Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves a challenge to the adequacy of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for a project proposing significant changes to the California State Capitol. The Department of General Services (DGS) and the Joint Committee on Rules of the California State Senate and Assembly (Joint Rules Committee) prepared both an EIR and a revised EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project includes demolishing the existing Capitol Annex, constructing a new attached Annex, building an underground visitor center, and constructing a new underground parking garage.The Superior Court of Sacramento County initially rejected challenges to the EIR brought by Save Our Capitol! and Save the Capitol, Save the Trees. On appeal, the Court of Appeal found certain aspects of the EIR flawed and remanded the case. After DGS revised the EIR and reapproved the project without the visitor center, the trial court discharged the writ. Save the Capitol, Save the Trees appealed, arguing the trial court prematurely discharged the writ. The Court of Appeal agreed and reversed the trial court's decision. Save Our Capitol! then filed a new petition challenging the revised EIR, which the trial court also rejected.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decision. The court held that recent legislation, Senate Bill No. 174, exempts the Capitol Annex Project from CEQA’s requirements. The court found that Senate Bill 174, which took effect immediately, dictates that all work performed under the Annex Act is exempt from CEQA. Consequently, Save Our Capitol!'s claims that DGS violated CEQA were rejected. The court also addressed and dismissed Save Our Capitol!'s argument that Senate Bill 174 is unconstitutional under article IV, section 28 of the California Constitution, finding that the bill explicitly bars funds from being used inconsistent with this constitutional provision. View "Save Our Capitol! v. Dept. of General Services" on Justia Law

The City and County of Honolulu and the County of Maui sued several fossil fuel companies, including Aloha Petroleum, Ltd., for climate change-related harms. Aloha sought a defense in these suits from two insurance companies, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, and American Home Assurance Company, both subsidiaries of American Insurance Group (AIG). The insurance companies had issued several commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policies to Aloha’s parent company. The case revolves around whether these policies obligate AIG to defend Aloha in the counties’ lawsuits.The United States District Court for the District of Hawai‘i reviewed the case and certified two questions to the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i. The first question asked whether an “accident” includes an insured’s reckless conduct. The second question asked whether greenhouse gases (GHGs) are “pollutants” as defined in the policies’ pollution exclusions. The District Court noted that the counties’ lawsuits allege Aloha acted recklessly by emitting GHGs and misleading the public about the dangers of these emissions.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i answered both certified questions. The court held that an “accident” includes reckless conduct, aligning with its precedent in Tri-S Corp. v. Western World Ins. Co., which held that recklessness may be an “occurrence.” The court clarified that an “accident” includes conduct where harm was not intended or practically certain. The court also held that GHGs are “pollutants” under the insurance policies’ pollution exclusion clause, as they are “gaseous” “contaminants” that cause “property damage” when released into the atmosphere. The court concluded that the pollution exclusion bars coverage for emitting or misleading the public about emitting GHGs. View "Aloha Petroleum, LTD. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA." on Justia Law

Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc. applied to the Ohio Power Siting Board for approval to construct a 3.7-mile natural-gas-distribution pipeline in Maumee, Ohio. The application was submitted under an accelerated review process for pipelines less than five miles long. Yorktown Management, L.L.C., which owns property adjacent to the proposed pipeline route, raised concerns about the safety and environmental impact of the pipeline, particularly its proximity to their commercial office building.The Ohio Power Siting Board approved Columbia's application under the accelerated review process, finding that the project met the necessary criteria. Yorktown filed a motion to intervene and later a motion to suspend the review, arguing that the board had not adequately addressed their safety concerns. The board denied Yorktown's motion to suspend and subsequently denied their application for rehearing, leading Yorktown to appeal the decision.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and affirmed the board's decision. The court found that Columbia's application did not require a 50-foot-wide permanent easement along the entire pipeline route, as Yorktown claimed. The court also determined that Yorktown had waived its right to challenge the board's rejection of testimony from a different pipeline project. Additionally, the court held that the board did not err in refusing to suspend its review of the accelerated application, as Yorktown failed to demonstrate good cause for suspension. The court concluded that the board did not improperly defer to Columbia and had appropriately conditioned the approval on compliance with relevant safety regulations. View "In re Letter of Notification Application of Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc. for the Ford Street Pipeline Project" on Justia Law

