Feb 13: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Case Nos. 07-1355, 07-1479, 07-1480, 07-1964, 07-2112. This is a high profile case on the controversial issue of mountaintop mining, involving dozens of parties Plaintiffs-Appellees Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, the Coal River Mountain Watch, and the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy (hereinafter referred to collectively as OVEC) challenge the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issuance of four permits allowing the filling of West Virginia stream waters in conjunction with area surface coal mining operations.
Granting judgment for OVEC, the district court rescinded the permits as violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court also enjoined all activity under those permits and remanded to the Corps for further proceedings consistent with its order. Separately, in an order dated June 13, 2007, the district court provided declaratory relief to OVEC, holding that the stream segments linking the permitted fills to downstream sediment treatment ponds were "waters of the United States" and that the Corps lacked authority under the CWA to permit discharge from the fills into the stream segments.
The Corps appealed the two orders and in a split decision, the Fourth Circuit reversed and vacated the district court’s opinion and order of March 23, 2007, and vacated the district court’s injunction. Additionally, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s June 13, 2007, grant of declaratory relief and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
The Appeals Court provides a straightforward explanation of the controversial practice of mountain top removal coal mining saying,"The mountaintop removal method of surface coal mining, pioneered in West Virginia, involves the blasting of the soil and rock atop a mountain to expose coal deposits below. While mining operations are ongoing, the overburden is hauled or pushed into adjacent valleys. This excavated overburden is known as "spoil." Once the coal has been extracted, efforts are made to re-contour the mountaintop by replacing the removed overburden, but stability concerns limit the amount of spoil that can be returned to the area. In its natural state, the spoil material is heavily compacted; once excavated, however, the loosening of the rock and soil and incorporation of air causes significant swelling. As a result, large quantities of the blasted material cannot be replaced, and this excess spoil (overburden) remains in the valley, creating a 'valley fill' that buries intermittent and perennial streams in the process.
"Water that collects in the fill must be moved out to ensure the fill’s continued stability. Thus, an underdrain system is constructed by placing large boulders up to and above the ordinary high-water mark of the stream. The collected water is then channeled into a treatment pond, where sediment from the runoff is allowed to settle. Sediment ponds usually are constructed in existing streambeds, using earth and rock to create an embankment. After sediments have settled out of the fill runoff, the treated water is discharged from the sediment pond back into existing streams. When practicable, a sediment pond will be constructed in the streambed immediately adjacent to the end (or "toe") of the fill. But, because West Virginia’s steep, mountainous topography often prevents this kind of positioning, a short stream segment is frequently used to move runoff from the fill downstream to the sediment pond. Once a valley fill is stabilized, the embankments of the sediment pond are removed, and the ponds and the stream segments are restored to their pre-project condition."
On appeal, the Corps contends that it is entitled to deference on its determination about the scope of its NEPA analysis and that its findings on individual and cumulative impacts and mitigation were not arbitrary or capricious. The agency further argues that its interpretation of its CWA regulations -- treating stream segments and sediment ponds as part of a unitary waste treatment system and thus excepting them from separate CWA § 402 permitting -- was entitled to deference. Intervenors have raised these same challenges to the district court’s ruling, but also argued that OVEC’s stream segment claim was barred in the first place under principles of res judicata [a matter already decided by the court].
The majority Appeals Court indicates that, "A complex statutory framework undergirds the regulation of valley fills and associated sediment ponds, and it is this framework that provides the foundation for our opinion." The Appeals Court says it appreciates "the statutory tightrope that the Corps walks in its permitting decisions" and rules, "The Corps, in permitting sediment ponds and accompanying stream segments under its § 404 authority, is attempting to harmonize the two statutes’ [Clean Water Act & Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act] goals: ensuring that mining operations can proceed while maintaining the highest level of water quality possible outside of the mining area."
On the issue of "in-stream sediment ponds," the Appeals Court ruled, "Sediment ponds represent the 'best technology currently available' for the treatment of sedimentary runoff from surface mining valley fills. In fact, the regulations of the Department of the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining specifically contemplate the use of in-stream sediment ponds. 30 C.F.R. § 816.46(c) (2008). While ideally these ponds would be located immediately adjacent to the fills, the steep Appalachian terrain often does not allow this result. The topographical realities of the area make stream segments a necessary component of the construction of a waste treatment system for valley fill runoff. (See, e.g., J.A. 653.) This system, in turn, is necessary to ensure that water released from the mining area into existing streams meets CWA § 402 standards. The Appeals Court ruled "the Corps’ interpretation of its authority was reasonable in light of the CWA" and the Agency is "entitled to deference."
The dissenting minority opinion, which concurred in the parts of the majority opinion upholding the scope (or physical boundary) of the Corps’ NEPA analysis and the Corps’ interpretation of its regulatory definition of "waters of the United States,"the dissenting justice said, "In upholding the Corps’ interpretation of its obligations under § 230.11(e), the majority declines to give effect to the unambiguous requirements of the regulations. . . By failing to require the Corps to undertake a meaningful assessment of the functions of the aquatic resources being destroyed and by allowing the Corps to proceed instead with a one-to-one mitigation that takes no account of lost stream function, this court risks significant harm to the affected watersheds and water resources. . ."
Earthjustice, the public interest law firm representing several of the environmental organizations in the case issued a release saying, "The ruling will permit mining companies to conduct devastating mountaintop removal coal mining operations without acting to minimize stream destruction or conducting adequate environmental reviews. As a result, Appalachia could now be facing up to 90 new mountaintop removal coal mining operations, which would destroy huge swaths of the Appalachian Mountains." Steve Roady, Earthjustice attorney said, "We believe the decision is wrong on the law and the science. This fight is not over until mountaintop removal mining is over. We will continue to litigate, and in addition, the new administration must take immediate steps to curb the terrible practice of mountaintop removal mining and undo the mistakes of the past."
Access the complete opinion and dissent (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice and link to additional information (click here). Access links to various media reports on the ruling (click here).
Showing posts with label CWA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CWA. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Friends Milwaukee v. Milwaukee Metro
Feb 13: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Case No. 08-1103. The Appeals Court comments on the long history of litigation on the case saying, "After over six years of litigation and two trips back and forth between the district court and this court, we are hopeful that the sun is breaking through." The case involves Friends of Milwaukee’s Rivers and Lake Michigan Federation, n/k/a Alliance for the Great Lakes (collectively, Friends), and their citizens’ suit against the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (the Clean Water Act or the Act), alleging that certain sanitary sewer overflows that occurred between January 1, 1995 and September 25, 2001 were violations of MMSD’s Clean Water Act permit and of the Act itself. The State of Wisconsin (the State) also filed suit against MMSD.
On May 19, 2008, the WDOJ and MMSD resolved the WDOJ’s 2005 enforcement action with a new stipulation (the 2008 Stipulation). The district court found that the 2002 Stipulation was a diligent prosecution for privity purposes, and therefore dismissed plaintiffs’ suit on res judicata grounds. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal as well as the denial of their motions to supplement the record. The Appeals Court says, "The questions presented in this successive appeal are relatively narrow. Friends do not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the district court’s decision." The Appeals Court concludes that the, "district court was within its discretion when it found that the letter did not set forth the activities of the EPA. Moreover, even if any abuse of discretion had occurred, it would have been harmless."
Access the complete opinion (click here). [Please Note: The 7th circuit has a temporary web hyperlink nomenclature system. If the link does not work click on this link and enter the case number above (click here).]
On May 19, 2008, the WDOJ and MMSD resolved the WDOJ’s 2005 enforcement action with a new stipulation (the 2008 Stipulation). The district court found that the 2002 Stipulation was a diligent prosecution for privity purposes, and therefore dismissed plaintiffs’ suit on res judicata grounds. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal as well as the denial of their motions to supplement the record. The Appeals Court says, "The questions presented in this successive appeal are relatively narrow. Friends do not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the district court’s decision." The Appeals Court concludes that the, "district court was within its discretion when it found that the letter did not set forth the activities of the EPA. Moreover, even if any abuse of discretion had occurred, it would have been harmless."
Access the complete opinion (click here). [Please Note: The 7th circuit has a temporary web hyperlink nomenclature system. If the link does not work click on this link and enter the case number above (click here).]
Friday, January 16, 2009
USA v. Hagerman
Jan 15: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Case No. 07-3874 and 07-3875. In this on-going legal wrangle [See WIMS 12/8/08 & 9/30/08 ] , a jury convicted Wabash Environmental Technologies (WET) and its president, Derrik Hagerman, on ten counts of making materially false statements in reports that WET was required to file under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(4). The judge sentenced Hagerman to 60 months in prison and, along with WET, was ordered to pay $237,680 in restitution to the EPA for the expense of cleaning up pollution caused by them.
Hagerman and WET now argue that the district court erred in admitting into evidence copies of certain electronic spreadsheets that recorded test results that were not charged in the indictment but were in conflict with what WET had reported. The defendants argue that the test results are evidence of prior bad acts that should have been excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).
