Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs filed suit under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706 et seq., challenging FWS's designation of an area of Alaska’s coast and waters as critical habitat for the polar bear. The district court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs on two grounds: the district court faulted FWS for failing to identify specifically where and how existing polar bears utilize the relatively small portion of critical habitat designated as Units 2 and 3; and the district court faulted FWS for failing to provide Alaska with adequate justification for adopting a final rule not fully consistent with the State’s submitted comments. The district court vacated the entire designation. In this case, the standard FWS followed, looking to areas that contained the constituent elements required for sustained preservation of polar bears, was in accordance with statutory purpose and hence could not have been arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The court concluded that FWS’s designation of Unit 2 as critical denning habitat was not arbitrary and capricious. Unit 2 contains areas requiring protection for both birthing and acclimation of cubs, and FWS adequately explained its treatment of the relatively few areas of known human habitation. The court also concluded that, with respect to Units 2 and 3, FWS's definition of the denning habitat was in accord with the statutory purposes and it was not arbitrary and capricious for FWS to include areas necessary for such related denning needs. The court further concluded that FWS provided adequate justification to Alaska pursuant to section 4(i) of the ESA. Finally, the court concluded that the district court court correctly upheld the no-disturbance zone as a part of Unit 3 because it provides refuge from human disturbance; FWS’s assessment of the potential economic impacts was not arbitrary and capricious; and the district court was correct in denying Alaska’s claim, although the court did not agree with the district court to the extent that it held that Section 7 of the ESA creates any independent duty to consult apart from the requirements of Section 4. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Alaska Oil and Gas Ass'n v. Jewel" on Justia Law

Appellant Rangen, Inc., filed a petition before the Director of the Idaho Department of Water Resources, alleging that junior ground water pumping in the Eastern Snake Plains Aquifer was materially injuring its water rights. The Director issued an order granting Rangen a curtailment of certain junior priority ground water pumping affecting Rangen’s water rights. The Director also interpreted the source and point of diversion elements of Rangen’s water rights to have a scope smaller than Rangen’s actual historical use. Rangen and intervenor Idaho Ground Water Appropriators, Inc. (“IGWA”) each filed petitions for judicial review. The issues raised by IGWA in its petition for judicial review were not at issue here; rather Rangen raised various issues related to the interpretation of its water rights and the sufficiency of the evidence before the agency. Specifically, Rangen appealed the Director’s determinations that Rangen could divert water only from the mouth of the Martin-Curren Tunnel and only within the ten-acre tract listed on its water right partial decrees. Rangen also appealed the Director’s adoption of an adverse expert’s analysis and the Director’s conclusion that junior priority ground water users are using water efficiently and without waste. The district court affirmed the Director’s orders, and Rangen appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court on substantially the same issues with substantially the same arguments. Finding no reversible error in the district court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Rangen, Inc. v. Idaho Dept of Water Resources" on Justia Law

Petitioners seek review of the EPA's Final Rule partially disapproving Arizona's regional haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission and promulgating a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in place of the disapproved SIP elements. The court concluded that EPA reasonably concluded that Arizona’s cost and visibility impact analyses for Coronado suffered from significant analytical defects and that the SIP did not provide a reasoned explanation of the bases for the ultimate best available retrofit technology (BART) determination for Coronado; although Section 169A of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7491(a)(1), affords the states substantial authority to determine BART controls, the combination of these defects provided EPA reasonable grounds upon which to disapprove Arizona’s BART determinations as to nitrogen oxides emissions limits at Coronado; and its partial disapproval of the SIP in this respect was not arbitrary or capricious. The court further concluded that EPA’s visibility improvement assessment was consistent with the statute and regulatory requirements, and supported by the record. Finally, EPA properly promulgated its FIP in the same rule as its partial disapproval of the SIP. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Arizona ex rel. Darwin v. EPA" on Justia Law

FutureGen sought to use carbon capture and storage to develop the world’s first near‐zero emissions coal power plant in Morgan County, Illinois. Geologic sequestration, part of the process of carbon capture and storage, involves injection of carbon dioxide into deep subsurface rock formations for storage, to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and mitigate climate change. Injection activities are prohibited until authorized by permit under 40 C.F.R. 144.31. In 2013 FutureGen sought permits to construct four Class VI underground injection control wells and inject approximately 22 million metric tons of carbon dioxideover a 20‐year period. The EPA issued draft permits in 2014. Landowners submitted written comments challenging the permits during the public comment period. The Environmental Appeals Board denied an appeal. The EPA issued final permits in 2015. The U.S. Department of Energy then suspended funding for the FutureGen project authorized by the permits. After exhausting avenues to reinstate funding, FutureGen determined that it would not proceed with the project. After the EPA and FutureGen submitted confirmed that the permits have expired, the Seventh Circuit dismissed an appeal as moot. View "DJL Farm LLC v. Envt'l Protection Agency" on Justia Law

