Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

A group of environmental and fishing organizations challenged the operation of a large drainage project in California’s Central Valley, which collects and conveys irrigation return flows from nearly 100,000 acres of farmland and discharges them into a wetland connected to the San Joaquin River. The plaintiffs argued that the project’s discharges included pollutants not related to irrigated agriculture, such as groundwater seepage, runoff from non-irrigated lands, sediment, and water from a solar facility, and therefore should not be exempt from federal permitting requirements under the Clean Water Act (CWA).The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California previously granted partial summary judgment to the defendants, including the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and local water authorities, finding that the project qualified for the CWA’s exemption for “discharges composed entirely of return flows from irrigated agriculture.” On a prior appeal, the Ninth Circuit clarified that the defendants bore the burden of proving the exemption applied and that “entirely” meant wholly, not just a majority, of the discharge. The case was remanded for further proceedings under this standard.On the current appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s subsequent grant of summary judgment for the defendants. The Ninth Circuit held that the CWA exemption applies so long as the return flow does not contain additional point source discharges from activities unrelated to crop production. The court found that the alleged pollutants were either from nonpoint sources or from point sources related to crop production, and that plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, upholding the project’s exempt status under the CWA. View "PACIFIC COAST FED'N OF FISHERMEN'S ASS'NS, INC. V. NICKELS" on Justia Law

A Canadian mining company operated a lead-zinc smelter in British Columbia, discharging millions of tons of slag and contaminated effluent containing hazardous substances into the Upper Columbia River over several decades. This pollution injured fish and benthic organisms in the river, which holds significant cultural and practical importance for a federally recognized Native American tribe whose reservation borders the river. The tribe sought damages for the interim lost use of these injured natural resources, including losses with a cultural dimension, such as reduced fishing and diminished ability to use the river for traditional purposes.Litigation began in 2004, with individual tribal members, later joined by the tribe and the State of Washington, bringing claims under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) against the company. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington found the company liable for response costs and, after a trial, awarded the tribe investigative expenses and attorney’s fees. The case then proceeded to a third phase to determine liability for natural resource damages. The district court granted summary judgment to the company on the tribe’s claims for interim lost use damages, reasoning that CERCLA does not authorize recovery for injuries to “cultural resources” or for damages with a cultural component.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment de novo. The Ninth Circuit held that CERCLA authorizes recovery for interim lost use of injured natural resources, even when those lost uses have a cultural dimension, provided the damages are for injury to natural resources as defined by the statute. The court reversed the district court’s summary judgment and remanded the case for trial to determine whether the tribe sustained damages from lost uses of injured natural resources. View "CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION V. TECK COMINCO METALS LTD" on Justia Law

Environmental organizations challenged the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s approval of the Big Weekly Elk Forest Management Project in coastal Oregon, arguing that the project would harm the threatened marbled murrelet by allowing logging near its nesting habitat. The relevant Resource Management Plan (RMP) designates certain forest areas as Late-Successional Reserve (LSR) to protect murrelet and northern spotted owl habitat, and includes management directions for murrelet conservation. The project authorized thinning in LSRs adjacent to murrelet habitat and heavier harvesting in areas designated for timber production, with some voluntary protective measures.The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs argued that the project violated the RMP and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) by failing to buffer all occupied murrelet sites and by not requiring surveys for murrelets in adjacent stands. They also claimed the Bureau failed to take a “hard look” at environmental impacts as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The district court granted summary judgment for the Bureau, finding its interpretation of the RMP reasonable and entitled to deference, and that its environmental review was sufficient.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the Bureau’s narrow interpretation of “modifying nesting habitat” in the RMP was reasonable, genuinely ambiguous, and entitled to deference under Kisor v. Wilkie. The project conformed to the RMP and did not violate FLPMA. The court also found that the Bureau took the required “hard look” at environmental impacts under NEPA, adequately addressing potential effects on murrelets through tiered and incorporated analyses. The district court’s judgment in favor of the Bureau was affirmed. View "CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT" on Justia Law