The Appeals Court said, "The argument has no merit. When a defendant commits two criminal acts simultaneously but is charged only with one, 'the evidence of the "other" crime [cannot] be disentangled from the evidence of the charged crime,” and
therefore evidence material to prove the charged crime 'may unavoidably reveal' other criminal acts that are not charged. United States v. Taylor, 522 F.3d 731, 734 (7th Cir. 2008). That is the situation here."
Following numerous arguments, Hagerman finally argues that he should not have been given a prison sentence. He says that the damage he caused to the environment could not be quantified, that in his life outside WET he made “considerable” contributions to his community, that his family relies on him for support, and that imprisonment will make paying restitution difficult. The judge considered but rejected these arguments. The Appeals Court said, "There was no abuse of discretion." and affirmed the decision.
Access the complete opinion (click here). [Please Note: The 7th circuit has a strange temporary web hyperlink nomenclature system. If the previous link does not work click on this link and enter the case number above (click here).]
Hagerman and WET now argue that the district court erred in admitting into evidence copies of certain electronic spreadsheets that recorded test results that were not charged in the indictment but were in conflict with what WET had reported. The defendants argue that the test results are evidence of prior bad acts that should have been excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).
The Appeals Court said, "The argument has no merit. When a defendant commits two criminal acts simultaneously but is charged only with one, 'the evidence of the "other" crime [cannot] be disentangled from the evidence of the charged crime,” and
therefore evidence material to prove the charged crime 'may unavoidably reveal' other criminal acts that are not charged. United States v. Taylor, 522 F.3d 731, 734 (7th Cir. 2008). That is the situation here."
Following numerous arguments, Hagerman finally argues that he should not have been given a prison sentence. He says that the damage he caused to the environment could not be quantified, that in his life outside WET he made “considerable” contributions to his community, that his family relies on him for support, and that imprisonment will make paying restitution difficult. The judge considered but rejected these arguments. The Appeals Court said, "There was no abuse of discretion." and affirmed the decision.
Access the complete opinion (click here). [Please Note: The 7th circuit has a strange temporary web hyperlink nomenclature system. If the previous link does not work click on this link and enter the case number above (click here).]
Friday, January 9, 2009
The National Cotton Council v. EPA
Jan 7: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Case No. 06-4630. As explained by the Appeals Court, the case involves the final regulation issued by the U.S. EPA under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. The Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of “pollutants” into the nation’s waters by, among other things, requiring entities that emit “pollutants” to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. On November 27, 2006, the EPA issued a Final Rule concluding that pesticides applied in accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) are exempt from the Clean Water Act’s permitting requirements. [71 FR 68,483 (11/27/06)]. [See WIMS 11/22/06]
Two different groups of Petitioners -- one representing environmental interest groups and the other representing industry interest groups -- oppose EPA’s Final Rule as exceeding the EPA’s interpretive authority. EPA defends the Final Rule by arguing that the terms of the Clean Water Act are ambiguous and that the Final Rule is a reasonable construction of the Clean Water Act entitled to deference from the Court.
The Appeals Court said, "We cannot agree. The Clean Water Act is not ambiguous. Further, it is a fundamental precept of this Court that we interpret unambiguous expressions of Congressional will as written. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984). Therefore, we hold that the EPA’s Final Rule is not a reasonable interpretation of the Act and vacate the Final Rule."
The Appeals Court explains its decision further saying, ". . . we conclude that the statutory text of the Clean Water Act forecloses the EPA’s Final Rule. The EPA properly argues that excess chemical pesticides and chemical pesticide residues, rather than all chemical pesticides, are pollutants. However, the Final Rule does not account for the differences between chemical and biological pesticides under the language of the Clean Water Act. Further, because the Act provides that residual and excess chemical pesticides are added to the water by a 'point source' there is no room for the EPA’s argument that residual and excess pesticides do not require an NPDES permit. The 'point source' from which the residue originates is easily discernable and necessarily must 'be controlled at the source.' See 73 Fed. Reg. at 33,702. Given all of the above in combination with the EPA’s interpretation that '[p]oint sources need only convey pollutants into navigable waters to be subject to the Act,' id. at 33,703, dischargers of pesticide pollutants are subject to the NPDES permitting program in the Clean Water Act. As such, the EPA’s Final Rule cannot stand. Because the Clean Water Act’s text bars the Final Rule we make no determination regarding the validity of the issuance of the Final Rule under the APA, nor do we analyze the relationship between the Clean Water Act and the FIFRA."
Access the complete opinion (click here). Access the EPA docket for this action with background, technical documents and public comments (click here).
Two different groups of Petitioners -- one representing environmental interest groups and the other representing industry interest groups -- oppose EPA’s Final Rule as exceeding the EPA’s interpretive authority. EPA defends the Final Rule by arguing that the terms of the Clean Water Act are ambiguous and that the Final Rule is a reasonable construction of the Clean Water Act entitled to deference from the Court.
The Appeals Court said, "We cannot agree. The Clean Water Act is not ambiguous. Further, it is a fundamental precept of this Court that we interpret unambiguous expressions of Congressional will as written. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984). Therefore, we hold that the EPA’s Final Rule is not a reasonable interpretation of the Act and vacate the Final Rule."
The Appeals Court explains its decision further saying, ". . . we conclude that the statutory text of the Clean Water Act forecloses the EPA’s Final Rule. The EPA properly argues that excess chemical pesticides and chemical pesticide residues, rather than all chemical pesticides, are pollutants. However, the Final Rule does not account for the differences between chemical and biological pesticides under the language of the Clean Water Act. Further, because the Act provides that residual and excess chemical pesticides are added to the water by a 'point source' there is no room for the EPA’s argument that residual and excess pesticides do not require an NPDES permit. The 'point source' from which the residue originates is easily discernable and necessarily must 'be controlled at the source.' See 73 Fed. Reg. at 33,702. Given all of the above in combination with the EPA’s interpretation that '[p]oint sources need only convey pollutants into navigable waters to be subject to the Act,' id. at 33,703, dischargers of pesticide pollutants are subject to the NPDES permitting program in the Clean Water Act. As such, the EPA’s Final Rule cannot stand. Because the Clean Water Act’s text bars the Final Rule we make no determination regarding the validity of the issuance of the Final Rule under the APA, nor do we analyze the relationship between the Clean Water Act and the FIFRA."
Access the complete opinion (click here). Access the EPA docket for this action with background, technical documents and public comments (click here).
Monday, December 8, 2008
USA v. Hagerman
Dec 5: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Case Nos. 07-3874, 07-3875. The defendants, Wabash Environmental Technologies, LLC, and its president, Hagerman, were convicted of making false statements in violation of the Clean Water Act, and they appeal. The Appeals Court rules, "We affirm the judgments in an unpublished order issued today, and limit this opinion to a threshold issue that happens to be the single point of novelty in the appeals.
The Appeals Court notes that in previous appeals by these parties in a related civil case, it ruled that a limited liability company (which Wabash is), like a corporation, cannot litigate in a Federal court unless it is represented by a lawyer. United States v. Hagerman, 545 F.3d 579, 581-82 (7th Cir. 2008) [See WIMS 9/30/08].
The Appeals Court explains that in the present case Wabash was represented by a lawyer both in the district court and in Seventh Circuit. The lawyer filed both an opening brief and a reply brief on behalf of the company. But then Hagerman fired the lawyer, who moved the Court for leave to withdraw from the case, which it granted. The Appeals Court says, "The question is whether, even though Wabash’s appeal has been fully briefed, we should dismiss it because Wabash is no longer represented and, not being a natural person, cannot litigate in federal court unless it is represented. We cannot find a case that has addressed this issue."
In affirming the district court decision, the Appeals Court concludes, "We have thought it best. . . to affirm the judgment of the district court in order to lay to rest any doubt about the company’s guilt. But it bears emphasis that at any point in a federal litigation at which a party that is not entitled to proceed pro se finds itself without a lawyer though given a reasonable opportunity to obtain one, the court is empowered to bar the party from further participation in the litigation."
Access the complete opinion (click here). [Please Note: The 7th circuit has a strange temporary web hyperlink nomenclature system. If the previous link does not work click on this link and enter the case number above (click here).]
The Appeals Court notes that in previous appeals by these parties in a related civil case, it ruled that a limited liability company (which Wabash is), like a corporation, cannot litigate in a Federal court unless it is represented by a lawyer. United States v. Hagerman, 545 F.3d 579, 581-82 (7th Cir. 2008) [See WIMS 9/30/08].
The Appeals Court explains that in the present case Wabash was represented by a lawyer both in the district court and in Seventh Circuit. The lawyer filed both an opening brief and a reply brief on behalf of the company. But then Hagerman fired the lawyer, who moved the Court for leave to withdraw from the case, which it granted. The Appeals Court says, "The question is whether, even though Wabash’s appeal has been fully briefed, we should dismiss it because Wabash is no longer represented and, not being a natural person, cannot litigate in federal court unless it is represented. We cannot find a case that has addressed this issue."
