Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner WildEarth Guardians challenged an Environmental Protection Agency order that denied in part its petition for an objection to a Title V operating permit issued by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) to Intervenor Public Service Company of Colorado (d/b/a Xcel Energy), for a coal-fired power station in Morgan County, Colorado. Petitioner argued that the permit should have included a plan to bring the station into compliance with the Clean Air Act. The EPA denied Petitioner's petition for an objection despite the EPA's issuing a citation to Public Service for violating the act in 2002. The EPA concluded that Petitioner's evidence failed to demonstrate a violation, and that the state agency adequately responded to Petitioner's comments before it issued the permit. Petitioner petitioned the Tenth Circuit on appeal. The Court saw no error in the EPA's persuasive interpretation of the demonstration requirement. Furthermore, the Court concluded the agency did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in concluding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate noncompliance with the Act. Therefore the Court affirmed the EPA's order denying in part the petition to object. View "WildEarth v. EPA" on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Western Watersheds Project (WWP) challenged a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) decision to grant a 10-year grazing permit to LHS Split Rock Ranch, LLC for four federal public land allotments in central Wyoming. WWP asserted that BLM?s decision to grant the grazing permit was arbitrary and capricious because BLM had previously concluded that past grazing was a substantial cause of serious environmental degradation on the allotments. The district court granted summary judgment to BLM. WWP appealed. Finding that the agency did not act arbitrarily or capriciously, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Western Watersheds Project v. BLM" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs challenged the NMFS's limitations on commercial fishing in certain areas of the Pacific Ocean off Alaska. The agency limited commercial fishing in the areas where the western Distinct Population Segment of the Steller sea lions (wDPS) were experiencing population declines and showing signs of nutritional stress. The court held that the use of sub-regions, rather than in the entire population of the endangered species, did not violate the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531. Further, the agency utilized appropriate standards to find that continuing previous fishing levels in those sub-regions would adversely modify the critical habitat and jeopardize the continued existence of the entire population. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment rejecting plaintiffs' claims. View "State of Alaska v. Lubchenco" on Justia Law

Petitioners petitioned for review of the EPA's most recent revisions to the primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone. The court rejected Mississippi and the industry groups' challenge to the primary and secondary NAAQS standards; the court denied the governmental and environmental petitions with respect to the primary standard; but the court granted their petition with respect to the secondary standard. Because EPA failed to determine what level of protection was "requisite to protect the public welfare," EPA's explanation for the secondary standard violated the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401. Accordingly, the court remanded the secondary NAAQS to the EPA for reconsideration and denied the petition in all other respects. View "State of Mississippi v. EPA" on Justia Law

The government appealed the district court's order which altered the terms of a bond the Coast Guard had fixed for the release of a detained ship that was under investigation and restricted the types of penalties the government could seek for the ship's potential violations of certain ocean pollution prevention statutes. The ship at issue, the Pappadakis, an ocean-going bulk cargo carrier carrying a shipment of coal to Brazil, was detained by the Coast Guard because the vessel had likely been discharging bilge water overboard. The court reversed and remanded for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) where the matter was not subject to review in the district court because the Coast Guard's actions were committed to agency discretion by law. Consequently, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition. View "Angelex Ltd. v. United States" on Justia Law

This appeal involved litigation over how much water from the Truckee and Carson Rivers should be diverted to irrigation and how much should flow into Pyramid Lake for the benefit of the Tribe. At issue was the court's ruling in United States v. Bell, which concerned the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District (TCID). The court concluded that it's understanding of the scope of the gauge error claim - the margin of error with respect to the gauges that measured the flow of the diversions - in Bell was mistaken and the court should have ordered recalculation of the gauge error's impact in all the years potentially affected. Accordingly, the court withdrew its earlier mandate and clarified it by ordering the district court to recalculate the effect of gauge error, not only for the years, 1974, 1975, 1978, and 1979, but for the years 1973, 1976, 1985, and 1986 as well, to determine the amount of any excess diversions. View "United States v. Board of Directors" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a conservationist organization, filed suit under the Clean Water Act (the "Act"), 33 U.S.C. 1365(a)(1), alleging that defendants violated a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit that governed industrial storm water discharges at three scrap metal recycling facilities that defendants operated. Defendants claimed that two statutory bars, 33 U.S.C. 1319(g)(6)(A)(i)-(iii) and 1365(b)(1)(B), prohibited plaintiff's citizen suit. The court concluded that section 1365(b)(1)(B) did not bar this action because the 2007 and 2008 proceedings aimed to enforce only laws other than the Act. The court also concluded that the statutory bar under section 1319(g)(6)(A)(ii) did not apply to plaintiff's claims because California has commenced no administrative penalty proceeding that was comparable to a proceeding by the EPA under section 1319(g). Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cal. Sportfishing v. Chico Scrap Metal" on Justia Law

In consolidated cases for review, petitioners challenged a rule by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act. Petitioners argued that the EPA impermissibly rejected Oklahoma’s plan to limit the emissions of sulfur dioxide at Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company power plants and replaced it with its own more stringent regulations, which petitioners contended usurped the state’s authority and would require sizable expenditures on unnecessary technology. The Tenth Circuit concluded the EPA has authority to review the state’s plan and that it lawfully exercised that authority in rejecting it and promulgating its own. Accordingly, the Court denied the petitions. View "Oklahoma v. EPA" on Justia Law

Seeking to construct a natural gas compressor station in Maryland, Dominion applied for and received a certificate of public convenience and necessity from FERC. The Department subsequently twice refused to process Dominion's application for an air quality permit and Dominion sought expedited review from the court. The court granted Dominion's petition and remanded for further action because the Department's failure to act to grant, condition, or deny Dominion's air quality permit was inconsistent with federal law. View "Dominion Transmission, Inc. v. Summers, et al." on Justia Law

A severe rainstorm in 2006 caused two wastewater storage tanks at CITGO's Lake Charles Louisiana refinery to fail and over two million gallons of oil flooded into the surrounding waterways. The United States filed suit against CITGO under the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1321, seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief. The district court imposed a $6 million penalty against CITGO and ordered injunctive relief. Both parties appealed. The court concluded that the motion to dismiss was properly denied where there was no diligent prosecution by the State and no jurisdictional issue to resolve; the district court needed to have made a finding on the amount of economic benefit and that such a finding was central to the ability of the district court to assess the statutory factors and for an appellate court to review that assessment; the court vacated the civil penalty award and remanded for re-evaluation; at that time, the district court should reconsider its findings with respect to CITGO's conduct, giving special attention to what CITGO knew prior to the oil spill and its delays in addressing recognized deficiencies; and the court rejected the government's argument that the district court erred with respect to its findings on the amount of oil spilled. View "United States, et al. v. Citgo Petroleum Corp." on Justia Law