Case Law Index Environmental Law
January 1, 2002 – June 1, 2024
This index provides a comprehensive though not necessarily exhaustive compilation of reported and unreported federal and state court decisions involving Environmental Laws that were decided on or after January 1, 2002. The cases are listed in reverse chronological order. The “Text” link goes to the freely available Google Scholar text of the opinion. These listings are for educational purposes only and are not a substitute for legal counsel.
(Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act) and (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) and (Hazardous or Waste or Acts) and (Conservation or Stewardship or Program) and (The or Environmental or Quality or Incentives or Program) and (Wetlands or Reserve or Program) and (Conservation or Reserve or Program) and (National or Forest or Management or Act) and (Federal Land Policy and Management Act) and (Endangered or Species or Act) and (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) and (Clean or Air or Act) and (Clean or Water or Act) and (National or Environmental or Policy or Act) and (Environmental or Law)
SUPREME COURT
Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. 651, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023) (Coverage under the Clean Water Act extends only to wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are “waters of the United States” in their own right, so that they are indistinguishable from those waters.) Text
West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022) (Congress did not grant the authority in the Clean Air Act to the EPA to devise emission caps based on the generation-shifting approach that the EPA employed in the Clean Power Plan.) Text
State of Mississippi v. Tennessee, City of Memphis, Tennessee, and Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div., 142 S. Ct. 31 (2021) (Rejected Mississippi’s contention that it has a sovereign ownership right to all water beneath its surface that precludes application of the equitable apportionment doctrine; the waters of the Middle Claiborne Aquifer that exist under multiple states are subject to the judicial remedy of equitable apportionment) Text
State of Florida v. State of Georgia, 141 S. Ct. 1175 (2021) (Downstream State of Florida denied relief via equitable apportionment of interstate streams between states when it did not prove that Georgia’s alleged overconsumption of Basin waters caused collapse of Florida’s oyster fisheries, river wildlife, or plant life) Text
Territory of Guam v. United States, 141 S.Ct. 1608 (2021) (a settlement of environmental liabilities must resolve a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) specific liability to give rise to a CERCLA contribution action) Text
United States Fish & Wildlife Serv. v. Sierra Club, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 777 (2021) (Deliberative process privilege protects agencies’ in-house drafts as the last word on a proposal’s potential threat to endangered species) Text
HollyFrontier Cheyenne Ref., LLC v. Renewable Fuels Ass’n, 141 S.Ct. 2172 (2021) (Small refinery that received prior hardship exemption from renewable fuel program may seek an “extension” despite having allowed exemption to lapse) Text
United States Forest Serv. v. Cowpasture River Pres. Ass’n, 140 S. Ct. 1837 (2020) (The National Trails System Act did not transfer jurisdiction from the USFS to the DOI but gave the DOI administrative responsibilities). Text
Cty. of Maui v. Haw. Wildlife Fund, 140 S. Ct. 1462 (2020) (Established a new standard for liability under the CWA for discharge of pollutants into navigable waters) Text
Nat. Ass’n of Mfrs. v. Dept. of Defense, 138 S.Ct. 617 (2018) (Challenges to EPA definition of WOTUS required to be brought in federal court) Text
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 139 S. Ct. 361 (2018) (Land is eligible for designation as critical habitat under the ESA only if it is habitat for species.) Text
Michigan v. EPA, 135 S.Ct. 702 (2014) (EPA was required to consider cost when regulating power plants under the CAA) Text
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302 (2014) (CAA did not require that stationary sources be subject to PSD permitting requirements on the sole basis of the potential to emit greenhouse gases) Text
EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, LP, 572 US 489 (2014) (EPA’s Transport Rule was a permissible construction of the CAA good neighbor provision) Text
Decker v. Northwest Envtl. Defense Ctr., 133 S.Ct. 1326 (2013) (Discharges of channeled stormwater runoff from logging roads do not require CWA permits) Text
LA Flood Ctrl. v. Nat. Resources Defense Council, 133 S.Ct. 710 (2013) (Flow of water out of concrete channel within river was not “discharge of a pollutant”) Text
American Elec. Power Co., Inc. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011) (CAA displaces federal common law right to seek abatement of carbon dioxide emissions) Text
Burlington N. & Sante Fe Ry. Co. v. United States, — U.S. —, 129 S. Ct. 1870 (2009) (manufacturer not liable as an “arranger” under CERCLA) Text
Summers v. Earth Island Inst., — U.S. —, 129 S. Ct. 1142 (2009) (standing to challenge federal public lands policy) Text
Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 127 S. Ct. 2518 (2007) (criteria for EPA to transfer permitting authority to state) Text
Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006) (scope of the CWA to protect wetlands) Text
Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, L.L.C., 544 U.S. 431 (2005) (FIFRA preemption) Text
Bourne ex rel. Bourne v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 543 U.S. 917 (2004) (cert denied re: fungicide as toxic tort)
S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 541 U.S. 95 (2004) (scope of NPDES permit) Text
FIRST CIRCUIT
Melone v. Coit, 100 F.4th 21 (1st Cir. 2024) (NMFS’s determination that harassing up to 20 right whales was a “small number” was not arbitrary because it applied scientific expertise to evaluate the impact of the intervenor-appellee’s activities.) Text
Oliver v. U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Mgmt. (In re Nantucket Residents), 100 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2024) (The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management did not violate the ESA after consulting with NMFS, concluding that a wind power project’s construction would not jeopardize the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale.) Text
Housatonic River Initiative v. United States EPA, 75 F.4th 248 (1st Cir. 2023) (A mediation regarding a river cleanup was procedurally sound, and a permit requiring hybrid disposal of TSCA regulated waste PCB was not arbitrary or capricious.) Text
The Blackstone Headwaters Coal., Inc. v. Gallo Builders, Inc., 32 F. 4th 99 (1st Cir. 2022) (statutory limitation on citizen suits under Clean Water Act (CWA) does not bar a citizen suit for declaratory and prospective injunctive relief to redress an ongoing violation of the CWA) Text
Penobscot Nation v. Frey, 3 F.4th 484 (1st Cir. 2021) (Indian tribe’s sustenance fishing rights had not been threatened by opinion of Maine Attorney General regarding regulatory jurisdiction of tribe related to hunting and fishing on stretch of river, thus no standing) Text
Conservation Law Found., Inc., v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 3 F. 4th 61 (1st Cir. 2021) (stay of conservation organization’s suit against operator of petroleum terminal alleging violations of EPA permit, Clean Water Act, and Res. Conservation and Recovery Act until EPA renewed its pollution permit, was not appropriate) Text
Sierra Club v. United States Corps of Engineers, 997 F. 3d 395 (1st Cir. 2021) (Army Corps of Engineers’ conclusion that electric transmission power corridor was not major federal action overall was not arbitrary or capricious under National Environmental Protection Act) Text
Emhart Indus. V. United States Dep’t of the Air Force, 988 F.3d 511, 515 (1st Cir. 2021) (A CERCLA consent decree identical to a 2012 EPA Response Action plan was not arbitrary or capricious) Text
Conservation Law Found. v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 457 F. Supp. 3d 33 (D.N.H. 2019) (The Conservation Law Foundation failed to demonstrate that a permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers was in violation of NEPA and CWA) Text
Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC v. Weymouth, 919 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2019) (A local conservation commission’s denial of a building permit was preempted where its federal counterpart approved a permit for the same project, considering the same evidence) Text
Strahan v. Sec’y, Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Envtl. Affairs, 458 F.Supp.3d 76 (D. Mass. April 30, 2020) (Conservationist demonstrated strong likelihood of success that ESA had been violated) Text
Rhode Island v. Chevron Corp., 393 F.Supp.3d (D. R.I. 2019) (CAA did not entirely preempt state-law public nuisance claim) Text
U.S. v. R.M. Packer Co., Inc., 355 F.Supp.3d 66 (D. Mass. 2018) (Transportation company was liable for violating CAA) Text
Toxics Action Ctr., Inc. v. Casella Waste Sys., Inc., 347 F.Supp.3d 67 (D. Mass. 2018) (Landfill from which contaminants alleged flowed to wetlands was not a point source) Text