In affirming the district court decision, the Appeals Court concludes, "We have thought it best. . . to affirm the judgment of the district court in order to lay to rest any doubt about the company’s guilt. But it bears emphasis that at any point in a federal litigation at which a party that is not entitled to proceed pro se finds itself without a lawyer though given a reasonable opportunity to obtain one, the court is empowered to bar the party from further participation in the litigation."
Access the complete opinion (click here). [Please Note: The 7th circuit has a strange temporary web hyperlink nomenclature system. If the previous link does not work click on this link and enter the case number above (click here).]
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Black Warrior Riverkeeper v. Cherokee Mining
Nov 13: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Case No. 08-10810. The Appeals Court explained that Black Warrior Riverkeeper (Black Warrior) is a non-profit membership organization that supports enforcement of environmental laws for the preservation, protection, and defense of the Black Warrior River located in Alabama. Cherokee Mining, LLC (Cherokee) is the owner and operator of two surface coal mines located in northern Alabama. Black Warrior sued Cherokee alleging that it had violated the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (the Clean Water Act) and similar provisions of Alabama law.
Cherokee moved to dismiss, arguing that Black Warrior’s suit was barred by a provision of the Clean Water Act, § 1319(g)(6)(A)(ii) [precludes citizen suits when a state agency has commenced and is diligently prosecuting an administrative enforcement action against a polluter], and thus should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion, concluding that another provision of the Clean Water Act, § 1319(g)(6)(B)(ii) [i.e. notice of intent to sue was given to Cherokee prior to the State of Alabama’s commencement of its enforcement action], lifted the bar that would otherwise have precluded Black Warrior’s suit.
The Appeals Court said, "We find Cherokee’s interpretation of these provisions to be an extremely cramped and narrow reading of the ordinary and plain meaning of the relevant language. . . We thus find that the plain meaning of the phrase 'limitations contained in subparagraph (A). . . shall not apply [to bar citizen suits] means that citizen suits are not barred when either the federal EPA or a state is pursuing an administrative enforcement action and the notice and filing requirements of § 1319(g)(6)(B) have been met."
The Appeals Court clarifies further in affirming the district court decision, "We conclude that, in accordance with the plain and ordinary meaning of §1319(g)(6)(B), all of the limitations against a citizen suit as provided for in §1319(g)(6)(A), which include federal and state administrative enforcement actions, are lifted so long as § 1319(g)(6)(B)’s notice and filing requirements are met."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Cherokee moved to dismiss, arguing that Black Warrior’s suit was barred by a provision of the Clean Water Act, § 1319(g)(6)(A)(ii) [precludes citizen suits when a state agency has commenced and is diligently prosecuting an administrative enforcement action against a polluter], and thus should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion, concluding that another provision of the Clean Water Act, § 1319(g)(6)(B)(ii) [i.e. notice of intent to sue was given to Cherokee prior to the State of Alabama’s commencement of its enforcement action], lifted the bar that would otherwise have precluded Black Warrior’s suit.
The Appeals Court said, "We find Cherokee’s interpretation of these provisions to be an extremely cramped and narrow reading of the ordinary and plain meaning of the relevant language. . . We thus find that the plain meaning of the phrase 'limitations contained in subparagraph (A). . . shall not apply [to bar citizen suits] means that citizen suits are not barred when either the federal EPA or a state is pursuing an administrative enforcement action and the notice and filing requirements of § 1319(g)(6)(B) have been met."
The Appeals Court clarifies further in affirming the district court decision, "We conclude that, in accordance with the plain and ordinary meaning of §1319(g)(6)(B), all of the limitations against a citizen suit as provided for in §1319(g)(6)(A), which include federal and state administrative enforcement actions, are lifted so long as § 1319(g)(6)(B)’s notice and filing requirements are met."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
USA v. Hagerman
Sep 26: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Case No. 08-2670. The defendants, Hagerman and Wabash Environmental Technologies were convicted of criminal violations of the Clean Water Act, and the company Wabash was ordered to pay $250,000 in restitution to a federal Superfund account and was placed on probation for five years. Corporate probation has been called “a flexible vehicle for imposing a wide range of sanctions having the common feature of continued judicial control over aspects of corporate conduct.”
The district court dismissed the petition after the government and Wabash resolved their differences by Wabash’s agreeing to start paying restitution and to furnish specified information concerning the company’s finances. Nevertheless, Wabash filed an appeal from the order of dismissal, as has its codefendant, Hagerman.
The Appeals Court rules, "Hagerman’s appeal must be dismissed because he was not a party to the probation-violation proceeding and no order naming him was entered. Wabash’s appeal must also be dismissed, apart from doubts that Wabash was aggrieved by the dismissal of the probation-violation proceeding. Wabash has no lawyer in this court (it was represented in the district court by a lawyer who has since withdrawn)." Hagerman, who is not a lawyer, claims the right to represent Wabash because he “is not only a major stockholder [presumably he means ‘member,’ since Wabash is an LLC, not a corporation] but is [also the] current President of [Wabash]. And it was Hagerman who filed the appeal on behalf of Wabash as well as himself." The Appeals Court said, "He complains about the deal that Wabash struck with the government, making this like an appeal by a party that agrees to a settlement but later thinks better of his decision and tries to get the appellate court to rescind it."
The Appeals Court notes that a corporation is not permitted to litigate in a federal court unless it is represented by a lawyer licensed to practice in that court and then determines that an LLC also comes under that rule. In dismissing the case, the Appeals Court ruled, ". . .the right to conduct business in a form that confers privileges, such as the limited personal liability of the owners for tort or contract claims against the business, carries with it obligations one of which is to hire a lawyer if you want to sue or defend on behalf of the entity. Pro se litigation is a burden on the judiciary . . . and the burden is not to be borne when the litigant has chosen to do business in entity form. From that standpoint there is no difference between a corporation and a limited liability company, or indeed between either and a partnership, which although it does not provide its owners with limited liability confers other privileges, relating primarily to ease of formation and dissolution. That is why the privilege of pro se representation is, as we noted, denied to partnerships too."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
The district court dismissed the petition after the government and Wabash resolved their differences by Wabash’s agreeing to start paying restitution and to furnish specified information concerning the company’s finances. Nevertheless, Wabash filed an appeal from the order of dismissal, as has its codefendant, Hagerman.
The Appeals Court rules, "Hagerman’s appeal must be dismissed because he was not a party to the probation-violation proceeding and no order naming him was entered. Wabash’s appeal must also be dismissed, apart from doubts that Wabash was aggrieved by the dismissal of the probation-violation proceeding. Wabash has no lawyer in this court (it was represented in the district court by a lawyer who has since withdrawn)." Hagerman, who is not a lawyer, claims the right to represent Wabash because he “is not only a major stockholder [presumably he means ‘member,’ since Wabash is an LLC, not a corporation] but is [also the] current President of [Wabash]. And it was Hagerman who filed the appeal on behalf of Wabash as well as himself." The Appeals Court said, "He complains about the deal that Wabash struck with the government, making this like an appeal by a party that agrees to a settlement but later thinks better of his decision and tries to get the appellate court to rescind it."
The Appeals Court notes that a corporation is not permitted to litigate in a federal court unless it is represented by a lawyer licensed to practice in that court and then determines that an LLC also comes under that rule. In dismissing the case, the Appeals Court ruled, ". . .the right to conduct business in a form that confers privileges, such as the limited personal liability of the owners for tort or contract claims against the business, carries with it obligations one of which is to hire a lawyer if you want to sue or defend on behalf of the entity. Pro se litigation is a burden on the judiciary . . . and the burden is not to be borne when the litigant has chosen to do business in entity form. From that standpoint there is no difference between a corporation and a limited liability company, or indeed between either and a partnership, which although it does not provide its owners with limited liability confers other privileges, relating primarily to ease of formation and dissolution. That is why the privilege of pro se representation is, as we noted, denied to partnerships too."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Friday, September 19, 2008
National Resources Defense Council v. U.S. EPA
Sep 18: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 07-55183, 07-55261. Plaintiffs-Appellees, National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Waterkeeper Alliance Inc. (collectively, NRDC), sued Defendants-Appellants, U.S. EPA and its administrator (collectively, EPA), under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), seeking to compel EPA to promulgate effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) and new source performance standards (NSPSs) for storm water pollution discharges caused by the construction and development industry (construction industry).
The States of Connecticut and New York, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (collectively, state-intervenors) intervened on behalf of NRDC; the National Association of Home Builders and Associated General Contractors of America (collectively, industry-intervenors) intervened on behalf of the EPA.
The district court exercised its jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act’s citizen-suit provision and denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss; granted Plaintiffs partial summary judgment on their claim that the CWA requires the EPA to issue ELGs and NSPSs for the construction industry; and issued a permanent injunction compelling EPA to do so. The Appeals Court affirmed the district court decision.
