Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around a dispute between Good River Farms and Martin Marietta Materials and TXI Operations, who own land directly across from each other along the Colorado River. In 2015, a "120-year flood" event occurred near Austin, Texas, causing severe damage to Good River's pecan farm. Good River claimed that Martin Marietta's strip mining activities resulted in a large pit filled with groundwater that breached and released a deluge of impounded surface water onto their property. Following a jury trial, Good River was awarded $659,882.00 in damages, prevailing on claims for violations of Texas Water Code § 11.086 and for negligence. Martin Marietta appealed the decision.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The jury rejected Good River's nuisance claims but found in favor of Good River on the issues of water diversion and negligence. The trial court entered final judgment on that verdict, awarding Good River $659,882.00 in damages. Martin Marietta filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b), which the trial court denied.The case was then reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusions that Martin Marietta violated Texas Water Code § 11.086 and committed common law negligence. The court noted that the jury verdict demands deference and that the unique factual scenario presented in this case supported the jury's conclusions. View "Good River Farms v. TXI Operations" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the construction of an offshore wind project aimed at reducing reliance on fossil fuels. The project, proposed by Vineyard Wind 1, LLC, was expected to provide energy sufficient to power 400,000 Massachusetts homes. However, residents of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket opposed the project, arguing that federal agencies failed to properly assess the potential impact of the project on the endangered North Atlantic right whale.Previously, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts had granted summary judgment in favor of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Vineyard Wind, rejecting the residents' challenge to a biological opinion issued by the NMFS and relied on by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in permitting the construction of the wind power project.In the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the residents challenged the lower court's decision, arguing that the NMFS's determination that the incidental harassment of up to twenty right whales constituted a "small number" under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful. They also argued that NMFS's consideration of the "specified activity" and the "specific geographic region" within which that activity would occur for purposes of issuing the Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to Vineyard Wind was impermissibly narrow in scope.The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the NMFS's determination was not arbitrary or capricious and that it had properly delineated the "specific geographic region" for the purposes of the IHA. The court also found that the residents' concerns about the broader effect of the project on the right whale population were unwarranted, as the agency had considered the impact on the entire right whale population in its "negligible impact" analysis, its biological opinion, and in its participation in the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's Environmental Impact Statement. View "Melone v. Coit" on Justia Law

A group of Nantucket residents, organized as Nantucket Residents Against Turbines, challenged the approval of the Vineyard Wind project by the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). The project involves the construction of a wind power facility off the coast of Massachusetts. The residents alleged that the federal agencies violated the Endangered Species Act by concluding that the project's construction would not jeopardize the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale. They also claimed that BOEM violated the National Environmental Policy Act by relying on a flawed analysis by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which granted summary judgment in favor of the federal agencies. The court found that NMFS and BOEM had followed the law in analyzing the right whale's current status and environmental baseline, the likely effects of the Vineyard Wind project on the right whale, and the efficacy of measures to mitigate those effects. The court also found that the agencies' analyses rationally supported their conclusion that Vineyard Wind would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the right whale.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. The appellate court found that the lower court had correctly interpreted the law and that the federal agencies had not violated the Endangered Species Act or the National Environmental Policy Act. The court concluded that the agencies' analyses were rational and that their conclusion that the Vineyard Wind project would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the right whale was supported by the evidence. View "Nantucket Residents Against Turbines v. U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management" on Justia Law

A landowner in Blaine County, Idaho, John Hastings Jr., made unauthorized alterations to the Big Wood River. The Idaho Department of Water Resources (the Department) issued a notice of violation to Hastings and ordered him to cease all unauthorized work and submit a plan for river restoration. Hastings and the Department entered into a consent order, which required Hastings to pay a civil penalty and submit a restoration plan. However, the Department rejected Hastings' proposed restoration plans. Hastings then filed a petition for a hearing to express his disagreement with the terms of the Department's conditional approval for a permit.The Department initiated an administrative proceeding against Hastings, and later filed a counterclaim in Hastings's district court action seeking specific performance, which would require Hastings to comply with the Consent Order. Hastings asserted that the Department's enforcement action was barred by the two-year statute of limitations set forth in Idaho Code section 42-3809. The district court granted summary judgment to the Department on the statute of limitations issue, and Hastings appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the