances. The District Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that the claims did not fit within the TSCA’s citizen-suit provisions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the dismissal, but on different grounds. The appellate court held that the organizations failed to plausibly allege associational standing. The court explained that neither organization was a traditional membership organization nor had they shown they were the functional equivalent of one. The court found insufficient evidence that the organizations’ employees, supporters, or board members constituted a constituency whose interests the organizations were entitled to represent in court. Accordingly, the appellate court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. View "Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. Zeldin" on Justia Law

An environmental organization sought judicial review of the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s decisions to renew and not reevaluate registrations for several rodenticides, contending the Department violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and its own regulations. The organization argued these pesticides posed significant risks to wildlife. Trade associations representing pesticide manufacturers and distributors intervened in the case, stating both representational and direct economic interests in defending the Department’s actions, as their members produced and sold the challenged products.The Superior Court of Alameda County initially ruled in favor of the Department, denying the environmental group’s petition. The organization appealed, and the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reversed and remanded, instructing the Department to reconsider its decision regarding reevaluation of diphacinone, a rodenticide, focusing on its unique environmental impacts. Following remand, the Department agreed to reevaluate diphacinone, and the Legislature enacted a moratorium on its use during the reevaluation process. The environmental organization then sought attorney fees under the private attorney general statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5).The Superior Court found the organization was a successful party, having achieved its litigation objectives and conferred a significant public benefit. The court awarded attorney fees and costs of about $857,000, holding the Department, real parties in interest, and intervening trade associations jointly and severally liable. The trade associations appealed, arguing they were not “opposing parties” under the statute and lacked the requisite direct interest. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that intervenors with a direct pecuniary interest and active participation in the litigation qualify as “opposing parties” for purposes of fee liability under section 1021.5, even if they were not responsible for enacting or enforcing the challenged government actions. View "Raptors Are the Solution v. Croplife America" on Justia Law