The Appeals Court ruled in part saying, "Despite our conclusion that the EPA had a nondiscretionary duty to promulgate ELGs and NSPSs in this case, we also must consider whether the EPA properly avoided this duty when it removed the construction industry from its plans published pursuant to § 304(m). Nothing in the CWA expressly grants the EPA the authority to remove a point-source category from a § 304(m) plan. . . " The Appeals Court said, first, ". . .once a category is identified under subsection B, the promulgation of guidelines 'shall be no later than . . . 3 years after the publication of the plan.' This timeline effectuates Congress’ stated desire to force the EPA to more rapidly promulgate ELGs and NSPSs. If the EPA had the authority to delist point-source categories at its whim, however, this deadline would be rendered meaningless as the EPA could delist any point-source category to avoid the deadline set forth in § 304(m)(1)(c)."
Secondly, the Appeals Court said, "Congress determined that by the time a point-source category is listed in a § 304(m) plan, the EPA must have already engaged in a review process to consider whether the category should be listed. It follows logically that the three-year delay provided for in § 304(m)(1)(c) is not to decide whether to list a point-source category, but to allow the EPA to consider what the substance of the ELGs and NSPSs should be."
NRDC issued a release on the decision and said it will help to ensure that construction site pollution won’t cause beach closings, waterborne disease, flooding, fish kills and contaminated drinking water supplies. Melanie Shepherdson, staff attorney at NRDC said, “This decision will go along way towards protecting America’s streams and rivers from the construction and development industry. The court made it very clear that EPA can’t just shirk its responsibilities to reign in pollution from this industry.”
Access the complete opinion (click here). Access the release from NRDC (click here).
The States of Connecticut and New York, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (collectively, state-intervenors) intervened on behalf of NRDC; the National Association of Home Builders and Associated General Contractors of America (collectively, industry-intervenors) intervened on behalf of the EPA.
The district court exercised its jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act’s citizen-suit provision and denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss; granted Plaintiffs partial summary judgment on their claim that the CWA requires the EPA to issue ELGs and NSPSs for the construction industry; and issued a permanent injunction compelling EPA to do so. The Appeals Court affirmed the district court decision.
The Appeals Court ruled in part saying, "Despite our conclusion that the EPA had a nondiscretionary duty to promulgate ELGs and NSPSs in this case, we also must consider whether the EPA properly avoided this duty when it removed the construction industry from its plans published pursuant to § 304(m). Nothing in the CWA expressly grants the EPA the authority to remove a point-source category from a § 304(m) plan. . . " The Appeals Court said, first, ". . .once a category is identified under subsection B, the promulgation of guidelines 'shall be no later than . . . 3 years after the publication of the plan.' This timeline effectuates Congress’ stated desire to force the EPA to more rapidly promulgate ELGs and NSPSs. If the EPA had the authority to delist point-source categories at its whim, however, this deadline would be rendered meaningless as the EPA could delist any point-source category to avoid the deadline set forth in § 304(m)(1)(c)."
Secondly, the Appeals Court said, "Congress determined that by the time a point-source category is listed in a § 304(m) plan, the EPA must have already engaged in a review process to consider whether the category should be listed. It follows logically that the three-year delay provided for in § 304(m)(1)(c) is not to decide whether to list a point-source category, but to allow the EPA to consider what the substance of the ELGs and NSPSs should be."
NRDC issued a release on the decision and said it will help to ensure that construction site pollution won’t cause beach closings, waterborne disease, flooding, fish kills and contaminated drinking water supplies. Melanie Shepherdson, staff attorney at NRDC said, “This decision will go along way towards protecting America’s streams and rivers from the construction and development industry. The court made it very clear that EPA can’t just shirk its responsibilities to reign in pollution from this industry.”
Access the complete opinion (click here). Access the release from NRDC (click here).
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Center for Biological Diversity v. Marina Point Development
Aug 6: In the Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case Nos. 06-56193, 07-55243, & 07-56574. Marina Point Development Associates, et al appeal the district court’s judgment on the merits in favor of Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of Fawnskin (collectively the Center) on their claims under the Clean Water Act (CWA), and under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Marina Point also appeals the district court’s order awarding attorney fees to the Center and the district court’s contempt order. The Appeals Court vacated the district court’s judgment on the merits and instruct it to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and reversed the order awarding attorney fees and the contempt order.
By way of background, the Corps granted a permit to Marina Point which authorized it to strengthen the existing shoreline. The permit authorized Marina Point to dredge the adjacent shoreline and the interior of the existing marina, and to use the dredged material as fill for building pads on the land. Marina Point was forbidden, however, from placing rip-rap at elevations below lake bottom contours, from depositing sand below the ordinary high water mark, and from transferring fill or structures to neighboring wetlands. In order to protect bald eagles’ seasonal behavioral habits, it was also barred from working during the winter months. Besides the permit from the Corps, Marina Point secured a number of other State and local permits.
On the CWA issues, the Appeals Court said, ". . . in light of the fact that the Corps and Marina Point did act to cease the activities that the Center claimed were wrongful and even acted to effect ongoing repairs for any problems caused by past activities, the district court did not have jurisdiction to hear the CWA action. It should have dismissed the action at the outset. Thus, in this respect the district court’s judgment must fall for lack of jurisdiction, and must be vacated."
On issues relating to the ESA and bald eagles, the Appeals Court said, "Now that the bald eagle has been delisted, nothing we decide can properly give the Center the relief it sought. If the district court erred, the injunction must fall, but if the district court was correct, the injunction must still fall because no activities by Marina Point could constitute a take within the meaning of the ESA. In fact, in a letter to this court, the Center has conceded mootness."
In its ruling the Appeals Court said, "The district court determined that Marina Point had violated the CWA and had either violated or would violate the ESA. . . However, because it lacked jurisdiction over the CWA claims and because the ESA claims have become moot, we vacate its judgment and remand with directions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Concomitantly, we reverse the award of attorney fees and the contempt order."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
By way of background, the Corps granted a permit to Marina Point which authorized it to strengthen the existing shoreline. The permit authorized Marina Point to dredge the adjacent shoreline and the interior of the existing marina, and to use the dredged material as fill for building pads on the land. Marina Point was forbidden, however, from placing rip-rap at elevations below lake bottom contours, from depositing sand below the ordinary high water mark, and from transferring fill or structures to neighboring wetlands. In order to protect bald eagles’ seasonal behavioral habits, it was also barred from working during the winter months. Besides the permit from the Corps, Marina Point secured a number of other State and local permits.
On the CWA issues, the Appeals Court said, ". . . in light of the fact that the Corps and Marina Point did act to cease the activities that the Center claimed were wrongful and even acted to effect ongoing repairs for any problems caused by past activities, the district court did not have jurisdiction to hear the CWA action. It should have dismissed the action at the outset. Thus, in this respect the district court’s judgment must fall for lack of jurisdiction, and must be vacated."
On issues relating to the ESA and bald eagles, the Appeals Court said, "Now that the bald eagle has been delisted, nothing we decide can properly give the Center the relief it sought. If the district court erred, the injunction must fall, but if the district court was correct, the injunction must still fall because no activities by Marina Point could constitute a take within the meaning of the ESA. In fact, in a letter to this court, the Center has conceded mootness."
In its ruling the Appeals Court said, "The district court determined that Marina Point had violated the CWA and had either violated or would violate the ESA. . . However, because it lacked jurisdiction over the CWA claims and because the ESA claims have become moot, we vacate its judgment and remand with directions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Concomitantly, we reverse the award of attorney fees and the contempt order."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Southwest Marine, Inc. v. U.S.
Aug 6: In the Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 07-55229. In this dispute over attorney fees in an environmental case, appellant Southwest Marine, Inc., appealed from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granting summary judgment in favor of the United States and the Secretary of the Navy. The case involves the Appeals Court determining whether fees incurred by Southwest Marine during its unsuccessful defense of a private party Clean Water Act lawsuit are allowable costs under Subpart 31.2 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The Appeals Court ruled that Southwest Marine’s costs are not allowable and affirmed the judgment of the District Court.
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Mather v. Willet Dairy
Jul 30: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Case Nos. 07-3454 & 07-3462. The case is appealed from a judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granting summary judgment for Defendants-Appellees on all of Plaintiffs-Appellants’ claims in a suit alleging that Defendants-Appellees’ large dairy operation emitted hazardous pollutants in violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
The Appeals Court ruled that the Plaintiffs-Appellants, a group of neighbors, waived their claim as to any CWA violations before July 1999, that the CWA permit shield provision prohibited this action as to any claims between July 1999 and December 2006, and that Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)claims were prohibited under that statute’s "non-duplication provisions." Additionally, the Appeals Court said, ". . .we join other circuits in concluding that Defendants-Appellees did not need a permit to construct a stock pond on land already in use for farming under 33 U.S.C. § 1344(f)(2). Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court granting summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs-Appellants’ claims is affirmed."
