Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

The California Dump Truck Owners Association (Truck Association) initiated a federal preemption challenge to a California environmental regulation. The district court dismissed the suit, finding that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) approval of the regulation as part of California’s state implementation plan (SIP) divested the court of jurisdiction under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Truck Association appealed, contending that it was challenging only the regulation and not the SIP, and therefore, the CAA did not apply. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the Truck Association’s suit, as a practical matter, challenged the the EPA’s approval of a provision of California’s SIP; and (2) because the court of appeals has exclusive jurisdiction over such challenges, the district court lacked jurisdiction. View "Cal. Dump Truck Owners Ass’n v. Nichols" on Justia Law

The City of Berkeley approved a permit application to build a 6,478-square-foot house with an attached 3,394-square-foot garage. In approving the permit, the City relied on two class exemptions making the project exempt from the restrictions set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Court of Appeal invalidated the permit approval, concluding that the proposed project may have a significant environmental impact, and therefore, the exemptions the City invoked did not apply under the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA section 15300.2(c). Section 15300.2(c) provides: “A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a proposed project’s potential significant effect on the environment is not alone sufficient to trigger the unusual circumstances exception; and (2) remand for application of the standards the Court announced today was necessary. View "Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley" on Justia Law

In 1943, Congress approved a Compact between Kansas, Nebraska, and Colorado to apportion the “virgin water originating in” the Republican River Basin. In 1998, Kansas filed an original action in the Supreme Court contending that Nebraska’s increased groundwater pumping was subject to the Compact to the extent that it depleted stream flow in the Basin. The Court agreed. Negotiations resulted in a 2002 Settlement, which identified the Accounting Procedures by which the states would measure stream flow depletion, and thus consumption, due to groundwater pumping. The Settlement reaffirmed that “imported water,” brought into the Basin by human activity, would not count toward consumption. In 2007, Kansas claimed that Nebraska had exceeded its allocation. Nebraska responded that the Accounting Procedures improperly charged it for imported water and requested that the Accounting Procedures be modified. The Court appointed a Special Master, whose report concluded that Nebraska “knowingly failed” to comply, recommended that Nebraska disgorge part of its gains in addition to paying damages, and recommended denying an injunction and reforming the Accounting Procedures. The Supreme Court adopted the recommendations. Nebraska failed to establish adequate compliance mechanisms, given a known substantial risk that it would violate Kansas’s rights; Nebraska was warned each year that it had exceeded its allotment. Because of the higher value of water on Nebraska’s farmland than on Kansas’s, Nebraska could take Kansas’s water, pay damages, and still benefit. The disgorgement award is sufficient to deter future breaches. Kansas failed to demonstrate a “cognizable danger of recurrent violation” necessary to obtain an injunction. Amending the Accounting Procedures is necessary to prevent serious inaccuracies from distorting intended apportionment. View "Kansas v. Nebraska" on Justia Law

Roca Solida, a non-profit religious organization, purchased a 40-acre Nevada parcel. A desert stream flowed across the property, the water rights to which Roca also purchased. The water supplied a recreational pond, used for baptisms. Roca’s property is situated within a national wildlife refuge, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. An FWS water restoration project completed in 2010 “restored [the] stream to its natural channel,” the effect of which was to divert the stream away from Roca Solida’s property, depriving it of water it would have otherwise enjoyed. In federal district court in Nevada, Roca sought declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief on the basis of alleged violations under the First and Fifth Amendment and “at least $86,639.00 in damage[s]” under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2671–80. It also sued in the Claims Court, seeking declaratory relief and compensatory damages on the basis that the diversion project constituted an unlawful taking and asserting FWS negligently executed the water diversion project, causing $86,639 in damages to “land, structures, and animals.” The Claims Court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in light of the pending district court action under 28 U.S.C. 1500. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Ministerio Roca Solida v. United States" on Justia Law

When Ferris Avenue Realty, LLC (Ferris) purchased twenty-two acres of property from Huhtamaki, Inc. (Huhtamaki), the parties executed an indemnity agreement providing that, upon the occurrence of certain conditions, Huhtamaki would reimburse Ferris for environmental cleanup costs. After hazardous substances were found on the property and Ferris incurred certain costs related to the cleanup of the substances, Ferris requested indemnification from Huhtamaki. Huhtamaki refused to indemnify Ferris. After a jury trial, judgment was entered in favor of Ferris. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not err in (1) finding that Ferris’s notice to Huhtamaki constituted sufficient “claim notice” pursuant to the terms of the indemnity agreement; (2) admitting certain testimony from Ferris’s expert witness; (3) admitting evidence relating to excavated soil samples where Ferris excavated the soil before Huhtamaki could test it; and (4) instructing the jury. Lastly, contrary to Huhtamaki’s argument, Ferris’s case was not built on an improper “pyramid of inferences.” View "Ferris Avenue Realty, LLC v. Huhtamaki, Inc." on Justia Law

