Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

This case involves the authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to issue nationwide permits under section 404(e) of the Clean Water Act. These permits authorized activities involving discharge of dredged or fill material in U.S. waters and wetlands. TransCanada Corporation proposed to rely on the nationwide permit to build an oil pipeline, the Gulf Coast Pipeline, running approximately 485 miles and cross over 2,000 waterways. The Corps issued letters verifying that Nationwide Permit 12 would cover the proposed construction. Shortly thereafter, TransCanada began constructing the pipeline, which was completed. Three environmental groups (Sierra Club, Inc.; Clean Energy Future Oklahoma; and East Texas Sub Regional Planning Commission) challenged the validity of the nationwide permit and verification letters. The district court rejected these challenges and entered judgment for the defendants. After review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the entry of judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Sierra Club v. Bostick" on Justia Law

At issue in this case were land and water use permits allowing intensive mineral exploration on State land. Specifically, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) had to give public notice before issuing the permits. Because the Alaska Constitution required public notice when interests in land were transferred, the answer to this question depended on whether the permits conveyed an interest in land. After a trial, the superior court held that notice was not required because the permits were nominally and functionally revocable and therefore did not transfer an interest in land. After its review, the Supreme Court concluded that the land use permits were not functionally revocable, conveyed an interest in land and consequently should have been preceded by public notice. As such, the Court reversed the superior court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Aulukestai v. Dept. of Natural Resources" on Justia Law

Sierra Club appealed the district court's upholding of the BLM's decision to grant a right-of-way over federal land (Road Project) for a wind energy project (Wind Project) developed on private land by North Sky. The court affirmed the decision of the district court where the Wind Project does not trigger the duty to consult under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531, because the Wind Project did not constitute agency action. The Wind Project and the Road Project were separate and independent ventures, one public (Road Project) and one private (Wind Project). The Wind Project is not an indirect effect of the Road Project. The two projects are not interrelated or interdependent. Further, the Wind Project does not trigger the duty to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., where the projects have independent utility and are not connected actions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Sierra Club v. BLM" on Justia Law

Appellants, four associations involved in building and developing land, challenged consent decrees that require the Service to determine, in accordance with a settlement-defined schedule for action, whether 251 species should be listed as endangered or threatened. The court concluded that appellants lacked Article III standing, rejecting their claims of procedural injuries based on loss of opportunity to comment at the warranted-but-precluded stage, withdrawal of the warranted-but-precluded classification, and acceleration of final listing determinations. Appellants failed to allege a cognizable harm and appellants' members cannot show injury. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal. View "Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife" on Justia Law

Banning Ranch was a 400-acre parcel of largely undeveloped coastal property with active oilfield facilities and operations. Project proponents sought to develop one-fourth of Banning Ranch for residential and commercial purposes, and to preserve the remaining acreage as open space and parks, removing and remediating much of the oil production equipment and facilities. The City of Newport Beach and its City Council (collectively the City) approved the Project. Banning Ranch Conservancy filed a mandamus action against the City. The trial court agreed with the Conservancy’s claim that the City violated the Planning and Zoning Law and its own general plan by its alleged failure to adequately coordinate with the California Coastal Commission before its approval of the Project. The court rejected the Conservancy’s claim that the City violated the California Environmental Quality Act by failing to identify in the environmental impact report (EIR) the “environmentally sensitive habitat areas” (ESHAs). All interested parties appealed. After review, the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court’s CEQA ruling but concluded the court erred by finding the City violated its general plan. Therefore the Court reversed the judgment to the extent it provided mandamus relief to the Conservancy. View "Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach" on Justia Law

