Milwaukee Metropolitan v. American International Specialty

Mar 10: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Case No. 09-1645, 09-1715 & 09-1783. The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District is responsible for flood control and wastewater treatment in the greater Milwaukee area. As part of a flood control project, the District needed to acquire from Milwaukee County a piece of real estate along Lincoln Creek. The nominal asking price was $1.00. In anticipation of possible pollution clean-up costs, the project manager recommended obtaining insurance coverage, which the District directed its insurance agency to acquire. After a policy was issued, the District acquired title to the land. Soon thereafter, the District encountered significant pollution on the land. But when it submitted a claim to its environmental liability insurer, American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company (AISLIC), for costs incurred in removing the pollution, the insurer denied coverage.

    The District then sued AISLIC in Wisconsin State court seeking damages under several state law claims. Following removal to Federal court and a bench trial, the district court concluded that coverage for the pollution was appropriate. The court reformed the District's insurance policy with AISLIC to provide coverage for the pollution removal costs and entered judgment for $226,468.51

in favor of the District. The court also entered judgment in the same amount for AISLIC on its indemnity claim against Crump Insurance Services of Illinois, Inc. (Crump). AISLIC and Crump appeal from the district court's judgment, and the District cross-appeals the judgment and the denials of its post-trial motions.

 

    The Appeals Court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for AISLIC on the District's reformation claim and to dismiss AISLIC's indemnity claim against Crump as moot. The Appeals Court also dismissed the District's cross-appeal as moot. The Appeals Court explained further and said, ". . .the record indicates that the District knew that the policy would not include 'Lincoln Creek' as an insured property. From the very beginning of the District's efforts to obtain coverage for the Parcel, its agent Sedgwick was concerned that the information it was providing to Crump might not be sufficient for AISLIC to decide whether to provide coverage. . . Because its agent . . . knew that 'Lincoln Creek' would not be covered unless the District owned or operated the land, the District cannot reasonably claim to have proceeded under a mistake that the policy would cover the Parcel before satisfying that requirement. . ."

 

    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).]

David L. Lewis v. U.S. Department of Labor

Feb 24: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Case No. 08-12114. In this unpublished opinion, Dr. David Lewis petitioned the court for review of the final order of the U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board (ARB) denying his whistleblower complaints against his employer, the U.S. EPA, brought pursuant to the employee protection provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA); the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA); the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); the Federal Water Pollution Prevention and Control Act (FWPPCA); and the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA).

 

    The case involves a dispute between two EPA employees regarding EPA's Rule 503 [See 40 C.F.R. § 503.1 (2009)] relating to the land application of biosolids. Lewis became concerned that heavy metals in sludge may be adverse to the public health and that the effects of pathogens in the sludge were not adequately investigated during the Rule 503 peer review process. The Appeals Court affirmed the ARB decision denying the complaints.

 

    Access the complete opinion (click here).

Gintis v. Bouchard Transportation Co.

Feb 23: In the U.S. Court Appeals, First Circuit, Case No. 09-1717. In this case, a fuel barge owned and operated by defendants discharged a substantial amount of oil into the waters of Buzzards Bay in southeastern Massachusetts. Plaintiffs are owners of residential waterfront property on the bay who brought suit as individuals and as members of a proposed class. The district court denied class certification, but the Appeals Court said, ". . .because the court did not subject the parties' contentions to the plenary analysis that precedent requires, we vacate the judgment and remand."

 

    The  Appeals Court provided more detail and said, "It is enough to say here that Bouchard's arguments in this appeal appear to show that substantial and serious common issues would arise over and over in potential individual cases. Indeed, the only apparent mitigation of this prospect of duplicative litigation lies in the possibility that not many individual actions would be brought if separate actions were the only course, and this implicates the second condition for certification under paragraph (3), that class litigation be

superior to a string of individual plaintiffs going alone. While superiority is a separate base to be touched, it is addressed by many of the considerations that inform a trial court's judgment call about how clearly predominant the common issues must be. . .

 

    Here there is evidence that may well go to the very reason for Rule 23(b)(3), mentioned before (i.e., to make room for claims that plaintiffs could never afford to press one by one), since the record contains one estimate that potential individual recoveries are probably in the $12 to $39 thousand range. Given the elements of injury, causation and compensation on which Bouchard intends to join issue, there is a real question whether the putative class members could sensibly litigate on their own for these amounts of damages, especially with the prospect of expert testimony required. Like predominance, the issue of superiority is thus a serious one in these circumstances and should be addressed thoroughly."

 

    Access the complete opinion (click here).

Crandall v. Denver

Feb 8: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, Case No. 08-1197. Plaintiffs Terri Crandall and JoAnn Hubbard sued for injunctive relief against the City and County of Denver under the citizen-suit provision of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). Their concern is that aircraft deicing fluid (ADF), which can produce hydrogen-sulfide gas when it decomposes, endangers human health at Concourse B of the Denver International Airport. The gates on Concourse B are used almost exclusively by United Airlines. Crandall is a United employee, and Hubbard is a former employee who now frequently uses Concourse B as a passenger. Plaintiffs seek: (1) to prohibit full-plane deicing at Concourse B gates; and (2) to require other precautionary steps relating to ADF.

