Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

The State of Arizona filed an interlocutory appeal from an order issued in the general stream adjudications of the Gila River System and Source and the Little Colorado System and Source. At issue was whether federal water rights were impliedly reserved on lands granted by the United States government to the State of Arizona to support education and other public institutions (State Trust Lands). The Supreme Court accepted review and affirmed the superior court's ruling that there was no withdrawal, no reservation for a federal purpose, and no congressional intent to reserve water rights for the State Trust Lands. View "In re Water Rights to Gila / Little Colorado" on Justia Law

GenCorp owned a vinyl-manufacturing facility, including hazardous waste management units (RCRA units), which reclaimed solvent waste. Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901, GenCorp was obligated to obtain permits for the units. GenCorp had not received all of the required permits when it agreed to sell the facility. The agreement specified GenCorp’s retained liabilities, and contained a provision requiring each party to indemnify and defend against their retained liabilities. Textileather became the owner in 1990 and decided to discontinue use of the RCRA units. Textileather began the closure process required by Ohio Administrative Code 3745-66; the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) issued several Notices of Deficiency. Textileather challenged the OEPA’s 2001 closure plan and asserted that GenCorp was obligated to indemnify and defend. The district court ruled in favor of GenCorp, holding that, under the agreement, OEPA did not constitute a “third party” and Textileather’s RCRA closure proceedings did not constitute a “claim or action.” The Sixth Circuit reversed in part and directed the district court to enter judgment for Textileather on the legal question of whether the retained liabilities section of the agreement applies. The court affirmed that GenCorp retained only CERCLA claims covered by certain sections. View "Textileather Corp. v. GenCorp Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are a collection of primarily non-trawl fishermen's associations and groups whose longtime participation in the fishery may shrink under Amendments 20 and 21 to the PacificCoast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. The Plan was designed to increase economic efficiency through fleet consolidation, reduce environmental impacts, and simplify future decisionmaking. Plaintiffs argued that the Amendments were unlawful under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801-1884, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants where the NMFS complied with both the MSA and NEPA provisions at issue. View "Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Assoc., et al v. Locke, et al" on Justia Law

The named defendant, EAPWJP, LLC (EAP) appealed from the judgment of the appellate court affirming the judgment of the trial court granting the plaintiffs and the defendants-cross claimants a prescriptive easement over a pathway crossing property owned by EAP that the plaintiffs and the defendants-cross claimants had used for many years to access a nearby beach. The pathway traversed protected tidal wetlands and was covered in part by a wooden walkway installed without appropriate permits. The Supreme Court granted certification to appeal to ask whether the appellate court properly concluded that construction and use of a walkway deemed to be a per se public nuisance could establish a prescriptive easement over the underlying tidal wetlands. The Court dismissed the appeal as improvidently granted, concluding that the issue raised by the certified question went beyond the scope of the record below, and therefore, the issue was not properly preserved. View "Murphy v. EAPWJP, LLC" on Justia Law

Appellants in this case are companies that submitted high bids on certain oil and gas leases at a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) auction (collectively, the Energy Companies). After the auction but before the leases were issued, newly appointed Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar decided not to lease the parcels at issue. Salazar announced his decision at a February 4, 2009, press conference and memorialized his determination in a February 6 memorandum to the BLM’s Utah State Director. On February 12, 2009, a subordinate BLM official mailed letters to the high bidders indicating that the leases would not be issued. Exactly ninety days later, the Energy Companies filed suit challenging the Secretary’s authority to withdraw the leases. The district court dismissed their suit as time-barred under the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA), which provides that “[n]o action contesting a decision of the Secretary involving any oil and gas lease shall be maintained unless such action is commenced or taken within ninety days after the final decision of the Secretary relating to such matter.” A majority of the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that the Secretary’s final decision in this matter occurred no later than February 6, and thus, the suit was time-barred. The panel majority also agreed with the district court that the Energy Companies were not entitled to equitable tolling in this matter: the BLM notified the high bidders just six days after the Secretary made his decision. And the government notified the Energy Companies of its position that February 6 was the operative date during agency proceedings. Although the Energy Companies had time to prepare their claims before the limitations period expired, they gambled that a court would accept their proffered limitations theory. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court. View "Impact Energy Resources, LLC, et al v. Salazar, et al" on Justia Law

