Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioners challenged the Commission's approval of a proposal for the construction of a natural gas compressor station in the Town of Minisink, New York. Petitioners argued, among other things, that the Commission's approval of the project was arbitrary and capricious, particularly given the existence of a nearby alternative site (the Wagoner Alternative) they insist is better than the Minisink locale. The court concluded that the Commission's consideration of the Wagoner Alternative falls within the bounds of its discretion and the court had no basis to upset the Commission's application of its Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717-717z, authority on this point; the court was satisfied that the Commission properly considered cumulative impacts of the Minisink Project; the court reject petitioners' argument that the Minisink Project violates the siting guidelines; and the court rejected petitioners' claims of procedural errors. Accordingly, the court denied the petitions for review. View "Minisink Residents for Enviro., et al. v. FERC" on Justia Law

Twelve individuals and the Ferrisburgh Friends of Responsible Growth, Inc. appealed the Environmental Division’s affirming the grant of a conditional use zoning permit to Champlain Oil Company. The permit allowed Champlain Oil to construct and operate a gasoline and diesel station with a retail convenience store and a drive-through food facility, including parking lot and overhead canopies for the gas and diesel pumps. Appellants argued that the proposed uses for a convenience, retail and drive-in facility are explicitly prohibited by the Ferrisburgh zoning ordinance and would not be consistent with the town plan. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Environmental Division's decision.View "In re Champlain Oil Company Conditional Use Application" on Justia Law

Arkansas imposed more stringent limits on the dissolved minerals EDCC could discharge into two unnamed tributaries (UTA and UTB), and granted EDCC three years to comply. EDCC then initiated a Third Party Rulemaking to increase the levels of dissolved minerals permitted in both UTA and UTB. Arkansas adopted these revisions but the EPA rejected the changes. On appeal EDCC, argued that EPA overstepped its authority in considering the effects on aquatic life in the two creeks at issue. The court concluded that the EPA's reading of its own regulations - that it may look at downstream waters when evaluating a state's water quality standards - was not plainly erroneous; the EPA's refusal to approve the proposed water quality criteria on the basis of incomplete information was not arbitrary or capricious and there was a rational basis for the EPA's disapproval; and the EPA's disapproval of the mass balance approach was not arbitrary or capricious. View "El Dorado Chemical Co. v. EPA, et al." on Justia Law

The City and County of San Francisco approved the Parkmerced Development Project, which involves the long-term redevelopment of the privately owned, 3,221-unit residential rental complex on152 acres near Lake Merced, which were built as affordable housing. The Project contemplates demolition and, over 20-30 years, construction of a greater number of residential units, some affordable and some market-rate, and the addition of commercial and retail space, parks and open space, and transit facilities, with improved utilities. Objectors claimed that the Land Use Element of the San Francisco General Plan was inadequate for failing to include standards for population density and building intensity (Gov. Code, 6302, subds. (a), (b).) (2); that the project and the various approvals were inconsistent with the “priority policies” and other policies of the General Plan; that an environmental impact report (EIR) and findings underlying the City’s approval of the project were inadequate under standards established by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, 21000); and violation of its due process rights. The trial court rejected the challenges. The court of appeal affirmed. View "San Francisco Tomorrow v. City & County of San Francisco" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a limited liability corporation, filed a complaint against Defendants - James T. Mitchell individually, the corporation that Mitchell owned, and other corporations - alleging a claim for an environmental legal action and a violation of Indiana’s anti-dumping statute due to Defendants’ alleged environmental contamination while operating certain dry cleaning businesses. The trial court granted partial summary judgment for Mitchell in his individual capacity. Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the trial court’s order entering partial summary judgment for Mitchell, contending that newly discovered inculpatory evidence established Mitchell’s individual liability. Mitchell opposed the motion, arguing that the newly discovered evidence in this case was not properly designated or timely submitted pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 56. The trial court granted Plaintiff’s motion, concluding that the order granting partial summary judgment was a non-final order and therefore subject to revision at any time before entry of a final judgment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that although a trial court may make material modifications to a non-final summary judgment order, it must do so based on the timely submitted materials properly before it when the order was initially entered.View "Mitchell v. 10th and The Bypass, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2012, the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation executed a written license agreement with Chef Driven Market, LLC (CDM), which permitted CDM to operate a seasonal restaurant in the Union Square Park pavilion. Plaintiffs, Union Square Park Community Coalition, Inc. and several individuals, brought an action against the Department, its commissioner, the City, and CDM (collectively, the Department), seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief restraining the Department from altering the park pavilion to accommodate the restaurant under the public trust doctrine. The Appellate Division denied the motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the complaint, concluding that the seasonal restaurant did not violate the public trust doctrine. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Department’s grant of a license to CDM to operate the restaurant in the pavilion was lawful.View "Union Square Park Cmty. Coal., Inc. v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Parks & Recreation" on Justia Law

Petitioners owned thirty-six acres of land in Hampden. The Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (Division), a unit of the Department of Environmental Protection, restricted Petitioners’ ability to construct a home on their land by delineating the property as a “priority habitat” for the eastern box turtle, a “species of special concern” under 321 Mass. Code Regs. 10.90. Petitioners challenged the validity of the priority habitat regulations insofar as they allowed the Division to designate priority habitat without affording landowners the procedural protections due under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) to those owning property within significant habitats. The superior court entered summary judgment in favor of the Division, concluding that the regulations did not exceed the scope of the Division’s authority as granted by MESA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the priority habitat regulations were a reasonable implementation of the enabling statute.View "Pepin v. Div. of Fisheries & Wildlife" on Justia Law

Asarco filed suit against UP alleging breach of contract and seeking contribution regarding a dispute about environmental liability for a lead refinery and smelter which polluted Omaha, Nebraska. The district court granted UP's motion to dismiss, ruling that UP did not breach the agreement and consent decree that protected UP from Asarco's claims. Despite receiving notice of UP's settlement, Asarco did not object before the district court issued the consent decree. Asarco waited until after entry of the consent decree and brought this collateral case. The court concluded that the district court correctly recognized that all of Asarco's claims were prohibited contribution claims even though some were disguised as breach of contract claims. In light of the consent decree, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675, protected UP against any contribution claim related to the site. Further, the district court correctly concluded that UP neither waived CERCLA's contribution protection nor breached the tolling agreement by invoking that protection. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "ASARCO v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law

After a contested case hearing, the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) entered an order imposing a financial assessment for damages to state conservation land against Pila’a 400, LLC. Specifically, the BLNR held Pila’a 400 responsible for remedial, restoration, and monitoring costs for despoilment of the state land, including near-pristine coral reef, resulting from unauthorized land use. The circuit court and intermediate court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the BLNR was not required to engage in rule-making before imposing the financial assessment for damages to state land against Pila’a 400; (2) the BLNR had jurisdiction to institute the enforcement action; and (3) Pila’a 400 was afforded a full opportunity to be heard at the contested case hearing following reasonable notice.View "Pila'a 400, LLC v. Bd. of Land & Natural Res." on Justia Law

Denali Citizens Council challenged the Department of Natural Resources' (DNR) finding that issuing a license to Usibelli Coal Mine for gas exploration in the Healy Basin was in the best interests of the state on two grounds: (1) DNR failed to take a "hard look" at the economic feasibility of excluding certain residential areas and wildlife habitat from the license; and (2) DNR's treatment of environmental mitigation measures in the best interest finding was arbitrary and capricious. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's order upholding DNR's decision to issue the gas exploration license to Usibelli because the Court concluded that DNR did not act arbitrarily in developing and publishing its best interest finding. View "Denali Citizens Council v. Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources" on Justia Law