 

    Following a five-day bench trial, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied Plaintiffs relief. It found that Denver no longer permits full-plane deicing at the gates and held that Plaintiffs had not shown that the current use of ADF "may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health," which is a prerequisite for RCRA relief. The court also held that RCRA does not govern all the ADF by Concourse B at the Denver Airport, but only the ADF "that flows in storm water into Concourse B and degrades in Concourse B." The ADF that degrades outside the concourse, it said, was governed exclusively by permits issued under the Clean Water Act (CWA).

 

    On appeal Plaintiffs argue that the district court misconstrued RCRA's requirements with respect to injunctive relief. They also contend that the court erred in holding that the CWA, rather than RCRA, governs some of the ADF at the Denver Airport. The Appeals Court ruled, "We affirm the district court's denial of injunctive relief. Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that ADF at the airport (whether it degrades inside or outside Concourse B) may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health. Because relief under RCRA would therefore not be available even if RCRA governs the ADF that degrades outside the concourse, we need not address whether such ADF is governed exclusively by the CWA."

 

    The Appeals Court said further, "A RCRA suit cannot be brought because someone may sometime begin disposing of solid waste in a manner that presents an endangerment. The endangering practice -- here, the resumption of gate deicing -- must be imminent. See 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B). Plaintiffs' suit was properly dismissed because the evidence showed that resumption of full-plane gate deicing at Concourse B was not imminent, but merely speculative. If the district court had been persuaded by the evidence that Denver would likely resume full-plane deicing at the gates upon conclusion of this litigation and that such a practice may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health, we presume that it could properly issue an injunction under RCRA. That, however, is not the case we have before us."

 

    Access the complete opinion (click here).

U.S.A. v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County

Jan 7: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Case No. 08-6296. The district court in this case refused to approve a proposed settlement of a Clean Water Act suit brought by the United States and the Commonwealth of Kentucky against the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. The sticking point was a proposed civil penalty of $425,000 that the district court found could be better directed toward alleviating the conditions that violated the Clean Water Act. The Appeals Court ruled, "Such a concern by itself cannot support rejection of an otherwise proper settlement, in light of the express provision for civil penalties in the Clean Water Act. Remand is therefore required."

According to the opinion, the United States, the Commonwealth, and Lexington ultimately reached a settlement agreement, embodied in a proposed consent decree, that would require Lexington to bring its sanitary and storm sewer systems into compliance with the Clean Water Act at an estimated cost, according to the United States, of $250 million to $300 million. The proposed consent decree also would require Lexington to complete two Supplemental Environmental Projects (estimated to cost $1.23 million) and two Commonwealth environmental projects (estimated to cost $1.50 million) and to pay the United States a $425,000 civil penalty. The parties assert that they negotiated the proposed consent decree in good faith. Although Lexington agreed to the entry of the proposed consent decree “without further notice,” Lexington maintains that its agreement to the terms of the proposed consent decree is neither “an admission of liability” nor “an adjudication or admission of any fact or law.”

The settlement was noticed and eighteen public comments were received; four comments remarked that the $425,000 civil penalty was too high and that the money could be better used to bring Lexington’s sewer systems into compliance with the Clean Water Act. The U.S. responded to comments indicating, "It is customary to include substantial penalties for past non-compliance in consent decrees as an important component of enforcement and to operate as a deterrent to future non-compliance by the defendant and by others. It sends an important message to all municipal dischargers that non-compliance is far from free, and that expeditious efforts to improve [a] system are worth the cost."

The district court ruled, "The Court agrees with the commenters who were concerned that the [civil] penalties were too high and that the penalty money could be better applied to the work required under the Consent Decree. . . Present day taxpayers and sewer services users should not be severely penalized for longstanding neglect on the part of the defendant. A large portion of the penalty money could be better utilized by additional [Supplemental Environmental Projects] or by application of a portion of the penalty money to remedial work required by the Consent Decree." The district court denied the United States’ motion for reconsideration, and the U.S. appealed.

The Appeals Court explained further its remand decision saying, "The only stated basis for the conclusion that the proposed penalty was too high was that the money would be better used by Lexington for remediation of 'longstanding' violations. While this may be so, such a consideration conflicts with the determination of Congress that civil penalties are appropriate in the case of Clean Water Act violations. Rejecting a civil penalty as too high because of the greater seriousness of the violation, or because the penalty money could be used for remediation, is in tension with, rather than in accordance with, the statutory purpose behind civil penalties. In most Clean Water Act cases, the more serious the violation, the more that penalty money could be used for remediation. If Congress thought a violator’s money would be better spent that way, Congress would hardly have provided for civil penalties."

Access the complete opinion and separate concurring opinion (click here).

Service Oil, Inc. v. U.S. EPA

Dec 28: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, Case No. 08-2819. In this administrative enforcement proceeding, U.S. EPA imposed a substantial monetary penalty on Service Oil, Inc., the owner of a construction site that did not timely obtain a storm water discharge permit. According to the Appeals Court, EPA based the amount of the penalty not on unlawful discharges, but on Service Oil’s failure to comply with the Agency’s permit application regulations. The Appeals Court concluded that "this is an expansion of EPA’s remedial power not authorized by the governing statutes," and reversed and remanded the decision for redetermination of the penalty.