Congress authorized the State of Colorado to regulate hazardous wasted in the state. Invoking that regulatory authority, Plaintiff-Appellant Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (“Colorado” or “CDPHE”), declared the chemical weapons stored at an Army weapons depot near Pueblo awaiting destruction to be hazardous waste. In this action, Colorado sought to enforce its regulation prohibiting storage of any hazardous waste against the Depot. The specific question presented by this appeal was whether Congress’s mandate that the Army destroy these chemical weapons at the Depot by 2017 preempted Colorado’s enforcement against the Depot of its regulation prohibiting storage of any hazardous waste. Ultimately, the Tenth Circuit was persuaded by the "detailed manner with which Congress has addressed and mandated the destruction of the chemical weapons stored at the Depot to conclude that that federal law preempts Colorado’s attempt to regulate that destruction process by enforcing its prohibition of the storage of hazardous waste against the Depot." View "Colorado Department of Public v. United States, et al" on Justia Law

In 2009 the Forest Service awarded Scott contracts to remove timber on federally-owned plots during a designated period. Scott was then pursuing litigation based on delays in other contracts resulting from environmental litigation. The government therefore included provisions in the contracts at issue, authorizing suspension of the contracts to comply with court orders or for environmental reasons. The contracts provided for term adjustment, but prohibited award of lost profits, attorney’s fees, replacement costs, and similar losses. Another environmental suit arose in Oregon, resulting in an injunction that included the contracts at issue. The Forest Service suspended the contracts and began protected species surveys required by that litigation. Surveys were completed in late 2000, but the suspensions continued, due to new litigation, until 2003. In 2004-2008, Scott harvested the total contractual amount of timber. In 2005, Scott sought damages. The Claims Court found breach of an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing and that the government unreasonably delayed the surveys and continued the suspensions. The court found that Scott was entitled to $28,742 in lost profits and $129,599 in additional costs, offset by some actual profit; the government was also liable to a log-processing subcontractor, for $6,771,397 in lost profits; The Federal Circuit reversed. View "Scott Timber Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned the construction of a single word, "sudden," within a pollution exclusion clause in a series of liability insurance policies barring coverage for certain damages unless the events causing those damages were "sudden and accidental" (an issue of first impression in New Mexico). Concluding that "sudden" lacks a single clear meaning, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' holding that the word unambiguously signifies "quick, abrupt, or a temporarily short period of time. . . .Under well-established principles of insurance law," the Court construed this ambiguity in favor of the insured, Petitioner United Nuclear Corporation, and interpreted the term "sudden" in the insurance policies at issue in this dispute to mean "unexpected." the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "United Nuclear Corp. v. Allstate Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted for illegally trafficking in sperm whale teeth and narwhal tusks. Specifically, the jury found Defendant's whale-tooth dealings violated CITES, an international compact implemented in the United States via the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and regulations authorized by the ESA. Defendant appealed, contending (1) the district judge should have instructed the jury on certain lesser-included offenses because he did not actually know his transactions were illegal, even if he should have known; and (2) smuggling convictions are legally wrong because his conduct violated only regulations, not statutes. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed after quoting a line from Moby Dick, holding (1) the district court did not err in failing to give the requested instructions because a rational jury could not have found that Defendant lacked actual knowledge that his whale-tooth transactions were illegal; and (2) the smuggling statute criminalizes violations of regulations like those implementing CITES because Congress intended the word "law" in the phrase "contrary to law" to include regulatory law as well as statutory law. View "United States v. Place" on Justia Law

This case involved the Service's regulations under Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1371(a), that authorized incidental take of polar bears and Pacific walruses resulting from oil and gas exploration activities in the Chukchi Sea and on the adjacent coast of Alaska. Plaintiffs brought suit challenging the regulations and accompanying environmental review documents under various environmental acts. The court held that the Service permissibly determined that only "relatively small numbers" of polar bears and Pacific walruses would be taken in relation to the size of their larger populations, because the agency separately determined that the anticipated take would have only a "negligible impact" on the mammals' annual rates of recruitment or survival. The "small numbers" determination was consistent with the statute and was not arbitrary and capricious. The court also held that the Service's accompanying Biological Opinion and Environmental Assessment (EA) complied with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. View "Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Salazar, et al." on Justia Law