Conservation Law Found., Inc. v. Pruitt, 881 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2018) (EPA approval of TMDL did not trigger requirement to notify individual dischargers) Text
Emhart Indus., Inc. v. New England Container Co., Inc., 274 F.Supp.3d 30 (D. R.I. 2017) (Aspects of EPA’s remedy-selection process for superfund site were arbitrary and capricious under CERCLA) Text
Emhart Indus., Inc. v. New England Container Co., Inc., 130 F.Supp.3d 534 (D. R.I. 2015) (Imposition of joint and several liability was warranted under CERCLA) Text
Conservation Law Found., Inc., v. Plourde Sand and Gravel Co., Inc., No. 13-CV-214-SM, 2014 WL 5781457 (D. N.H. Nov. 6, 2014) (alleging that defendants had been making discharges without a valid NPDES permit in violation of CWA) Text
Friends of the Boundary, Mountains v. U.S. Army Corps of Engrs., 24 F.Supp.3d 105 (D. Me. 2014) (Relationship between issuance of CWA permit and potential harm to migratory birds was too attenuated) Text
U.S. v. Conagra Grocery Products Co., LLC, 4 F.Supp.3d 243 (D. Me. 2014) (Property owner was a potentially responsible party under CERCLA) Text
Allen v. Nat’l Inst. of Health, 974 F.Supp.2d 18 (D. Mass. 2013) (EIS for bio-safety laboratories adequately analyzed risks at all potential locations) Text
Members of Beede Site Group v. Fed. Home Loan, Mortg. Corp., 968 F.Supp.2d 455 (D. N.H. 2013) (Waste engine oil transported from oil processing site did not fall into CERCLA’s petroleum exclusion) Text
Upper Blackstone Water Pollution Abatement Dist. v. U.S. EPA, 690 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2012) (EPA properly issued discharge permit) Text
Scarborough Citizens Protecting Res. V. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 674 F.3d 97 (1st Cir. 2012) (State’s conveyance of easement over federally-funded trail not subject to NEPA) Text
U.S. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 670 F.3d 377 (1st Cir. 2012) (Company had sufficient intent to render it liable under CERCLA for arranging for disposal of hazardous substance) Text
Strahan v. Diodati, 755 F.Supp.2d 318 (D. Mass. 2010) (Officers of state agencies did not cause takings of federally protected whales.) Text
Ashland Inc. v. GAR Electroforming, No. 08-227ML, 2010 WL 2927374 (D. R.I. July 22, 2010) (groundwater remediation costs at hazardous waste disposal site) Text
Animal Welfare Inst. v. Martin, No. CV-08-267-B-W, 2009 WL 3766937 (D. Me. Nov. 10. 2009) (incidental taking of endangered species) Text
Sierra Club v. Wagner, 555 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2009) (approval of two forest management plans) Text
Animal Welfare Inst. v. Martin, 588 F.Supp.2d 70 (D. Me. 2008) (incidental takings under ESA) Text
Natural Res. Council of Me. v. Int’l Paper Co., 424 F.Supp.2d 235 (D. Me. 2006) (citizen suit standing, notice) Text
U.S. Pub. Interest Research Group v. Atl. Salmon of Me., LLC., 339 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2003) (granting injunction to remedy past CWA violations) Text
U.S. Pub. Interest Research Group v. Atl. Salmon of Me., LLC., 215 F.Supp.2d 239 (D. Me. 2002) (citizen suit against salmon farm) Text
Brunault v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., No. Civ.A.00-30059-FHF, 2002 WL 32538419 (D.Mass. Sept. 24, 2002) (FIFRA preemption)
U.S. Public Interest Research Group c. Stolt Sea Farm, Inc., 2002 WL 240386 (D. Me. 2002) (CWA citizen suit against salmon farm)
U.S. Public Interest Research Group v. Heritage Salmon, Inc., 2002 WL 240440 (D. Me. 2002) (CWA citizen suit against salmon farm)
SECOND CIRCUIT
Revitalizing Auto Cmtys. Envtl. Response Tr. v. Nat’l Grid USA, 92 F.4th 415 (2d Cir. 2024) (District court erred in dismissing an action by an environmental trust for recovery or contribution under CERCLA from multiple entities that contributed to the pollution of a creek.) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., No. 21-cv-5706 (LJL), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157039 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 5, 2023) (FWS’s consideration of unproven conservation efforts in its determination to not list the eastern hellbender as endangered or threatened was arbitrary and capricious.) Text
United States v. Andrews, 677 F. Supp. 3d 74 (D. Conn. 2023) (A landowner violated the Clean Water Act when he discharged dredged material into wetlands on his property without a permit.)
Talarico Bros. Bldg. Corp. v. Union Carbide Corp., 73 F.4th 126 (2d Cir. 2023) (Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the radioactive waste on their properties constituted solid waste under the RCRA.) Text
Natural Res. Defense Council v. United States EPA, 19 F.4th 177 (2d Cir. 2021) (EPA records reflecting how to communicate policies externally were within scope of FOIA exemption incorporating deliberative process privilege) Text
Cangemi v. United States, 13 F.4th 115 (2d Cir. 2021) (FTCA’s discretionary function exception barred property owners’ nuisance and trespass claims against U.S. arising from erosion from jetties) Text
MPM Silicones, LLC v. Union Carbide Corp., 561 F. Supp. 3d 293 (N.D.N.Y. 2021) (Subsequent owner’s remediation of contamination was separate and distinct to original owner’s and thus entitled to new six-year period for cost recovery under CERCLA) Text
Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., No. 5:18-CV-646 FJS, 2021 WL 4832712 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2021) (Corporation’s remedy under CERCLA for voluntary cleanup costs was cost recovery claim, not contribution claim) Text
NRDC v. United States DOI, 478 F. Supp. 3d 469 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (The DOI’s interpretation of MBTA’s prohibition on killing protected birds was unpersuasive because it ran counter to the purpose of protecting migratory bird populations) Text
New Jersey v. Wheeler, 475 F. Supp. 3d 308 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (EPA had not fully performed its nondiscretionary duty to promulgate FIPs that fully discharged the Good Neighbor obligations for the Upwind States with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS) Text
Friends of Animals v. Romero, 948 F.3d 579 (2d Cir. 2020) (NPS’s decision approving the White-tailed Deer Management Plan for the Fire Island National Seashore was not “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law) Text
White Plains Housing Auth. v. BP Products North America Inc., No. 17-cv-6250 (NSR) (S.D. N.Y. Aug. 27, 2020) (Gas station owner liable for RCRA violations) Text
Nat. Res. Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, Nos. 18-CV-4596 (VEC), 18-CV-4601 (VEC), 18-CV-8084 (VEC) (S.D. N.Y. Aug. 11, 2020) (Department opinion interpreting Migratory Bird Treaty Act violated the Act) Text
New Jersey v. Wheeler, No. 20-cv-1425 (JGK) (S.D. N.Y. July 28, 2020) (EPA failed to perform duty under CAA) Text
MPM Silicones, LLC v. Union Carbide Corp., 966 F.3d 200 (2nd Cr. 2020) (CERCLA statute of limitations) Text
Friends of Animals v. Romero, 948 F.3d 579 (2nd Cir. 2020) (NPS took “hard look” as required by NEPA) Text
Crespo. V. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 394 F.Supp.3d 260 (E.D. N.Y. 2019) (EPA review did not affect scope of FIFRA preemption of state regulation of pesticides) Text
Bourbia v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 375 F.Supp.3d 454 (S.D. N.Y. 2019) (FIFRA did not preempt breach of express warranty claim) Text
Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Wheeler, 373 F.Supp.3d 443 (S.D. N.Y. 2019) (EPA’s duty to prepare proposed regulations after state’s revised water quality standards fail to meet CWA requirements is discretionary) Text
Cooling Water Intake Structure Coal. v. U.S. EPA, 905 F.3d 49 (2nd Cir. 2018) (EPA had authority to adopt case-by-case approach to cooling water intake structures) Text
Zbitnoff v. James, 708 Fed.Appx. 25 (2nd Cir. 2017) (EIS omitting discussion of cost-savings of action fully complied with NEPA) Text
Bartlett v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 260 F.Supp.3d 231 (N.D. N.Y. 2017) (Plaintiff’s state-law claims were preempted by CERCLA) Text
U.S. v. Yetim, 251 F.Supp.3d 461 (E.D. N.Y. 2017) (Evidentiary hearing prior to imposing penalty on gas station owners for RCRA violations was warranted) Text
American Bird Conservancy v. Harvey, 232 F.Supp.3d 292 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (Members of wildlife conservation group had standing in action asserting violation of the Endangered Species Act.) Text
City Club of New York v. U.S. Army Corps of Engrs., 246 F.Supp.3d 860 (S.D. N.Y. 2017) (Corps’ issuance of permit violated CWA) Text
Catskill Mountains Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Inc. v. EPA, 846 F.3d 492 (2nd Cir. 2017) (Rule excluding water transfers from NPDES permitting requirements was reasonable) Text
DMJ Assoc., LLC v. Capasso, 565 B.R. 27 (E.D. N.Y. 2016) (CERCLA third-party claims against bankrupt business were not discharged in business’s bankruptcy) Text
U.S. v. Tonawanda Coke Corp., 636 Fed.Appx. 24 (2nd Cir. 2016) (Unpermitted storage of hazardous waste was continuing offense under RCRA) Text
