Environmentalists were victorious in one of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' first interpretations of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Clean Water Act. The Ninth Circuit held that two environmental organizations could sue a Northern California lumber company for alleged Clean Water Act violations because the supposed pollution harmed members' recreational use of a creek.
In January, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that South Carolina citizens could sue the operator of a hazardous waste incinerator for violating the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.) because the company's illegal discharges into a river affected the citizens' recreational, aesthetic and economic interests. (Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw, 528 U.S. 167; see CP&DR Legal Digest, February 2000.)
The California case was similar. Members of the Ecological Rights Foundation and the Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation argued that they avoided some activities in Yager Creek, such as fishing and swimming, because of alleged pollution from a Pacific Lumber Company mill located upstream. In a 1997 lawsuit filed under the Clean Water Act's citizen suit provisions, the environmentalists claimed that Pacific Lumber allowed contaminated stormwater to flow offsite, had not prepared a required Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, failed to monitor and report conditions, did not collect water samples and was guilty of other violations.
In a ruling before Laidlaw was decided, U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel held that the environmental groups did not have standing to sue and issued summary judgement for Pacific Lumber.
The Ninth Circuit overturned Patel and remanded the case back to her for further proceedings on the merits.
"Under Laidlaw, then, an individual can establish ‘injury in fact' by showing a connection to the area of concern sufficient to make credible the contention that the person's future life will be less enjoyable — that he or she really has or will suffer in his or her degree of aesthetic or recreational satisfaction — if the area in question remains or becomes environmentally degraded," Judge Marsha Berzon wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit.
In this case, two individual members of the environmental groups stated long-standing interest in Yager Creek, and both complained that Pacific Lumber's conduct impaired their enjoyment of the creek. Those are sufficient statements to survive summary judgement on the standing issue, the court ruled.
The Ninth Circuit also rejected Pacific Lumber's contention that the case should not go forward because the environmentalists had not proven the company caused any actual environmental harm. No scientific proof is needed in order to obtain standing, the court held.
Finally, the court dismissed Pacific Lumber's arguments that the suit was moot because the company is now operating under revised general discharge requirements, and because the plaintiffs' 60-day notice of intent to sue was defective.
The Case:
Ecological Rights Foundation v. Pacific Lumber Company, No. 99-17076, 00 C.D.O.S. 8692, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11526, filed October 30, 2000.
The Lawyers:
For ERF: Sharon Duggan, (415) 566-5321.
For Pacific Lumber: Jared Carter, 707 764-4216.
A federal appellate court has overturned a land exchange between the Bureau of Land Management and a private company that hoped to develop a regional landfill in Imperial County. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said the BLM grossly underestimated the value of its land where the landfill was proposed.
The BLM relied on an appraisal that said the "highest and best use" of the 1,745 acres in question was open space or mine waste storage. The appraisal did not...
A development agreement between San Luis Obispo County and the developer of a subdivision and resort did not amount to an unconstitutional contracting away of the county's police power, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The opinion validates development agreements as legitimate planning tools and appears to erase any lingering doubts about the constitutionality of the practice.
The Second District Court of Appeal has overturned a City of Los Angeles decision not to permit construction of a billboard, and the court indicated the city could be liable for revenue the would-be sign builder lost.
The opinion by Justice Rueben Ortega strongly suggests that political pressure from the mayor's office influenced the city's Board of Building and Safety Commissioners. The board initially refused to revoke the billboard permit on appeal. After the mayor's office intervened, t...
The Department of Energy could sell 47,000 acres in an area with five endangered species to Occidental Petroleum without consulting the Fish & Wildlife Service, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal has ruled.
The federal legislation authorizing the sale of land outside Bakersfield allowed the sale to go forward without an endangered species consultation, and without Occidental applying for a new "take" permit under the Endangered Species Act, the court held.
National Petroleum Reserve –...
Claims that Sacramento County violated the California Environmental Quality Act while approving a commercial development have been dismissed by the Third District Court of Appeal because the project opponent did not submit a written request for a hearing within 90 days of filing a lawsuit.
The attorney for opponent Forster-Gill, Inc., argued that a telephone call to the court clerk within the 90-day period was adequate, but the appellate court disagreed, ruling that the law "plainly contemplates a written request that can be, and is, filed with the court."
A state appellate court has upheld the California Coastal Commission's denial of a development permit for a small mixed-use project in Morro Bay.
The court rejected developer Dan Reddell's arguments that the commission violated his due process and equal protection rights, and that its decision was a regulatory taking of property. Instead, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that substantial evidence supported the commission's finding that Reddell's project was inconsistent with Morro Bay's local coastal plan (LCP).
A state appellate court has thrown out an Inyo County general plan amendment that the county argued was nothing more than a clarification of a longstanding policy.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, concluded that the amendment was more than a mere clarification and that the county should have completed an environmental impact report before approving the amendment.
A City of West Hollywood moratorium on new multi-family housing development has been declared invalid by the Second District Court of Appeal. The court ruled that the city had not made required findings for the moratorium.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has set back a plan to develop the country's largest solid waste landfill near Joshua Tree National Park. The court ruled that the environmental analysis for the project was inadequate and that the Bureau of Land Management undervalued land it would provide to the landfill developer.
A state appellate court has struck down a California Environmental Quality Act exemption for an air district rule permitting new power plants to offset emissions by paving roads. The court found that the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District did not have adequate evidence to support its finding that the rule could not have a negative impact on the environment.
A developer is not entitled to reimbursement or damages from a consultant hired by a local government to complete an environmental impact report, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled. Even when the consultant fails to complete an EIR in a timely manner, the consultant owes no contractual duty to the developer that paid for the consultant, the court concluded.
In the first decision of its kind, a divided Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel has declared that the City of Goleta's mobile home rent control ordinance constitutes a regulatory taking.