Department's enforcement action was not time-barred by the statute of limitations under Idaho Code section 42-3809. The court found that the earliest possible date that the Department “ought to have reasonably known” that Hastings did not intend to comply with the Consent Order was when he filed the underlying declaratory judgment action. Until then, Hastings was in compliance with the Consent Order and had given every indication that he was attempting to remain in compliance. Therefore, the Department was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on this issue. View "Hastings v. IDWR" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over Montana's laws authorizing recreational wolf and coyote trapping and snaring. The plaintiffs, Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot Citizen Task Force and WildEarth Guardians, alleged that these laws allowed the unlawful "take" of grizzly bears, a threatened species, in violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, limiting wolf trapping and snaring in certain parts of Montana to a specific period in 2024.The defendants, the State of Montana, the Chair of the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission, and the Governor, appealed the decision. They argued that the district court had erred by considering new arguments and materials submitted with the plaintiffs' reply brief, by applying the wrong preliminary injunction standard, and by finding a reasonably certain threat of imminent harm to grizzly bears.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in part and vacated it in part. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering new arguments and materials, as the defendants had an opportunity to respond. The court also held that the district court applied the correct preliminary injunction standard and did not abuse its discretion in finding serious questions going to the merits of the plaintiffs' claim.However, the court found that the injunction was geographically overbroad and remanded the case for the district court to reconsider the geographic scope. The court also held that the injunction was overbroad because it prevented the State of Montana from trapping and snaring wolves for research. The court vacated that part of the injunction and remanded the case for the district court to make proper modifications to the scope of its order. View "FLATHEAD-LOLO-BITTERROOT CITIZEN TASK FORCE V. STATE OF MONTANA" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over a parcel of land within the Rio Grande National Forest in Colorado, owned by Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture (LMJV). The land, obtained through a land exchange with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) in 1987, was intended for development into a ski resort village. However, access to the parcel was hindered due to a gravel road managed by the USFS that was unusable by vehicles in the winter.In 2007, LMJV invoked the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), claiming it required the USFS to grant access to inholdings within USFS land. The USFS initially proposed a second land exchange with LMJV to secure access to Highway 160. However, this proposal was challenged by several conservation groups under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In 2017, the district court vacated the USFS decision and remanded to the agency.The USFS then considered a new alternative in the form of a right-of-way easement to LMJV across USFS land between the Parcel and Highway 160. The USFS consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to secure a new biological opinion (BiOp) and incidental take statement (ITS) for the proposed action in 2018. The USFS then issued a final Record of Decision (ROD) in 2019, approving the easement.The conservation groups challenged this latest ROD under NEPA, the ESA, and ANILCA. The district court vacated and remanded under the law of the case doctrine, concluding that it was bound by the reasoning of the district court’s 2017 order. The Agencies appealed the district court’s decision vacating the 2018 BiOp and 2019 ROD.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit vacated the district court’s order and affirmed the Agencies’ decisions. The court concluded that it had jurisdiction over the matter under the practical finality rule, and that the Conservation Groups had standing. The court held that the district court incorrectly applied the law of the case doctrine because the Agencies considered a different alternative when issuing the 2019 ROD. The court also concluded that ANILCA requires the USFS to grant access to the LMJV Parcel. The court determined that even if the Conservation Groups could show error under NEPA, they had not shown that any alleged error was harmful. Finally, the court held that the Conservation Groups failed to successfully challenge the 2018 BiOp under the ESA, and that the Agencies correctly allowed the ITS to cover not only the proposed easement, but also LMJV’s proposed development. View "Rocky Mountain Wild v. Dallas" on Justia Law

The case revolves around attorney fees in a dispute involving the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR), State of Hawaii, and the Sierra Club. In 2022, the BLNR approved permits allowing Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. and East Maui Irrigation Company, LLC to divert water from East Maui streams. The Sierra Club appealed this decision, arguing that the BLNR unlawfully denied its request for a contested case hearing. The environmental court modified the permits and capped the amount of water that could be diverted. The BLNR then petitioned the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii, alleging that the environmental court's decision resulted in a water shortage that hindered firefighting efforts during a wildfire.The environmental court had previously sided with the Sierra Club, ruling that the BLNR should have held a contested case hearing. The court also invoked Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 604A-2(b) and HRS § 91-14(g) to modify the permits, and cited public trust doctrine principles to support the cap on water diversion. The court decided not to void the permits entirely to avoid potential chaos and threats to the reliable availability of necessary water.