The Eighth Circuit said in part, "As the Second Circuit held in invalidating a portion of EPA’s regulations governing concentrated animal feeding operations, 'unless there is a "discharge of any pollutant," there is no violation of the Act, and point sources are, accordingly, neither statutorily obligated to comply with EPA regulations for point source discharges, nor are they statutorily obligated to seek or obtain an NPDES permit.'" [citing Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. E.P.A., 399 F.3d 486, 504 (2d Cir. 2005).

The Appeals Court said further, "While acknowledging 'the policy considerations underlying the EPA’s approach,' the court [2nd Circuit] concluded that 'it contravenes the regulatory scheme enacted by Congress; the Clean Water Act gives the EPA jurisdiction to regulate and control only actual discharges -- not potential discharges, and certainly not point sources themselves.'”

The Appeals Court rules, "Our conclusion that EPA lacks statutory authority to assess administrative penalties for failure to submit a timely permit application does not mean, as the EAB [Environmental Appeals Board] posited, that the agency must either guess the identities of potential new point sources, or allow unpermitted discharges to ensue. Prudent builders know that permits do not issue overnight and that storm water discharges can happen any time after the start of construction makes the site a point source. They will apply and obtain permits before starting construction to avoid penalties for unlawful discharge that may prove to be severe. That is the regulatory regime Congress crafted. By contrast, under the EAB’s interpretation of § 1318(a), a person about to commence construction could apply to EPA for a storm water discharge permit less than the ninety days “before the date on which construction is to commence” prescribed in 40 C.F.R. § 122.21(c)(1); obtain the permit before construction commences and any discharge occurs; and still face a costly administrative enforcement proceeding and potential monetary penalties for failing to comply with the regulation. The statute is to the contrary.

"The decision of the EAB based the amount of monetary penalty assessed primarily on Service Oil’s 'complete failure to apply for its storm water permit prior to starting construction.' As a violation of the permit application regulations is not within the purview of 33 U.S.C. § 1319(g)(1)(A), this was a statutorily impermissible factor. Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, vacate the order assessing a civil penalty of $35,640, and remand to the agency for redetermination of the amount of the penalty in accordance with § 1319(g)(3) and this opinion."

Access the complete opinion (click here).

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC v. Wilson (Maryland)

Dec 22: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Case No. 09-1539. The case involves a petition pursuant to the Natural Gas Act, by AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express Holdings, LLC (collectively AES) to review the State of Maryland Department of the Environment’s denial of a request for water quality certification pursuant to § 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, with respect to a proposed large-scale liquefied natural gas marine import terminal and pipeline project.

The proposal by AES is to construct and operate a liquefied natural gas (LNG) marine import terminal at Sparrows Point (a heavily industrialized area adjacent to Baltimore Harbor) and an eighty-eight-mile pipeline connecting the terminal to three interstate natural gas pipelines in Eagle, Pennsylvania.

The Appeals Court said in conclusion, "we: (1) hold that Maryland waived any potential claim of sovereign immunity in connection with the present petition for review by expressly consenting to defending, in federal court, its decision to deny AES’s Request for § 401(a)(1) Water Quality Certification; (2) hold that AES has failed to establish any basis for us to disturb the Corps’ determination that Maryland had not waived its right to grant or deny AES’s § 401(a)(1) Certification Request; and (3) deny AES’s petition for review of Maryland’s denial of its§ 401(a)(1) Certification Request on the merits." One of the Judges issued a separate concurring opinion.

Access the complete opinion (click here).

South Fork Band Council v. U.S. Department of Interior

Dec 3: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 09-15230. This is an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction in an environmental challenge to a major gold mining project on the side of Mt. Tenabo in Nevada. The mountain has religious significance for Indian tribes. The plaintiffs-appellants are the South Fork Band Council of Western Shoshone of Nevada, and other tribes and organizations (the Tribes).

The Tribes originally filed this action against the United States Department of the Interior and its Bureau of Land Management (BLM) after BLM issued its final environmental impact statement approving the project. The project’s developer, Barrick Cortez, Inc., (Cortez) appeared as an intervenor and is also an appellee. The Appeals Court denied the Tribes’ emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal, but expedited the briefing and argument of the appeal.

The district court’s opinion devotes most of its consideration to claims brought under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Those claims were not pursued on appeal. Instead, the claims allege violations of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In determining whether a preliminary injunction should issue, the Appeals Court said it is bound by the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 129 S. Ct. 365 (2008) [See WIMS 11/12/08].

The Appeals Court said it "must decide whether the Tribes have shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims; that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction is denied; that the balance of the equities tips in their favor; and that an injunction is in the public interest. . . The Tribes must make each of these showings to be entitled to injunctive relief. . . To succeed on the merits of their action under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Tribes must show that BLM’s action was arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law. . ."

The Appeals Court ruled, "Given the thorough consideration of the project’s impact on the Tribes religion in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which was approved after more than two years of study and consultation with the Tribes and with the public, we conclude that the Tribes have not satisfied their burden of showing a likelihood of success on the merits of their FLPMA claims. We reverse the denial of injunctive relief on the NEPA claims, however, and remand for the entry of an injunction pending preparation of an EIS that adequately considers the environmental impact of the extraction of millions of tons of refractory ore, mitigation of the adverse impact on local springs and streams, and the extent of fine particulate emissions."

