Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs installed a gabion seawall on their property to mitigate the effects of erosion. Plaintiffs did not seek approval from the town or the department of environmental protection (department) before constructing the seawall. The town subsequently issued a cease and desist order to Plaintiffs, and the department issued a notice of violation to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs submitted a permit application to the department attempting to obtain permission to retain the seawall. The department denied the application and ordered Plaintiffs to remove the seawall. Plaintiffs challenged the removal order. A department hearing officer determined that the department properly exercised jurisdiction and that the department had the authority to order the wall to be removed. The trial court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the department properly asserted jurisdiction over the seawall; (2) the department properly asserted jurisdiction under the Coastal Management Act; (3) substantial evidence supported the department's findings and conclusions; and (4) the hearing officer's decision to order the removal of the entire seawall was not an abuse of discretion. View "Sams v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot." on Justia Law

Seven affiliated debtors are entities that conducted deep and strip coal mining and operated coal prep plants and loading facilities in three states. The bankruptcy court authorized joint procedural administration, but not substantive consolidation. The administrative expense claims at issue arise from environmental damage. The land and the coal were subject to leases that terminated before commencement of bankruptcy proceedings. The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) issued mining permits and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits to the debtors and affiliated entities for the operations. The bankruptcy court denied WVDEP’s application for administrative expenses against two debtors. The Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel held that the court failed to properly analyze the debtors’ potential liability for reclamation obligations associated with permits owned by their affiliate. WVDEP’s administrative expense claims were properly denied to the extent they were based on derivative liability for the debts of the affiliate, either based on veil piercing or substantive consolidation. The court abused its discretion in denying the claims that were based on direct liability for reclamation obligations associated with the permits owned by the affiliate and in denying claims that were independent of the threshold question of joint and several liability for reclamation obligations associated with the permits owned by an affiliate. View "In re: Appalachian Fuels, LLC" on Justia Law

The Village commenced this action against the Corps to require it to honor commitments made to the Village and other North Carolina towns when developing its plan to widen, deepen, and realign portions of the Cape Fear River navigation channel. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court agreed with the district court's holding that the Corps' failure to implement "commitments" made to the Village during development of the plans for the project was not final agency action subject to judicial review. The court also concluded that the alleged contracts on which the Village relied for its contract claims were not maritime contracts that justified the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Village of Bald Head Island v. U. S. Army Corps" on Justia Law

Franz Weinheimer filed a notice of water appropriation in 1971 which listed a point in Section 4 as the point of diversion. Franz's son Francis filed a claim with the water court in 1981. Francis transferred the property interests in the claim to Weinheimer Ranch (Ranch) in 1991. The Ranch filed a motion to amend the claim in 2002 and a supplement to the motion in 2003 seeking to amend the claim's historical right, priority date, and source. The water court denied the Ranch's motion to amend the claim's historic rate and priority date. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the facts in the record did not require an inference that the Ranch's predecessor in interest mistakenly had listed Section 9 instead of Section 4 on his 1986 notice of appropriation, and the water court reasonably declined to infer such a finding; and (2) the water court properly determined that the Ranch had failed to present substantial evidence in support of its motion to amend its claim. View "Weinheimer Ranch, Inc. v. Pospisil" on Justia Law

On December 14, 2012, the district court issued an alternative writ of mandate directing several irrigation districts to comply with Mont. Code Ann. 85-7-1956 and -1957 before executing a water use agreement with the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation and the United States. On February 15, 2013, the district court issued another writ of mandate that rescinded and superseded the alternative writ of mandate. The writ of mandate enjoined the irrigation districts from entering into the proposed agreement. The Supreme Court vacated both the district court's writ of mandate and injunction and the court's alternative writ of mandate, holding that the district court (1) issued an appealable order, making the appeal from the district court's writ of mandate and injunction as well as the issue of whether the statutes apply to the water use agreement properly before the Court; (2) improperly granted the writ of mandate and injunction; and (3) incorrectly compelled the irrigation districts to comply with sections 85-7-1956 and -1957 before they executed the water use agreement. View "W. Mont. Water Users Ass'n, LLC v. Mission Irrigation Dist." on Justia Law

