Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

A labor union filed two lawsuits in 2014 against two related private developers responsible for constructing the Ritz-Carlton Residences towers in Waikīkī, as well as against the City and County of Honolulu. The union challenged the adequacy of the separate final environmental assessments (FEAs) for each tower under Hawaiʻi’s environmental laws, alleging that the developers improperly segmented the environmental review process. The City was included as a defendant because its Department of Planning and Permitting accepted the FEAs and issued findings of no significant impact for both towers. The lawsuits were consolidated.The Circuit Court of the First Circuit granted summary judgment in favor of the developers and the City, finding the FEAs sufficient and no improper segmentation. The developers also argued that the case was moot because the projects had been completed and sold. The union appealed, and the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi accepted transfer of the appeal.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi held that the cases were not moot, as effective relief could still be granted, and that the public interest exception to mootness applied. The court found that there had been improper segmentation of the environmental review under the double independent utility test. The court remanded the case to the circuit court to determine whether the FEAs were sufficient as a combined review and, if not, whether a new environmental assessment or impact statement was required. In the present opinion, the Supreme Court awarded the union $112,721.10 in attorneys’ fees and costs against the private developers only, under the private attorney general doctrine, but denied fees against the City. The court found the union was a prevailing party and that the litigation vindicated important public policy. View "Unite Here! Local 5 v. Pacrep 2 LLC" on Justia Law

A company had been diverting large amounts of water from streams in East Maui for over twenty years under a series of annually renewed, so-called “temporary” permits issued by the state’s Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR). Each year, the company applied to renew these permits, which allowed it to use state land and divert millions of gallons of water daily. In 2020, before BLNR voted to renew the permits for 2021, an environmental group timely requested a contested case hearing, arguing that new evidence and changed circumstances warranted further scrutiny. BLNR denied this request and proceeded to renew the permits, adding some new conditions.The environmental group appealed to the Environmental Court of the First Circuit, challenging both the denial of a contested case hearing and the permit renewals. The Environmental Court found that the group had a constitutionally protected right to a clean and healthful environment, as defined by state law, and that due process required a contested case hearing before the permits were renewed. The court vacated the permits but stayed its order to avoid disruption, temporarily modifying the permits to reduce the allowable water diversion. The court also awarded attorney fees and costs to the group.On appeal, the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) held that the group’s protected interest was defined by some, but not all, relevant environmental laws, and that due process did not require a contested case hearing in this instance. The ICA further found that the Environmental Court lacked jurisdiction over the permit renewals and erred in modifying the permits and awarding attorney fees.The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi reversed the ICA in relevant part. It held that the group’s constitutional right was defined by all cited environmental laws, including those governing coastal zone management. The court concluded that due process required a contested case hearing before the permits were renewed, and that the Environmental Court had jurisdiction to review both the denial of the hearing and the permit renewals. The Supreme Court also affirmed the Environmental Court’s authority to temporarily modify the permits and to award attorney fees and costs to the environmental group. View "Sierra Club v. Board of Land and Natural Resources" on Justia Law

A group of environmental and fishing organizations challenged the operation of a large drainage project in California’s Central Valley, which collects and conveys irrigation return flows from nearly 100,000 acres of farmland and discharges them into a wetland connected to the San Joaquin River. The plaintiffs argued that the project’s discharges included pollutants not related to irrigated agriculture, such as groundwater seepage, runoff from non-irrigated lands, sediment, and water from a solar facility, and therefore should not be exempt from federal permitting requirements under the Clean Water Act (CWA).The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California previously granted partial summary judgment to the defendants, including the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and local water authorities, finding that the project qualified for the CWA’s exemption for “discharges composed entirely of return flows from irrigated agriculture.” On a prior appeal, the Ninth Circuit clarified that the defendants bore the burden of proving the exemption applied and that “entirely” meant wholly, not just a majority, of the discharge. The case was remanded for further proceedings under this standard.On the current appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s subsequent grant of summary judgment for the defendants. The Ninth Circuit held that the CWA exemption applies so long as the return flow does not contain additional point source discharges from activities unrelated to crop production. The court found that the alleged pollutants were either from nonpoint sources or from point sources related to crop production, and that plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, upholding the project’s exempt status under the CWA. View "PACIFIC COAST FED'N OF FISHERMEN'S ASS'NS, INC. V. NICKELS" on Justia Law