Plaintiffs had brought the citizen suit claiming that Willet Dairy violated the Clean Water Act by failing to manage its animal waste and silage leachate properly, and otherwise causing environmental and public health hazards. They charged that: (1) Willet Dairy operated without a permit prior to July 1999 in violation of the CWA, (2) Willet Dairy discharged pollutants into navigable waterways after July 1999 in violation of its permit and the CWA, (3) Willet Dairy’s operations violated the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), and (4) Willet Dairy diverted Schaeffer Brook without a permit in violation of the CWA.
On the first charge, the Appeals Court said Appellants failed to raise this claim properly before the District Court, and therefore it was deemed it waived. Additionally, if Appellants had sufficiently argued the claim below, Willet Dairy’s failure to have a permit before July 1999 is a “wholly past violation,” which cannot be the subject of a CWA citizen suit, and the Dairy has had permit coverage under New York Department of Environmental Conservation’s general permit since July 1999.
On the second charge, the Appeals Court said the “permit shield,” embodied in 33 U.S.C. § 1342(k), protects a CWA permit holder from facing suits challenging the adequacy of its permit. The Appeals Court said, ". . .compliance with an authorized permit is deemed compliance with CWA, so as long as Willet Dairy was acting in accordance with its permit it could not be liable in a citizen suit for CWA violations.
On the third charge, the Appeals Court said, ". . . RCRA establishes a regulatory scheme for the treatment, disposal, and storage of solid and hazardous wastes. . . The RCRA also provides that '[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed to apply to . . . any activity or substance which is subject to the [CWA] . . . except to the extent that such application (or regulation) is not inconsistent with the requirements of [the 10 CWA].' 42 U.S.C. § 6905(a). Appellants’ RCRA claims are based on the same activities and substances that the CWA covers.
On the last issue regarding the diversion of Schaeffer Brook to create a stock pond, which allegedly caused harm to ponds and streams on Appellants’ properties, the Appeals Court said, "This is a new issue for our Circuit and thus we write to clarify our position." The Appeals Court said in December 1999, Willet Dairy diverted the upstream reach of the Schaeffer Brook without contacting the Corps, however, when it sought a "jurisdictional determination" from the Corps on whether it needed a permit, the Corps said it did not have jurisdiction over the pond project because of the exception to Section 1344(a) that allows a party to proceed without a permit if diverting the navigable water is “for the purpose of construction or maintenance of farm or stock ponds. . . ”
However, the Appeals Court notes that there is an exception to this exemption, called the “recapture provision,” which requires a permit if the diversion project is for the purpose of bringing an area “into a use to which it was not previously subject.” Appellants contended that the diversion was for a "new" pond, and a "new" use, so the activity should fall within the "recapture provision." The Appeals Court said, "Other courts have, however, interpreted the recapture provision to mean that a party needs a permit only when it is starting a new farming operation, not when it is building a new pond to support an existing farming operation. . . We agree for substantially the reasons stated by these courts. Any other reading would make the statute incoherent. Given that Section 1344(f)(1)(C) provides a permit exemption for the construction of a stock pond, which is by definition new, that section would be rendered meaningless by an interpretation of the recapture provision that required permits for all new uses, including new ponds. Moreover, even if there was ambiguity over the scope of the recapture provision, we would give deference to the agency interpretation that the recapture provision did not apply in this instance."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
The Appeals Court ruled that the Plaintiffs-Appellants, a group of neighbors, waived their claim as to any CWA violations before July 1999, that the CWA permit shield provision prohibited this action as to any claims between July 1999 and December 2006, and that Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)claims were prohibited under that statute’s "non-duplication provisions." Additionally, the Appeals Court said, ". . .we join other circuits in concluding that Defendants-Appellees did not need a permit to construct a stock pond on land already in use for farming under 33 U.S.C. § 1344(f)(2). Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court granting summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs-Appellants’ claims is affirmed."
Plaintiffs had brought the citizen suit claiming that Willet Dairy violated the Clean Water Act by failing to manage its animal waste and silage leachate properly, and otherwise causing environmental and public health hazards. They charged that: (1) Willet Dairy operated without a permit prior to July 1999 in violation of the CWA, (2) Willet Dairy discharged pollutants into navigable waterways after July 1999 in violation of its permit and the CWA, (3) Willet Dairy’s operations violated the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), and (4) Willet Dairy diverted Schaeffer Brook without a permit in violation of the CWA.
On the first charge, the Appeals Court said Appellants failed to raise this claim properly before the District Court, and therefore it was deemed it waived. Additionally, if Appellants had sufficiently argued the claim below, Willet Dairy’s failure to have a permit before July 1999 is a “wholly past violation,” which cannot be the subject of a CWA citizen suit, and the Dairy has had permit coverage under New York Department of Environmental Conservation’s general permit since July 1999.
On the second charge, the Appeals Court said the “permit shield,” embodied in 33 U.S.C. § 1342(k), protects a CWA permit holder from facing suits challenging the adequacy of its permit. The Appeals Court said, ". . .compliance with an authorized permit is deemed compliance with CWA, so as long as Willet Dairy was acting in accordance with its permit it could not be liable in a citizen suit for CWA violations.
On the third charge, the Appeals Court said, ". . . RCRA establishes a regulatory scheme for the treatment, disposal, and storage of solid and hazardous wastes. . . The RCRA also provides that '[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed to apply to . . . any activity or substance which is subject to the [CWA] . . . except to the extent that such application (or regulation) is not inconsistent with the requirements of [the 10 CWA].' 42 U.S.C. § 6905(a). Appellants’ RCRA claims are based on the same activities and substances that the CWA covers.
On the last issue regarding the diversion of Schaeffer Brook to create a stock pond, which allegedly caused harm to ponds and streams on Appellants’ properties, the Appeals Court said, "This is a new issue for our Circuit and thus we write to clarify our position." The Appeals Court said in December 1999, Willet Dairy diverted the upstream reach of the Schaeffer Brook without contacting the Corps, however, when it sought a "jurisdictional determination" from the Corps on whether it needed a permit, the Corps said it did not have jurisdiction over the pond project because of the exception to Section 1344(a) that allows a party to proceed without a permit if diverting the navigable water is “for the purpose of construction or maintenance of farm or stock ponds. . . ”
However, the Appeals Court notes that there is an exception to this exemption, called the “recapture provision,” which requires a permit if the diversion project is for the purpose of bringing an area “into a use to which it was not previously subject.” Appellants contended that the diversion was for a "new" pond, and a "new" use, so the activity should fall within the "recapture provision." The Appeals Court said, "Other courts have, however, interpreted the recapture provision to mean that a party needs a permit only when it is starting a new farming operation, not when it is building a new pond to support an existing farming operation. . . We agree for substantially the reasons stated by these courts. Any other reading would make the statute incoherent. Given that Section 1344(f)(1)(C) provides a permit exemption for the construction of a stock pond, which is by definition new, that section would be rendered meaningless by an interpretation of the recapture provision that required permits for all new uses, including new ponds. Moreover, even if there was ambiguity over the scope of the recapture provision, we would give deference to the agency interpretation that the recapture provision did not apply in this instance."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Norton Construction v. U.S. Army Corps
Jun 2: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Case No. 07-3826. The appeal involved plaintiff Norton Construction Company’s application for a permit to construct a new landfill in an area subject to defendant United States Army Corps of Engineers’ jurisdiction. The Corps refused to process the application, citing a Congressional appropriation act that the Corps construed as forbidding it from processing applications for new landfills in the area that it considered to be within the Muskingum Watershed. Norton unsuccessfully challenged the decision in district court. The district court ruled that the Corps reasonably interpreted the statute and that the law did not violate Norton’s constitutional rights. Norton appealed the decision and the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court decision.
Norton applied for a Section 404 permit, but the Corps returned the application without acting upon it because Congress enacted a temporary appropriations rider, which in the opinion of the Corps, prohibited the Corps from processing its application. Subsequently, Congress passed and the President signed the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-103, 119 Stat. 2247 (2005). Section 103 of the Act, enacted as a regular appropriations statute rather than as a temporary appropriations rider, prohibited the Corps from granting new landfill applications, "In order to protect and preserve the integrity of the water supply against further degradation," in the “Muskingum Watershed.”
The Appeals Court indicates that the case was made more difficult by its "ever-changing legal landscape." At first, by means of a temporary appropriations rider, Congress prohibited the processing of new landfill applications in the area of the Muskingum Watershed. Later, Congress reenacted this prohibition as part of a nonexpiring appropriations statute, thus prompting the current suit. Finally, while the present appeal was pending, Congress acted yet again by passing the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008. The Appeals Court explains that under different arguments it would still affirm the district court ruling and concludes "that declaring the case moot and again remanding for reconsideration in light of the latest statute would be a futile exercise and a needless waste of valuable judicial resources."
Norton applied for a Section 404 permit, but the Corps returned the application without acting upon it because Congress enacted a temporary appropriations rider, which in the opinion of the Corps, prohibited the Corps from processing its application. Subsequently, Congress passed and the President signed the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-103, 119 Stat. 2247 (2005). Section 103 of the Act, enacted as a regular appropriations statute rather than as a temporary appropriations rider, prohibited the Corps from granting new landfill applications, "In order to protect and preserve the integrity of the water supply against further degradation," in the “Muskingum Watershed.”