Cases challenging the validity of “the Clean Water Rule,” adopted by the Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency were consolidated in the Sixth Circuit by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation. The Rule clarifies the definition of “waters of the United States,” as used in the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251, “through increased use of bright-line boundaries” to make identifying waters protected under the Act “easier to understand, more predictable and consistent with the law and peer reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation of our nation’s water resources.” Plaintiffs argued that the Rule constituted expansion of regulatory jurisdiction and altered the existing balance of federal-state collaboration and that the new bright-line boundaries are not consistent with Supreme Court precedent, and were not adopted in compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act. The Sixth Circuit stayed the Rule, then denied motions to dismiss. While 33 U.S.C. 1369(b)(1) limits actions by the EPA Administrator that are reviewable directly in the circuit courts, many courts, including the Supreme Court, have favored a “functional” approach over a “formalistic” one in construing these provisions. Congress’s manifest purposes are best fulfilled by exercise of jurisdiction in this case. View "ArZ Mining Ass'n v. Envt'l Protection Agency" on Justia Law

The water source at the heart of this general stream adjudication was the Nambe-Pojoaque-Tesuque Basin. The State of New Mexico was engaged in individual adjudications with parties who held permits to divert the Basin’s underground water through the use of domestic water wells. Elisa Trujillo held one such domestic well permit. During her individual adjudication, she and the State disputed her water rights. In 2010, the special master granted summary judgment in favor of the State. In 2015, the district court entered an order that adjudicated Trujillo’s water rights based on the special master’s 2010 summary judgment order. Trujillo identified only the 2015 order in her notice of appeal, which was an interlocutory order because the district court had not yet entered a final decision in the general stream adjudication. She presented no developed argument challenging the special master’s summary judgment order that served as a basis for the 2015 order. Instead, the Tenth Circuit found that she spent much of her brief challenging two orders denying her motions to quash a 1983 injunction that placed limits on the State’s issuance of domestic well permits. Finding no reason to overturn the district court's judgment, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Trujillo's adjudication. View "New Mexico v. Trujillo" on Justia Law

An interlocutory appeal came before the Supreme Court, involving an issue of the “stream-of-commerce” doctrine of personal jurisdiction. Defendant Total Petrochemicals & Refining USA, Inc. (TPRI) challenged a superior court decision denying its motion to dismiss, for lack of personal jurisdiction, plaintiff State of Vermont’s complaint. The State alleged that TPRI, along with twenty-eight other defendants, contaminated the waters of the state by introducing into those waters a gas additive called methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Vermont v. Atlantic Richfield Company" on Justia Law

The County petitioned for review of the Board's ruling reversing the ALJ's findings and conclusions in a proceeding under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1367. The parties agreed that the Board incorrectly applied a de novo rather than substantial-evidence standard to the ALJ's findings. The court denied the petition for review, concluding that reviewing for substantial evidence would not have changed the result because the Board reversed the ALJ on matters of law, not fact. View "DeKalb Cnty. v. U.S. Dept. of Labor" on Justia Law

The State of Nebraska petitioned for review after the EPA rejected Nebraska’s best available retrofit technology (BART) determination for Gerald Gentleman Station, substituting a Federal Implementation Plan. Conservation organizations oppose Nebraska's petition and seek review of the EPA's plan. Nebraska Public Power intervened on behalf of the EPA. Given Nebraska’s errors and EPA’s determination that Nebraska’s action was unreasoned, the court denied the petition for review. In this case, the EPA did not exceed its statutory authority in disapproving the BART determination by determining that Nebraska's BART determination for the Station was based on flawed analysis and an unreasonable conclusion. The court also concluded that the EPA properly relied on the Transport Rule for the Station and the EPA did not abuse its discretion in rejecting a geographic enhancement. The court denied the petitions for review. View "State of Nebraska v. EPA" on Justia Law

Regions Bank appealed a final judgment dismissing its action against BP P.L.C., BP Corporation North America, Inc., and BP America Inc. (collectively, "BP"). In 2010, an explosion and fire occurred aboard the Deepwater Horizon, an offshore-drilling rig, located off the coast of Louisiana. The incident led to a massive discharge of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, which, in turn, spawned an expansive clean-up and response operation by BP and various governmental agencies. Regions owned coastal real property located in Baldwin County, Alabama. Regions filed this trespass action against BP in Alabama Circuit Court, alleging BP occupied Regions' property, without authorization, for its spill-response operation; that BP moved equipment and structures onto the property without permission; and that BP erected fences and barriers on the property, again, without permission. Regions further alleged that BP stored hazardous materials and waste on the property and that those hazardous materials and waste damaged the property. BP filed a Rule 12(c), Ala. R. Civ. P., "motion to dismiss" Regions' trespass action on the ground that it was subject to the class-action settlement approved in the multidistrict litigation (MDL) and, therefore, that dismissal was warranted on the basis of the doctrine of res judicata. After review, the Alabama Supreme Court found "clear and unequivocal" exceptions to the MDL economic-and-property-damage-settlement class, and concluded that Regions was not a member of the settlement class. Therefore, its trespass claim was not adjudicated as part of the MDL class-action settlement. Accordingly, the Court reversed the circuit court for dismissing Regions' action on the ground of res judicata. View "Regions Bank v. BP P.L.C. et al." on Justia Law