New York v. Town of Clarkstown, 95 F.Supp.3d 660 (S.D. N.Y. 2015) (Corporations that resolved their CERCLA liability through consent decree were entitled to contribution to persons not party to consent decree) Text
Residents for Sane Trash Sol., Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 31 F.Supp.3d 571 (S.D. N.Y. 2014) (Corps did not abuse its discretion in limit scope of NEPA review) Text
ASARCO LLC v. Goodwin, 756 F.3d 191 (2nd Cir. 2014) (State law governed whether contribution liability could be imposed under CERCLA) Text
Paskar v. City of New York, 3 F.Supp.3d 129 (S.D. N.Y. 2014) (Garbage transfer facility was not subject to RCRA) Text
APL Co. Pte. Ltd. V. Kemira Water Sol., Inc., 999 F.Supp.2d 590 (S.D. N.Y. 2014) (Costs incurred in cleanup and response operations were necessary under CERCLA) Text
In re MTBE Products Liability Litiagtion, 725 F.3d 65 (2nd Cir. 2013) (CAA Amendments did not preempt jury verdict) Text
New York v. Adamowicz, 932 F.Supp.2d 340 (E.D. N.Y. 2013) (State was not required to show that the costs it expended under CERCLA were “necessary”) Text
New York v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 896 F.Supp. 180 (E.D. N.Y. 2012) (NEPA challenge was not prudentially ripe for review) Text
New York v. Solvent Chemical Co., Inc., 871 F.Supp.2d 209 (W.D. N.Y. 2012) (Pesticide manufacturer allocated share of responsibility for costs under CERCLA) Text
Nat. Res. Defense Council v. U.S. EPA, 658 F.3d 200 (2nd Cir. 2011) (EPA’s pesticide risk assessment was arbitrary and capricious) Text
Lewis v. FMC Corp., 786 F.Supp.2d 690 (W.D. N.Y. 2011) (Surrounding residents lacked standing to bring CWA claim against pesticide formulations facility operator) Text
New York v. West Side Corp., 790 F.Supp.2d 13 (E.D. N.Y. 2011) (Common law claims were not preempted by CERCLA) Text
Metropolitan Taxicab Bd. of Trade v. City of New York, 615 F.3d 152 (2nd Cir. 2010) (preemption of local regulation involving incentives for purchase of hybrid taxicabs) Text
Humane Soc’y of United States v. HVFG, LLC, No. 06 CV 6829(HB), 2010 WL 1837785 (S.D.N.Y. May 06, 2010) (private party action for a violation of the Clean Water Act)
Coon ex rel. Coon v. Willet Dairy, Ltd. P’ship, 536 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2008) (barring RCRA claims) Text
Coon v. Willet Dairy, LP, Nos. 5:02-CV-1195 (FJS/GJD), 5:04-CV-917 (FJS/GJD), 2007 WL 2071746 (N.D.N.Y. 2007) (CWA and RCRA claims) Text
Natural Res. Def. Council v. Johnson, 461 F.3d 164 (2d Cir. 2006) (EPA determination on pesticide residue) Text
Fox v. Cheminova, Inc., 387 F.Supp. 2d 160 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (FIFRA scope and preemption) Text
W. Harlem Envtl. Action v. EPA, 380 F.Supp. 2d 289 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (FIFRA and rodenticide) Text
No Spray Coal. v. City of New York, No. 00 Civ. 5395(GBD), 2005 WL 1354041 (S.D.N.Y.) (CWA permit) Text
Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A., 399 F.3d 486 (2d Cir. 2005) (challenge to CAFO Act) Text
No Spray Coal. v. City of New York, 351 F.3d 602 (2d Cir. 2003) (CWA citizen suit) Text
Plourde v. Gladstone, 69 F. App’x 485 (2nd Cir. 2003) (toxic tort)
Williams v. Dow Chem. Co., 255 F.Supp. 2d 219 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (FIFRA preemption; pesticide approval fraud) Text
Fox v. Cheminova, Inc., 213 F.R.D. 113 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (FIFRA class action)
No Spray Coal. v. City of New York, No. 00 Civ.5395 JSM, 2002 WL 31682387 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (CWA and FIFRA)
Altman v. Town of Amherst, 47 F. App’x 62 (2d Cir. 2002) (pesticide application under CWA)
Plourde v. Gladstone, 190 F.Supp.2d 708 (D.Vt. 2002) (toxic tort) Text
THIRD CIRCUIT
Keystone-Conemaugh Projects LLC v. United States EPA, 100 F.4th 434 (3d Cir. 2024) (The EPA did not exceed its statutory authority under the CAA or act arbitrarily or capriciously when it promulgated its own federal implementation plan.) Text
Trenton Threatened Skies, Inc. v. FAA, 90 F.4th 122 (3d Cir. 2024) (The FAA did not violate NEPA when it issued an approval to Mercer County to build a new airport terminal.) Text
Port Hamilton Refin. & Transp., LLLP v. United States EPA, 87 F.4th 188 (3d Cir. 2023) (The EPA exceeded its statutory authority under the Clean Air Act when it required a Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit from a refinery that was not new and was unmodified.) Text
Port Hamilton Refin. & Transp., LLLP v. United States EPA, 75 F.4th 166 (3d Cir. 2023) (The EPA exceeded its statutory authority under the Clean Air Act when it required a port to obtain a Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit before resuming operations at a refinery when the refinery was built before 1977 and was unmodified.) Text
PennEnvironmental v. PPG Indust., Inc., No. 12-342, 2022 WL 541524 (W.D. Penn. Feb. 23, 2022) (State’s consent agreement with manufacturer did not render Clean Water Act citizen suit moot) Text
United States v. Brace, 1F.4th 137 (3rd Cir. 2021) (District court’s interlocutory order directing farmer who cleared wetlands without authorization to submit a proposed deed restriction and mitigation plan was in nature of appealable injunction)
Lincoln Harbor Enter., LLC v. Hartz Mountain Indust., Inc., 517 F.Supp.3d 293 (D. N.J. 2021) (New Jersey Environmental Rights Act authorized claim for declaratory or equitable relief absent predicate violation of statute or regulation) Text
Sierra Club v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 972 F.3d 290 (3rd Cir. 2020) (EPA decision on acceptable pollution limits was arbitrary and capricious) Text
Cottman Avenue PRP Group v. AMEC Foster Wheeler Envtl. Infrastructure Inc., 439 F.Supp.3d 407 (E.D. Penn. Feb. 13, 2020) (Firm was not an “arranger” under CERCLA) Text
Dep’t of Nat. Res. & Envtl. Control v. Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Inc., 375 F.Supp.3d 522 (D. Del. 2019) (Individuals who reside near poultry processing plant could intervene as of right in CWA and RCRA action by state against plant) Text
Pennsylvania Dep’t of Envtl. Protection v. Trainer Custom Chemical, LLC, 906 F.3d 85 (3rd Cir. 2018) (Landowner liable for costs of cleanup under CERCLA) Text
Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. Sec’y Pennsylvania Dep’t of Envtl. Protection, 903 F.3d 65 (3rd Cir. 2018) (Decision to issue water quality certification under CWA was not arbitrary) Text
Twp. Of Bordentown, New Jersey v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 903 F.3d 234 (3rd Cir. 2018) (FERC’s consideration of cumulative impacts was not arbitrary and capricious under NEPA) Text
Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. U.S. Army Corps of Engrs., 869 F.3d 148 (3rd Cir. 2017) (Corps’ rejection of compression alternative to proposed pipeline was permitted under CWA) Text
Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. Soil Safe, Inc., 223 F.Supp.3d 231 (D. N.J. 2016) (No evidence that recycled soil contaminants were hazardous waste under RCRA) Text
Trinity Indus., Inc. v. Greelease Holding Co., 173 F.Supp.3d 108 (W.D. Pa. 2016) (Previous owner’s failure to participate in cleanup did not adjust responsibility under CERCLA) Text
Nat’l Parks Conservation Ass’n v. U.S. EPA, 803 F.3d 151 (3rd Cir. 2015) (EPA’s approval of Pennsylvania’s regional haze SIP was arbitrary under CAA) Text
Maiden Creek Assoc., L.P. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 123 F.Supp.3d 638 (E.D. Pa. 2015) (Allegations of economic injury not enough to grant standing under NEPA) Text
Tri-Realty Co. v. Ursinus College, 124 F.Supp.3d 418 (E.D. Pa. 2015) (Bodies of water on property owner’s land were not navigable waters) Text
American Farm Bureau Fed’n v. U.S. EPA, 792 F.3d 281 (3rd Cir. 2015) (Term “total maximum daily loads” in CWA was ambiguous; term “total” subject to multiple meanings) Text
Citizens Coal Council v. Matt Canestrale Contracting, Inc., 51 F.Supp.3d 593 (W.D. Pa. 2014) (Coal wash was solid waste under RCRA) Text
Trinity Indus., Inc. v. Greenlease Holding Co., 35 F.Supp.3d 698 (W.D. Pa. 2014) (Former facility owner was entitled to contribution from previous owner for CERCLA cleanup costs) Text
Gucciardi v. Bonide Products, Inc., 28 F.Supp.3d 383 (E.D. Pa. 2014) (Pesticide consumers claims for injury were not preempted by FIFRA) Text
U.S. v. South Jersey Clothing Co., 976 F.Supp.2d 577 (D. N.J. 2013) (Landowners were entitled to relief from consent decree settling CERCLA claims) Text
American Farm Bureau Fed’n v. U.S. EPA, 984 F.Supp.2d 289 (M.D. Pa. 2013) (EPA’s definition of TMDL allocations for Chesapeake Bay did not exceed authority under CWA) Text
U.S. v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 727 F.3d 274 (3rd Cir. 2013) (Failure to comply with CAA PSD requirements is a one-time violation) Text
Trinity Indus., Inc. v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., 735 F.3d 131 (3rd Cir. 2013) (Owner of industrial site could seek contribution under CERCLA from former site owner) Text
Bell v. Cheswick Generation Station, 734 F.3d 188 (3rd Cir. 2013) (Determining scope of CAA preemption) Text
Litgo New Jersey Inc. v. Comm’r New Jersey Dep’t of Envtl. Protection, 725 F.3d 369 (3rd Cir. 2013) (Court did not abuse its discretion under CERCLA) Text