In this eminent domain proceeding, plaintiff Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) acquired a fee simple interest in, a roadway easement over, and a temporary construction easement over a portion of defendant Ranjit Dhaliwal’s roughly 131-acre property in the Natomas Basin for use in connection with the Natomas Levee Improvement Program. The jury awarded Dhaliwal $178,703 for the property taken and $29,100 in severance damages. Brinderjit Dhaliwal and Gurdeep Dhaliwal, as co-executors of Dhaliwal’s estate, appealed the compensation award, arguing mainly that the trial court prejudicially erred in allowing SAFCA to introduce evidence concerning “future access” to the property. He claimed that such evidence was speculative because “[a]fter this case is concluded, the County and SAFCA would be able to deny Dhaliwal access to the property,” leaving him landlocked. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court did not err in admitting the challenged evidence because such evidence had the potential to affect the property’s market value, and was not conjectural, speculative, or remote, and did not contradict the scope of the taking as defined by the resolution of necessity. Dhaliwal also argued that the trial court erred in allowing SAFCA’s appraiser to critique his appraiser’s valuation of the property, and that SAFCA’s counsel committed misconduct during closing argument by commenting on Dhaliwal’s absence and referring to SAFCA’s inability to pay more than fair market value for the property. The Court of Appeal concluded that neither of these contentions had merit, and affirmed the trial court's ruling on those. View "Sacramento Area Flood Agency v. Dhaliwal" on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged California's plans to improve air quality in the San Joaquin Valley. At issue was whether the EPA erred in approving California's State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to comply with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) enacted under the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7409, concerning ozone and fine particulate matter in the San Joaquin Valley. The court held that by approving California’s plans even though the plans did not include the state-adopted mobile emissions standards on which those plans rely to achieve their emissions reductions goals, EPA violated the CAA; EPA did not violate the CAA by not requiring inclusion of other state mechanisms in its plans, and that other control measures approved by EPA are enforceable commitments as the CAA requires; and, therefore, the court granted the petition in part and denied in part, remanding for further proceedings. View "Comm. for a Better Arvin v. EPA" on Justia Law

Property owners sued the City of New Bedford seeking damages arising from soil contamination around a site that the City had operated as an unrestricted ash dump. The City retained a consultant at TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) to prepare documents to assist the city solicitor in advising the City as to the potential litigation. The City then filed a third-party complaint alleging cost recovery claims against various third-party defendants. During discovery, some third-party defendants moved to compel production of the TRC documents. The motion judge allowed the motion, thus rejecting the City’s claim that the TRC work product was protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judge’s order, holding (1) “opinion” work product and “fact” work product that was prepared in anticipation of litigation generally falls outside the definition of “public records” under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 4, 7(26); and (2) where work product is exempted from disclosure under the public records act, it is protected from disclosure in discovery to the extent provided by Mass. R. Civ. P. 26. View "DaRosa v. City of New Bedford" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and Defendant claimed mineral rights to the same 280 acres of U.S. Forest Service land in Lawrence County, South Dakota. Plaintiff filed a complaint to quiet title. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff, concluding that Defendant failed to follow federal and state law regarding the proper location of placer mining claims but that Plaintiff followed all applicable laws and was therefore entitled to the mining claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in deciding that Defendant’s fourteen placer mineral claims on property at issue were invalid; and (2) Defendant’s invalid placer mineral claims did not preclude Plaintiff’s subsequent claims. View "Pete Lien & Sons, Inc. v. Zellmer" on Justia Law

RI purchased 320 acres in Washington State for use as a landfill and, in 1989, applied for state permits. Because the proposed landfill involved filling wetland areas, it sought a Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. State permits issued in 1996. In 1994, the Corps required an Environmental Impact Statement; its draft EIS preliminarily concluded that RI had not demonstrated that there were no practicable alternatives to the proposed landfill (40 C.F.R. 230.10(a)). RI terminated the process. The Corps denied the application. In 1996, RI sued, alleging that the process and denial violated the CWA and was arbitrary. The district court upheld the decision, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, citing the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6941, under which regulation of municipal solid waste in landfills constructed on wetlands lies solely with the EPA or states with EPA-approved programs. The landfill became operational in 1999. In 1998, while the Ninth Circuit appeal was pending, RI filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging unconstitutional taking. The court dismissed, citing 28 U.S.C. 1500: the Claims Court “shall not have jurisdiction of any claim for or in respect to which the plaintiff or his assignee has pending in any other court any suit or process against the United States.” The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Res. Inv., Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law