Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, the current owner of environmentally contaminated real property, brought CERCLA cost recovery claims against the Estates of Norma and Edgar Beard and Etch-Tek, Inc. Mayhew Center, LLC, had purchased the property from the Beards. Walnut Creek Manor, LLC, owner and operator of a retirement community adjacent to the property, sued Mayhew. The district court concluded that Mayhew’s property was the source of the tetrachloroethylene, or PCE, found on Walnut Creek Manor’s site and held Mayhew liable under CERCLA and the California Hazardous Substance Account Act for any future response costs. Mayhew sued Norma Beard, asserting cost recovery and contribution claims under CERCLA and other claims seeking to hold her liable for the judgment against it in the Walnut Creek Manor action and the contamination on both properties. The district court consolidated the two actions, and the parties settled. Mayhew defaulted on its mortgage, and the property was placed in a state court receivership. The district court concluded that the claims against the Beard Estates and Etch-Tek were barred by claim preclusion.   The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal, as barred by claim preclusion, of claims brought under the CERCLA and remanded for further proceedings. The panel concluded that the Mayhew/Beard action ended in a final judgment on the merits. As to the identity of claims, however, the panel concluded that claim preclusion did not apply. Mayhew’s CERCLA claim, which sought apportionment of the liability stemming from the Walnut Creek Manor action, was distinct from GP Vincent’s CERCLA claim, which sought reimbursement for costs incurred in connection with the remediation of GP Vincent’s property’s own contamination. View "GP VINCENT II V. THE ESTATE OF EDGAR BEARD, ET AL" on Justia Law

Rosemont Copper Company (Rosemont) challenged the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) designation of certain areas in southern Arizona as critical habitat for jaguar under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Rosemont sought to develop a copper mine and related processing facilities in the area. The Center for Biological Diversity (Center) sued after the FWS concluded that Rosemont’s proposed mine project would not destroy or adversely modify the designated critical habitat. Rosemont intervened and filed crossclaims against the FWS. The district court concluded that the FWS erred in designating occupied critical habitat because the record did not establish that jaguar occupied this area when this species was listed as endangered. But it upheld the FWS’s designation of this same area and an adjacent area as unoccupied critical habitat. The district court also granted summary judgment in favor of the Center.   The Ninth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the FWS, vacated the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Center, remanded with instructions for the district court to vacate the FWS’s critical-habitat designations, and remanded to the agency for further proceedings. The panel held that because the FSW did not comply with Section 424.12(e) its designation of Unit 3 and Subunit 4b as unoccupied critical habitat was arbitrary and capricious. The panel concluded that the FWS did not provide a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made, or articulate a satisfactory explanation to justify its designations of Unit 3 and Subunit 4b as unoccupied critical habitat. View "CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. USFWS, ET AL" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment to Water for Flathead's Future (WFF) and vacating the Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MPDES) permit issued by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to Artesian Water Company, holding that the district court erred.In granting summary judgment, the district court determined that the DEQ had erred by (1) submitting responses to the comments from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Services (WSFWS) that were inadequate, and (2) DEQ's analysis of the permit's environmental impact was inadequate. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) this matter has not been mooted; (2) the district court improperly substituted its own judgment for the agency's in concluding that DEQ, in issuing the permit, had failed to give a "hard look" at relevant concerns; (3) the district court erred by holding that DEQ improperly considered only the volume of water that would be discharged under MPDES permit rather than the full volume of water authorized for use under the DNRC's water use permit; and (4) the district court erred by vacating the permit. View "Water for Flathead's Future, Inc. v. Mont. Dep't of Environmental Quality" on Justia Law