A coalition of trade associations, whose members operate stationary sources of air pollution and hold Title V permits under the Clean Air Act, challenged the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2023 rescission of a longstanding affirmative defense. This defense had protected permit holders from liability for exceeding emission limits during emergency events, provided certain conditions were met. The EPA rescinded the defense, arguing it was unlawful because it encroached on the judiciary’s authority to impose civil penalties and rendered emission standards non-continuous, allegedly violating the Clean Air Act.The SSM Litigation Group petitioned for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The EPA and environmental intervenors contested the group’s standing, but the court found that SSM had associational standing, as its members were directly regulated and injured by the rescission. SSM’s standing was supported by the administrative record and further confirmed by declarations submitted in its reply brief, which the court accepted.On the merits, the D.C. Circuit reviewed EPA’s action under the Clean Air Act’s standard, which mirrors the Administrative Procedure Act’s arbitrary and capricious review. The court held that EPA’s rescission was based entirely on erroneous legal grounds. First, the court found that the affirmative defense was a complete defense to liability, not a limitation on judicial remedies, and thus did not encroach on the judiciary’s authority. Second, the court determined that the defense did not render emission limitations non-continuous, as it did not suspend the underlying standards. The court concluded that EPA’s rescission was not reasonably explained and not in accordance with law, granted the petition, and reversed the rescission. View "SSM Litigation Group v. EPA" on Justia Law

Several commercial air tour operators challenged federal regulations that banned all commercial air tours over Mount Rushmore National Memorial and Badlands National Park. The dispute arose after the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Park Service, in response to statutory requirements and litigation, issued air tour management plans (ATMPs) in 2023 that prohibited such tours, citing negative impacts on visitor experience, wildlife, and tribal cultural resources. The operators argued that the agencies’ actions were arbitrary and capricious, violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and failed to consider reasonable alternatives or aviation safety.Previously, the agencies had attempted to negotiate voluntary agreements with the tour operators, as permitted by the Air Tour Management Act. However, after one operator declined to participate, the agencies shifted to developing ATMPs. This change was influenced by a writ of mandamus issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in In re Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which compelled the agencies to bring certain parks into compliance with the Act. The agencies then considered several alternatives before ultimately banning all commercial air tours in the final plans.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the petitions for review filed by the tour operators. The court held that the agencies’ decision to end voluntary agreement negotiations and proceed with ATMPs was not arbitrary or capricious. It further found that the agencies complied with NEPA’s procedural requirements, used reasonable data, considered an adequate range of alternatives, and sufficiently addressed aviation safety concerns. The court concluded that the agencies’ decisions were reasonable and reasonably explained, and therefore denied the petitions to vacate the air tour management plans. View "Badger Helicopters Inc. v. FAA" on Justia Law

A Canadian mining company operated a lead-zinc smelter in British Columbia, discharging millions of tons of slag and contaminated effluent containing hazardous substances into the Upper Columbia River over several decades. This pollution injured fish and benthic organisms in the river, which holds significant cultural and practical importance for a federally recognized Native American tribe whose reservation borders the river. The tribe sought damages for the interim lost use of these injured natural resources, including losses with a cultural dimension, such as reduced fishing and diminished ability to use the river for traditional purposes.Litigation began in 2004, with individual tribal members, later joined by the tribe and the State of Washington, bringing claims under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) against the company. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington found the company liable for response costs and, after a trial, awarded the tribe investigative expenses and attorney’s fees. The case then proceeded to a third phase to determine liability for natural resource damages. The district court granted summary judgment to the company on the tribe’s claims for interim lost use damages, reasoning that CERCLA does not authorize recovery for injuries to “cultural resources” or for damages with a cultural component.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment de novo. The Ninth Circuit held that CERCLA authorizes recovery for interim lost use of injured natural resources, even when those lost uses have a cultural dimension, provided the damages are for injury to natural resources as defined by the statute. The court reversed the district court’s summary judgment and remanded the case for trial to determine whether the tribe sustained damages from lost uses of injured natural resources. View "CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION V. TECK COMINCO METALS LTD" on Justia Law

The case concerns a challenge to the United States Department of the Interior’s approval of the 2024–2029 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program, which authorizes up to three lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico region. Environmental organizations argued that the Department failed to adequately assess the risks to vulnerable coastal communities, did not properly consider the endangered Rice’s whale in its environmental sensitivity analysis, overlooked potential conflicts with other ocean uses, and did not sufficiently balance the program’s projected benefits against its environmental costs. The Department, in coordination with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, had developed the program through a multi-year process involving public comment and environmental review.After the Department finalized the program, the environmental groups and the American Petroleum Institute (API) each petitioned for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. API later withdrew its petition but remained as an intervenor. The environmental petitioners sought to have the program remanded for further consideration, arguing violations of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). The Department and API contested the petitioners’ standing and the merits of their claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the environmental petitioners had associational standing to pursue their claims. On the merits, the court found that the Department of the Interior had satisfied OCSLA’s requirements by reasonably evaluating environmental justice concerns, the selection of representative species for environmental sensitivity analysis, and potential conflicts with other uses of the Gulf. The court concluded that the Department’s decision-making process was reasoned and not arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review, leaving the 2024–2029 leasing program in effect. View "Healthy Gulf v. Department of the Interior" on Justia Law

