FindLaw Opinion Summaries - Environmental

Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms

Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S.S.C., Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Environmental Law) In an action challenging the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's (APHIS) decision to approve the unconditional deregulation of Roundup Ready Alfalfa (RRA), a variety of alfalfa genetically engineered to tolerate the herbicide Roundup, the Ninth Circuit's affirmance of judgment for plaintiffs is reversed where 1) plaintiffs had standing to seek injunctive relief, and defendants had standing to seek the Court's review of the Ninth Circuit's judgment affirming the entry of such relief; and 2) the district court abused its discretion in enjoining APHIS from effecting a partial deregulation and in prohibiting the planting of RRA pending the agency's completion of its detailed environmental review.

Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone of Nev. v. US Dept. of Interior

Fri, 18 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. 9th Cir., Administrative Law, Environmental Law) In an action claiming that the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) approval of a mining company's amendment to a plan of operations for an existing mineral exploration project in Nevada violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where 1) the BLM did not violate NEPA by approving the amendment without knowing the precise locations of drill sites, access roads, and other project activities; and 2) given the uncertainty of the exploration activities, the BLM imposed mitigation measures designed to adequately protect cultural resources in all phases of the amendment. However, the order is reversed in part where BLM's analysis of the cumulative impacts of the proposed amendment and the project was insufficient, and therefore violated NEPA.

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance v. Bureau of Land Mgmt.

Fri, 18 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. 10th Cir., Administrative Law, Environmental Law, Government Law, Oil & Gas Law) In several environmental and citizens' groups challenge to a 2003 Bureau of Land Management resource management plan amendment allowing natural gas development in Wyoming's Powder River Basin, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where the Bureau reasonably concluded that phased development was impractical and would not meet the project's purposes, and this ground was an adequate basis for the Bureau's decision

Tomlinson v. County of Alameda

Fri, 18 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(Cal. App., Administrative Law, Construction, Environmental Law, Government Law, Property Law & Real Estate) Trial court's denial of plaintiffs' petition for a writ of administrative mandate, challenging a decision of a county to approve a subdivision development is reversed as the project was not exempt from CEQA review as the county used the wrong legal standard in applying the exemption and substantial evidence does not show the proposed subdivision satisfied the exemption's criteria.

Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Fla. Dept. of Env. Protection, Inc.

Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S.S.C., Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, Environmental Law, Government Law, Property Law & Real Estate, Water Law) In an action challenging the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's approval of permits to restore a portion of beach eroded by several hurricanes, the Florida Supreme Court's holding that the approval of the permits did not unconstitutionally deprive plaintiffs of littoral rights without just compensation is affirmed where there could be no taking unless petitioner could show that, before the Florida Supreme Court's decision, littoral property owners had rights to future accretions and to contact with the water superior to the State's right to fill in its submerged land.

San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition v. City of San Diego

Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Administrative Law, Environmental Law) In a nonprofit organization's petition for writ of mandate claiming that defendant-city violated CEQA in determining that no further environmental review of a project was required, the trial court did not err in denying the plaintiff's amended petition as the city was not required to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR regarding the potential impact of a redevelopment project called the Navy Broadway Complex Project on global climate change because the city did not grant a discretionary approval that would provide it with the authority to address the project's impact on this environmental issue.

Kern County Water Agency v. Watershed Enforcers

Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Environmental Law) In a nonprofit organization's petition for writ of mandate to compel the California Department of Water Resources to stop taking endangered or threatened species of fish without permit authority under the California Endangered Species Act, judgment of the trial court granting a peremptory writ of mandate is affirmed as a state agency is a "person" within the meaning of section 2080, which prohibits any person from taking an endangered or threatened species without appropriate permit authority from the California Department of Fish and Game.

Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. City of Alexandria

Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. 4th Cir., Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Environmental Law, Government Law, Oil & Gas Law, Transportation) In an action for a declaratory judgment against a city, arising from an ordinance to regulate ethanol transloading at plaintiff's facility, judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, dismissed in part, and vacated where: 1) the ordinance, as applied to plaintiff through the permit, is preempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA); 2) district court's judgment with respect to the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) and Federal Rail Safety Act (FRSA) is vacated; and 3) because the disposition of the ICCTA claim renders other preemption claims moot, the HMTA claim is dismissed.