GenOn Rema, LLC v. U.S. EPA, 722 F.3d 513 (3rd Cir. 2013) (EPA rule was not arbitrary, capricious, or abusive of EPA’s discretion under CAA) Text
Bell v. Cheswick Generation Station, 903 F.Supp.2d 314 (W.D. Pa. 2012) (State law claims were preempted by CAA) Text
Trinity Indus., Inc. v. Chicago Bridge and Iron Co., 867 F.Supp.2d 754 (W.D. Pa. 2012) (Site owner did not incur cleanup costs under CERCLA) Text
U.S. v. EME Homer City Generation L.P., 823 F.Supp.2d 274 (W.D. Pa. 2011) (Alleged violations of CAA’s PSD require constituted separate failures) Text
Delaware Audubon Soc’y v. Salazar, 829 F.Supp.2d 273 (D. Del. 2011) (FWS’s EA did not violate NEPA) Text
U.S. v. Donovan, 661 F.3d 174 (3rd Cir. 2011) (Corps had jurisdiction under CWA to compel removal of fill material from wetlands) Text
U.S. v. Righter, No. 1:08-CV-0670, 2010 WL 2640189 (M.D. Pa. 2010) (Land qualified as wetland under CWA) Text
U.S. v. Kramer, 757 F.Supp.2d 511 (D. N.J. 2010) (Settling parties in Superfund action could bring contribution claim under CERCLA against non-settling parties) Text
United States v. Rohm & Haas Co., No. 09-5528 (FLW), 2010 WL 3811302 (D. N.J. Sept. 22, 2010) (equitable tolling under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act) Text
Animal Welfare Inst. v. Beech Ridge Energy LLC, — F.Supp.2d —, 2009 WL 4884520 (D. Md. 2009) (challenge to wind farm that it would take an endangered species) Text
Del. Audubon Soc’y, Inc. v. Sec’y of the United States Dep’t of Interior, No. 06-223-GMS, 2009 WL 763925 (D. Del. Mar. 24, 2009) (violation of various environmental laws for entering into cooperative farming agreements in wildlife refuge) Text
Mangan v. Brierre, Civil Action No. 06-3204, 2007 WL 475820 (E.D. Pa. 2007) (CERCLA) Text
Mortellite v. Novartis Crop Prot., Inc., 460 F.3d 483 (3d Cir. 2006) (FIFRA preemption) Text
Nat’l Res. Def. Council v. EPA, No. Civ. RDB 03-2444, 2005 WL 1241904 (D. Md. 2005) (ESA citizen suit)
Reynolds v. Rick’s Mushroom Serv., Inc., 246 F.Supp.2d 449 (E.D. Pa. 2003) (CWA violation; waste from mushroom processor) Text
Am. Littoral Soc’y v. U.S. EPA, 199 F.Supp.2d 217 (D.N.J. 2002) (review of state approved CWA water bodies lists) Text
FOURTH CIRCUIT
68th St. Site Work Grp. v. Alban Tractor Co., No. 23-1155, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 15357 (4th Cir. June 25, 2024) (The district court erred in requiring the plaintiff allege knowledge of hazardous waste disposal in order to state a claim because CERCLA does not provide a textual basis for a knowledge based scienter requirement.) Text
Allegheny Wood Prods. v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., No. 2:22-CV-07, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24428 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 12, 2024) (FWS’s determination that the plaintiff’s application for an Incidental Taking Permit was statutorily incomplete was not arbitrary or capricious.) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Mar. Admin., No. 4:21-cv-00132, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57232 (E.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2023) (The US Department of Transportation Maritime Administration violated the ESA when it failed to conduct a Section 7 consultation on its issuance of the FY 2018 James River Project grant.) Text
Ctr. for Env’t Health v. Regan, 666 F. Supp. 3d 509 (E.D.N.C. 2023) (The court lacked jurisdiction to review EPA’s decision to grant a TSCA testing petition.) Text
United States ex rel. Strange v. S. Coal Corp., 64 F.4th 509 (4th Cir. 2023) (The court affirmed a motion to compel compliance with a consent decree to resolve allegations of numerous CWA violations against a coal company.) Text
Sierra Club v. W. Va. Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 64 F.4th 487 (4th Cir. 2023) (The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection’s conclusion that a natural gas pipeline would be installed in a manner that would not violate state water standards was arbitrary and capricious.) Text
Sierra Club v. State Water Control Bd., 64 F.4th 187 (4th Cir. 2023) (Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality had the authority to issue a permit for a natural gas pipeline under the CWA.) Text
Wild Virginia v. United States Forest Serv., 24 F.4th 915 (4th Cir. 2022) (Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management violated NEPA by inadequately considering pipeline’s sediment and erosion impacts) Text
Living Lands, LLC v. Cline, No. 3:20-0275, 2022 WL 796701 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 15, 2022) (Eleventh Amendment did not bar claim alleging ongoing violations of CWA but did bar claim seeking declaratory judgment that state would be liable under CERCLA for future response costs of plaintiffs) Text
State v. United States, 7 F.4th 160 (4th Cir. 2021) (CAA waived federal government’s sovereign immunity with respect to punitive civil penalties imposed by State against federal facilities) Text
S. Appalachian Mountain Stewards v. Red River Coal Co., Inc. 992 F.3d 306 (4th Cir. 2021) (coal mine operator protected from liability for alleged violation by operator’s CWA permit shield) Text
August Mack Envtl., Inc. v. United States EPA, 841 Fed. Appx. 517 (4th Cir. 2021) (EPA’s decisions to apply strict compliance to process for recovery of costs to clean up CERCLA superfund site was abuse of discretion) Text
North Carolina Coastal Fisheries Reform Grp. v. Capt. Gaston LLC, 560 F.Supp.3d 979 (E.D. N.C. 2021) (court would not treat bycatch carrion from shrimp vessels as a “pollutant” under Clean Water Act)
N. Carolina Wildlife Fed’n v. N. Carolina Dep’t of Transp., No. 2:19-CV-14 FL, 2021 WL 5893973 (E.D. N.C. Dec. 13, 2021) (State Department of Transportation took requisite hard look at environmental consequences of bridge; ultimate selection of alternative was not arbitrary and capricious) Text
Naturaland Trust v. Dakota Fin., LLC, 531 F.Supp.3d 953 (D. S.C. 2021) (environmental groups’ citizen suit under CWA was barred because state was “diligently prosecuting” enforcement action against landowners) Text
United States v. Mashni, 547 F.Supp.3d 496 (D. S.C. 2021) (fact issue of whether entities were responsible for performance of work at watershed precluded summary judgment in CWA case) Text
United States v. Godley, No. 3:19-cv-00202 RJC, 2021 WL 5242855 (W.D. N.C. Dec. 30, 2021) (site of defunct cotton mill was “facility” under CERCLA; community college, endowment, and county were not “arrangers” under CERCLA) Text
Maryland v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 1:18-cv-0459 SAG, 2021 WL 5112418 (D. Md. Nov. 3, 2021) (Maryland could not prevail on claims for alleged violations of Water Pollution Control and Abatement Act on oil sites with a final closure letter) Text
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Tri-State Zoological Park of W. Md., Inc., 843 F. App’x 493 (4th Cir. 2021) (Ruled in favor of PETA on violation of ESA regarding federally protected animals) Text
Nat’l Audubon Soc’y v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 991 F.3d 577 (4th Cir. 2021) (The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did not act arbitrary or capricious when issuing an Environmental Impact Statement and granting a Clean Water Act (CWA) permit) Text
Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, No. 20-2039, No. 20-2042 (4th Cir. 2020) (Stay was warranted for Corps’ verification that pipeline met CWA permit) Text
Friends of Capital Crescent Trail v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 453 F.Supp.3d 804 (D. Md. April 13, 2020) (Corps not faulted for relying on NEPA analysis) Text
People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Tri-State Zoological Park of Western Maryland, Inc., 424 F.Supp.3d 404 (D. Md. Dec. 26, 2020) (Private zoo violated ESA) Text
S. Appalachian Mountain Stewards, et al. v. Red River Coal Co., Inc., No. 2:17CV00028, 2019 WL 4674318 (W.D. Va. Sept. 24, 2019) (Discharging pollutants without a permit) Text
Dixon Lumber Co., Inc. v. Austinville Limestone Co., Inc., 386 F.Supp.3d 688 (W.D. Va. 2019) (Agreement did not transfer all responsibility for CERCLA costs) Text
Foster v. U.S. EPA, No. 2:14-CV-16744, 2019 WL 4145583 (S.D. W. Va. Aug. 29, 2019) (Filling a WOTUS without a Section 404 permit) Text
Save Our Sound OBX, Inc. v. North Carolina Dep’t of Transp., 914 F.3d 213 (4th Cir. 2019) (FHA did not violate NEPA) Text
Cowpasture River Pres. Ass’n v. Forest Serv., 911 F.3d 150 (4th Cir. 2018) (USFS’s FEIS for pipeline violated NEPA) Text
Sierra Club v. Virginia Elect. & Power Co., 903 F.3d 403 (4th Cir. 2018) (Water pollution caused by coal ash governed by RCRA, not CWA) Text
Sierra Club v. State Water Control Bd., 898 F.3d 383 (4th Cir. 2018) (Certifying natural gas pipeline under CWA) Text
Sierra Club, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 897 F.3d 582 (4th Cir. 2018) (USFS acted arbitrarily and capriciously under NEPA in adopting sedimentation analysis in its EIS) Text
Ergon-West Virginia, Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 896 F.3d 600 (4th Cir. 2018) (EPA analysis was arbitrary and capricious under CAA) Text
Ohio Valley Entvl. Coal., Inc. v. Pruitt, 893 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 2018) (Submission of TMDLs for biologically impaired waters to EPA) Text
Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., 887 F.3d 637 (4th Cir. 2018) (Discharge directly from a point source into navigable waters not required for a violation of the CWA) Text
Sierra Club v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 899 F.3d 260 (4th Cir. 2018) (Take limits in incidental take statement from FWS authorizing natural gas pipeline were arbitrary and capricious.) Text
Dixon Lumber Co., Inc. v. Austinville Limestone Co., Inc., 256 F.Supp.3d 658 (Mine operator did not assume any environmental liability of previous owner under CERCLA) Text
Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., 252 F.Supp.3d 488 (D. S.C. 2017) (Discharge into groundwater not hydrologically connected to surface water not a CWA violation) Text
Sierra Club v. Virginia Elec. and Power Co., 247 F.Supp.3d 753 (E.D. Va. 2017) (Discharge into groundwater a violation of CWA) Text
Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal., Inc. v. Fola Coal Co., LLC, 845 F.3d 133 (4th Cir. 2017) (NPDES permit did not remove liability from coal company for unlawful discharges) Text
Blankenship v. Consolidation Coal Co., 850 F.3d 630 (4th Cir. 2017) (Landowners failed to state claim for CERCLA violation against coal mine) Text
Murray Energy Corp. v. McCarthy, 232 F.Supp.3d 895 (N.D. W. Va. 2017) (EPA failed to fully comply with CAA requirements) Text
Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal., Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 828 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2016) (Corps was not required to consider impacts of surface coal mining in its NEPA review of CWA permit) Text
307 Campostella, LLC v. Mullane, 143 F.Supp.3d 407 (E.D. Va. 2015) (Property owner stated citizen-suit claim under RCRA) Text
Yadkin Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, 141 F.Supp.3d 428 (M.D. N.C. 2015) (Coal ash lagoons fell within CWA definition of point source) Text
PCS Nitrogen, Inc. v. Ross Dev. Corp., 104 F.Supp.3d 729 (D. S.C. 2015 (Involuntarily incurred cleanup costs are recoverable under section of CERCLA permitting cost-recovery) Text
Consolidation Coal Co. v. Georgia Power Co., 781 F.3d 129 (4th Cir. 2015) (Seller of transformers with PCBs could not be liable as arranger under CERCLA) Text
Defenders of Wildlife v. North Carolina Dep’t of Transp., 762 F.3d 374 (4th Cir. 2014) (Agencies did not act unlawfully under NEPA) Text
Sherrill v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 31 F.Supp.3d 750 (D. Md. 2014) (Permit issued by Maryland shielded permittee from RCRA liability) Text
Cape Hatteras Access Pres. All. v. Jewell, 28 F.Supp.3d 537 (E.D. N.C. 2014) (Use of two no action alternatives in EIS was not arbitrary and capricious under NEPA) Text
Cape Fear River Watch, Inc. v. Duke Energy Progress, Inc., 25 F.Supp.3d 798 (E.D. N.C. 2014) (Lake was a WOTUS subject to CWA jurisdiction) Text
U.S. v. Duke Energy Corp., 981 F.Supp.2d 435 (M.D. N.C. 2013) (EPA’s interpretation of CAA PSD requirement was entitled to deference) Text
Marcas, L.L.C. v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of St. Mary’s Cty., 977 F.Supp.2d 487 (D. Md. 2013) (Property owner was not entitled to recover costs incurred under CERCLA) Text
PCS Nitrogen Inc. v. Ashley II of Charleston LLC, 714 F.3d 161 (4th Cir. 2013) (Past owners of property were potentially responsible under CERCLA) Text
Dow AgroSciences LLC v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 707 F.3d 462 (4th Cir. 2013) (Opinion that unrestricted registration of products would jeopardize the existence of protected salmonid species was arbitrary and capricious.) Text
Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal., Inc. v. Marfork Coal Co., Inc., 966 F.Supp.2d 667 (S.D. W. Va. 2013) (Permit holder could not discharge pollutants that violated water quality standards) Text
Webster v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 685 F.3d 411 (4th Cir. 2012) (Agency was not required to undertake additional scoping determination when issuing SEIS in compliance with NEPA) Text
Friends of Back Bay v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 681 F.3d 581 (4th Cir. 2012) (Corps decision not to prepare EIS was arbitrary and capricious) Text
North Carolina Wildlife Fed’n v. North Carolina Dep’t of Trasp., 677 F.3d 596 (4th Cir. 2012) (State agency violated NEPA by failing to disclose information to public) Text
Ashley II of Charleston, LLC v. PCS Nitrogen, Inc., 791 F.Supp.2d 431 (D. S.C. 2011) (Landowner established existence of actionable CERCLA facility) Text
U.S. v. Freedman Farms, Inc., 786 F.Supp.2d 1016 (E.D. N.C. 2011) (CWA granted jurisdiction in event of significant nexus between wetlands and navigable waters) Text
Precon Dev. Corp., Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engrs., 633 F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 2011) (No significant nexus between wetlands and navigable river) Text
West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Inc. v. Huffman, 625 F.3d 159 (4th Cir. 2010) (Efforts to reclaim abandoned coal mining sites required NPDES permit) Text
North Carolina, ex rel. Cooper v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 615 F.2d 291 (4th Cir. 2010) (emissions of coal-fired power plants were not a public nuisance) Text
PCS Nitrogen v. Ross Dev. Corp., No. 2:09-3171-MBS, 2010 WL 2892619 (D. S.C. Sept. 30, 2010) (liability for clean of costs for soil contamination by phosphate fertilizer plant operator) Text
Allegheny Energy Supply Co. v. Spitzer, No. 1:05CV04, 2010 WL 3220355 (N.D. W.Va. Aug. 12, 2010) (Clean Air Act) Text
Assateague Coastkeeper v. Alan and Kristin Hudson Farm, No. WMN-10-cv-0487, 2010 WL 2924661 (D. Md. July 21, 2010) (discharges of poultry manure) Text
The Piney Run Pres. Ass’n v. County Comm’rs of Carroll County, Md., 523 F.3d 453 (4th Cir. 2008) (“diligent” prosecution by state) Text
Wyatt v. Sussex Surry, LLC, 482 F.Supp.2d 740 (E.D. Va. 2007) (CWA does not preempt state common law claims) Text
Potomac Riverkeeper, Inc. v. U.S. EPA, No. RDB 04-38845, 2006 WL 890755 (D. Md. March 31, 2006) (lack of jurisdiction, time limits on states to create TMDLs)
Bourne ex rel. Bourne v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 85 Fed. App’x 964 (4th Cir. 2004) (toxic tort)
Ohio Valley Envtl. Coalition v. Horinko, 279 F.Supp.2d 732 (S.D. W. Va. 2003) (state antidegradation policy) Text
N.C. Shellfish Growers Ass’n v. Holly Ridge Assoc., L.L.C, 278 F.Supp.2d 654 (E.D. N.C. 2003) (jurisdiction, point source, pollutant, discharge) Text
American Canoe Ass’n v. Murphy Farms, 326 F.3d 505 (4th Cir. 2003) (CWA) Text
O’Brien v. Appomattox County, 213 F. Supp. 2d 627 (W.D. Va. 2002) (county ordinance to prevent the application of biosolids) Text
S. States Coop. Inc. v. I.S.P. Co., 198 F.Supp.2d 807 (N.D. W. Va. 2002) (FIFRA preemption) Text
FIFTH CIRCUIT
Ragsdale v. JLM Constr. Servs., Inc., No. 1:21-CV-01167-SH, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103407 (W.D. Tex. June 11, 2024) (A wet-weather creek on the plaintiff’s property was not considered “waters of the United States” because it was not relatively permanent, standing, or continuously flowing body of water.) Text
Sierra Club v. La. Dep’t of Env’t Quality, 100 F.4th 555 (5th Cir. 2024) (The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality did not act arbitrarily and complied with the CAA when it used EPA’s Significant Impact Levels in its air quality analysis of a proposed liquid natural gas export facility.) Text
Citizens for Clean Air v. United States DOT, 98 F.4th 178 (5th Cir. 2024) (The US DOT took the required hard look at environmental impacts under NEPA in approving a deepwater oil facility off of the coast of Texas.) Text
Inhance Techs., L.L.C. v. United States EPA, 96 F.4th 888 (5th Cir. 2024) (The EPA exceeded its statutory authority when it issued an order under TSCA prohibiting defendant from manufacturing or producing PFAS in its fluorination process.) Text
Basinkeeper v. Bernhardt, No. 20-00651-BAJ-EWD, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15647 (M.D. La. Jan. 29, 2024) (FWS’s determination to delist the Louisiana black bear from the ESA was not arbitrary or capricious.) Text
Texas v. United States EPA, 91 F.4th 280 (5th Cir. 2024) (The EPA did not violate the CAA because it did not act arbitrarily or capriciously when it designated Rusk and Panola counties as not attaining air quality standards.) Text
Lewis v. United States, 88 F.4th 1073 (5th Cir. 2023) (Inland wetlands were not “waters of the United States” under the CWA because they could not satisfy the “adjacency test” or the “significant nexus” test, and because there was no connection to any relatively permanent body of water.) Text
Calumet Shreveport Refin., L.L.C. v. United States EPA, 86 F.4th 1121 (5th Cir. 2023) (The EPA’s denial of small refineries’ petitions for exemptions from the Renewable Fuel Standard program of the Clean Air Act was impermissibly retroactive.) Text
Munoz v. Intercontinental Terminals Co., L.L.C., 85 F.4th 343 (5th Cir. 2023) (CERCLA, rather than the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, governs when a spilled oil is mixed with hazardous substances.) Text
Healthy Gulf v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 81 F.4th 510 (5th Cir. 2023) (The US Army Corps of Engineers did not violate the CWA when it granted a mitigation permit for a liquefied natural gas production and export terminal.) Text
