Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, two conservation groups, brought two citizen enforcement suits alleging that endangered fish pass through the turbines of four hydroelectric dams operated by Defendants on the Kennebec River, resulting in injury and death to some of the fish. Among their claims, Plaintiffs contended that the Defendants were in violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA) because they had not conducted “site-specific qualitative studies” in accordance with a settlement agreement Defendants entered into in 1998 with various federal and state agencies. The studies are required if Defendants “desire” passage of the endangered fish through the turbines. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants as to the CWA claims in both cases. The First Circuit vacated the district court’s rulings on the narrow procedural grounds that the court failed to consider all relevant evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs. Remanded. View "Friends of Merrymeeting Bay v. Hydro Kennebec, LLC" on Justia Law

The linkage of the Mississippi River system to the Great Lakes and the effort to control weeds in southern aquatic farms by importing Asian carp, a voracious non-native fish, have combined to create a situation in which two species of carp have overwhelmed the Mississippi River and its tributaries and threaten to migrate into the Great Lakes. Plaintiffs, five states bordering the Great Lakes and an Indian tribe assert that the Asian carp either will soon invade, or perhaps already have invaded, the Great Lakes and are poised to inflict billions of dollars of damage on the ecosystem. Plaintiffs sued the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, seeking a preliminary injunction that would require aggressive interim measures to maximize the chances of preventing the spread of the carp. The district court denied that motion; the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district court then dismissed the case. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the plaintiffs did not allege facts showing that the Corps and the District are operating in a manner that is likely to allow the Asian carp to reach Lake Michigan. View "State of Michigan v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the EPA seeking declaratory relief in connection with its administrative enforcement proceedings against her. CBF moved to intervene but the district court denied the motion as untimely. The court concluded that when CBF moved to intervene, the proceedings had already reached a relatively advanced stage. Further, CBF conceded that its belated intervention would cause some delay and would require plaintiffs to expend "extra effort." CBF's deliberate forbearance understandably engendered little sympathy. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to intervene.View "Chesapeake Bay Foundation v. Alt" on Justia Law

In 2006, Plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), agreeing to pay for a study of an Ohio landfill site and to reimburse the government’s response costs in exchange for a partial resolution of liability. About four years later, Plaintiffs filed the first of two actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), both codified at 42 U.S.C. 9601–9675, and Ohio common law of unjust enrichment, seeking to recover costs or gain contribution from other entities responsible for the contamination. In 2012, Plaintiffs brought another case, alleging the same three causes of action, against additional defendants. In both cases, the district court dismissed the section 113(f)(3)(B) contribution claims as untimely and dismissed the unjust-enrichment claims for failing to state a valid cause of action. The court allowed limited discovery on the section107(a)(4)(B) cost-recovery claims but, ultimately, granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that CERCLA and controlling case law prohibit a party that has entered a liability-resolving settlement agreement with the government from prosecuting such an action. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.View "Hobart Corp. v. Coca-Cola Enters, Inc." on Justia Law

Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (NPPD) was the owner or lessee of three water appropriations to divert water from the Niobrara River for hydropower generation. In 2007, the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (Department) issued closing notices to several hundred junior appropriators, including Joe McClaren Ranch, LLC and Weinreis Brothers (the junior appropriators), directing them to cease water diversions from the Niobrara in favor of NPPD’s senior appropriations. The junior appropriators challenged the Department’s administration of the Niobrara and sought to stay any future closing notices. After a second hearing on remand, the Department denied the junior appropriators’ claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Department (1) erred in admitting certain evidence relating to the statutory procedure for cancellation of appropriations, but the error was harmless; (2) did not err in finding that the junior appropriators failed to prove NPPD had abandoned or statutorily forfeited its appropriations; (3) did not err in determining that it had property determined the flow demand for NPPD’s appropriations; and (4) did not err in failing to conduct a futile call analysis on the main stem of the Niobrara.View "In re 2007 Appropriations of Niobrara River Waters" on Justia Law