The Appeals Court indicates that the case was made more difficult by its "ever-changing legal landscape." At first, by means of a temporary appropriations rider, Congress prohibited the processing of new landfill applications in the area of the Muskingum Watershed. Later, Congress reenacted this prohibition as part of a nonexpiring appropriations statute, thus prompting the current suit. Finally, while the present appeal was pending, Congress acted yet again by passing the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008. The Appeals Court explains that under different arguments it would still affirm the district court ruling and concludes "that declaring the case moot and again remanding for reconsideration in light of the latest statute would be a futile exercise and a needless waste of valuable judicial resources."
Monday, June 9, 2008
Miami-Dade County v. EPA
Jun 6: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Case No. 06-10551, 10-574- 76, 10579, 10583. Miami-Dade County, four cities, and a regional wastewater treatment facility and the Sierra Club all petition for review a Final Rule promulgated by U.S. EPA that amended the current Federal underground injection control (UIC) requirements for Class I municipal disposal wells in Florida. The petitioners argued that the Final Rule conflicts with the plain language of the authorizing statute, that EPA’s approach to UIC regulation in South Florida is arbitrary and capricious, and that EPA gave insufficient notice of certain terms of the Final Rule in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Eleventh Circuit denied the petition.
Some of the many arguments raised by the petitioners include the following. The Sierra Club said EPA impermissibly considered the utility of underground injection of waste in comparison with other disposal options, and EPA failed to address the existence of several potential threats to human health posed by pathogens, nutrients, and other contaminants. The Municipalities and County complained that the Final Rule failed to take into account differences in Florida geology and hydrology. The County also argued that the Final Rule’s imposition of a high-level disinfection requirement, as opposed to some lower level of
disinfection, is arbitrary and capricious.
The Municipalities also argued that the Final Rule is not supported by the record due to four alleged flaws in the Risk Assessment’s methodology: (1) failure to consider the concentration of contaminants already present in the aquifers, (2) failure to employ a quantitative probabilistic risk analysis methodology, (3) failure to consider the results of a then-unpublished University of Miami study of well disposal practices, and (4) faulty assumptions about contaminant plumes. The criticisms were based on a review of the Risk Assessment performed by two scholars, a geologist, and a public utilities manager.
In a 49-page decision the Appeals Court said, "We conclude that the EPA afforded sufficient public notice of both the elimination of the non-endangerment demonstration requirement and the application of the Final Rule to new Class I wells as required by the APA. We further conclude that the petitioners have failed to show that the Final Rule is inconsistent with the statutory authority granted the EPA under the SDWA or that the Final Rule is unsupported by the record, or otherwise arbitrary and capricious."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Some of the many arguments raised by the petitioners include the following. The Sierra Club said EPA impermissibly considered the utility of underground injection of waste in comparison with other disposal options, and EPA failed to address the existence of several potential threats to human health posed by pathogens, nutrients, and other contaminants. The Municipalities and County complained that the Final Rule failed to take into account differences in Florida geology and hydrology. The County also argued that the Final Rule’s imposition of a high-level disinfection requirement, as opposed to some lower level of
disinfection, is arbitrary and capricious.
The Municipalities also argued that the Final Rule is not supported by the record due to four alleged flaws in the Risk Assessment’s methodology: (1) failure to consider the concentration of contaminants already present in the aquifers, (2) failure to employ a quantitative probabilistic risk analysis methodology, (3) failure to consider the results of a then-unpublished University of Miami study of well disposal practices, and (4) faulty assumptions about contaminant plumes. The criticisms were based on a review of the Risk Assessment performed by two scholars, a geologist, and a public utilities manager.
In a 49-page decision the Appeals Court said, "We conclude that the EPA afforded sufficient public notice of both the elimination of the non-endangerment demonstration requirement and the application of the Final Rule to new Class I wells as required by the APA. We further conclude that the petitioners have failed to show that the Final Rule is inconsistent with the statutory authority granted the EPA under the SDWA or that the Final Rule is unsupported by the record, or otherwise arbitrary and capricious."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. EPA
May 23: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 06-73217. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), along with the Oil and Gas Accountability Project (OGAP), Amigos Bravos, and Powder River Basin Resource Council (Powder River), challenged aspects of U.S. EPA's Clean Water Act (CWA) storm water discharge rule. This rule, known as “Amendments to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Regulations for Storm Water Discharges Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration, Production, Processing, or Treatment Operations or Transmission Facilities” [71FR 33,628, 6/12/06, codified at 40 C.F.R. § 122.26)]. The rule exempts from the permitting requirements of the CWA discharges of sediment from oil and gas construction activities that contribute to violations of water quality standards.
NRDC, et al contend that the rule’s NPDES permitting requirement exemption for storm water discharges of sediment from oil and gas construction activities is unlawful under section 402(l)(2) of the CWA, as amended by section 323 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). The Appeals Court granted their request and vacated the rule, and remanded the matter to EPA for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion.
The two Judge majority concluded in part, ". . . Clearly, EPA’s June 12, 2006, storm water discharge rule, codified at 40 C.F.R. § 122.26, represents a complete departure from its previous interpretation of what constitutes “contamination” under section 402(l)(2). As such, we conclude that EPA’s inconsistent and conflicting position regarding the discharge of sediment-laden storm water from oil and gas construction sites causes its interpretation of amended section 402(l)(2), as reflected in the storm water discharge rule, 40 C.F.R. § 122.26, to be an arbitrary and capricious one. . . This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that neither the amending statute (section 323), the statutory definition (section 503(24)), nor the statutory exemption (402(l)(2)) make any mention at all of 'sediment' -- or of whether it is covered or not.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Callahan said, ". . . as the majority correctly concludes, this dispute must be resolved at step two of the Chevron analysis, with the question of whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided a -- not the only or the best -- permissible interpretation of section 402(l)(2). It is at this point that I respectfully part course with the majority and accord EPA’s permissible interpretation appropriate deference. . . because EPA’s 'interpretation is at least as plausible as competing ones,' this court should defer to its construction."
Commenting on the decision, Aaron Colangelo, senior attorney at NRDC said, "It is well known that sediment pollution from oil and gas development can impair water quality and destroy aquatic habitat. Yet under the guise of enforcing the 2005 Energy Act, EPA exempted projects from the requirements of the Clean Water Act. Today, the court rightly decided that the EPA rule was arbitrary and capricious. The law clearly requires oil and gas projects to apply for permits and install pollution controls to protect water quality. The explosion of oil and gas exploration and production poses a serious threat to water quality throughout the West. Sediment from projects runs off into streams and rivers; harming aquatic life; increasing water treatment costs for towns and cities; decreasing property values; and interfering with recreational activities, such as boating, swimming and fishing."
Access the complete opinion (click here). Access a statement from NRDC (click here). Access more information about exemptions in federal environmental laws for the oil and gas industry in the NRDC report, Drilling Down: Protecting Western Communities from the Health and Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Pollution (click here). Access EPA's docket for this rulemaking (click here).
NRDC, et al contend that the rule’s NPDES permitting requirement exemption for storm water discharges of sediment from oil and gas construction activities is unlawful under section 402(l)(2) of the CWA, as amended by section 323 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). The Appeals Court granted their request and vacated the rule, and remanded the matter to EPA for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion.
The two Judge majority concluded in part, ". . . Clearly, EPA’s June 12, 2006, storm water discharge rule, codified at 40 C.F.R. § 122.26, represents a complete departure from its previous interpretation of what constitutes “contamination” under section 402(l)(2). As such, we conclude that EPA’s inconsistent and conflicting position regarding the discharge of sediment-laden storm water from oil and gas construction sites causes its interpretation of amended section 402(l)(2), as reflected in the storm water discharge rule, 40 C.F.R. § 122.26, to be an arbitrary and capricious one. . . This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that neither the amending statute (section 323), the statutory definition (section 503(24)), nor the statutory exemption (402(l)(2)) make any mention at all of 'sediment' -- or of whether it is covered or not.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Callahan said, ". . . as the majority correctly concludes, this dispute must be resolved at step two of the Chevron analysis, with the question of whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided a -- not the only or the best -- permissible interpretation of section 402(l)(2). It is at this point that I respectfully part course with the majority and accord EPA’s permissible interpretation appropriate deference. . . because EPA’s 'interpretation is at least as plausible as competing ones,' this court should defer to its construction."
Commenting on the decision, Aaron Colangelo, senior attorney at NRDC said, "It is well known that sediment pollution from oil and gas development can impair water quality and destroy aquatic habitat. Yet under the guise of enforcing the 2005 Energy Act, EPA exempted projects from the requirements of the Clean Water Act. Today, the court rightly decided that the EPA rule was arbitrary and capricious. The law clearly requires oil and gas projects to apply for permits and install pollution controls to protect water quality. The explosion of oil and gas exploration and production poses a serious threat to water quality throughout the West. Sediment from projects runs off into streams and rivers; harming aquatic life; increasing water treatment costs for towns and cities; decreasing property values; and interfering with recreational activities, such as boating, swimming and fishing."
