Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

The Rural Water District Number 4 of Douglas County, Kansas and the City of Eudora were in a dispute over water rights. The District contended that Eudora was trying to poach its customers. Because the District was burdened by a USDA-guaranteed loan, Eudora's actions potentially implicated federal law which prohibits municipalities from poaching rural water district customers while the federal loan is in repayment. The District sued the City under 42 U.S.C. 1983; the case went to trial and a jury awarded damages to the District. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit vacated the verdict, finding that the District violated a Kansas statute that prevented rural water district from obtaining USDA loan guarantees unless the guarantee was "necessary." Soon after the appeal, the Kansas legislature amended the statute and removed the "necessary" requirement. The district court then ruled that the amendment did not apply retroactively, and denied summary judgment to both parties. The retroactivity question was certified to the Tenth Circuit, who upheld the district court's conclusion that the amended state statute did not apply retroactively. Therefore, the District was still bound by the "necessary" requirement. View "Rural Water District No. 4 v. City of Eudora" on Justia Law

Southern Natural Gas Company (Sonat) sued Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London and Certain London Marketing Insurance Companies (Phase III), alleging breach of numerous umbrella and excess liability policies. Sonat contended the insurance companies failed to pay certain environmental-remediation costs. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurers based on prior trials in Phases I and II of the case; Sonat appealed, and the insurers cross-appealed Phase III's outcome. Finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Southern Natural Gas Company " on Justia Law

Respondents New Hampshire Fish & Game and the New Hampshire Council on Resources and Defelopment (CORD) appealed a superior court decision that granted summary judgment to petitioners Town of Newbury and Lake Sunapee Protective Association. Petitioners challenged CORD's decision to approve Fish & Game's design of a boat launch. The trial court held that CORD lacked authority to approve the launch because it was a class III public highway, and could not approve "new highway projects." Disagreeing with the trial court's interpretation of RSA 162-C:6, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Town of Newbury v. New Hampshire Fish & Game Dept." on Justia Law

Petitioners Town of Newbury and Lake Sunapee Protective Association appealed a Wetlands Council decision. The Council upheld a grant by the Department of Environmental Services of a shoreland impact permit to respondent New Hampshire Fish & Game for the construction of a public boat launch with associated parking on the shore of Lake Sunapee. Petitioners contended it was error to uphold the Department's decision because the Department had violated two provisions of the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act with an unnecessary launch contrary to state law. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Appeal of Lake Sunapee Protective Association" on Justia Law

Defendants Timothy Persons and the Trust A of Timothy Persons appealed an Environmental Division decision holding that certain excavation work performed on their property violated the state Wetlands Protection and Water Resources Management laws and the state Wetlands Rules. Among other things, defendants contended they were not given adequate notice that portions of the lands in question contained a protected wetland, and therefore, should not have been subjected to fines. The Supreme Court found no merit to defendants' contentions, and affirmed the Environmental Division. View "Agency of Natural Resources v. Persons" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on two water rights cases involving Raftopoulos Brothers (Raftopoulos) and Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership (Vermillion). In Case No. 11SA86, the Court vacated the portions of the water court’s order interpreting the phrase "all other beneficial uses" in a 1974 change decree regarding Raftopoulos’s absolute water rights and whether Raftopoulos had abandoned any right to use the decreed water for commercial or industrial purposes. The Court reversed the portion of the water court’s order decreeing Raftopoulos’s requested new conditional water storage rights to the extent the decree permits the water to be used for industrial and commercial purposes. In Case No. 11SA124, the Court reversed the water court’s order granting Vermillion’s application for a finding of reasonable diligence for previously decreed conditional water storage rights and granting Vermillion’s application for a new conditional water storage right. View "Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership v. Raftopoulos Brothers" on Justia Law