At issue in this case were smoking structures built by the owners and operators of two casinos in Great Falls (“Casino Owners”). After the Cascade City-County Board of Health (Board) commenced enforcement steps against the Casino Owners under the Montana Clean Indoor Air Act (MCIAA), the Casino Owners initiated an action against the Board seeking a declaration that their smoking structures were in compliance with the MCIAA. The district court granted summary judgment to the Casino Owners and awarded attorney fees. The Supreme Court reversed remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of the Board, holding (1) the MCIAA clearly delineates casinos on the statute’s list of public places wherein smoking is prohibited, and therefore, the district court erred in concluding that the smoking structures at issue were not subject to the smoking prohibition of the MCIAA; (2) the Casino Owners failed to establish that the Board was equitably estopped from enforcing the MCIAA; and (3) the district court improperly awarded the Casino Owners attorney fees. View "MC, Inc. v. Cascade City-County Bd. of Health" on Justia Law

The California Air Resources Board is charged with implementing the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. (Health & Saf. Code 38500). The Board’s mandate includes adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum “technologically feasible and cost effective” reductions in the emission of greenhouse gas (GHG) from sources or categories of sources subject to regulation under the terms of the Act. Objectors challenged the Board’s regulations implementing a market-based compliance mechanism for achieving reductions in GHG emissions: the “Cap-and-Trade” program. They argued that one component of the program, which affords offset credits for voluntary reductions in GHG emissions, violated the 2006 Act by failing to ensure that these credited reductions are “in addition to” any GHG emission reduction that is otherwise required by law or that would otherwise occur. The trial court rejected the argument. The court of appeal affirmed, noting the voluminous record summarizing the extensive evidence supporting the Board’s decision to adopt the Cap-and-Trade program regulation and to include offset credits as an integral component of that program and explaining the basis for the protocol and the additionality requirement applicable to that category of projects. View "Our Children's Earth Found. v. Cal. Air Res. Bd." on Justia Law

Defendant City of San Diego appealed a judgment granting the petition of plaintiff CREED-21 (CREED) for injunctive and other relief for violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) relating to emergency storm drainage repair and revegetation projects in La Jolla. The City argued: (1) the trial court erred by setting the CEQA baseline for the revegetation project prior to the issuance of a 2010 emergency permit for the emergency storm drain repair project; (2) the court erred by finding CREED had standing to challenge the prior CEQA emergency exemption for the emergency storm drain repair project; (3) City submitted substantial evidence to support its finding the regular permits for the revegetation project were exempt from CEQA; (4) CREED did not carry its burden to show an exception applied to the exemption for the revegetation project; (5) the court erred by finding CREED was denied due process of law when City did not timely disclose a document requested under the California Public Records Act (CPRA); and (6) the court erred by denying City's request for judicial notice and finding its appeal fee was unauthorized. After review, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court to the extent it declared City's assessment of the $100 appeal fee invalid and set it aside. In all other respects, the judgment was reversed and the matter was remanded to the trial court to: vacate its order granting the petition (except for its request for a refund of the appeal fee); withdraw, cancel, or otherwise void its peremptory writ of mandate (except for ordering City to refund the $100 appeal fee); and issue a new order denying the petition (except for granting its request for a refund of the appeal fee). View "CREED-21 v. City of San Diego" on Justia Law

In 2010, the Washington Supreme Court found that the State Legislature's 2003 amendments to the state's water law were facially constitutional. In this case, Appellants Scott Cornelius, Palouse Water Conservation Network, and Sierra Club Palouse Group (collectively Cornelius) brought an as-applied constitutional claim (among other claims) against Washington State University (WSU), the Department of Ecology, and the Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB). Upon further review, the Supreme Court found that the amendments were applied constitutionally, and found appellants' other claims unavailing. View "Cornelius v. Dep't of Ecology" on Justia Law

California's Department of Fish and Wildlife chose to use a program environmental impact report (EIR) to analyze enterprises' impacts on a statewide basis. Instead of addressing impacts on specific locations the Department stocked, the EIR addressed the enterprise's continuing and potential impacts on individual species that could be located at many locations. The EIR formulated, and the Department adopted, protocols and plans for discovering site-specific impacts at each of the nearly 1,000 water bodies the Department stocks and the 24 hatcheries it oversaw, and it committed to mitigating the impacts discovered from those reviews. These appeals presented for the Court of Appeals' review questions of whether the EIR complied with the California Environmental Quality Act. Furthermore the Court also addressed whether the Department's imposition of these mitigation measures on private fish vendors violated the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (the APA). In case Nos. C072486 and C073011, plaintiffs, Center for Biological Diversity and Californians for Alternatives to Toxics et al., respectively, argued the EIR was flawed because it: (1) did not perform site-specific review for each site in the state the Department stocks with fish; (2) deferred forming mitigation measures to the future formulation of protocols and management plans; (3) relied on the current stocking enterprise as the environmental baseline; and (4) did not review a reasonable range of alternatives, including a no project alternative consisting of ceasing all hatchery and stocking operations. The Court of Appeal disagreed with plaintiffs: given the history, nature, and scope of the project under review, the Department did not abuse its discretion in the manner it organized the EIR, analyzed the project, and mitigated its numerous impacts. In case No. C072790, plaintiff California Association for Recreational Fishing contended the Department violated the APA by imposing the qualification requirements and the monitoring and reporting obligations on private fish vendors without complying with the APA's notice and hearing procedures. The Court of Appeal concluded each measure qualified as a regulation under the APA that the Department did not properly adopt as such. The Court therefore reversed the trial court's judgment in that appeal. View "Center for Biological Diversity v. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife" on Justia Law