Further, the Appeals Court said, "The likelihood of irreparable environmental injury without adequate study of the adverse effects and possible mitigation is high. Indeed the district court did not question the irreparable environmental harm threatened by this massive project, and that will be visited most directly on the plaintiffs. The resulting hardship asserted by Cortez and the government is cast principally in economic terms of employment loss, but that may for the most part be temporary. Given the narrow scope of our holding, which rejects the broader FLPMA contentions, the balance of hardship favors the appellants. As to the public interest, Congress’s determination in enacting NEPA was that the public interest requires careful consideration of environmental impacts before major federal projects may go forward. Suspending a project until that consideration has occurred thus comports with the public interest."

Access the complete opinion (click here).

Ackerson v. Bean Dredging LLC

Nov 25: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, Case No. 07-30272. In this multi-party case known as the Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, appellants sued the United States and thirty-two defendants who dredged the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet to recover damages sustained during Hurricane Katrina. The district court dismissed the claims against the dredgers because it determined that the defendants acted pursuant to contracts with the United States government under authority granted by an act of Congress. The appellants argue that the district court improperly: (1) dismissed their claims; (2) refused to allow them to amend their complaint; (3) refused to allow them to conduct discovery; and (4) entered judgment in favor of those defendants whose actions had been stayed after they filed petitions under the Limitation of Liability Act.The Appeals Court affirmed the district court decision.

While admitting that the district court did commit a procedural error, the Appeals Court ruled, "A district court’s failure to comply with formal procedural requirements is a ground for reversing a judgment when “the failure substantially prejudiced one of the parties.” Here, the limitation actions and the merits actions were before the same district court. Because the district court could cure the procedural defect merely by entering a stay in the limitation actions and then entering judgment for the Limitation Defendants in the merits action, the Plaintiffs would be in the same position if the district court followed the proper procedure. The Plaintiffs have not identified any substantial prejudice arising out of the district court’s procedural error. Thus, we affirm the entry of judgment in favor of the Limitation Defendants.

"Because we hold that the Contractor Defendants are entitled to government-contractor immunity under Yearsley and that the Plaintiffs’ other claims are without merit or are harmless error, we affirm the district court’s dismissal and deny the motion to dismiss the appeal as moot."

Access the complete opinion (click here).

Orange County Water District v. Unocal Corp

Oct 1: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Case No. 07-5724. In this case involving the chemical gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and including major international oil and chemical companies as Defendants, Orange County Water District petitions for a writ of mandamus are denied by the Appeals Court. The County's petitions challenged a November 7, 2007 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York which denied a motion to remand to state court. The Appeals Court said in its denial, "We hold that our prior opinion in this multi-district litigation did not preclude the District Court’s conclusion that petitioners failed to file a timely motion for remand ... because the purportedly erroneous removal under. . . did not implicate the District Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Furthermore, we conclude that any challenge to the District Court’s subject matter jurisdiction is best addressed on direct appeal, rather than by a writ of mandamus."

The Appeals Court said the question presented is whether a district court may retain jurisdiction when a case was improperly removed to Federal court. Specifically, the Appeals Court ruled as to whether improper removal under the bankruptcy removal statute requires subsequent remand to state court.

By way of background and summary the Appeals Court explains, "The Orange County Water District (OCWD) petitions for a writ of mandamus challenging a November 7, 2007 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Shira A. Scheindlin, Judge), denying OCWD’s motion to remand the case from the Southern District of New York to California state court. OCWD argues that this Court’s decision in In re MTBE Prods. Liab. Litig., 488 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2007) (MTBE) -- which involved other parties in this multi-district litigation -- required the District Court to remand OCWD’s action. Specifically, OCWD contends as follows: (1) this Court’s opinion in MTBE requires that the District Court find that OCWD asserted a timely objection under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) to the improper application of the bankruptcy removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a); and, alternatively, (2) the District Court was required to abstain pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2) because it lacked 'core' bankruptcy jurisdiction. We deny OCWD’s petition for a writ of mandamus because we conclude that: (1) our opinion in MTBE did not require the District Court to remand OCWD’s action, and (2) OCWD’s alternative jurisdictional arguments can be reviewed in the regular course of appeal."

Access the complete opinion (click here).

Thomas v. Jackson (U.S. EPA)

Sep 10: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, Case No: 08-2152. Plaintiffs filed a complaint in district court under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), arguing that approval by the U.S. EPA of the State of Iowa’s 2004 “§ 303(d) lists” violated several aspects of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The district court dismissed the complaint and the Appeals Court affirmed the district court decision.

In part the Appeals Court ruled, "We disagree with Plaintiffs’ contention that when a state uses a non-compliant variation of approved water quality standards in drafting its § 303(d) list, the ultimate, EPA-approved list must be invalidated in its entirety even if the EPA applied the correct water quality standards rather than the non-compliant variation. See Sierra Club, Inc. v. Leavitt, 488 F.3d 904, 912 n.14 (11th Cir 2007) (rejecting a similar argument where the court concluded that the record showed the EPA applied the approved standards rather than the challenged variation); see also 40 C.F.R. § 130.7(d)(2) (establishing a time frame for the EPA to develop § 303(d) list if it disapproves the state’s draft list). However, if the EPA were to itself apply the unapproved state modification, the resulting § 303(d) list would be undermined. Florida Public Interest Research Group Citizen Lobby v. EPA, 386 F.3d 1070, 1090–91 (11th Cir. 2004) (FPIRGCL) (remanding for additional review where the court concluded that the record showed that the EPA applied the challenged variation rather than the standards as approved)."