Environmental organizations challenged the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s approval of the Big Weekly Elk Forest Management Project in coastal Oregon, arguing that the project would harm the threatened marbled murrelet by allowing logging near its nesting habitat. The relevant Resource Management Plan (RMP) designates certain forest areas as Late-Successional Reserve (LSR) to protect murrelet and northern spotted owl habitat, and includes management directions for murrelet conservation. The project authorized thinning in LSRs adjacent to murrelet habitat and heavier harvesting in areas designated for timber production, with some voluntary protective measures.The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs argued that the project violated the RMP and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) by failing to buffer all occupied murrelet sites and by not requiring surveys for murrelets in adjacent stands. They also claimed the Bureau failed to take a “hard look” at environmental impacts as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The district court granted summary judgment for the Bureau, finding its interpretation of the RMP reasonable and entitled to deference, and that its environmental review was sufficient.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the Bureau’s narrow interpretation of “modifying nesting habitat” in the RMP was reasonable, genuinely ambiguous, and entitled to deference under Kisor v. Wilkie. The project conformed to the RMP and did not violate FLPMA. The court also found that the Bureau took the required “hard look” at environmental impacts under NEPA, adequately addressing potential effects on murrelets through tiered and incorporated analyses. The district court’s judgment in favor of the Bureau was affirmed. View "CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT" on Justia Law

A state agency issued a new revocable permit to a company for seed research operations on state-owned conservation land. The agency declared that an environmental assessment (EA) was not required, reasoning that the land’s use was not changing and that there would be minimal or no significant environmental impact. In making this determination, the agency relied on a 1982 finding of no significant impact (FONSI) that had been issued for sugar cane cultivation, not for seed research involving restricted use pesticides and genetically modified organisms. The agency did not analyze the potential environmental impacts of the new seed research activities.A group of plaintiffs challenged the agency’s exemption declaration in the Environmental Court of the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the agency failed to take a “hard look” at the environmental impacts and did not follow proper procedures under the Hawai‘i Environmental Policy Act (HEPA). The environmental court granted summary judgment in favor of the agency and the company, upholding the exemption. On appeal, the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) found that there were genuine issues of material fact and gaps in the agency’s record, and remanded the case to the environmental court for further proceedings to reassess the exemption.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i reviewed the case and held that whether an agency has followed proper procedures or considered appropriate factors in declaring an EA exemption are questions of law reviewed de novo. The court concluded that the agency did not follow proper procedures or consider appropriate factors in its exemption declaration, as its record was insufficient and failed to address the environmental impacts of seed research operations. The court vacated the ICA’s judgment and the environmental court’s orders, and remanded the case with instructions that the agency must prepare an EA regarding the possible environmental impacts of the seed research use. View "Ke Kauhulu O Mn v. Board of Land and Natural Resources" on Justia Law

The case concerns a land exchange between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the J.R. Simplot Company, involving land that was formerly part of the Fort Hall Reservation in Idaho. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes had ceded this land to the United States under an 1898 agreement, which Congress ratified in 1900. The 1900 Act specified that the ceded lands could only be disposed of under certain federal laws: homestead, townsite, stone and timber, and mining laws. In 2020, BLM approved an exchange of some of these lands with Simplot, who sought to expand a waste facility adjacent to the reservation. The Tribes objected, arguing that the exchange violated the restrictions set by the 1900 Act.The United States District Court for the District of Idaho reviewed the Tribes’ challenge and granted summary judgment in their favor. The court found that the BLM’s approval of the exchange violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it did not comply with the 1900 Act’s restrictions. The court also held, in the alternative, that the exchange failed to meet requirements under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act. The district court certified the case for interlocutory appeal to resolve the legal question regarding the interplay between the 1900 Act and FLPMA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the 1900 Act’s list of permissible land disposal methods is exclusive and that the BLM’s exchange under FLPMA was not authorized because FLPMA is not among the listed laws. The court further held that FLPMA does not repeal or supersede the 1900 Act’s restrictions, and any ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the Tribes under established Indian law canons. The court concluded that BLM’s authorization of the exchange was not in accordance with law. View "SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES OF THE FORT HALL RESERVATI V. USDOI" on Justia Law