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Nat’l Found. for Rescued Animals, No. 6:22-cv-97-JDK, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99302 (E.D. Tex. June 7, 2023) (The Big Cat Act does not replace or supplant the ESA.) Text
Harrison Cty. v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 63 F.4th 458 (5th Cir. 2023) (The US Army Corps of Engineers was not obligated to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement regarding the continued operation of a spillway which predated NEPA.) Text
Shrimpers & Fishermen of the RGV v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 56 F.4th 992 (5th Cir. 2023) (The US Army Corps of Engineers did not act arbitrarily in its evaluation of the construction of a natural gas pipeline in south Texas.) Text
Menard v. TARGA RESOURCES, LLC, No. 22-30178 (5th Cir. Jan. 6, 2023) (In sum, resolution of this appeal turns on contested, unsettled issues of Louisiana state law that implicate matters of “critical concern” to the state. We therefore conclude that certification of these questions is warranted) Text
Louisiana v. Biden, No. 2:21-CV-01074, 2022 WL 438313 (W.D. Louisiana Feb. 11, 2022) (States had Article III standing to seek preliminary injunction enjoining executive order on estimates for social costs of greenhouse gas emissions)
Grace Ranch, LLC v. BP Am. Prod. Co., 989 F.3d 301 (5th Cir. 2021) (citizens did not have authority to sue on State’s behalf under Louisiana statute allowing citizen suits to enforce state conservation laws) Text
Melton Properties, LLC v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 539 F.Supp.3d 593 (N.D. Miss. 2021) (Plaintiffs affected by toxic spill did not face irreparable harm by second stay of case against railroad pending administrative resolution) Text
Env’t Texas Citizen Lobby, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Corp., 524 F.Supp.3d 547 (S.D. Tex. 2021) (Emissions from petrochemical complex’s hurricane preparation did not constitute “act of God” as defense to CAA liability) Text
Sierra Club v. United States DOI, 990 F.3d 909 (5th Cir. 2021) (The USFW’S biological opinion and incidental take statement issued pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was not arbitrary and capricious) Text
Optimus Steel, LLC v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 492 F. Supp. 3d 701 (E.D. Tex. 2020) (Challenge that the Corps violated the CWA, ESA, NEPA, and APA requires a demonstration of significant environmental impact) Text
Gen. Land Office v. United States Dep’t of the Int., 947 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2020 (FWS used incorrect legal standard to deny petition to delist species) Text
Envtl. Integrity Proj. v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 969 F.3d 529 (5th Cir. 2020) (EPA not required to revisit adequacy of CAA permits) Text
Gulf Fishermens Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 968 F.3d 454 (5th Cir. 2020) (MSA does not allow NMFS to regulate aquaculture) Text
Env’t Texas Citizen Lobby, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Corp., 968 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2020) (Standing required for each CAA violation) Text
Sierra Club v. U.S. EPA, 939 F.3d 649 (5th Cir. 2019) (EPA’s approval of best available technology was not arbitrary and capricious under CAA) Text
Clean Water Action v. U.S. EPA, 936 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 2019) (EPA did not violate CWA provisions regarding effluent limitations) Text
Southwestern Elec. Power Co. v. U.S. EPA, 920 F.3d 999 (5th Cir. 2019) (EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in promulgating effluent limitation guidelines) Text
Hollingsworth v. Vilsack, 366 F.Supp.3d 766 (W.D. La. 2018) (Plaintiffs had standing to bring suit under NEPA) Text
U.S. v. Luminant Generation Co., LLC, 905 F.3d 874 (5th Cir. 2018) (Determining when limitations period began to run for government’s CAA claims) Text
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. U.S., 335 F.Supp.3d 889 (S.D. Tex. 2018) (Court would use modify approach to determine allocation of CERCLA costs) Text
U.S. Oil Recovery Site Potentially Responsible Parties Group v. R.R. Comm’n of Texas, 898 F.3d 497 (5th Cir. 2018) (State agencies and university were entitled to sovereign immunity from CERCLA claim) Text
16 Front Street, L.L.C. v. Mississippi Silicon, L.L.C., 886 F.3d 549 (5th Cir. 2018) (Property owner was not authorized to bring claim under CAA citizen suit provision) Text
USOR Site PRP Group v. A & M Contractors, Inc., 275 F.Supp.3d 808 (S.D. Tex. 2017) (City’s operation of wastewater treatment facility gave rise to CERCLA liability) Text
USOR Site PRP Group v. Bealine Service Co., Inc., 262 F.Supp.3d 467 (S.D. Tex. 2017) (Waste transportation company was subject to transporter liability under CERCLA) Text
Texas v. U.S. EPA, 829 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2016) (Plaintiffs were entitled to a stay of final EPA CAA rule controlling regional haze) Text
Env’t Texas Citizen Lobby, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Corp., 824 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2016) (Court abused its discretion in determining penalty for CAA violations) Text
Gulf Restoration Network v. Jackson, 224 F.Supp.3d 470 (E.D. La. 2016) (EPA gave adequate explanation for not making determination about new water quality standard) Text
Town of Abita Springs v. U.S. Army Corps of Engrs., 153 F.Supp.3d 894 (E.D. La. 2015) (Corps determination of no practicable non-wetland alternatives to build test well on was reasonable) Text
MEMC Pasadena, Inc. v. Goodgames Indus. Sol., LLC, 143 F.Supp.3d 570 (S.D. Tex. 2015) (Environmental waste broke was subject to CERCLA liability) Text
Dune Energy, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 126 F.Supp.3d 688 (E.D. La. 2015) (Claim sufficiently stated under CERCLA) Text
Riverkeeper v. Taylor Energy Co., L.LC., 117 F.Supp.3d 849 (E.D. La. 2015) (Issues of fact existed as to whether energy company violated RCRA) Text
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. U.S., 108 F.Supp.3d 486 (S.D. Tex. 2015) (Government and company had previous “operate” site for purposes of CERCLA) Text
In re Deepwater Horizon, 753 F.3d 570 (5th Cir. 2014) (Owners of offshore oil well were subject to CWA penalties for discharge of oil into Gulf of Mexico) Text
Louisiana Dep’t of Envtl. Quality v. U.S. EPA, 730 F.3d 446 (5th Cir. 2013) (EPA objection to CAA permits issued by the state was not a final action subject to judicial review) Text
Zen-Noh Grain Corp. v. Jackson, 943 F.Supp.2d 657 (E.D. La. 2013) (Action to compel EPA to revoke permits did not fall within scope of CAA’s waiver of sovereign immunity) Text
Aransas Project v. Shaw, 930 F.Supp.2d 716 (S.D. Tex. 2013) (Failure of state agency to properly manage freshwater flows into bay caused unlawful take under ESA) Text
Sierra Club v. Energy Future Holdings Corp., 921 F.Supp.2d 674 (W.D. Tex. 2013) (Notice letter to coal plant sufficiently alleged CAA violation dates) Text
Texas v. U.S. EPA, 690 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2012) (EPA arbitrarily rejected Texas’s revised CAA plan) Text
Luminant Generation Co., L.L.C. v. U.S. EPA, 675 F.3d 917 (EPA’s disapproval of Texas’s pollution control projects under CAA was arbitrary and capricious) Text
Atchafalaya Basinkeeper v. Chustz, 682 F.3d 356 (5th Cir. 2012) (CWA does not allow citizens to sue to enforce conditions of permits for discharge of dredged or fill material) Text
Bd. of Mississippi Levee Comm’rs v. U.S. EPA, 674 F.3d 409 (5th Cir. 2012) (Flood control project not within CWA exemption from regulation) Text
U.S. v. Brink 795 F.Supp.2d 565 (S.D. Tex. 2011) (Landowners deposited fill material into creek without a discharge permit) Text
Board of Mississippi Levee Comm’rs v. U.S. EPA, 785 F.Supp.2d 592 (N.D. Miss. 2011) (Flood control project not exempt from CWA regulation) Text
The Aransas Project v. Shaw, No. C-10-75, 2010 WL 2522415 (S.D. Tex. June 17, 2010) (Endangered Species Act challenge) Text
United States v. Lucas, 516 F.3d 316 (5th Cir. 2008) (discharges by septic tank into wetlands) Text
C.C. Prine v. BASF Corp., Civil Action No. 06-0966, 2006 WL 2294822 (M.D. La. 2006) (FIFRA) Text
Morgan v. Powe Timber Co., 367 F.Supp. 2d 1032 (S.D. Miss. 2005) (injuries from pesticide use) Text
W. Tex. Agriplex v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., No. Civ.A. 5:03-CV-199-C, 2004 WL 1515122 (N.D. Tex. 2004) (fertilizer dealer liability) Text
Fanguy v. Eastover Country Club L.L.C., No. Civ.A. 01-3778, 2002 WL 1888901 (E.D. La.) (toxic tort)
Shields v. Norton, 289 F.3d 832 (5th Cir. 2002) (action to declare ESA taking provision unconstitutional not ripe for judicial review). Text
Agrosciences v. Bates, No. CIV.A. 5:01-CV-331-C, 2002 WL 1205143 (N.D. Tex. 2002) (FIFRA; procedural ruling) Text
Sierra Club v. Glickman, 156 F.3d 606 (5th Cir. 1998) (aquifer-dependent species). Text
SIXTH CIRCUIT
Counts v. GM, LLC, 681 F. Supp. 3d 778 (E.D. Mich. 2023) (Plaintiffs’ claims regarding emissions cheating devices in GM vehicles dismissed due to preemption by the CAA, interfering with the EPA’s authority and regulatory scheme.)