Commuter Rail Div. v. Surface Transp. Bd.

Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. D.C. Cir., Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Construction, Corporation & Enterprise Law, Environmental Law, M&A, Transportation) In a petition for review of the Surface Transportation Board's approval of the acquisition of certain railroads by another railroad, the petition is denied where: 1) one petitioner lacked standing because, if the board's decision were overturned, the construction authorization would not be affected and no new environmental impact statement would be required for the area; and 2) the board did not abuse its discretion in approving the transaction.

Hydro Resources, Inc. v. EPA

Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. 10th Cir., Administrative Law, Environmental Law, Indian Law, Property Law & Real Estate) In a petition for review of the EPA's "final land status determination" expressing its judgment that petitioner's land qualified as "Indian land," the petition is granted where the EPA's interpretation cannot be reconciled with the Supreme Court's explanation of 18 U.S.C. section 1151(b)'s plain meaning.

Lyondell Chem. Co. v. Occidental Chem. Co.

Wed, 9 Jun 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 5th Cir., Environmental Law, Evidence) In "apportionment" actions under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) section 107 and "contribution" actions under CERCLA section 113 regarding the allocation of costs for the cleanup of a hazardous waste dump, district court's order allocating liability among the parties is affirmed in part where: 1) the use of Monte Carlo analysis to measure waste volume in this case did not differ meaningfully from any other Monte Carlo application; and 2) there was sufficient evidence that defendant dumped waste in the locations at issue. However, the order is reversed in part where the district court erred by admitting an expert report that relied on evidence submitted solely for the purposes of settlement.

Arizona Cattle Growers' Assn. v. Salazar

Fri, 4 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. 9th Cir., Administrative Law, Environmental Law) In a challenge to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) designation of critical habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the FWS permissibly interpreted the word "occupied" in the Endangered Species Act to include areas where the owl was likely to be present and, applying this definition, the FWS designated only 147occupied148 areas; 2) the FWS did not arbitrarily and capriciously treat unoccupied areas as occupied; and 3) even if the FWS listed the species concurrently with designating critical habitat, listing the species is a necessary antecedent to designating habitat.

TWC Storage, LLC v. State Water Res. Control Bd.

Thu, 3 Jun 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Administrative Law, Commercial Law, Environmental Law, Property Law & Real Estate, Water Law) In a petition for a writ of administrative mandate, challenging the imposition of a $25,000 fine on petitioner by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Francisco Bay Region based on a chemical spill on petitioner's property that infiltrated the groundwater, superior court's denial of the petition is affirmed as the Regional Board properly applied the relevant statutes.

US v. APW N. Am.

Wed, 2 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. 9th Cir., Civil Procedure, Environmental Law) In an appeal from the denial of a motion to intervene in an action filed by the EPA under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the order is reversed where, under CERCLA, a non-settling potentially responsible party (PRP) may intervene in litigation to oppose a consent decree incorporating a settlement that, if approved, would bar contribution from the settling PRP.

Butte Env'tl. Council v. US Army Corp of Eng'rs.

Tue, 1 Jun 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 9th Cir., Administrative Law, Environmental Law) In a challenge to decisions of two federal agencies approving the construction of a business park on protected wetlands in California, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the Army Corps of Engineers applied the proper presumption under 40 C.F.R. section 230.10(a)(3), and found that it had been rebutted under the appropriate standard; 2) the Corps' consideration of the project's stated purpose was not unreasonable; 3) while it was true that the Corps made compensatory mitigation a condition of the permit, there was no indication that such mitigation was meant as an obligation in place of the city's responsibility to adopt the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative, as opposed to an obligation in addition to it; and 4) the Fish and Wildlife Service's finding of no "adverse modification" was neither arbitrary nor capricious.