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii held that a state-initiated original proceeding is not protected by sovereign immunity, and thus, the state may be liable for reasonable attorney fees spent opposing a frivolous petition for extraordinary relief. The court concluded that the Sierra Club is entitled to attorney fees, as the BLNR's petition was found to be frivolous and made in bad faith. The court rejected the BLNR's invocation of sovereign immunity, stating that the state waives its sovereign immunity when it initiates an original action. View "Board of Land and Natural Resources v. Crabtree" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a consent decree that was negotiated by the parties and previously approved by the district court. The decree prohibits the Receivership Estate of ERP Environmental Fund, Inc. from conducting surface coal mining at certain sites unless it is necessary for and incidental to reclamation of the site. The question presented is whether that prohibition also applies to a third-party permit transferee of a specific site—the Chestnut Oak Surface Mine in Lincoln County, West Virginia. The district court held that it did, stating that all third-party permit transferees are bound by the terms of the consent decree.The consent decree originated from a 2011 citizen suit under the Clean Water Act and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. The plaintiffs alleged that now-defunct Patriot Coal Corporation and three of its subsidiaries violated federal environmental laws by discharging excessive amounts of selenium in connection with its surface mining operations. To resolve the litigation, the parties negotiated a consent decree, which the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia approved.In 2020, ERP ran out of money and ceased all operations. As a result, a West Virginia state court appointed Doss Special Receiver, LLC to administer ERP’s Receivership Estate. In 2022, the Receiver sought to finance its administration of the Receivership Estate by authorizing third parties to surface mine at a former Patriot Coal facility—the Buck Fork Surface Mine. The Conservation Groups intervened, arguing that such surface mining would violate Paragraph 63 of the Decree. The district court agreed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's decision and remanded the case with instructions. The court held that the district court's interpretation of the consent decree could not be squared with the plain text of the decree. The court found that the consent decree's prohibition on surface mining did not apply to a third-party permit transferee of a specific site. The court concluded that neither Paragraph 24 nor Paragraph 25 of the decree would bind a third-party permit transferee of the Chestnut Oak Surface Mine to Paragraph 63's prohibition on surface mining, a prohibition that expressly applies only to ERP and its Affiliated Companies. View "West Virginia Highlands Conservancy v. ERP Environmental Fund, Inc" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between two local water management agencies, Mission Springs Water District (Mission Springs) and Desert Water Agency (Desert Water), over who should be the regional groundwater sustainability agency (GSA) responsible for managing groundwater in the Coachella Valley region of Riverside County, California. The dispute arose from the implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, which requires the creation of GSAs to manage groundwater basins. Desert Water claimed to be the exclusive GSA within its statutory boundaries, which encompass most of Mission Springs' boundaries. Mission Springs challenged this claim and also sought resolution of competing claims to GSA authority for an additional three-square-mile area outside of Desert Water’s statutory boundaries.The Superior Court of Riverside County ruled in favor of Desert Water and the California Department of Water Resources (the Department), denying Mission Springs' petition for a writ of mandamus. Mission Springs appealed the decision.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division One State of California, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that Desert Water did not violate any provisions of the Water Code by becoming a GSA. It also found that Desert Water did not form a new public corporation or public agency within Mission Springs’ jurisdiction by becoming a GSA, and therefore did not violate section 30065 of the Water Code. The court further held that the Department did not err in posting Desert Water’s notice of intent to become a GSA, as Desert Water had complied with all notice requirements. Finally, the court found that the Department was not responsible for resolving the overlapping claims to the three-square-mile area, as the Act requires the agencies to resolve this dispute themselves. View "Mission Springs Water Dist. v. Desert Water Agency" on Justia Law

The Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project (BMBP) sued the U.S. Forest Service, alleging that the Service's approval of the Walton Lake Restoration Project violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Forest Management Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Forest Service developed the project to replace trees infested with laminated root rot and bark beetles with disease-resistant trees. In 2016, the Service contracted with T2, a private company, for logging to implement the decision. BMBP filed this action challenging the 2020 decision notice. The Service filed an administrative record (AR) in 2021.BMBP argued that the AR was incomplete, contending that deliberative materials were part of the “whole record” and that a privilege log was required if they were not included in the AR. BMBP also argued that all documents in the 2016 AR should be in the AR for this case. The court held that deliberative materials are generally not part of the AR absent impropriety or bad faith by the agency. The court also held that BMBP’s arguments failed to overcome the presumption of regularity.The court then addressed whether the Service violated NEPA by approving the Project. The court held that BMBP failed to establish that the logging contract with T2 improperly committed resources under any standard. The court also rejected BMBP’s contention that the EA diluted the significance of some impacts by analyzing them on too large a scale. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court and lifted the previous stay of its order dissolving the preliminary injunction. View "BMBP V. JEFFRIES" on Justia Law