Second, Plaintiffs contended that the EPA impermissibly accepted Iowa’s distinction between “evaluated” and “monitored” waters and its position that waters evaluated, but not monitored, need not be placed on the § 303(d) list. The Appeals Court said, "The EPA maintains that it reviewed all 'evaluated' waters consistent with federal regulations, ignoring Iowa’s distinction. As with the Credible Data Law, Plaintiffs’ only evidence that the EPA adopted Iowa’s distinction is the fact that the EPA only added four of the 'evaluated' waters back to the § 303(d) list. Plaintiffs argue that '[w]e must assume' that the EPA approved of Iowa’s distinction. The burden of proof lies with Plaintiffs, however, and Plaintiffs cannot meet that burden through unsupported assumptions."

Finally, Plaintiffs contend that even relying on the approved water quality standards was in error because Iowa was in the process of revising its water quality standards. The EPA counters that applicable water quality standards remain in effect until the new standards are approved. The Appeals Court said, "As Plaintiffs have pointed to no authority to the contrary, and any
improper delay in the promulgation of the revised standards is not directly at issue in the case before us, we defer to the EPA’s reasonable application of its own regulations. . ."

Access the complete opinion (click here).

Steven Pollack v. DOJ

Aug 13: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Case No. 08-3857. The case involves a gun range that the United States government operates on the shores of Lake Michigan. The plaintiffs brought suit against several governmental agencies, alleging that the discharge of bullets into the lake violates various environmental laws. The district court dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction after concluding the plaintiffs lacked constitutional standing. The Appeals Court affirmed the district court decision.

Plaintiff, Steven Pollack is an attorney who lives in Highland Park, Illinois, thirteen miles south of the range. He is the executive director of plaintiff Blue Eco Legal Council (Blue Eco), an environmental group “with an interest in the environmental safety of the Great Lakes watershed,” that, among other things, sues private and governmental polluters to enforce environmental laws.

To establish standing, the plaintiffs relied on affidavits submitted by Pollack and another Blue Eco member, Darren Miller, who is also a resident of Highland Park. Pollack’s affidavit stated that he enjoyed watching birds in the Great Lakes watershed, visited public parks along the Lake Michigan shoreline, drank water from Lake Michigan at his home in Highland Park, and ate freshwater and ocean fish. Miller’s affidavit was nearly identical to Pollack’s.

The district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction saying that plaintiffs concern over drinking water did not provide standing because the drinking water in Highland Park was below the environmental limit on lead pollution allowed by the city government, thereby negating any claim of harm. Additionally, the district court held that expressed concerns over birds, fish, and wildlife were "too general and did not allege any particular or specific harm" that had been caused by the bullets at the gun range.

The Appeals Court concluded, "Because neither Pollack nor Miller has demonstrated that they were concretely affected by the shooting activities they challenge, neither individual has standing to pursue this case. Accordingly, neither Pollack nor Blue Eco has standing. The district court’s dismissal of this suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is affirmed."

In a separate concurring opinion, one Judge wrote, "This is without question a close case. As the case law laid out by the majority suggests, 'injury in fact' can be an elusive phenomenon. Although in the present case an injury is arguably traceable to the deposit of toxic substances in potable water, such phenomena appear and disappear from one case to the next depending on subtle twists in the allegations, turning between the real and the hypothetical."

Access the complete opinion (click here).

Simsbury-Avon Pres. Society v. Metacon Gun Club, Inc.

Jul 31: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Case No. 07-0795. Plaintiffs-Appellants (Simsbury-Avon) brought suit against Defendants-Appellees Metacon Gun Club, Inc., and its members and guests (collectively referred to as Metacon) for violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, and the Clean Water Act (CWA), resulting from the discharge and accumulation of lead shot on Metacon’s property. Plaintiffs-Appellants now appeal from several decisions of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, dismissing their claims.

The Appeals Court said, "We defer to the EPA’s interpretation of the applicable RCRA permit regulations, and hold that they do not apply to the regular, intended use of lead shot on a shooting range. Therefore, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs-Appellants’ claim based on the alleged disposal of hazardous waste without a RCRA permit, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 6925(a). We also hold that the Plaintiffs-Appellants have failed to adduce sufficient evidence to create a material issue of fact regarding whether lead contamination on the shooting range constitutes 'an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment.' 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B). Thus, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Metacon on Plaintiffs-Appellants’ RCRA 'imminent and substantial endangerment' claim. Finally, we hold that the Plaintiffs-Appellants failed to set forth sufficient evidence to create a material issue of fact as to whether the gun club is discharging lead shot into 'navigable waters' from a 'point source.' 33 U.S.C. § 1362(12). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Metacon on Plaintiffs-Appellants’ CWA permit claim."

Access the complete opinion (click here).

River Runners For Wilderness v. Martin

Jul 21: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 08-15112. The National Park Service entered a decision adopting a 2006 Colorado River Management Plan that the Plaintiff-Appellants contend is unlawful. Plaintiffs sought to have that decision set aside by the district court as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court granted summary judgment to all defendants (i.e. Superintendent of Grand Canyon National Park, National Park Service, Department of Interior, et al).