In 1972 Koontz bought 14.9 undeveloped acres. Florida subsequently enacted the 1972 Water Resources Act, requiring a permit with conditions to ensure that construction will not be harm water resources and the 1984 Henderson Wetlands Protection Act, making it illegal to “dredge or fill in, on, or over surface waters” without a wetlands permit. The District with jurisdiction over the Koontz land requires that applicants wishing to build on wetlands offset environmental damage by creating, enhancing, or preserving wetlands elsewhere. Koontz decided to develop 3.7-acres. In 1994 he proposed to raise a section of his land to make it suitable for building and installing a stormwater pond. To mitigate environmental effects, Koontz offered to foreclose development of 11 acres by deeding to the District a conservation easement. The District rejected Koontz’s proposal and indicated that it would approve construction only if he reduced the size of his development and deeded a conservation easement on the larger remaining property or hired contractors to improve District wetlands miles away. Koontz sued under a state law that provides damages for agency action that constitutes a taking without just compensation. The trial court found the District’s actions unlawful under the requirements of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, that the government may not condition permit approval on the owner’s relinquishment of a portion of his property unless there is a nexus and rough proportionality between the demand and the effects of the proposed use. The court of appeal affirmed, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that a governmental demand for property from a land-use permit applicant must satisfy the Nollan/Dolan requirements even when it denies the permit. The Nollan/Dolan standard reflects the danger of governmental coercion in the land-use permitting context while accommodating the legitimate need to offset public costs of development through land use exactions. It makes no difference that the Koontz property was not actually taken. It does not matter that the District might have been able to deny Koontz’s application outright without giving him the option of securing a permit by agreeing to spend money improving public lands. Even a demand for money from a land-use permit applicant must satisfy the Nollan/Dolan requirements; there is a direct link between the demand and a specific parcel of real property. The Court rejected arguments that applying Nollan/Dolan scrutiny to money exactions will leave no principled way of distinguishing impermissible land-use exactions from property taxes, stating that its holding “will not work a revolution in land use law or unduly limit the discretion of local authorities to implement sensible land use regulations.” View "Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiff owed the surface estate of a forty-acre tract. Defendant, the lessee of the tract's severed mineral estate, constructed a well site on Plaintiff's tract without Plaintiff's approval. Plaintiff filed suit seeking an injunction requiring Defendant to remove the well, asserting that Defendant failed to accommodate his existing use of the surface so Defendant's acts exceeded its rights in the mineral estate and constituted a trespass. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendant, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, even assuming that the failure of Defendant's operations to accommodate Defendant's existing use would have been sufficient to support injunctive relief, Plaintiff failed to raise a material fact issue as to whether Defendant failed to accommodate his use. View "Merriman v. XTO Energy, Inc." on Justia Law

Albar, Inc. owned a convenience store, gas station and marina on the Pen Orielle River. In 2003, one of its three underground storage tanks leaked gasoline into the surrounding soil. The tanks were insured through the State's Petroleum Storage Tank Fund. Albar ultimately entered into a consent agreement with the State Department of Environmental Quality to remediate the property and any impacted adjacent properties. In 2005, Albar put the businesses up for sale. Albar made a disclosure regarding the 2003 leak, but that statement would later be found false. JLZ Enterprises was interested in purchasing the property, and relied on the false disclosure. In 2007, JLZ Enterprises sued Albar to recover damages for fraud and breach of contract; to rescind the contract; and to recover damages for negligence against the real estate agent and the broker. The matter was tried to the district court. After hearing the evidence, the court declined to rescind the real estate contract, but found that Albar had breached the contract. The court entered a judgment forclosing the deed of trust on the property and ordering its sale. Albar appealed the grant of JLZ's motion to disallow its costs and attorney fees. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the district court's decision finding Albar breached the contract was supported by substantial and competent evidence, and that it was not an error for the court to disallow Albar's costs and fees. View "Echo Vanderwal v. Albar" on Justia Law

The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks and Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Commissions (collectively referred to as DFWP) decided to transfer a group of bison to two reservations as part of a quarantine program. Plaintiffs, collectively referred to here as the Citizens for Balanced Use, filed this lawsuit challenging the DFWP action and seeking to enjoin the bison transport. While the bison transport was still in process, the district court entered a temporary restraining order enjoining certain bison movement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court relied upon erroneous grounds for issuing a preliminary injunction under Mont. Code Ann. 27-19-201(3). View "Citizens for Balanced Use v. Maurier" on Justia Law