In 1977, the Environmental Protection Agency sued Michigan, Detroit, and the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department for exceeding effluent limitations and failing to satisfy monitoring requirements under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251. In 1977, the district court entered an initial Consent Judgment. Over the next 30 years, the DWSD fell in and out of compliance. In the most recent round of violations and court orders, the district judge gave a committee of local officials 60 days to fashion a final plan or face more intrusive court-ordered remedies. The judge adopted most of the committee’s recommendations but also directly abrogated some provisions in collective bargaining agreements of approximately 20 different bargaining units. None of the DWSD unions were parties. Unions sought to intervene. The district court denied the motions as untimely. The Sixth Circuit reversed. Although the unions were aware of the potential significance of the proceedings and failed to intervene before the court-approved committee returned its recommendations, total denial of intervention was an abuse of discretion. The unions have substantial interests at stake that “may as a practical matter” be impaired absent intervention. While concerns of delay and re-litigation are serious, they can be alleviated by limiting the scope of intervention. View "Unted States v. City of Detroit" on Justia Law

This appeal was taken from a district court order in a quiet title action. While the appeal was pending, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) declared twenty-seven unpatented mining claims asserted by Appellant forfeit and void by operation of law because Appellant failed to comply with the statutory mining claim maintenance requirement. Consequently, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the appeal was rendered moot when the BLM declared Appellant's asserted claims forfeit and void. The Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the appeal was moot because the controversy that existed at the beginning of this litigation concerning superior title was no longer at issue, and Appellant's claims did not exist as a matter of law. View "Majuba Mining, Ltd. v. Pumpkin Copper, Inc." on Justia Law

A civil penalty and restoration remedy was imposed on petitioners Robert and Michelle Huber, as a result of FWPA violations committed on their land, which had been developed subject to Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act (FWPA) permit conditions. A FWPA General Permit and Transition Area Waiver, issued to predecessors in title and duly recorded, controlled activities in certain areas of the Hubers' property. An administrative hearing substantiated the violations and resulted in the minimum fine and a restoration remedy for the affected property. On appeal from the final administrative action of the DEP, the Hubers raised for the first time a constitutional argument contesting the right of a DEP inspector to have entered their land without securing a warrant in advance. They argued that the inspector's testimony, based on observations made during that inspection, should not have been included in the record and, therefore, the violations had not been substantiated. The Appellate Division rejected the Hubers' constitutional challenge, in addition to all other arguments raised, and affirmed the administrative penalty. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the outcome of the Appellate Division, but on different grounds as to how the FWPA inspection scheme operated consistently within constitutional parameters. The Court affirmed the judgment imposing an administrative penalty and a restoration remedy for disturbed freshwater wetlands on the Hubers' property. View "New Jersey Dept. of Env. Prot. v. Huber" on Justia Law

These appeals arose from disputes as to liability for cleanup of hazardous substances at a former fertilizer manufacturing site in Charleston, South Carolina. After incurring response costs, Ashley, the current owner of a portion of the site, brought a cost recovery action against PCS under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675. PCS counterclaimed and also brought third-party contribution actions against parties with past and current connections to the site. The district court bifurcated the trial. The district court found at the first bench trial that PCS was a potentially responsible party jointly and severally liable for response costs at the site. The district court found at the second trial that some of the other parties, including Ashley, were potentially responsible parties, each liable for an allocated portion of the site's response costs. The parties appealed but the court affirmed the district court's judgment in all respects. View "PSC Nitrogen Inc. v. Ashley II of Charleston" on Justia Law

Defendants, PG&E and Pacific Bell, own and maintain utility poles throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. Plaintiff filed this action against both companies, alleging that the poles discharged wood preservative into the environment in violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1251-1387, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901-6992k. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the action under Rule 12(b)(6) where plaintiff failed to state a claim under the CWA because discharges of stormwater from the utility poles were neither a "point source discharge" nor "associated with industrial activity" and where plaintiff failed to state a claim under the RCRA because wood preservation that escaped from the utility poles was not a "solid waste." The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff leave to amend. View "Ecological Rights Foundation v. PG&E" on Justia Law