The United States Forest Service designated several thousand acres of national forest for various treatments, including commercial logging, to reduce the risk of wildfires and disease. The Forest Service invoked a categorical exclusion from National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review for projects in the wildland-urban interface. In Hanna Flats I, the district court granted summary judgment for Alliance for the Wild Rockies based on the reasoning that the record did not show that the Project fell within the statutory definition of the wildland-urban interface. Subsequently, the Forest Service issued a Supplement to the Decision Memo, further justifying the categorical exclusion. In Hanna Flats II, the district court issued a preliminary injunction based on the reasoning that the Forest Service could not invoke the categorical exclusion.   The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment in Hanna Flats I, and vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction in Hanna Flats II. The panel held that in Hanna Flats I, the district court erred in finding that Alliance’s public comments adequately put the Forest Service on notice of its eventual claim. The panel concluded that it had appellate jurisdiction. The panel held that the Forest Service sufficiently preserved its notice argument, even though it framed notice as an exhaustion requirement below and as a waiver issue on appeal. Second, the panel held that Alliance’s comments did not put the Forest Service on notice of the wildland-urban interface issue. The panel held that there was no reason to conclude that it should exercise its equitable discretion to leave an injunction in place that was wrongly granted. View "ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD ROCKIES V. CARL PETRICK, ET AL" on Justia Law

The Alaska Gasline Development Corporation sought authorization to build and operate a system of natural gas facilities. After the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted that authorization, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club (collectively, “CBD”) petitioned the DC Circuit for review.The DC Circuit dismissed the petition in part and denied it in part. The court explained that in approving the Alaska Liquid Natural Gas Project, the Commission complied with the NGA, NEPA, and the APA. CBD failed to provide any reason for the court to disturb the Commission’s reasonable determinations. Further, the court explained that the Commission properly assessed the cumulative impacts on beluga whales. CBD may disagree with the Commission’s policy choice to approve the Project, but the Commission comported with its regulatory obligations. To the extent the issues raised in the petition for review were not exhausted, the court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction View "Center for Biological Diversity v. FERC" on Justia Law

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) prescribe safety standards for pipelines on behalf of the Secretary of Transportation. Two oil and gas associations, GPA Midstream and the American Petroleum Institute, petitioned for review of a safety standard requiring their members to install remote-controlled or automatic shut-off valves in some types of new or replaced gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. Petitioners challenged the standard as it applies to “gathering” pipelines used to collect raw gas or crude oil from a well. They argued the PHMSA unlawfully failed to disclose the economic basis for regulating gathering pipelines when it proposed the standard and also failed to make a reasoned determination that regulating these pipelines was appropriate.   The DC Circuit granted the petition. The court explained that the PHMSA said nothing about the practicability or the costs and benefits of the standard for gathering pipelines until promulgating the final rule, even though the law required it to address those subjects when publishing the proposed rule for public comment and peer review. The PHMSA also ultimately failed to make a reasoned determination that the benefits of regulating gathering pipelines would exceed the costs and that doing so would be practicable, as required by law. View "GPA Midstream Association v. DOT" on Justia Law

Appellant Audubon of Kansas (Audubon) was frustrated with federal bureaucracy: the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service) knew for decades that junior water-rights-holders were impairing its senior water right in Quivira Wildlife Refuge (the Refuge), threatening the endangered species there. Despite years of study and negotiation between the Service, state agencies, and Kansas water districts, the Refuge water right remained impaired. Audubon filed this lawsuit seeking to force the Service to protect the Refuge water right. But in 2023, the Service did act by requesting full administration of the Refuge water right, which was a remedy Audubon sought for its failure-to-act claim. For its claims of unlawful agency action, Audubon also sought to set aside an agreement between the Service and a water district. The Tenth Circuit determined all material terms of this agreement expired. The Service argued Audubon’s claims were moot; Audubon countered that its claims weren't moot or that a mootness exception should apply. To this, the Tenth Circuit concluded Audubon’s claim of unlawful agency action under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) was moot, and that claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. As for Audubon’s claim of agency inaction under § 706(1), the Court found the mootness exception of “capable of repetition but evading review” applied, but the Court lacked jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act. View "Audubon of Kansas v. United States Department of Interior, et al." on Justia Law