A&G owns and operates the Kelly Branch Surface Mine in Virginia. Plaintiff filed suit against A&G for declaratory and injunctive relief and civil penalties, contending that A&G was violating the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., by discharging selenium from Kelly Branch without authorization to do so. The court held that A&G could not assert a "permit shield" defense for discharges of selenium when it failed to disclose the presence of this pollutant during the permit application process. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiff.View "Southern Appalachian Mountain v. A & G Coal Corp." on Justia Law

In April 2008, a particularly cold month in a dry year, young salmon were found fatally stranded along banks of the Russian River system, which drains Sonoma and Mendocino Counties. The deaths were caused by abrupt declines in water level that occurred when water was drained from the streams and sprayed on vineyards and orchards to prevent frost damage. After hearings and preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR), the State Water Resources Control Board adopted a regulation that is likely to require reduction in diversion of water for frost protection under certain circumstances. The regulation does not limit water use, but delegates regulatory authority to local governing bodies composed of the diverting growers. The regulation declares that any water use inconsistent with the programs, once they are approved by the Board, is unreasonable and prohibited. The trial court invalidated the Board’s action. The appeals court reversed. While authority to require a permit for water use by riparian users and early appropriators is beyond the authority of the Board, it has the power to prevent unreasonable use of water. In regulating unreasonable use of water, the Board can weigh public purposes, notably the protection of wildlife habitat, against the commercial use of water by riparian users and early appropriators. The court noted that its ruling was on a facial challenge and did not address the validity of any particular substantive regulation. The Board did not unlawfully delegate its authority and properly certified the EIR. View "Light v. State Water Res. Control Bd." on Justia Law

Shamokin Filler, a coal preparation facility in Shamokin, Pennsylvania, has been regulated by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) since 1977. After a change in ownership in 2009, the new owners challenged MSHA’s jurisdiction, contending that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), not MSHA, should oversee it. Presumably the new owners wanted to avoid the more stringent requirements imposed by MSHA regulations and the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 801. MSHA, rather than OSHA, has much stricter oversight requirements including regarding respirable coal dust standards. The Secretary of Labor and an Administrative Law Judge for the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission disagreed and concluded that Shamokin was engaged in the “work of preparing the coal,” as defined in the Mine Act. Shamokin argued that its plant does not engage in the “work of preparing the coal” because it makes its 100% coal products out of already processed coal. The Third Circuit rejected the argument and denied a petition for review. Shamokin’s interpretation of the statute lacked any basis in the text of the Mine Act.View "Shamokin Filler Co. Inc v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm'n" on Justia Law

The States of West Virginia and Kentucky, along with coal mining companies and trade associations, challenged EPA and Corps' Enhanced Coordination Process memorandum, which applied to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit applications that were stalled because of litigation, and the EPA's Final Guidance. The court concluded that EPA and the Corps acted within their statutory authority when they adopted the Enhanced Coordination Process. Under the court's precedents, the Final Guidance is not a final action reviewable by the courts at this time. If and when an applicant is denied a permit, the applicant at that time may challenge the denial of the permit as unlawful. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs and remanded with directs to grant judgment for the Government on the Enhanced Coordination Process claim and to dismiss plaintiffs' challenge to the Final Guidance.View "National Mining Assoc., et al. v. Jackson, et al." on Justia Law

CTS petitioned for review of the EPA's decision to add to the National Priorities List, which identifies those hazardous-waste sites considered to be the foremost candidates for environmental cleanup, a site centered around property formerly owned by the company. Determining that CTS has constitutional standing, the court concluded that the EPA did not fail to examine the relevant data or to articulate a rational explanation for its actions; the EPA's determination that a hydraulic connection existed between the CTS property and the contaminated Oaks Subdivision wells was reasonable; and CTS's reliance on extra-record evidence relating to isotope data was procedurally foreclosed. The court denied the petition for review because each of CTS's objections was without merit, forfeited, or impermissibly based on extra-record evidence.View "CTS Corp. v. EPA, et al." on Justia Law