The case concerns a land exchange between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the J.R. Simplot Company, involving land that was formerly part of the Fort Hall Reservation in Idaho. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes had ceded this land to the United States under an 1898 agreement, which Congress ratified in 1900. The 1900 Act specified that the ceded lands could only be disposed of under certain federal laws: homestead, townsite, stone and timber, and mining laws. In 2020, BLM approved an exchange of some of these lands with Simplot, who sought to expand a waste facility adjacent to the reservation. The Tribes objected, arguing that the exchange violated the restrictions set by the 1900 Act.The United States District Court for the District of Idaho reviewed the Tribes’ challenge and granted summary judgment in their favor. The court found that the BLM’s approval of the exchange violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it did not comply with the 1900 Act’s restrictions. The court also held, in the alternative, that the exchange failed to meet requirements under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act. The district court certified the case for interlocutory appeal to resolve the legal question regarding the interplay between the 1900 Act and FLPMA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the 1900 Act’s list of permissible land disposal methods is exclusive and that the BLM’s exchange under FLPMA was not authorized because FLPMA is not among the listed laws. The court further held that FLPMA does not repeal or supersede the 1900 Act’s restrictions, and any ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the Tribes under established Indian law canons. The court concluded that BLM’s authorization of the exchange was not in accordance with law. View "SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES OF THE FORT HALL RESERVATI V. USDOI" on Justia Law

Rural residents of Alaska, including Alaska Natives, have long relied on subsistence fishing in navigable waters such as the Kuskokwim River, which runs through the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) was enacted to protect this way of life by establishing a rural subsistence priority for fishing and hunting on “public lands.” For decades, the federal government and the State of Alaska have disagreed over whether “public lands” under Title VIII of ANILCA includes navigable waters where the United States holds reserved water rights, especially after Alaska’s own subsistence laws were found unconstitutional for not providing a rural preference.After the federal government assumed management of the rural subsistence priority, a series of Ninth Circuit decisions known as the Katie John Trilogy held that “public lands” in Title VIII does include such navigable waters. The United States implemented this interpretation, managing subsistence fishing on the Kuskokwim River within the Refuge. However, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Sturgeon v. Frost, which interpreted “public lands” differently in another section of ANILCA, Alaska asserted renewed authority over the river, issuing conflicting fishing orders that did not prioritize rural subsistence users.The United States District Court for the District of Alaska granted summary judgment and a permanent injunction in favor of the United States and intervenors, holding that the Katie John Trilogy remained binding and that Alaska could not interfere with federal management of the rural subsistence priority.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the Katie John Trilogy is not clearly irreconcilable with Sturgeon v. Frost, as the statutory context and purpose of Title VIII support a broader interpretation of “public lands” that includes navigable waters for subsistence purposes. The court also found that subsequent congressional actions ratified this interpretation. The judgment and injunction were affirmed. View "United States v. Alaska" on Justia Law

The Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) sued two landowners, the Schoubroek and Sexton families, alleging that their farms were pumping groundwater originating from the Gila River, infringing on GRIC’s water rights. GRIC sought to stop the pumping and have the wells sealed. The San Carlos Apache Tribe intervened in support of GRIC.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona found that it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1362 and § 1331, rejecting the defendants' argument that the Arizona state court's Gila River Adjudication had exclusive jurisdiction. The district court granted summary judgment for GRIC, concluding that the defendants' wells were pumping subflow from the Gila River and ordered the wells to be shut down. The court also denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on claim preclusion grounds, despite a 2007 dismissal with prejudice of a similar complaint by GRIC.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the district court had jurisdiction but not exclusive jurisdiction. It held that the Decree did not provide the district court with prior exclusive jurisdiction over non-parties to the Decree. The court also found that the Arizona state court did not have prior exclusive jurisdiction over the claims.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the defendants' motion for summary judgment on claim preclusion, recognizing that the 2007 dismissal did not preclude GRIC’s current claims due to the specific context of the settlement agreement. However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for GRIC, finding that GRIC had not provided clear and convincing evidence that the wells were pumping subflow or were within the subflow zone. The court vacated the district court's remedy of shutting down the wells and remanded for further proceedings. View "Gila River Indian Community v. Schoubroek" on Justia Law

The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), a federal agency responsible for marketing power generated at federal hydroelectric facilities in the Columbia River Basin, holds financial reserves to maintain stable rates. When these reserves exceed a certain threshold, BPA is required to spend the excess. In fiscal years 2022 and 2023, BPA decided to allocate only about 10 percent of its excess reserves to fish and wildlife mitigation efforts, prompting environmental groups led by the Idaho Conservation League (ICL) to challenge this decision.The environmental groups argued that BPA's decision violated its obligations under section 4(h)(11)(A) of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (NWPA), which requires BPA to provide equitable treatment for fish and wildlife and to consider the Council's environmental mitigation program to the fullest extent practicable. BPA contended that section 4(h)(11)(A) did not apply to its financial decisions regarding the allocation of excess reserves.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the petitions for review were timely filed within 90 days of BPA's final allocation decisions. The court also determined that the cases were not moot, as the issues raised were capable of repetition while evading review.On the merits, the Ninth Circuit concluded that BPA's allocation of its excess financial reserves was not subject to the requirements of section 4(h)(11)(A) of the NWPA. Instead, the court found that section 4(h)(10)(A) specifically addresses BPA's use of the excess financial reserve fund for fish and wildlife and does not require the same level of prioritization as section 4(h)(11)(A). Consequently, the court denied the petitions for review. View "IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE V. BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION" on Justia Law

