Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

MARPOL is the common name for the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1340 U.N.T.S. 62. At issue was whether the United States had jurisdiction to prosecute a nominated surveyor for knowingly violating the MARPOL treaty while aboard a foreign vessel docked in the United States. After thorough review of the relevant treaty and U.S. law, the court held that the United States had jurisdiction to prosecute surveyors for MARPOL violations committed in U.S. ports. Further, under the court's lenient standards of review for issues raised for the first time on appeal, the court found no reversible error in the indictment or jury instructions. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's denial of judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction. View "United States v. Pena" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs challenged the Corps' decision to approve a permit under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1344, and section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA), 33 U.S.C. 403, to build a mooring facility and concrete boat ramp about 3,000 feet from the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia Beach. Plaintiffs appealed the district court's award of summary judgment to defendants. Having concluded that the Corps' grant of the permit violated the applicable National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), procedural requirements, the court was not inclined to decide whether it should not have issued on different grounds. Therefore, the court vacated the judgment, remanded for preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and remanded for further proceedings. View "Friends of Back Bay, et al. v. US Army Corps of Engineers, et al." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the county's determination that a proposed building project was categorically exempt from compliance with environmental law requirements. At issue was a statutory provision stating that a public agency's approval of a proposed project could be challenged in court only on grounds that were "presented to the public agency orally or in writing by any person during the public comment period...or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination." Pub. Resources Code, 21177, subd.(a). The court held that this exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies provision applied to a public agency's decision that a project was categorically exempt from environmental law requirements. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was reversed, and the matter was remanded to that court so it could address petitioners' remaining contentions that, although raised by petitioners, were not resolved by that court because of its conclusion that section 21177's exhaustion-of-administrative remedies requirement was inapplicable. View "Tomlinson v. Co. of Alameda" on Justia Law

This case arose when some Ecuadorian citizens sued Chevron in an Ecuador court, alleging that Chevron was responsible for environmental damage there. As the proceedings in Ecuador unfolded, Chevron sued the Ecuadorian plaintiffs and their attorneys in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, claiming that the Ecuadorian plaintiffs and their attorneys had committed fraud in the proceedings in Ecuador. As part of the New York litigation, Chevron subpoenaed documents from the Weinberg Group and the subpoena was issued from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Weinberg Group asserted the attorney-client and work product privileges over some of the documents responsive to the subpoena. Chevron moved to compel production of those documents in the D.C. district court. The D.C. district court found that the crime-fraud exception applied and granted Chevron's motion to compel, relying almost entirely on a decision in favor of Chevron by the New York district court in the underlying fraud investigation. The court concluded that, given that the D.C. district court relied on the decision of the New York district court and that the New York district court's decision was subsequently reversed by the Second Circuit, the court must vacate the D.C. district court's decision and remand. View "Chevron Corp. v. Weinberg Group" on Justia Law

Petitioners petitioned the court for review of the Commission's rulemaking regarding temporary storage of permanent disposal of nuclear waste. The court held that the rulemaking issue constituted a major federal action necessitating either an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant environmental impact. The court further held that the Commission's evaluation of the risks of spent nuclear fuel was deficient in two specified ways. Accordingly, the court granted the petitions for review, vacated the Commission's orders, and remanded for further proceedings. View "State of New York v. NRC" on Justia Law

API petitioned for review of a 2008 EPA regulation deregulating many "hazardous secondary materials" under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901-6992k. After the parties completed briefing, the EPA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that, if made final, would significantly amend the EPA's 2008 decision. As a result, the court deemed this controversy unripe as a prudential matter and ordered the case held in abeyance, subject to regular reports on the status of the proposed rulemaking. View "American Petroleum Institute v. EPA" on Justia Law