MRP Props. Co., LLC v. United States, 72 F.4th 166 (6th Cir. 2023) (The United States was not a refinery operator under CERCLA during World War II because the refineries, rather than the government, made management decisions regarding waste disposal.) Text
S. Side Quarry, LLC v. Louisville & Jefferson Metropolitan Sewer Dist., 28 F.4th 684 (6thCir. 2022) (Flow of creek into quarry and back into creek pursuant to sewer district’s flood control plan was not a “discharge” which required Kentucky Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit; diversion channel was not a “water transfer” under EPA) Text
Pub. Emp. For Envtl. Responsibility v. Bright, No. 3:18-CV-13 TAV, 2021 WL 1220928 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 31, 2021) (seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against Commissioner of Tennessee DOT for violations of permits issued pursuant to CWA) Text
In re Flint Water Cases, No. 5:16-cv-10444 JEL, 2021 WL 5237198 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 10, 2021) (regarding final approval of settlement in class action for alleged exposure to city’s contaminated water supply)
FIP Realty Co., Ltd. V. Ingersoll-Rand PLC, 522 F.Supp.3d 335 (S.D. Ohio 2021) (Agreement between Ohio EPA and property owner was sufficient to allow owner to pursue a contribution claim under CERCLA) Text
Cox v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Franklin Cnty., No. 2:18-cv-1631, 2021 WL 2042629 (S.D. Ohio May 21, 2021) (Citizen suit under CWA alleging discharges of sewage into numerous waterways)
Kentucky Waterways Alliance v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 539 F.Supp.3d 696 (E.D. Ky. 2021) (Court could not conclude that coal ash from power plant presented imminent and substantial endangerment to health or environment) Text
Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Sec. of the United States Dep’t of Transp., 960 F.3d 872 (6th Cir. 2020) (Agency NEPA obligations were not triggered) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Serv., 444 F.Supp.3d 832 (S.D. Ohio March 13, 2020) (Agencies failed to meaningfully discuss environmental impacts) Text
Ward v. Stucke, No. 3:18-CV-00263, 2019 WL 3350161 (S.D. Ohio July 24, 2019) (Wetlands were navigable water subject to CWA jurisdiction) Text
Ohio ex rel. DeWine v. Breen, 362 F.Supp.3d 420 (S.D. Ohio 2019) (Owners and operators of extermination company were liable under CERCLA) Text
Envtl. Law and Policy Ctr. V. U.S. EPA, 349 F.Supp.3d 703 (N.D. Ohio 2018) (EPA approval of state impaired waters list was not final agency action) Text
Kentucky Waterways All. v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 905 F.3d 925 (6th Cir. 2018) (No CWA liability for pollution that reaches surface water via groundwater) Text
Tennessee Clean Water Network v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 905 F.3d 436 (6th Cir. 2018) (CWA did not prohibit discharge of pollutants to groundwater that connect to navigable waterway) Text
Hobart Corp. v. Dayton Power & Light Co., 336 F.Supp.3d 888 (S.D. Ohio 2018) (Plaintiffs’ contribution claim constituted a civil action under CERCLA) Text
Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP v. NCR Corp., 358 F.Supp.3d 613 (W.D. Mich. 2018) (Fact that owner received insurance payments to help cover liability costs did not preclude owner’s recovery of cleanup costs under CERCLA) Text
Little Traverse Lake Prop. Owners Ass’n v. Nat’l Park Serv., 883 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2018) (Residents failed to preserve NEPA claims against NPS) Text
Kentucky Waterways All. v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 303 F.Supp.3d 530 (E.D. Ky. 2017) (Discharge of pollutants into groundwater that connected to navigable water was not subject to CWA permitting requirement) Text
Tennessee Clean Water Network v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 273 F.Supp.3d 775 (M.D. Tenn. 2017) (Active ash pond complex violated CWA) Text
U.S. v. DTE Energy Corp., 845 F.3d 735 (6th Cir. 2017) (Operator of coal-fired plan subject to enforcement for failure to comply with CAA) Text
Little Traverse Lake Prop. Owners Ass’n v. Nat’l Park Serv., 223 F.Supp.3d 691 (W.D. Mich. 2016) (Plaintiffs waived their objections to NEPA document prepared by NPS) Text
Sherwood v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 842 F.3d 400 (6th Cir. 2016) (Property owners’ NEPA claim was not moot) Text
Tennessee Clean Water Network v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 206 F.Supp.3d 1280 (M.D. Tenn. 2016) (NPDES permit did not extend to any and all types of coal ash seepage) Text
Sierra Club v. U.S. Forest Serv., 828 F.3d 402 (6th Cir. 2016) (EIS was not required for renewal of special use permit for oil pipeline) Text
In re U.S. Dep’t of Defense, U.S. EPA Final Rule: Clean Water Rule: Definition of Waters of U.S., 817 F.3d 261 (6th Cir. 2016) (Final WOTUS definition rule was subject to direct circuit court review) Text
Merrick v. Diageo Americas Supply, Inc., 805 F.3d 685 (6th Cir. 2015) (CAA did not preempt property owners’ common law claims) Text
Kentucky Coal Ass’n, Inc. v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 804 F.3d 799 (6th Cir. 2015) (Agency acted within its discretion in preparing NEPA documents) Text
Elmer v. S.H. Bell Co., 127 F.Supp.3d 812 (N.D. Ohio 2015) (Residents’ state law claims were not preempted by CAA) Text
Sierra Club v. U.S. EPA,793 F.3d 656 (6th Cir. 2015) (EPA could not approve SIP that did not provide for implementation of certain CAA requirements) Text
St. Marys Cement Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 782 F.3d 280 (6th Cir. 2015) (EPA determination that cement plant was required under CAA to install new technology was reasonable) Text
Kentucky Coal Ass’n, Inc. v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 68 F.Supp.3d 703 (W.D. Ky. 2015) (TVA’s issuance of FONSI pursuant to NEPA was reasonable) Text
In re EPA, 803 F.3d 804 (6th Cir. 2015) (Stay of enforcement of Clean Water Rule was reasonable) Text
Partners in Forestry Co-op. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 45 F.Supp.3d 677 (W.D. Mich. 2014) (Forest Service did not violate NEPA in determining proposed plan would have no significant consequences) Text
Tennessee Envtl. Council v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 32 F.Supp.3d 876 (E.D. Tenn. 2014) (Agency’s decision not to issue EIS was reasonable) Text
Latin Americans for Social and Economic Dev. V. Adm’r of Federal Highway Admin., 756 F.3d 477 (Decision to have bridge between US and Canada be owned by government did not violate NEPA) Text
Klein v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 753 F.3d 576 (6th Cir. 2014) (Agency issuance of FONSI was not arbitrary or capricious) Text
Merrick v. Diageo Americas Supply, Inc., 5 F.Supp.3d 865 (W.D. Ky. 2014) (CAA did not preempt tort law claims) Text
Kentuckians for the Commonwealth v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 746 F.3d 698 (6th Cir. 2014) (Corps did not violate NEPA in decided to issue dredge and fill permit) Text
Kentuckians for the Commonwealth v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 963 F.Supp.2d 670 (W.D. Ky. 2013) (Corps complied with federal law in approving CWA permit) Text
Coal. for Advancement of Regional Transp. V. Federal Highway Admin, 959 F.Supp.2d 982 (W.D. Ky. 2013) (Two proposed bridge projects were connected actions that could be considered under one NEPA document) Text
Kentucky Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Rowlette, 714 F.3d 402 (6th Cir. 2013) (Agency reauthorization of nationwide coal-mining waste-discharge permit was arbitrary and capricious) Text
U.S. v. DTE Energy Co., 711 F.3d 643 (6th Cir. 2013) (Preconstruction projection was subject to review to determine compliance with CAA regulations) Text
Summit Petroleum Corp. v. U.S. EPA, 690 F.3d 733 (6th Cir. 2012) (EPA’s interpretation of CAA undermined the plaint meaning of the text) Text
Sierra Club v. Korleski, 681 F.3d 342 (6th Cir. 2012) (CAA’s citizen suit provision did not permit citizen suits against state regulators) Text
500 Assoc., Inc. v. Vermont American Corp., 768 F.Supp.2d 914 (W.D. Ky. 2011) (Purchaser could not recover clean up costs from former owner under CERCLA) Text
Meister v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 623 F.3d 363 (6th Cir. 2010) (challenge to revised management plan for forests involving snowmobile use and cross-country skiing) Text
Lozar v. Birds Eye Food, Inc., No. 1:09-cv-10, 2010 WL 2231831 (W.D. Mich. June 1, 2010) (claims of violations of RCRA and CERCLA) Text
Lozar v. Birds Eye Food, Inc., No. 1:09-cv-10, 2009 WL 5196154 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 22, 2009) (claims of violations of RCRA and CERCLA) Text
Nat’l Cotton Council of Am. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 553 F.3d 927 (6th Cir. 2009) (exemption of pesticides from the Clean Water Act) Text
Kentucky Waterways Alliance v. Johnson, 426 F.Supp.2d 612 (W.D. Ky. 2006) (EPA sued for approval of CWA rules) Text
Tungett v. Papierski, No. 3:05-CV-289, 2006 WL 51148 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 10, 2006) (subject matter over citizen suits) Text
Johnson County Citizen Committee for Clean Air and Water v. EPA, No. 3:05-0222, 2005 WL 2204953 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 9, 2005) (state NPDES permit)
Perry v. Se. Boll Weevil Eradication Found., 154 F. App’x 467 (6th Cir. 2005) (spraying insecticide as “taking”)
Am. Canoe Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Louisa Water & Sewer Comm’n, 389 F.3d 536 (6th Cir. 2004) (standing to bring citizen suit) Text
Sierra Club, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 299 F.Supp.2d 693 (W.D. Ky. 2003) (definition of “facility” under CERCLA) Text
SEVENTH CIRCUIT
