Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

The Middle Mississippi is the 195-mile-long stretch from St. Louis, Missouri, where the Missouri River flows into the Mississippi, to Cairo, Illinois, where the Ohio River flows into the Mississippi and doubles its flow. The 1910 Rivers and Harbors Act authorized the Army Corps of Engineers to construct permanent river training structures in the Middle Mississippi and perform supplemental dredging to maintain a channel sufficient for commercial traffic. The Corps has for decades built and maintained structures—dikes, jetties, and chevrons—along the Middle Mississippi to ensure that the channel is at least nine feet deep and 300 feet wide for commercial navigation. In 1976, under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Corps prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) assessing the project's ecological impacts. In 2013, the Corps decided to supplement its 1976 EIS, based on newly designated threatened and endangered species, and new information on the effects of river training structures and dredging. In the final supplemental EIS and record of decision, the Corps chose the “Continue Construction Alternative.” Because the exact locations and types of future river training structures are unknown, the supplemental statement studied environmental impacts at a programmatic level and will perform site-specific environmental assessments before actually building additional river training structures.In a challenge brought by environmental groups, the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the government, rejecting arguments that the supplemental EIS did not comply with the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, 121 Stat. 1041, or the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321. View "National Wildlife Federation v. United States Army Corps of Engineers" on Justia Law

MSHA’s jurisdiction, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (“Commission”) held that for the list of items in Section 802(h)(1)(C) to be considered a “mine,” the items had to be located at an extraction site, or the roads appurtenant thereto.  Because neither the trucks nor the facility associated with the citations at issue were located on land covered under subsections (A)–(B), the Commission found they failed to constitute a “mine” and vacated the citations. The Commission also found that, as an independent contractor not engaged in servicing a mine at the time of the citation, KC Transport failed to qualify as an “operator” under Section 802(d) of the Mine Act. The Secretary of Labor (“the Secretary”), acting through MSHA, appealed the Commission’s decision and asked the court to uphold the two citations as an appropriate exercise of the Secretary’s jurisdiction under the Mine Act. In the Secretary’s view, subsection (C) of the “mine” definition covers KC Transport’s facility and trucks because they were “used in” mining activity.   The DC Circuit vacated and remanded the Commission’s decision, allowing the Secretary to interpret the statute’s ambiguous language. The court explained that given the Mine Act’s language, context, and the court’s binding precedent, it finds that the Commission erred in its interpretation of the “mine” and “operator” definitions. And we generally defer to the Secretary’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute—even when the Commission disagrees. But here, the Secretary’s position treats subsection (C) as 4 unambiguous and makes no meaningful effort to address the numerous practical concerns that would arise under such an interpretation. View "Secretary of Labor v. KC Transport, Inc." on Justia Law

The City and County of San Francisco (“San Francisco”) petitions for review of a final order of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) denying review of San Francisco’s federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit for its Oceanside combined sewer system and wastewater treatment facility (“wastewater system”). This NPDES permit, issued pursuant to the Clean Water Act of 1972 (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251–1387, allows San Francisco to discharge from its wastewater system into the Pacific Ocean. San Francisco contends that EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously.   The Ninth Circuit denied San Francisco’s petition. The panel held that the EPA had authority under the CWA to include the two general narrative prohibitions. Noting that Supreme Court precedent, this Circuit’s prior cases, and prior Environmental Appeals Board decisions support the legality and confirm the enforceability of general narrative prohibitions in permits issued under the CWA, the panel held that the two narrative provisions were consistent with the CWA and its implementing regulations. The panel further held that the EPA was not required to follow the procedures set forth in 40 C.F.R. Section 122.44(d)(1)(i)-(vii) for deriving pollutant-specific effluent limitations in imposing the general narrative provisions and that the EPA’s decision to impose the general narrative provisions was rationally connected to evidence in the record indicating that a “backstop” to the more specific provisions would be useful in protecting beneficial uses. The panel next held that the EPA had authority under its Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy to require San Francisco to update its long-term control plan for its combined sewer overflows. View "CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO V. USEPA" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court in favor of the Town of Exeter in this action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief challenging the Town's decision to amend its zoning ordinance, which prevented Plaintiff from developing three commercial solar-field projects in Exeter, holding that Plaintiff was not entitled to relief on its allegations of error.On appeal, Plaintiff challenged several aspects of the superior court's judgment denying Plaintiff's request to enjoin enforcement of an emergency moratorium ordinance preventing review of Plaintiff's solar-field projects and to declare that Plaintiff's solar-field projects were vested pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws 45-24-44. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under this Court's understanding of the relevant law, the trial court properly entered judgment in favor of the Town. View "Green Development, LLC v. Town of Exeter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Ohio Power Siting Board authorizing Firelands Wind, LLC to construct, operate, and maintain a wind farm in Huron and Erie Counties, holding that the nineteen nearby residents and the Black Swamp Bird Observatory that brought this appeal (collectively, Appellants) have not established that the Board's order was unlawful or unreasonable.On appeal, Appellants challenged the Board's determination that the wind farm satisfies the statutory requirements for constructing a major utility facility, asserting, among other things, that the project could kill birds and create excessive noise for residents near the wind farm and that the Board improperly failed to follow its administrative rules. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Board's order was neither unlawful nor unreasonable. View "In re Application of Firelands Wind, L.L.C." on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioners' petition objecting to a permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and affirmed by the Environmental Appeals Board requiring General Electric Company (GE) to clean up polychlorinated biphenyls from certain portions of the Housatonic River, holding that the EPA's challenged actions were not arbitrary or capricious.On appeal, Petitioners brought three substantive challenges and also brought procedural challenges to the permit's issuance. The First Circuit denied the petition after noting that should GE's cleanup of the river not achieve the goals set out in the permit, the permit requires further measures, holding that Petitioners were not entitled to relief on their procedural and substantive legal challenges. View "Housatonic River Initiative v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency" on Justia Law