A lawyer representing an environmental group sought disability accommodations under California Rule of Court 1.100 due to his bipolar disorder. The accommodations requested included extensions of time for briefing deadlines and relief from procedural obligations in a case challenging the approval of a timber harvest plan by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFIRE). The trial court had previously granted six similar requests over eight months but denied the seventh request, leading to this appeal.The Sonoma County Superior Court had partially granted the environmental group's petition for a writ of mandate, finding deficiencies in CalFIRE's approval of the timber harvest plan regarding geologic, biologic, and cultural resources. However, the court rejected the group's claim that CalFIRE's delayed and incomplete response to public comments rendered the approval defective. Dissatisfied with this partial victory, the group appealed, arguing that the trial court's denial of the seventh accommodation request prevented a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case and upheld the trial court's decision. The appellate court found that the trial court acted within its discretion in denying the seventh request for accommodation. The court noted that the trial court had already granted multiple extensions and that further delays would create an undue burden and fundamentally alter the nature of the expedited California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) proceeding. The appellate court emphasized that the environmental group had the option to retain additional counsel to avoid further delays, which it failed to do. The judgment was affirmed, and the respondents were awarded their costs on appeal. View "Friends of the So. Fork Gualala v. Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between the California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition (Coalition) and the State Air Resources Board (Board) over the adoption of the Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation (Regulation). The Coalition, which promotes the use of natural gas as an alternative fuel, argues that the Regulation's focus on electric vehicles (ZEV) harms those who have invested in low-NOx natural gas technologies. The Coalition contends that the Board failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) in promulgating the Regulation.The Superior Court of Fresno County rejected the Coalition's claims and denied their petition. The court found that the Board's rejection of the low-NOx vehicle credit as an alternative was supported by substantial evidence and that the Board had no further obligation to consider low-NOx vehicles as a mitigation measure. The court also concluded that the Board's failure to respond to certain public comments was harmless. Additionally, the court ruled that the Board had conducted a proper economic analysis under the APA and had correctly rejected the low-NOx vehicle credit in its analysis. The court did, however, allow the administrative record to be augmented with a document referenced in several comments during the regulatory proceedings.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that the Board's rejection of the low-NOx vehicle credit as an alternative was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. The court also found that the Board had considered a reasonable range of alternatives and was not obligated to discuss the low-NOx vehicle credit as a mitigation measure. The court further concluded that the Board's failure to respond to comments was harmless and that the Board had complied with the APA in its economic analysis. The court also found that any error in augmenting the administrative record was harmless. View "California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition v. State Air Resources Board" on Justia Law

King County Ordinance 19030 altered zoning and business licensing regulations for wineries, breweries, and distilleries (WBDs) in agricultural and rural areas. The ordinance aimed to support economic development but faced challenges regarding compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA) and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The ordinance allowed for expanded WBD operations and introduced new licensing requirements, but it also raised concerns about environmental impacts and the preservation of agricultural land.The Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board found that the County failed to comply with SEPA and the GMA, invalidating parts of the ordinance. The Board's decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the Board's ruling. Friends of Sammamish Valley and Futurewise sought further review, arguing that the County did not adequately address environmental impacts and agricultural land preservation. The County contended that the ordinance was a "nonproject action" not requiring environmental review under SEPA and presumed valid under the GMA.The Supreme Court of Washington reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, reinstating the Board's order. The Court held that the County's SEPA checklist was insufficient, failing to address the full range of probable environmental impacts. The Court emphasized that the GMA requires the conservation of agricultural land and that the ordinance's changes could significantly impact the environment. The Court concluded that the County must conduct a comprehensive environmental review to comply with SEPA and the GMA. View "King County v. Friends of Sammamish Valley" on Justia Law

Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation (CERF) sued Naples Restaurant Group, LLC, and its owner over the restaurant’s annual Fourth of July fireworks show at Alamitos Bay in Los Angeles, alleging violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA) due to fireworks discharges into the water without a permit. The district court found that one firework malfunctioned and fell into the water, but this single incident was insufficient to establish a continuing violation of the CWA. Consequently, the district court dismissed CERF’s claim without prejudice.After the district court’s decision, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board began issuing a general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for public fireworks displays over Los Angeles waters. Naples applied for and received this permit, which authorized the discharges that CERF had challenged.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that it was constitutionally moot. The court held that the issuance of the NPDES permit made it absolutely clear that the alleged CWA violations could not reasonably be expected to recur, as Naples now had a permit authorizing the discharges. Therefore, CERF’s claims for declarative and injunctive relief were moot. The court also held that the same mootness standard applied to CERF’s claim for civil penalties, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc. Finally, the court concluded that CERF’s claim for attorneys’ fees was also moot.The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it as moot. View "COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION V. NAPLES RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC" on Justia Law

In April 2020, the City of Upland approved the development of a 201,096 square-foot warehouse/parcel delivery service building. The City adopted a mitigated negative declaration (MND) for the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Upland Community First (UCF) filed a petition for a writ of mandate, claiming the project violated CEQA due to potential significant impacts on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, traffic, and air quality. UCF argued that an environmental impact report (EIR) should have been prepared.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County granted UCF’s petition, finding insufficient evidence to support the City’s use of two quantitative thresholds for measuring the project’s cumulative impacts on GHG emissions. The court ordered the City to set aside its resolutions approving the MND and other project approvals to address the sufficiency of evidence supporting the City’s threshold of significance for GHG emissions. Both UCF and Bridge Development Partners, LLC, the project developer, appealed the judgment.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court found that substantial evidence supported the City’s use of the 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO2 e/yr.) threshold for measuring the significance of the project’s GHG emissions. The court concluded that the project’s GHG emissions would be below this threshold, thus not significantly impacting the environment. The court also found no merit in UCF’s claims regarding the project’s impacts on traffic, air quality, and GHG emissions. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment and directed the lower court to enter judgment in favor of the City and Bridge. View "Upland Community First v. City of Upland" on Justia Law

The City of Sammamish passed an ordinance to condemn property rights in George Davis Creek, which runs through the petitioners' property, for stormwater management and fish passage protection. The city aimed to address storm drainage issues, improve traffic safety, provide flood protection, and remove barriers to fish passage. The petitioners argued that the city lacked authority to condemn their property for fish passage purposes, citing the salmon recovery act (SRA) and a previous case, Cowlitz County v. Martin.The Superior Court denied the city's motion for condemnation, agreeing with the petitioners that the city had no authority to condemn private property for fish passage purposes. The city appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the decision, holding that the city had statutory authority under RCW 8.12.030 to condemn property for stormwater management. The court distinguished this case from Cowlitz County, noting that the project in question had multiple purposes, including stormwater management, which is explicitly authorized by the statute.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case to determine the scope of the city's statutory condemnation authority. The court held that RCW 8.12.030 grants cities the authority to condemn property for stormwater management and other public uses. The inclusion of fish passage as one of the project's purposes did not divest the city of its authority to condemn property for stormwater management. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "City of Sammamish v. Titcomb" on Justia Law

Reabold California LLC applied to convert a former oil well into a Class II injection well in the Brentwood Oil Field, Contra Costa County. The well, drilled in 1963, had been inactive for over 20 years. The conversion involved minor alterations, such as removing the well plug and installing injection equipment. The project aimed to inject produced water back into the aquifer, eliminating the need for water disposal trips. The Environmental Protection Agency had exempted the aquifer from the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1982, making it eligible for such injection projects.The California Department of Conservation’s Division of Geologic Energy Management (CalGEM) approved the project, invoking a Class 1 categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for minor alterations involving negligible or no expansion of use. Sunflower Alliance challenged this exemption, arguing that converting the well to an injection well constituted a significant change in use. The Contra Costa County Superior Court agreed with Sunflower, ruling that the change in use was not negligible and directing CalGEM to set aside its approval and notice of exemption.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case and reversed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court held that the conversion project fell within the Class 1 exemption because the environmental risks associated with injecting water were negligible. The court emphasized that the project involved only minor physical alterations and that the injected water would be confined within the aquifer, posing no significant environmental harm. The court directed the lower court to deny Sunflower’s petition and ordered CalGEM to reinstate its project approval and notice of exemption. View "Sunflower Alliance v. California Department of Conservation" on Justia Law