The Swampbuster Act and United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) regulations work together to provide farmers with the right to request reviews of wetland certifications. The Swampbuster Act’s review provision (“Swampbuster Review Provision”) provides that a prior wetland certification “shall remain valid and in effect . . . until such time as the person affected by the certification requests review of the certification by the Secretary.” In turn, a regulation (“Review Regulation”) provides procedural requirements a farmer must follow to make an effective review request.   Appellant filed an action alleging that: (1) the Review Regulation contravenes the Swampbuster Review Provision; (2) the Review Regulation was never submitted to Congress or the Comptroller General as required by the Congressional Review Act (“CRA”); and (3) the NRCS’s decisions to refuse to consider Appellants 2017 and 2020 review requests violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the Review Regulation imposes reasonable procedural requirements a farmer must follow to make an effective review request and thereby delimit a prior wetland certification. Because the Swampbuster Review Provision is silent as to the nature of an effective review request, the Review Regulation does not conflict with the Swampbuster Review Provision. Further, the court wrote that the CRA’s judicial review provision precludes review of Appellant’s CRA claim. Finally, the court held that the NRCS’s decisions to refuse to consider Appellant’s review requests were not arbitrary and capricious because Appellant failed to comply with the Review Regulation. View "Arlen Foster v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture" on Justia Law

The eight-acre San Jose City View Plaza contained nine buildings, including the Bank, built in 1971, which later housed the County Family Court. The Bank was eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources and National Register of Historic Places. The site development permit provided for the demolition of all structures, followed by the construction of three, 19-story office towers, 65,000 square feet of ground-floor retail, and five levels of underground parking.The city council certified the Downtown Strategy 2040 final environmental impact report under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code 21000 (CEQA)), finding that the Plaza required a supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR). The draft SEIR identified the proposed demolition of the buildings as a “significant unavoidable impact” and presented mitigation measures, to document the structures, advertise their availability for relocation, and otherwise make the structures available for salvage. The city voted not to designate the Bank as a city landmark and approved the permit, certifying the Final SEIR and rejecting project alternatives as infeasible because the “anticipated economic, social, and other benefits” of the project outweighed its “significant and unavoidable impacts.”After the trial court denied a mandate petition filed by opponents, the Bank was demolished. The court of appeal affirmed. The Final SEIR’s discussion of mitigation for the unavoidable loss of significant historic resources complied with CEQA. San Jose did not abuse its discretion by briefly considering and rejecting additional mitigation measures. View "Preservation Action Council of San Jose v. City of San Jose" on Justia Law

In 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued its “final determination to regulate perchlorate in drinking water” under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Drinking Water: Regulatory Determination on Perchlorate. That determination started a clock under the Safe Drinking Water Act requiring EPA to propose regulations within twenty-four months and promulgate regulations within eighteen months of the proposal. But EPA never promulgated perchlorate regulations. Instead, nine years later, the agency purported to withdraw its regulatory determination. Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”) petitioned for review of this action, arguing that EPA lacks the authority to withdraw a regulatory determination under the Act and that, even if EPA possesses such authority, it acted arbitrarily and capriciously by doing so. EPA, joined by Intervenor American Water Works Association, defends its action.   The DC Circuit granted NRDC’s petition, vacated EPA’s withdrawal of its regulatory determination, and remand to the agency for further proceedings. The court held the Safe Drinking Water Act does not permit EPA to withdraw a regulatory determination. The court explained that first, and most fundamentally, EPA’s interpretation of what Congress intended in the statute cannot overcome the statute’s directive that the agency “shall” regulate. And second, the history EPA cites is not inconsistent with the court’s interpretation. The 1996 amendments undoubtedly gave the agency more discretion in determining which contaminants to consider for regulation and whether to regulate them in the first instance. But they also balanced that discretion with a mandatory scheme requiring EPA to regulate after it determines to do so. View "NRDC v. Michael Regan" on Justia Law