In 1957 the Commonwealth constructed the Quehanna Wild Area Nuclear Site. Part of the site was donated to Pennsylvania State University. Until 1967 Penn State leased to a Lockheed predecessor, conducting work under Atomic Energy Commission contracts, involving Strontium-90, a radioactive isotope. The predecessor partially decontaminated. According to Lockheed, the Commonwealth was aware that Strontium-90 remained and could not be removed without dismantling the facility. In the 1990s, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ordered the Commonwealth, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to decommission the facility. This cost more than $20 million. PADEP sued Lockheed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a). Lockheed defended that the Commonwealth should recover less than its demand based on its own conduct and liability and the doctrines of unclean hands, estoppel, waiver, and laches. Lockheed also alleged that PADEP was liable under CERCLA as an owner-operator and as having arranged for or transported hazardous substances. The district court dismissed Lockheed’s third-party complaint, concluding that the Commonwealth and DCNR retained Eleventh Amendment immunity when PADEP filed a federal suit. The Third Circuit vacated with instructions to dismiss the third party complaint as moot, based on the sufficiency of Lockheed’s affirmative defenses. View "Commonwealth of PA Dep' of Envtl. Prot. v. Lockheed Martin Corp." on Justia Law

This case concerned State Engineer Ruling 5823, which allocated groundwater rights in the Dayton Valley Hydrographic Basin, which lay wholly within Lyon County. Appellants Churchill County and the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe protested the applications, maintaining that the Basin was severely over-appropriated. The State Engineer rejected both Appellant's protests and granted all pending applications. Appellants filed a petition for judicial review pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. 533.540(1), which affords judicial review in the nature of an appeal to any person feeling aggrieved by an order or decision of the State Water Engineer affecting the person's interests. The appeal "must be initiated in the proper court of the county in which the matters affected or a portion thereof are situated." The district court dismissed the petition because the Petitioners filed their appeals in Churchill County, where their rights or interests allegedly would be affected, as opposed to Lyon County, where the applicants' groundwater appropriations lay. By then, section 533.450(1)'s thirty-day limit on seeking judicial review had passed. The Supreme Court vacated the jurisdictional dismissal, holding that the district court read the statute too restrictively. Remanded. View "In re State Engineer Ruling No. 5823" on Justia Law

Petitioners, non-profit environmental protection organizations, filed petitions for judicial review challenging sixteen Department of the Interior (DOI) plan approvals, issued between March 29 and May 20, 2010, under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1331-1356a. The court concluded that: (1) petitioners' OCSLA-based challenges were justiciable, except for four, which have become moot; (2) the DOI's approval of the exploratory and development plans were subject to judicial review by the court under OCSLA, 43 U.S.C. 1349(c)(2); (3) petitioners' failure to participate in the administrative proceedings related to the DOI's approval of the plans as required by section 1349(c)(3) did not oust the court's jurisdiction because that participation requirement was a non-jurisdictional administrative exhaustion rule; but, (4) petitioners have not shown sufficient justification for excusing them from that exhaustion requirement in this case. Accordingly, except for four of petitioners' petitions for judicial review that were dismissed as moot, petitioners' petitions for judicial review were dismissed because of their failure to participate in the administrative proceedings. View "Gulf Restoration Network, Inc., et al. v. Salazar, et al.; Ctr for Biological Diversity v. Salazar, et al." on Justia Law

Ohio enacted legislation under which it no longer will apply the "best available technology" standard to small emitters as part of its state implementation plan (SIP) for National Ambient Air Quality Standards for certain types of air pollutants (Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7409). Act. The U.S. EPA did not approve a change to the SIP, but has taken no action to require the state to enforce the standard. Environmentalists sued under the Clean Air Act’s citizen-suit provision. The district court entered an injunction expressly ordering the state to administer the federal rule. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded for dismissal, concluding that intervening Supreme Court precedent and the text and structure of the Clean Air Act itself indicate that the citizen-suit provision does not authorize this lawsuit, but authorizes suit against the federal EPA. View "Sierra Club v. Korleski" on Justia Law