Environmental organizations challenged the EPA's decision not to revise technology-based pollution limits, guidelines, and standards (ELGs) for seven specific industrial categories under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The petitioners argued that the ELGs for these categories were outdated and did not reflect advances in pollution control technology.The EPA's decision was based on its Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 15, which used a Category Ranking Analysis to prioritize ELGs for revision. This analysis ranked industries based on the concentration and total load of pollutants discharged, using data from discharge monitoring reports (DMR data) from direct dischargers. The EPA did not consider data from indirect dischargers or unregulated pollutants in this analysis. The EPA concluded that revising the ELGs for the seven categories was not a priority based on this analysis.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the EPA's refusal to revise the ELGs constituted final agency action and was reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court found that the EPA's reliance on the Category Ranking Analysis was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to consider advances in pollution control technology, pretreatment standards for indirect dischargers, and unregulated pollutants. The court also found that the EPA's decision regarding the plastics molding and forming category was arbitrary and capricious due to inadequate explanation.The court granted the petition for review in part, remanding the case to the EPA to reconsider its decision or provide a fuller explanation. The court emphasized that the EPA must offer a reasoned justification for its decisions consistent with the CWA and APA. View "Waterkeeper Alliance v. Environmental Protection Agency" on Justia Law

Environmental groups challenged the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) approval of the Willow Project, an oil and gas venture in Alaska's northern Arctic. BLM approved the project in 2023, allowing ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. to construct oil and gas infrastructure in the National Petroleum Reserve. BLM prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) after a 2021 remand by the district court, which required BLM to reassess its alternatives analysis. BLM insisted on a full field development standard to avoid piecemeal development, which led to the exclusion of certain environmentally protective alternatives.The United States District Court for the District of Alaska granted summary judgment in favor of BLM, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act (Reserves Act), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The district court found that BLM had rectified the errors identified in its 2021 order and that the alternatives analysis satisfied NEPA, the Reserves Act, and ANILCA. The court also held that the plaintiffs had standing but had not shown that the defendants violated the ESA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s decision. The court held that BLM did not abuse its discretion in using the full field development standard to avoid the risks of piecemeal development. However, BLM’s final approval of the project was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it did not provide a reasoned explanation for potentially deviating from the full field development standard. The court also held that BLM’s assessment of downstream emissions complied with NEPA and that BLM did not act arbitrarily in selecting mitigation measures under the Reserves Act. The court found that BLM complied with ANILCA’s procedural requirements and that the ESA consultation was not arbitrary or capricious. The court remanded the NEPA claim without vacatur, allowing BLM to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision. View "SOVEREIGN INUPIAT FOR A LIVING ARCTIC V. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT" on Justia Law

The case involves the State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Alaska) challenging the Federal Subsistence Board's (Board) authorization of an emergency subsistence hunt for the Organized Village of Kake (the Tribe) during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Board allowed the hunt due to significant food supply chain disruptions, permitting the Tribe to harvest two moose and five deer on federal public lands in Alaska. The hunt was conducted by hunters selected by the Tribe, and the yield was distributed to both tribal and non-tribal residents of Kake.The United States District Court for the District of Alaska initially dismissed Alaska's claims related to the Kake hunt as moot. Alaska appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of Alaska's claim that the Board lacked authority to authorize the hunt, remanding that specific claim for further proceedings. On remand, the district court ruled that the Board's approval of the hunt did not violate the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) and denied Alaska's request for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment that the Board had the authority under ANILCA to authorize the emergency subsistence hunt. The court held that Section 811(a) of ANILCA provided the Board with the authority to ensure rural residents have reasonable access to subsistence resources on federal lands, which includes the power to authorize emergency hunts. The court also vacated the district court's judgment on Alaska's improper delegation claim, ruling that the district court exceeded its mandate by addressing this claim, and remanded with instructions to dismiss it. View "ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME V. FEDERAL SUBSISTENCE BOARD" on Justia Law