The Appeals Court said, "The district court wrote an extensive and well-reasoned order, which is attached as an appendix. We agree with the order and adopt it as the opinion of our court." In its decision the district court explained that the case concerns the National Parks Service’s decision to permit the continued use of motorized rafts and support equipment in Grand Canyon National Park. Plaintiffs contended that such motorized activities impair the wilderness character of the Canyon and that the Park Service’s decision violates its management policies and various federal statutes. The district court ruled that for reasons which it explains in its order that, "Plaintiffs have not satisfied the high threshold required to set aside federal agency actions under the APA."

Access the complete opinion (click here).

St. John's Organic Farm v. Gem County Mosquito Abatement

Jul 16: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 07-35797. Plaintiffs Saint John’s Organic Farm and Peter Dill (collectively, Dill) filed suit under the citizen-suit provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) against the Gem County Mosquito Abatement District and Gem County (collectively, GCMAD). Dill alleged that GCMAD’s discharges of pesticides directly into the waters of the United States without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit violated the CWA. Dill and GCMAD settled the suit.

The Settlement Agreement (Agreement) limited GCMAD’s pesticide spraying in several ways and provided that an application for “costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees)” under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d) could be made to the district court. The district court denied Dill’s attorney’s fees application, holding under § 1365(d) that Dill was not a “prevailing or substantially prevailing party” and, in the alternative, that it was not “appropriate” to grant fees to Dill.

The Appeals Court reversed the district court decision holding "that Dill was a prevailing party under § 1365(d)." The case was remanded to the district court to consider whether fees are appropriate under the standard articulated in this opinion. In a separate concurring opinion one of the Justices explains, "we employ 'a two-pronged test to determine whether special circumstances exist to justify denying attorney’s fees.' . . .This test requires a showing whether (1) 'awarding the attorney’s fees would further the purposes' of the statute, and (2) 'the balance of equities favors or disfavors the denial of fees.'"

The Justice said further, ". . .the policy implications of today’s holding concern me. Courts should not be interpreting attorney’s fee requirements in such a way as to discourage settlement. If today’s holding is read too literally, I believe there is a disincentive for parties in environmental litigation to negotiate a settlement."

Access the complete opinion (click here).

United States v. Gary Bailey

Jul 9: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, Case No. 08-1908. According to the Appeals Court, Gary Bailey constructed a road on a parcel of wetlands in Lake of the Woods County (County), Minnesota, without obtaining a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Act). The United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) ordered Bailey to restore the land to its previolation condition. Bailey refused, and the United States brought an action under Section 309(b) of the Act to enforce the restoration order and to enjoin Bailey from discharging further pollutants into the wetland.

Bailey counterclaimed against the United States, alleging that the Corps did not have jurisdiction over his parcel of land and that its restoration order was arbitrary and capricious. Bailey sued the County in a third-party complaint, alleging that the County should pay to restore the land. All parties moved for summary judgment.

In what the Appeals Court called "a most comprehensive, thorough opinion (from which we have borrowed extensively)," the district court granted in part the United States’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the Corps properly asserted jurisdiction under the Act and that its restoration order met the requirements of United States v. Sexton Cove Estates, Inc., 526 F.2d 1293 (5th Cir. 1976). United States v. Bailey, 516 F. Supp. 2d 998 (D.Minn. 2007). The district court dismissed Bailey’s counterclaim against the United States and his third-party complaint against the County. The district court subsequently issued a final injunction, ordering Bailey to restore the wetland at his own expense to its previolation condition. United States v. Bailey, 556 F. Supp. 2d 977 (D. Minn. 2008).

Bailey appeals, contending that the district court erred in concluding that the Corps has jurisdiction over his property, in granting summary judgment in favor of the United States, and in entering an injunction to enforce the restoration order. He
also argues that the restoration order is arbitrary and capricious. The Appeals Court affirmed the district court opinion.

According to the Appeals Court summary, "The wetlands in question met the substantial nexus test announced in Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion in Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006) because they were adjacent to the Lake of the Woods in Minnesota, and the district court did not err in finding it had jurisdiction to hear the United States' complaint under Section 309(b) of the Clean Water Act; the district court did not err in admitting the Corps' expert evidence establishing the existence of wetlands as the evidence was reliable and satisfied the Daubert test; the district court's order requiring Bailey to restore the wetlands in question was not arbitrary or capricious; restoration order was not a violation of Bailey's equal protections rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Access the complete opinion (click here).

Oregon Natural Desert Association v. Locke

Jul 8: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 06-35851. The Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries) and National Marine Fisheries Services (collectively, Commerce) appeal the district court’s order granting attorney fees and costs under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), in favor of Oregon Natural Desert Association (ONDA). The district court issued the attorney fees order after it entered judgment in ONDA’s action alleging unlawful withholding of requested documents and use of unlawful processing regulations in violation of the FOIA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The Appeals Court affirmed in part, reverse in part, and remand for recalculation of the attorney fee award. The Appeals Court said, "On two of its claims, ONDA was not a substantially prevailing party under Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t. of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001). As to those claims, the defendants provided the documents ONDA requested before the district court ordered that they be turned over. ONDA was successful in obtaining the documents, but it succeeded by use of the catalyst theory of recovery, and not by either a judgment on the merits or a court-ordered consent decree as required by Buckhannon. Id. at 604."