Access the complete opinion (click here). Access a statement from NRDC (click here). Access more information about exemptions in federal environmental laws for the oil and gas industry in the NRDC report, Drilling Down: Protecting Western Communities from the Health and Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Pollution (click here). Access EPA's docket for this rulemaking (click here).
Our Children's Earth Foundation v. U.S. EPA
May 23: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 05-16214. Environmental advocates, Our Children’s Earth Foundation and Ecological Rights Foundation (collectively OCE), filed a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act, alleging that U.S. EPA failed to fulfill its mandate to review effluent guidelines and limitations in a timely manner and in accord with technology-based standards. Specifically, OCE claims that EPA violated its statutorily-mandated duties by abandoning "technology-based" review in favor of "hazard-based" review; neglecting to identify "new" polluting sources; and failing to publish timely plans for future reviews.
The Appeals Court explained that, "A technology-based approach to water quality focuses on the achievable level of pollutant reduction given current technology, whereas a hazard-based approach seeks to identify known hazards or contaminants in the water and to reduce the prevalence of those hazards. Although these approaches are not mutually exclusive, OCE claims that EPA jettisoned a technology-based approach altogether, thus abdicating its statutory duties."
The district court granted judgment in favor of EPA, holding that the challenged acts or omissions were discretionary. The Appeals Court said, "We agree that the decisions whether to revise the effluent guidelines and whether to incorporate technology-based criteria in its periodic review of the guidelines fall within EPA’s discretion. Consequently, we affirm."
On a related Motion to Transfer issue, the Appeals Court said, "The district court properly dismissed OCE’s claims regarding the manner and timing of review of the guidelines, the scheduling of plan publication and identification of new polluting sources, and did not abuse its discretion in refusing to transfer OCE’s claims to this court."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
The Appeals Court explained that, "A technology-based approach to water quality focuses on the achievable level of pollutant reduction given current technology, whereas a hazard-based approach seeks to identify known hazards or contaminants in the water and to reduce the prevalence of those hazards. Although these approaches are not mutually exclusive, OCE claims that EPA jettisoned a technology-based approach altogether, thus abdicating its statutory duties."
The district court granted judgment in favor of EPA, holding that the challenged acts or omissions were discretionary. The Appeals Court said, "We agree that the decisions whether to revise the effluent guidelines and whether to incorporate technology-based criteria in its periodic review of the guidelines fall within EPA’s discretion. Consequently, we affirm."
On a related Motion to Transfer issue, the Appeals Court said, "The district court properly dismissed OCE’s claims regarding the manner and timing of review of the guidelines, the scheduling of plan publication and identification of new polluting sources, and did not abuse its discretion in refusing to transfer OCE’s claims to this court."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey (U.S. Forest Service)
May 14: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 07-16892. Sierra Forest Legacy (Sierra Forest) appeals the decision of the district court denying a preliminary injunction against the United States Forest Service (the USFS or the Forest Service) in a suit challenging its decision to permit logging in accordance with changes made in 2004 by the USFS in the relevant forest plan. Many other parties have intervened on each side. The Attorney General of California, Edmund Brown, Jr., filed an amicus brief in support of Sierra Forest. The Appeals Court held that the district court abused its discretion and reversed and remanded the case.
The Appeals Court says that the "USFS acknowledges that its reason for selling the forest trees to commercial loggers is to raise funds to carry on its fire prevention duties. Sierra Forest and the State of California seek to preserve the larger trees and so to preserve the habitat that supports various species. We need decide here a limited and narrow issue: Does the 2004 SEIS prepared by USFS regarding its plans to sell off the forest trees comply with the requirements of NEPA?"
In its conclusion, the Appeals Court says, "Postponement of the Forest Service plans may increase the danger posed by fires; but the Forest Service and Congress do not appear helpless to find the funds to decrease the dangers. The question we address here is whether USFS’s choice of funding for fire reduction -- rather than fire reduction itself -- outweighs California’s preservation interests. We conclude that it does not, given that 'special solicitude' should be afforded California’s stake in its natural resources and that the Forest Service did not consider alternatives to its choice of funding."
Greg Loarie, an attorney with Earthjustice representing the conservation groups said, "The Ninth Circuit understood that the old-growth logging at issue here may turn a profit, but will not make the Sierra any safer if there's a fire. We desperately need the Forest Service to turn its attention away from the big trees and back to Sierra communities."
Access the complete opinion (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here).
The Appeals Court says that the "USFS acknowledges that its reason for selling the forest trees to commercial loggers is to raise funds to carry on its fire prevention duties. Sierra Forest and the State of California seek to preserve the larger trees and so to preserve the habitat that supports various species. We need decide here a limited and narrow issue: Does the 2004 SEIS prepared by USFS regarding its plans to sell off the forest trees comply with the requirements of NEPA?"
In its conclusion, the Appeals Court says, "Postponement of the Forest Service plans may increase the danger posed by fires; but the Forest Service and Congress do not appear helpless to find the funds to decrease the dangers. The question we address here is whether USFS’s choice of funding for fire reduction -- rather than fire reduction itself -- outweighs California’s preservation interests. We conclude that it does not, given that 'special solicitude' should be afforded California’s stake in its natural resources and that the Forest Service did not consider alternatives to its choice of funding."
Greg Loarie, an attorney with Earthjustice representing the conservation groups said, "The Ninth Circuit understood that the old-growth logging at issue here may turn a profit, but will not make the Sierra any safer if there's a fire. We desperately need the Forest Service to turn its attention away from the big trees and back to Sierra communities."
Access the complete opinion (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here).
Monday, May 12, 2008
Sierra Club v. Flowers (Army Corps)
May 9: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Case No. 07-13297. Sierra Club brought the action against the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) after the Corps granted Rinker Materials and other mining concerns (Miners) Clean Water Act (CWA) permits. The Miners sought to extract high-quality limestone from the “Lake Belt” area -- a stretch of 60,000 acres of wetlands between the Florida Everglades and the northwest edge of metropolitan Miami. To mine the Lake Belt wetlands, however, the Miners had to first secure CWA permits from the Corps. The Corps, in reviewing whether to issue permits, had to follow procedures required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and CWA. After the Corps granted the permits, Sierra Club brought suit, alleging that in granting the permits the Corps performed its NEPA, ESA, and CWA duties arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Miners intervened as defendants, and all parties moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the Appellees’ motion
and found that, for numerous reasons, the Miners’ permits were due to be vacated.
The Appeals Court said, "After reviewing the voluminous record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the benefit of oral argument, we vacate the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remand this case to the district court to apply the proper APA standard of review to the Corps’s environmental analysis." A two Justice majority ruled further, "The district court seems to have predetermined the answer to the ultimate issue, concluding that the Corps should not permit mining in the Lake Belt, and analyzed the permitting process with that answer in mind. . . In other words, no matter what the Corps concluded, and no matter what evidence supported that conclusion, the court would have banned mining because of its own conclusion that mining in the Lake Belt is a bad thing. . . The discretion to grant or deny CWA permits, however, is first given to federal agencies, not federal courts. Again, we offer no opinion as to whether the Corps complied with NEPA or the CWA during the permitting process. We instead remand to the district court to answer those questions in the first instance, applying the proper standard of review. The APA-CWA judgment, the APA-NEPA judgment, and the Remedies Order are vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
A concurring in part and dissenting in part opinion, the minority Justice said, "Although I agree with much of the majority’s opinion, I must respectfully dissent from its judgment. Specifically, I agree that we have jurisdiction, that the Endangered Species Act claim was mooted, and that the district court’s NEPA analysis was erroneous. But I would affirm the district court’s disposition of the Clean Water Act claim, as well as its remedial decisions. . . I believe the district court correctly determined that the Corps violated the Clean Water Act in the permitting process, I would affirm on that basis the district court’s judgment vacating the permits. . . Although the district court made some misstatements of law in its CWA analysis, I believe they are harmless error and that the record contains a sufficient basis to affirm the judgment. . ."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
and found that, for numerous reasons, the Miners’ permits were due to be vacated.
