Articles Posted in Environmental

In mid-March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in National Parks Conservation Assoc.,  et al., v. McCarthy, approved the “Minnesota’s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan” (MRHSIP), rejecting the arguments opposing EPA’s approval filed by several environmental organizations. The conservation organizations challenged EPA’s approval of Minnesota’s decision to use the Transport Rule—also known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)—in place of source-specific best available retrofit technology (BART), and Minnesota’s reasonable-progress goals. They unsuccessfully claimed that “the Transport Rule allowances in the Plan are not ‘better than BART.'”  Of note in this opinion is that, reviewing 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b), two of the three judges on the panel concluded that the Eighth Circuit has jurisdiction because the state implementation plans’ (SIP) reliance on the Transport Rule was based on local issues. If it was nationwide in scope and effect, this case would have to be heard by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. With that, the Court of Appeals held that EPA’s approval of the Minnesota Plan based on the Transport Rule was not arbitrary and capricious and, similarly, EPA’s approval of the plan’s “reasonable-progress” goals was proper. The Court of Appeals noted, however, that other circuit courts have issued rulings that appear to conflict with its disposition.

Continue Reading ›

Earlier this week the U.S. Supreme Court, in Sturgeon v. Frost, Alaska Regional Director of the National Park Service, issued a unanimous ruling reversing  the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservations Act (ANILCA) that had the effect of subjecting the use of hovercrafts on the Nation River in Alaska to criminal enforcement. The parties disputed whether Section 103(c) of ANILCA created an Alaska-specific exception to the National Park Service’s general authority over boating and related activities in federally managed preservation areas, each reaching different conclusions about the scope of the National Park Service’s  powers. The Court rejected the interpretation adopted by the Ninth Circuit, noting that “[u]nder the reading of the statute adopted below, the Park Service may apply nationally applicable regulations to ‘non-public’ lands within the boundaries of conservation system units in Alaska, but it may not apply Alaska-specific regulations to those lands.” This is the second recent decision by the Court reversing a lower court’s ruling involving environmental regulations that could have had serious criminal consequences. The earlier ruling was Yates v. United States.

Continue Reading ›

In early March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in Sierra Club v. Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company, in a 2-to-1 decision, affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Sierra Club’s Clean Air Act (CAA) citizens suit against OG&E, concluding that their civil penalty and equitable relief claims are time-barred because Sierra Club’s claims first accrued when OG&E commenced modifications to the at-issue boiler without the required permit in March of 2008. Both parties agreed that civil penalties originating before April 1, 2008 were time-barred.  The Court of Appeals rejected Sierra Club’s arguments to extend the limitations period to after April 1 premised on there being repeated and continuing violations because of the lack of the required permit. Sierra Club’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were also time-barred because they were based on the same facts and timeline. What difference a few days make!

Continue Reading ›

Properly interpreting CERCLA’s statute of limitations often presents vexing problems, and never more so than when claims for natural resource damages (NRD) are filed. As explained several years ago by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Asarco, Inc., ordinarily a claim for NRD must be filed within three years of the discovery of the loss and its connection with the release in question. However, a special provision creates an exception to this timeframe when the site is placed on EPA’s National Priority List (NPL). Such NRD claims must then be filed within three years of the completion of a remedial action for the site, a process that can take years if not decades. A case in point is the recently decided case of State of New York, et al., v. Next Millennium Realty, LLC, focusing on whether NRD claims that are otherwise time-barred can be revived if the site is later placed on EPA’s NPL.

Continue Reading ›

The courts have been busy issuing significant Endangered Species Act rulings. In the latest decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in Defenders of Wildlife and Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, issued a unanimous ruling which affirmed the lower court’s decision that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s withdrawal of the proposed listing of the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard as an endangered species was consistent with the Endangered Species Act and the policies that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has employed to administer the Act. This species is located in New Mexico and West Texas, where increasing oil and gas activity has threatened the habitat of the Lizard. The Court of Appeals held that a “voluntary state conservation agreement” can be considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in deciding whether or not to list a species as endangered under the Act.

Continue Reading ›

Planning and constructing new power plants that will employ new technologies, especially those substantially funded by the federal government, can be a challenging business. Whenever a new law, regulation or agency process goes into effect, industry and legal observers await the often inevitable legal challenges that will arise. For obvious reasons, the exact parameters of any new regulatory program can be of material interest to anyone who makes a living in or near an affected industry. A case in point is the effort to build plants that will rely on carbon sequestration technology to reduce carbon dioxide emissions  generated by these facilities. Both the U.S. Department of Energy and EPA have developed plans and procedures to assist this development, which relies on environmental permits that often generate local opposition. And, thus, when the first Safe Drinking Water Act permits were issued in 2014, the legal challenge that followed was noteworthy. Unfortunately, observers will have to wait a while longer on that count, as this particular permit challenge has vanished in a puff of moot.

Continue Reading ›

Good news for those who respond to and engage in oil spill clean up efforts. In a ruling released on February 16, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, in In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, dismissed, with prejudice, the “B3 Claims Against the Clean-Up Responder Defendants” engaged by the federal government to respond to and clean up the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Thousands of claims were filed on behalf of boat captains and crew, workers involved in decontaminating vessels, clean-up workers and beach personnel involved in on-shore clean-ups, and residents who live and work in close proximity to coastal waters or who otherwise allege they were exposed to oil and/or dispersants. The defendants, and the manufacturer of the dispersants used, moved to dismiss the claims asserted, arguing, among other things, that they are entitled to derivative immunity under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1321(j)(8) (CWA), entitled to discretionary function immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a) (FTCA), and that plaintiffs’ claims are preempted as a matter of law. The District Court ruled in the defendants’ favor under each theory.

Continue Reading ›

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in In re: United States Department of Defense and United States Environmental Protection Agency Final Rule:  Clean Water Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States,” 80 Fed. Reg. 37,050 (June 29, 2015), in a split opinion, confirmed that it has jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act to hear challenges to the new rule promulgated by the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers re-defining  the regulatory definition of “Waters of the United States.” Recall that the Sixth Circuit earlier issued a nationwide stay of the implementation of the new rule, pending its determination that it has jurisdiction to hear challenges to this new rule. The regulatory definition of “Waters of the United States” is fundamental to the regulatory operation of  the CWA and those required to obtain a CWA permit will be watching the Sixth Circuit carefully.

Continue Reading ›