The Appeals Court said further, "The Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act (the '2007 Amendments' to the FOIA) authorizes the payment of attorney fees when documents such as those sought by ONDA are recovered using a catalyst theory, but those Amendments were signed into law after the district court entered its attorney fees order, and they do not apply retroactively to this case. ONDA is not eligible for the recovery of attorney fees on its first two claims. Nor is it eligible for attorney fees on its third claim, which it lost. But, it is eligible for an award of attorney fees on its fourth claim for its successful challenge to the cut-off regulation."

Access the complete opinion (click here).

Supreme Court Okays Regs Allowing "Fill Material" In Lake

Jun 22: In the U.S. Supreme Court case of Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (Case Nos. 07-984 & 07-990), the High Court ruled in a 6-3 opinion that the Corps of Engineers was the proper agency to issue a permit to discharge mining waste slurry into an Alaskan lake and the permit was valid. The public interest law firm, Earthjustice a party in the case, said the ruling will allow the "mining company to pump hundreds of thousands of gallons per day of a toxic wastewater slurry into an Alaskan lake, killing its fish and aquatic life." They said, "The ruling has dire implications for other waterways across the country, but the Obama administration and Congress may act promptly to ensure lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands are not destroyed by industrial waste dumping."

The majority 6-3 ruling was delivered by Justice Kennedy and Justices Roberts, Breyer and Alito joined; and Justice Scalia joined in part. Justice Breyer also filed a concurring opinion. Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion and Justices Stevens and Souter joined in the dissent.

The case presents the question of whether the issuance of a permit by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers violates the Clean Water Act; and begs the question that WIMS asked in a December 2006 article: Can A Lake Be Filled & Fish Killed Under CWA? [See WIMS eNewsUSA Blog posts on this case]. When the lawsuit was first initiated, Earthjustice, expressed concern that if allowed to proceed, the mining operation would set a precedent, potentially spurring growth of such operations elsewhere in Alaska or the lower-48 states.

According to the Supreme Court summary of questions presented in the cases, the Clean Water Act (CWA) provides two separate programs for the permitting of discharges into navigable waters of the United States. Under Section 404 of the Act, the Army Corps of Engineers may issue permits for discharges of “fill material,” subject to the water-quality restrictions imposed by Section 404(b)(1). Under Section 402 of the Act, the Environmental Protection Agency may issue permits for the discharge of all other pollutants, subject to the effluent limitations prescribed under Sections 301 and 306 of the Act. In 2002, after notice and comment, the EPA and the Corps jointly promulgated a regulation defining the statutory term “discharge of fill material” to include “tailings or similar mining-related materials.” Pursuant to its authority under Section 404 to grant permits for the discharge of “fill material,” the Corps granted petitioner a permit to deposit certain mine tailings in a lake.

The Ninth Circuit invalidated that permit even though it acknowledged that the proposed discharge “facially meets the current regulatory definition of ‘fill material.’” Upsetting 35 years of established agency practice, the court of appeals held that the Corps may not issue a Section 404 permit for the discharge of fill material if the fill material in question otherwise would be subject to a Section 301 or 306 effluent limitation.

In its majority opinion, the Supreme Court said the case involved two questions under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The first is whether the Act gives authority to the United States Army Corps of Engineers, or instead to U.S. EPA, to issue a permit for the discharge of mining waste slurry. The Corps of Engineers has issued a permit to petitioner Coeur Alaska, Inc. (Coeur Alaska), for a discharge of slurry into the lake in Southeast Alaska. The second question is whether, when the Corps issued that permit, the agency acted in accordance with the law.

The High Court said, "With regard to the first question, §404(a) of the CWA grants the Corps the power to 'issue permits . . . for the discharge of . . . fill material.'. . . But the EPA also has authority to issue permits for the discharge of pollutants. Section 402 of the Act grants the EPA authority to 'issue a permit for the discharge of any pollutant' '[e]xcept as provided in' §404. 33 U. S. C. §1342(a). We conclude that because the slurry Coeur Alaska wishes to discharge is defined by regulation as 'fill material,' 40 CFR §232.2 (2008), Coeur Alaska properly obtained its permit from the Corps of Engineers, under §404, rather than from the EPA, under §402."

On the second question -- "whether the Corps permit is lawful -- the High Court said that the environmental groups argue that the issuance of the permit by the Corps was “not in accordance with law” because EPA regulations forbids mines like Coeur Alaska’s from discharging “process wastewater” into the navigable waters [citing 40 CFR §440.104(b)(1)] while Coeur Alaska and the State of Alaska, and the federal agencies maintain that the Corps permit "is lawful" nonetheless because the EPA’s performance standard do not apply to discharges of "fill material."

Reversing the judgment of the District Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the EPA’s performance standard did apply to the discharge and the permit from the Corps was unlawful. The High Court reversed and remanded the Ninth Circuit decision.