The Appeals Court said, "After reviewing the voluminous record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the benefit of oral argument, we vacate the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remand this case to the district court to apply the proper APA standard of review to the Corps’s environmental analysis." A two Justice majority ruled further, "The district court seems to have predetermined the answer to the ultimate issue, concluding that the Corps should not permit mining in the Lake Belt, and analyzed the permitting process with that answer in mind. . . In other words, no matter what the Corps concluded, and no matter what evidence supported that conclusion, the court would have banned mining because of its own conclusion that mining in the Lake Belt is a bad thing. . . The discretion to grant or deny CWA permits, however, is first given to federal agencies, not federal courts. Again, we offer no opinion as to whether the Corps complied with NEPA or the CWA during the permitting process. We instead remand to the district court to answer those questions in the first instance, applying the proper standard of review. The APA-CWA judgment, the APA-NEPA judgment, and the Remedies Order are vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
A concurring in part and dissenting in part opinion, the minority Justice said, "Although I agree with much of the majority’s opinion, I must respectfully dissent from its judgment. Specifically, I agree that we have jurisdiction, that the Endangered Species Act claim was mooted, and that the district court’s NEPA analysis was erroneous. But I would affirm the district court’s disposition of the Clean Water Act claim, as well as its remedial decisions. . . I believe the district court correctly determined that the Corps violated the Clean Water Act in the permitting process, I would affirm on that basis the district court’s judgment vacating the permits. . . Although the district court made some misstatements of law in its CWA analysis, I believe they are harmless error and that the record contains a sufficient basis to affirm the judgment. . ."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Monday, May 5, 2008
Weavers Cove Energy v. RI Department of Environmental Management
May 2: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 07-1235, consolidated with 07-1238. The cases involve key dredging permits in Massachusetts and Rhode Island According to the Appeals Court, Weaver’s Cove Energy, LLC (WCE) applied to the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) for “certifications” that its proposed dredge-and-fill operations would comply with the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). When a year had passed without the State agencies having issued final determinations one way or the other, WCE petitioned this court for review of their inaction, seeking a declaration that the States had “waived” their right to deny the requested certifications. The D.C Circuit said, "Instead, we must dismiss the petitions for want of a case or controversy under Article III of the Constitution of the United States."
The Appeals Court states that, under § 401(a)(1) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1), an applicant for any federal permit that “may result in any discharge into the navigable waters” of the United States -- such as a dredge-and-fill permit from the Army Corps -- “shall provide the ... permitting agency a certification from the State in which the discharge originates ... that any such discharge will comply with the applicable provisions” of the Act. For the State to participate in the regulatory process, it must act expeditiously: “[I]f the State ... fails or refuses to act on a request for certification, within a reasonable period of time (which shall not exceed one year) after receipt of such request, the certification requirements ... shall be waived with respect to such Federal
application.”
Despite numerous claims and charges in defense of the State, the Appeals Court ruled, "We reach none of the States’ arguments, for we conclude sua sponte that WCE does not have standing to sue the States; the court therefore lacks jurisdiction over WCE’s petitions." The Appeals Court claims that WCE, in its standing defense, "does not claim to have been injured by it. On the contrary, WCE’s theory of the case is that it benefited from the agencies’ inaction; that is, the agencies, by failing to issue timely rulings on WCE’s applications, waived their rights to deny the certifications WCE seeks." The D.C. Circuit concludes, "In sum, WCE has not shown an injury caused by the state agencies that likely would be redressed by the declaration it seeks. We are therefore without jurisdiction over its petitions for review, which are, accordingly, dismissed."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
The Appeals Court states that, under § 401(a)(1) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1), an applicant for any federal permit that “may result in any discharge into the navigable waters” of the United States -- such as a dredge-and-fill permit from the Army Corps -- “shall provide the ... permitting agency a certification from the State in which the discharge originates ... that any such discharge will comply with the applicable provisions” of the Act. For the State to participate in the regulatory process, it must act expeditiously: “[I]f the State ... fails or refuses to act on a request for certification, within a reasonable period of time (which shall not exceed one year) after receipt of such request, the certification requirements ... shall be waived with respect to such Federal
application.”
Despite numerous claims and charges in defense of the State, the Appeals Court ruled, "We reach none of the States’ arguments, for we conclude sua sponte that WCE does not have standing to sue the States; the court therefore lacks jurisdiction over WCE’s petitions." The Appeals Court claims that WCE, in its standing defense, "does not claim to have been injured by it. On the contrary, WCE’s theory of the case is that it benefited from the agencies’ inaction; that is, the agencies, by failing to issue timely rulings on WCE’s applications, waived their rights to deny the certifications WCE seeks." The D.C. Circuit concludes, "In sum, WCE has not shown an injury caused by the state agencies that likely would be redressed by the declaration it seeks. We are therefore without jurisdiction over its petitions for review, which are, accordingly, dismissed."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Islander East Pipeline Co. v. McCarthy
May 2: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Case No. 06-5764. The Appeals Court denied a petition for review by Islander East Pipeline Company, LLC, who needed a water quality certification from the State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) in order to secure Federal approval to build a natural gas pipeline across Long Island Sound. Islander East contended that the State's second denial of the certification was arbitrary and capricious.
The Appeals Court notes, citing previous decisions, that while the Natural Gas Act (NGA) generally preempts local permit and licensing requirements, the Clean Water and Coastal Zone Management Acts are notable in effecting a Federal-state partnership to ensure water quality and coastal management around the country, so that state standards approved by the Federal government become the federal standard for that state. Under the Clean Water Act, state water quality standards approved by U.S. EPA becomes ‘the water quality standard for the applicable waters of that State. Consistent with that scheme, the two Acts require applicants for Federal permits to provide Federal licensing agencies such as the FERC [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] with certifications from affected states confirming compliance with local standards.
In a 2-1 decision, the Appeals Court concluded, "To summarize, Islander East’s proposed installation of a natural gas pipeline from Connecticut to New York across Long Island Sound must comport with various statutes, including the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act requires Islander East to procure from the CTDEP a certification that the proposed pipeline will comply with state water quality standards. Record evidence supports the CTDEP’s finding that various techniques to be employed by Islander East in installing the proposed pipeline would violate state water quality standards by eliminating a significant area of nearshore waters from their existing and designated use of shellfishing. On such a record, we cannot conclude that the CTDEP’s decision to deny Islander East a certificate of compliance was 'arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.' Islander East’s petition for review is denied."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
The Appeals Court notes, citing previous decisions, that while the Natural Gas Act (NGA) generally preempts local permit and licensing requirements, the Clean Water and Coastal Zone Management Acts are notable in effecting a Federal-state partnership to ensure water quality and coastal management around the country, so that state standards approved by the Federal government become the federal standard for that state. Under the Clean Water Act, state water quality standards approved by U.S. EPA becomes ‘the water quality standard for the applicable waters of that State. Consistent with that scheme, the two Acts require applicants for Federal permits to provide Federal licensing agencies such as the FERC [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] with certifications from affected states confirming compliance with local standards.
In a 2-1 decision, the Appeals Court concluded, "To summarize, Islander East’s proposed installation of a natural gas pipeline from Connecticut to New York across Long Island Sound must comport with various statutes, including the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act requires Islander East to procure from the CTDEP a certification that the proposed pipeline will comply with state water quality standards. Record evidence supports the CTDEP’s finding that various techniques to be employed by Islander East in installing the proposed pipeline would violate state water quality standards by eliminating a significant area of nearshore waters from their existing and designated use of shellfishing. On such a record, we cannot conclude that the CTDEP’s decision to deny Islander East a certificate of compliance was 'arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.' Islander East’s petition for review is denied."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Piney Run Preservation v. County Commissioners (Carroll Co. MD)
Apr 23: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Case No. 07-1348. As explained by the Appeals Court, Piney Run is a small stream with its headwaters near the border of
Carroll and Baltimore counties in Maryland. For the second time, the Piney Run Preservation Association (the Association) has filed a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act (CWA) alleging that the County Commissioners of Carroll County are violating the CWA by discharging treated wastewater from the Hampstead Wastewater Treatment Plant into Piney Run.
The Association specifically contends that the temperature of the discharged effluent at times exceeds the thermal limitation set forth in the County’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. On the County’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the district court found that the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) was "diligently prosecuting" a CWA enforcement action against the County for violating the NPDES permit. Consequently, the court held that the Association was barred by 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(B) from maintaining this suit. The Association appealed the order of dismissal, arguing that the district court erred in its "diligent prosecution" determination.
The Appeals Court affirmed the decision of the district court saying, ". . .a CWA enforcement action will be considered diligent where it is capable of requiring compliance with the Act and is in good faith calculated to do so. Based on the record before us, we hold that the Association has failed to meet its high burden of establishing that the MDE enforcement action does not satisfy this standard.
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Carroll and Baltimore counties in Maryland. For the second time, the Piney Run Preservation Association (the Association) has filed a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act (CWA) alleging that the County Commissioners of Carroll County are violating the CWA by discharging treated wastewater from the Hampstead Wastewater Treatment Plant into Piney Run.
The Association specifically contends that the temperature of the discharged effluent at times exceeds the thermal limitation set forth in the County’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. On the County’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the district court found that the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) was "diligently prosecuting" a CWA enforcement action against the County for violating the NPDES permit. Consequently, the court held that the Association was barred by 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(B) from maintaining this suit. The Association appealed the order of dismissal, arguing that the district court erred in its "diligent prosecution" determination.
The Appeals Court affirmed the decision of the district court saying, ". . .a CWA enforcement action will be considered diligent where it is capable of requiring compliance with the Act and is in good faith calculated to do so. Based on the record before us, we hold that the Association has failed to meet its high burden of establishing that the MDE enforcement action does not satisfy this standard.
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