The City of Los Angeles (the City) approved a project at 1719-1731 North Whitley Avenue in Hollywood (the Project) that would replace 40 apartments subject to the City’s rent stabilization ordinance (RSO) with a hotel. The City determined the Project was exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines relating to certain development projects. The relevant guideline addresses what is often referred to as the “infill” exemption or the “Class 32” exemption. Respondent United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles (United Neighborhoods) sought a writ of mandate in the Los Angeles Superior Court, arguing, among other things, that the in-fill exemption does not apply because the Project is not consistent with a General Plan policy concerning the preservation of affordable housing. The trial court granted the writ, effectively halting the Project until the City was to find the Project is consistent with that policy or 148-159 undertakes CEQA review. The City and real parties in interest appeal.   The Second Appellate District affirmed the order granting the petition for writ of mandate. The court explained that the City’s suggestion that the Project’s consistency with the Framework Element implies consistency “with the entirety of the General Plan” because of the Framework Element’s foundational role assumes, contrary to authority, the Framework Element stands in perfect harmony with the General Plan. However, the court explained that although it affirms the trial court, it does not suggest that the City was necessarily required to make formal findings that Housing Element policies are outweighed by competing policies favoring the Project. View "United Neighborhoods for L.A. v. City of L.A." on Justia Law

The Center for Biological Diversity challenged the Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of certain air pollution control technology for use at various Pennsylvania industrial facilities. The Center argues that the EPA violated the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401, by focusing exclusively on emissions from those facilities instead of examining their impact on air quality more generally and that, even if the EPA is permitted to base its approvals on an emissions-only analysis, it incorrectly concluded that emissions would not be increased by Pennsylvania’s pollution control technologies at issue.The Third Circuit denied petitions for review, interpreting the relevant statutory provisions to permit the EPA’s chosen emissions-based approach. The court reasoned that emissions were the sole air quality variable implicated by Pennsylvania’s revisions of its state implementation plan under the Act; it was therefore not arbitrary for the EPA to use an emissions-based analysis. It was not arbitrary for the EPA to use prior permitting standards, instead of presumptive Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), as the emissions baseline for its comparative emissions analysis. The Center’s alternative challenges were procedurally and substantively deficient. View "Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Environmental Protection Agency" on Justia Law

Port Hamilton Refinery purchased an existing St. Croix petroleum refinery at a 2021 bankruptcy auction, hoping to resume operations. The Refinery had for decades served as the backbone of St. Croix’s local economy until it ceased operations in 2012. Months later, the EPA notified Port Hamilton that it would need a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit before the Refinery could resume operations.The PSD program is part of the Clean Air Act (CAA); a facility must not contribute to the violation of applicable air quality standards and must implement the “best available control technology” to limit air pollution, 42 U.S.C. 7475(a), 7479(3). PSD applies to newly constructed stationary sources of air pollution and sources that undergo emissions-altering modifications. Under EPA’s “Reactivation Policy,” an existing facility is “new” if EPA concludes that it had previously been “shut down” and restarted. If the EPA determines that the facility had only been “idled,” it need not obtain a permit.In 2018, EPA notified the Refinery’s prior owner that it need not obtain a PSD permit because the Refinery had been only “idled” since 2012. In 2022, EPA reversed course. The Third Circuit vacated the EPA decision. The Reactivation Policy, as applied to the Refinery, exceeds EPA’s statutory authority. View "Port Hamilton Refining and Transportation LLLP v. United States Environmental Protection Agency" on Justia Law

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (“RCRA”) governs the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. In implementing the RCRA, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) promulgated a rule under which waste is deemed “hazardous” if it is “corrosive.” A scientist and a public interest group, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (“PEER”), unsuccessfully petitioned the EPA to expand the definition of “corrosive” wastes so that more wastes would be subject to the RCRA’s most stringent requirements. The question presented in this case is whether the EPA properly declined to revise its corrosivity regulation.The DC Circuit denied the petition for review. The court held that PEER’s arguments concerning the EPA’s erroneous understanding of the ILO encyclopedia analysis and its allegedly improper protection of the commercial use of lime-treated sludge are untimely; the court wrote that, therefore it lacks jurisdiction to consider them. Moreover, the court said it was required to apply a highly deferential standard of review with respect to PEER’s remaining claims and found no basis to disturb the agency’s decisions. View "Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. EPA" on Justia Law