In essence, rather than build a tailings pond, which is the typical way in which mining waste is handled, Coeur Alaska proposes to use Lower Slate Lake, located some three miles from the mine in the Tongass National Forest. The lake is small -- 800 feet at its widest crossing, 2,000 feet at its longest, and 23 acres in area. Though small, the lake is 51 feet deep at its maximum. The parties agree the lake is a navigable water of the United States and so is subject to the CWA. They also agree there can be no discharge into the lake except as the CWA and any lawful permit allow. Over the life of the mine, Coeur Alaska intends to put 4.5 million tons of tailings in the lake. This will raise the lakebed 50 feet—to what is now the lake’s surface—and will increase the lake’s area from 23 to about 60 acres.

Section 404(a) of the CWA empowers the Corps to authorize the discharge of “dredged or fill material.” 33 U. S. C. §1344(a). The Corps and the EPA have together defined “fill material” to mean any “material [that] has the effect of . . . [c]hanging the bottom elevation” of water. 40 CFR §232.2. The agencies have further defined the “discharge of fill material” to include “placement of . . . slurry, or tailings or similar mining-related materials.”

The Corps determined that the environmental damage caused by placing slurry in the lake will be temporary. And during that temporary disruption, Coeur Alaska will divert waters around the lake through pipelines built for this purpose. Coeur Alaska will also treat water flowing from the lake into downstream waters, pursuant to strict EPA criteria. Though the slurry will at first destroy the lake’s small population of common fish, that population may later be replaced. After mining operations are completed, Coeur Alaska will help "recla[im]" the lake by "[c]apping" the tailings with about 4 inches of "native material."

In its ruling the majority said, "Because Congress has not 'directly spoken' to the 'precise question' of whether an EPA performance standard applies to discharges of fill material, the statute alone does not resolve the case." In the absence of Congressional intent, the High Court then looked at the agencies regulations, which they said were "ambiguous," so they looked at the agencies’ "subsequent interpretation of those regulations." The High Court said, "In an internal memorandum the EPA explained that its performance standards do not apply to discharges of fill material. That interpretation is not 'plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation[s],' and so we accept it as correct."

Responding to the decision, Earthjustice president Trip Van Noppen said, "If a mining company can turn Lower Slate Lake in Alaska into a lifeless waste dump, other polluters with solids in their wastewater can potentially do the same to any water body in America. The good news is that the problem is reversible. It was caused by a Bush administration rule reversing thirty years of successful regulation under the Clean Water Act. We call on President Obama to act immediately to repeal this rule and restore the original intent of the Clean Water Act."

Access the complete opinion, dissent and concurring opinions (click here). Access a lengthy release from Earthjustice and links to related information (click here). Access the complete 70-page oral argument transcript (click here). Access links to the various party briefs and all amicus briefs in the case (click here). Access the Supreme Court Docket No. 07-984 (click here); and Docket No. 07-990 (click here).

US v. Missouri Industrial Energy Consumers

Jun 22: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, Case No. 08-3404. The Missouri Industrial Energy Consumers (MIEC), an association of businesses formed to address its members' concerns about utility services, moved to intervene in an enforcement action filed against the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (District) by the United States and the State of Missouri under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The district court denied the motion for lack of standing. The Appeals Court affirmed the district court decision.

In its decision, the Appeals Court said, "Judicial efficiency is not promoted by allowing intervention by a party with no interest upon which it could seek judicial relief in a separate lawsuit. . . Not only would allowing MIEC to intervene produce no gains in judicial efficiency, it would most likely complicate and delay the proceedings with peripheral issues of cost and local government financing. Although MIEC would certainly like to participate in this enforcement action, 'a federal case is a limited affair, and not everyone with an opinion is invited to attend.'" [citing Mausolf, 85 F.3d at 1301]. . . MIEC has a representative on the District's Rate Commission which makes recommendations about rate changes and will have the opportunity to comment on any proposed rate increases during that public process. The type of grievances that MIEC asserts are properly advanced in these fora, not in this federal action."

Access the complete opinion (click here).

State of Missouri v. St. Louis Sewer District

Jun 9: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, Case No. 08-3399. The United States and the State of Missouri filed this enforcement action against the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (District) under the Clean Water Act (Act). They sought Federal civil penalties and injunctive relief to limit discharges of untreated wastewater and sewage by the District. The District raised several affirmative defenses claiming financial inability to comply with the Act's requirements and filed two counterclaims. The State then moved to strike the District's affirmative defenses and to dismiss its counterclaims, arguing that they were barred by sovereign immunity and the Eleventh Amendment.

The district court denied the motion and Missouri appeals, arguing that it did not waive its sovereign immunity by filing this action since the Act requires its participation. The Appeals Court affirmed the district court decision. The Appeals Court said, "Though Missouri did not add any state law claims to those brought by the United States, the fact is that it affirmatively joined in asserting the federal claims. As a result the State will be entitled to participate in negotiating and enforcing any judgment or consent decree entered against the District. Were the State to assert the defense of sovereign immunity against the District's counterclaims while exercising the rights of a plaintiff, we would be condoning the selective invocation of immunity that the Supreme Court recognized as unfair in Lapides."

Further, the Appeals Court said, "Section 309(e) undoubtedly compels a state to become a party in federal court, but it does not compel the state to take any action that would waive its sovereign immunity. A state required to join a federal enforcement action under § 309(e) can preserve its potential sovereign immunity defense by aligning as a defendant and taking no other actions inconsistent with the assertion of sovereign immunity."

Access the complete opinion (click here).