Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, operator of an electricity plant, sued defendant ("the county"), seeking to enjoin Expedited Bill 29-10, which imposed a levy on large stationary emitters of carbon dioxide within the county, on the ground that it violated the United States and Maryland Constitutions. At issue was whether a Montgomery County exaction on carbon dioxide emissions, levied only upon plaintiff's electricity-generating facility, was a tax or a fee. The court held that the carbon charge, which targeted a single emitter and was located squarely within the county's own "programmatic efforts to reduce" greenhouse gas emissions, was a punitive and regulatory fee over which the federal courts retained jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Marilyn Hamblin, the owner of a water right, filed a permanent change application with the state engineer seeking to change her water right's place of use and point of diversion. The state engineer denied the application, declaring that Hamblin had forfeited her water right. Hamblin filed a petition for judicial review. The district court granted the state engineer's motion for summary judgment and denied Hamblin's cross-motion for summary judgment, basing its decision primarily on the determination that Hamblin's water right had been forfeited by operation of law by her nonuse. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the state engineer lacked statutory authority to consider non-adjudicated forfeiture when making a decision to approve or reject a permanent change application.

Plaintiffs, several states, the city of New York, and three private land trusts, sued defendants, four private power companies and the federal Tennessee Valley Authority, alleging that defendants' emissions substantially and unreasonably interfered with public rights in violation of the federal common law of interstate nuisance, or in the alternative, of state tort law. Plaintiffs sought a decree setting carbon-dioxide emissions for each defendant at an initial cap to be further reduced annually. At issue was whether plaintiffs could maintain federal common law public nuisance claims against carbon-dioxide emitters. As a preliminary matter, the Court affirmed, by an equally divided Court, the Second Circuit's exercise of jurisdiction and proceeded to the merits. The Court held that the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401, and the Environmental Protection Act ("Act"), 42 U.S.C. 7411, action the Act authorized displaced any federal common-law right to seek abatement of carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel fired power plants. The Court also held that the availability vel non of a state lawsuit depended, inter alia, on the preemptive effect of the federal Act. Because none of the parties have briefed preemption or otherwise addressed the availability of a claim under state nuisance law, the matter was left for consideration on remand. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Appellants the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), and the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League appealed a final order of the Administrative Law Court (ALC) that granted Respondent Jerry Risher's "critical area permit" application to construct a bridge over a portion of wetlands contained within his property on Fripp Island. Respondent owns less than a half-acre, half of which is "upland high ground" or build-able property. The remainder of the property partially surrounds the build-able portion and is composed of wetlands. One year prior to Respondent's purchase of the lot, his predecessor in title applied to the DHEC and was approved for a critical area permit to construct a vehicular bridge across the non-build-able wetland portion of the lot to connect with the nearest vehicular road. In 2006, Respondent began to construct a bridge similar to the one previously submitted and approved by his predecessor in title. To that end, Respondent submitted a permit application to OCRM. OCRM took the matter under advisement but ultimately denied Respondent's application based on its finding that the upland build-able portion of the lot qualified as a coastal island which was too small to allow bridge access. After exhausting DHEC's review options, Respondent filed a request for review by the ALC. A hearing was held, and the ALC issued an order reversing DHEC's denial of Respondent's permit request. DHEC appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that there was insufficient evidence before the ALC to reverse its decision. Upon review of the briefs submitted and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court found substantial evidence sufficient to support the ALC's decision. The Court affirmed the ALC's decision in support of Respondent.

This appeal concerned whether the court or the district court had jurisdiction over matters relating to a citizen petition filed pursuant to FDA regulations promulgated under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("Act"), 21 U.S.C. 301, et seq. Because its citizen petition to revoke regulations permitting Bisphenol A ("BPA") to be used as a food additive had been pending since October 21, 2008, the NRDC sought what amounted to be a writ of mandamus directing the FDA to issue a final decision on its petition. The court held that exclusive jurisdiction over citizen petitions was with the district court and accordingly, dismissed the petition.

In 2000 the planning board approved a development and the developer began purchasing land. In 2002, the Department of Justice issued an opinion that the land could be sold without legislative action, although it was gained from the sea. Construction began; the developer invested $200 million. Because of protests, the legislature investigated and concluded that the developer lacked valid title. A 2007 Department of Justice opinion stated that the land belonged to the public domain. The governor suspended permits and froze construction. Pending a hearing, the developer filed a quiet title action. The Regulations and Permits Administration upheld suspension of construction. The Puerto Rico appeals court ordered the administration to hold an evidentiary hearing (which did not occur), but did not lift the stay on construction. The developer succeeded in its quiet title action; in 2008 construction resumed. The supreme court held that the developer's due process rights had been violated. The district court dismissed a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The First Circuit affirmed. Although the plaintiff did state a procedural due process claim, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. The defendants were not on clear notice they they were required to hold a meaningful pre-deprivation hearing.

After a separation in the legal ownership of Mountain Pure and Gold Star Dairy, Mountain Pure was required to install a new representative sampling point and wastewater-flow-measurement system pursuant to a compliance order. Mountain Pure installed a new sampling point and sewer meter. Little Rock Wastewater (LRW) determined the sampling point and meter had been improperly installed and required corrective measures. LRW informed Mountain Pure that unless it was in compliance with the ordinances, legal action would be taken. A show-cause hearing was then held, in which the hearing officer found that Mountain Pure had violated its permit, compliance order and applicable ordinances. Mountain Pure appealed, and the circuit court affirmed the administrative decision. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the administrative decision was not arbitrary and capricious and that it was supported by substantial evidence. Affirmed.

Defendant entered a plea of guilty to removing and disposing of asbestos in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)(1) while replacing an apartment building heating system. He claimed that he had not known that asbestos was harmful and reserved his right to appeal the meaning of "knowingly," as used in the statute. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, three years of supervised release, $12,765 in restitution, and a $100 special assessment fee. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that an "as applied" vagueness challenge to the statute was not a challenge to the court's jurisdiction and was barred by the plea. Having already admitted guilt of the substantive crime and affirmed the underlying facts of the conviction, the defendant cannot re-argue the facts on appeal and challenge the statute as vague in application.

The Clean Air Act prohibits national and state officials from making changes that cause air quality to deteriorate in parts of the country that have yet to attain the required standard, 42 U.S.C. 7410(l), 7515. In 2002 the EPA changed the rules that determine when polluters need permits to modify existing facilities and what restrictions they carry. The EPA’s models project that the new approach will have neutral or beneficial effects on aggregate emissions; environmental groups disagree and challenged the EPA's approval of Wisconsin's plan that implements the 2002 changes. The Seventh Circuit dismissed the petition. Noting that the same arguments have been made in the past, the court stated that, as in 2002 and 2005, the models supply substantial evidence for the EPA’s decision and show that it is neither arbitrary nor capricious. Opponents have no better evidence.

After a generator failed, plaintiff ordered a replacement, believing that no permit was required for changes to its hydroelectric power facility, which is located on plaintiff's property on a non-navigable Massachusetts river. The facility consists of an 87-acre-foot reservoir, a 20-foot-high, 127-foot-long concrete gravity dam, two powerhouses, and appurtenant facilities. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission concluded that plaintiff required a license under the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 817(1). The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the facility is in a stream that is subject to Commerce Clause jurisdiction, the proposed changes will constitute "post-1935 construction" under the Act, and the proposed changes will affect interstate commerce. The Commission's interpretation of "construction" as encompassing the work at issue was reasonable and substantial evidence supports a finding that small hydroelectric plants have a cumulative impact on interstate commerce.