Protect Our Parks, Inc. v. Buttigieg, 97 F.4th 1077 (7th Cir. 2024) (Defendants did not violate NEPA when the environmental assessment of the construction of the proposed presidential center took the necessary hard look at the likely environmental impact before reaching a decision.) Text
Barclay Lofts LLC v. PPG, Inc., No. 20-CV-1694 JPS, 2022 WL 1658715 (E.D. Wis. May 25, 2022) (related to recovery under CERCLA and RCRA for relief arising from historical environmental contamination of a property) Text
Safe Skies Clean Water Wisconsin, Inc. v. Nat’l Guard Bureau, No. 20-cv-1086-wmc, 2022 WL 43493 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 5, 2022) (National Guard Bureau and its chief did not violate NEPA by relying on environmental assessment rather than preparing environmental impact statement) Text
Liebhart v. SPX Corp., No. 20-cv-205 JDP, 2022 WL 1202503 (W.D. Wis. June 3, 2022) (claims under the RCRA and Toxic Substances Control Act for alleged PCB contamination from a demolition site adjacent to the plaintiff’s property) Text
Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, No. 20-cv-00443 DWD, 2022 WL 195332 (S.D. Ill. Jan. 22, 2022) (Corps of Engineers followed appropriate procedure with river project) Text
Millman v. Ratheon Technologies Corp., No. 1;16-CV-312 HAB, 2021 WL 3260097 (N.D. Ind. July 30, 2021) (denying request for separate juries for plaintiffs because of differences in injuries and exposure related to RCRA) Text
Hoosier Envtl. Council v. Natural Prairie Indiana Farmland Holdings, LLC, 564 F.Supp.3d 683 (N.D. Ind. 2021) (CWA jurisdictional decision by Army Corps of Engineers that did not follow Corps’ own guidance was arbitrary and capricious) Text
Trex Properties, LLC v. Able Electropolishing Co., Inc., No. 20 C 4159, 2021 WL 5033467 (N.D. Ill.May 3, 2021) (defendant’s motion to dismiss denied in CERCLA case against entities who allegedly disposed of hazardous materials at plaintiff’s facility prior to ownership change)
Schmucker v. Johnson Controls, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-1593 JD (N.D. Ind. Aug. 10, 2020) (RCRA citizen suit) Text
People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Wildlife in Need and Wildlife in Deed, Inc., No. 4:17-cv-00186-RLY-DML (S.D. Ind. Aug. 3, 2020) (Declawing of animals at exotic zoo violated ESA) Text
Sauk Prairie Conservation All. v. United States Dep’t of the Int., 944 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2019) (NPS not required to prepare EIS) Text
Haber Land Co. Ltd. V. American Steel City Indus. Leasing, Inc., 388 F.Supp.3d 1050 (S.D. Ind. 2019) (Purchaser of farmland sufficiently stated claim under CERCLA) Text
LAJIM, LLC v. Gen. Elec. Co., 917 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2019) (District court had discretion to award injunctive relief under RCRA) Text
Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. U.S. EPA, 360 F.Supp.3d 847 (E.D. Wis. 2018) (CWA citizen suit provision does not waive sovereign immunity of Corps) Text
Prairie Rivers Network v. Dynergy Midwest Generation, LLC, 350 F.Supp.3d 697 (C.D. Ill. 2018) (CWA did not apply to discharges of pollutants into groundwater) Text
Highway J Citizens Group v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 891 F.3d 697 (7th Cir. 2018) (EIS was not required for proposed renovation of highway) Text
Clean Harbor Serv., Inc. v. Illinois Int’l, Port District, 309 F.Supp.3d 556 (N.D. Ill. 2018) (Waste processor established standing to allege violations of RCRA permit) Text
Orchard Hill Bldg. Co. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 893 F.3d 1017 (7th Cir. 2018) (Corps failed to give evidence that wetlands were jurisdictional WOTUS) Text
In re Syngenta Mass Tort Actions, 272 F.Supp.3d 1074 (S.D. Ill. 2017) (Failure to warn claim asserted against biotechnology companies was preempted by FIFRA) Text
City of Evanston v. Northern Illinois Gas Co., 229 F.Supp.3d 714 (N.D. Ill. 2017) (Municipality stated endangerment claim under RCRA) Text
Citizens for Appropriate Rural Roads v. Foxx, 815 F.3d 1068 (7th Cir. 2016) (SEIS was not required for interstate highway extension project) Text
Northern Illinois Gas Co. v. City of Evanston, Illinois, 162 F.Supp.3d 654 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (Methane gas did not meet definition of solid waste under RCRA) Text
U.S. v. Gearing, 141 F.Supp.3d 920 (C.D. Ill. 2015) (EPA’s demand to enter onto property was reasonable under CERCLA) Text
Northern States Power Co. v. City of Ashland, Wis., 131 F.Supp.3d 802 (W.D. Wis. 2015) (City that did not contribute to contamination did not have to contribute to CERCLA cleanup costs) Text
Indiana v. EPA, 796 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2015) (EPA did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in approving Illinois’s SIP) Text
Openlands v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 124 F.Supp.3d 796 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (EIS violated NEPA) Text
Hamrick v. Gen. Serv. Admin., 107 F.Supp.3d 910 (C.D. Ill. 2015) (Defendant violated NEPA) Text
Quad Cities Waterkeeper v. Ballegeer, 84 F.Supp.3d 848 (C.D. Ill. 2015) (Pollutants discharge violated CWA) Text
Northern States Power Co. v. City of Ashland, Wis., 93 F.Supp.3d 958 (W.D. Wis. 2015) (Soil extraction and groundwater cleanup was remedial action under CERCLA) Text
Stillwater of Crown Point Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc. v. Stiglich, 999 F.Supp.2d 1111 (N.D. Ind. 2014) (Property development companies’ managing director personally liable for CWA violations) Text
Wisconsin Res. Protection Council v. Flambeau Min. Co., 727 F.3d 700 (7th Cir. 2013) (Mining company not liable under CWA) Text
U.S. v. Midwest Generation, LLC, 720 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2013) (Alleged CAA violations were not continuing violations) Text
Milwaukee Inner-City Congregations Allied for Hope v. Gottlieb, 944 F.Supp.2d 656 (W.D. Wis. 2013) (Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on NEPA claim) Text
Frey v. U.S. EPA, 937 F.Supp.2d 964 (S.D. Ind. 2013) (EPA satisfied CERCLA mandate to protect public health) Text
U.S. v. NCR Corp. 688 F.3d 833 (7th Cir. 2012) (Potentially responsible party under CERCLA failed to prove the harm was capable of apportionment) Text
Emergency Serv. Billing Corp., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 668 F.3d 459 (7th Cir. 2012) (Motor vehicles owned for personal use were not facilities for purposes of CERCLA) Text
Stillwater of Crown Point Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc. v. Kovich, 820 F.Supp.2d 859 (N.D. Ind. 2011) (Ditch and wetlands were navigable waters under CWA) Text
Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Jackson, 650 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2011) (State implantation plan program did not violate CAA) Text
Habitat Educ. Ctr. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 680 F.Supp.2d 996 (E.D. Wis. 2010) (compliance with NEPA) Text
Habitat Educ. Ctr. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 680 F.Supp.2d 1007 (E.D. Wis. 2010) (compliance with NEPA) Text
Nat’l Pork Producers Council v. Jackson, 638 F.Supp.2d 1020 (W.D. Wis. 2009) (EPCRA reporting requirements in agriculture; dismissal of claim as not justiciable) Text
Nature Conservancy v. Wilder Corp. of Del., No. 06-1096, 2009 WL 1492177 (C.D. Ill. May 28, 2009) (seller liable under purchase agreement to clean up lagoons, petroleum tanks, and other trash) Text
Habitat Educ. Ctr., Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 593 F.Supp.2d 1019 (E.D. Wis. 2009) (no violations of NEPA and National Forest Management Act) Text
Croplife Am., Inc. v. City of Madison, 373 F.Supp. 2d 905 (W.D. Wis. 2005) (constitutionality of county fertilizer ordinances) Text
Test Drilling Service Co. v. Hanor Co., 322 F.Supp.2d 965 (C.D. Ill. 2004) (property damage) Text
Greenfield Mills, Inc. v. Macklin, 361 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2004) (§ 404 permit) Text
LeVake v. Zawistowski, No. 02-C-0657-C, 2003 WL 23200367 (W.D. Wis. 2003) (pesticide overspray)
Save The Valley, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A., 223 F.Supp.2d 997 (S.D.Ind. 2002) (implementation of CWA)
In re StarLink Corn Prod. Liab. Litig., 212 F.Supp. 2d 828 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (GMO) July 11, 2002
EIGHTH CIRCUIT
United States v. Ameren Missouri, 9 F.4th 989 (8th Cir. 2021) (action against power company for undertaking major modifications of coal power plant without obtaining requisite permits) Text
Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa v. Wheeler, 519 F.Supp.3d 549 (D. Minn. 2021) (EPA required to make a determination about whether discharge affected water belonging to Chippewa Nation) Text
Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota v. United States, 340 F.R.D. 293 (D. Minn 2021) (documents created by environmental firms were subject to work-product privilege in CERCLA action by government)
Mandan v. United States Dep’t of the Interior, No. 1:19-cv-0037, 2021 WL 8322489 (D. N.D. Feb. 22, 2021) (BLM’s approval of applications to drill in this case was not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise in violation of law)
Voigt v. Coyote Creek Mining Co., LLC, 980 F.3d 1191 (8th Cir. 2020) (Deference was warranted to State’s decision to issue CAA permit) Text
POET Biorefining – Hudson, LLC v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 971 F.3d 802 (8th Cir. 2020) (Controversy over EPA denial of renewable fuels application) Text
Garrison v. New Fashion Pork LLP, 449 F.Supp.3d 863 (N.D. Iowa March, 27, 2020) (Owner of AFO did not violate RCRA) Text
Lakes and Parks All. of Minneapolis v. Fed. Transit Admin., 928 F.3d 759 (8th Cir. 2019) (Non-profit corporation did not possess private right of action under NEPA) Text
Kitchin v. Bridgeton Landfill, LLC, 389 F.Supp.3d 600 (E.D. Mo. 2019) (CERCLA did not preempt property owners’ claims) Text
U.S. v. Ameren Missouri, 372 F.Supp.3d 868 (E.D. Mo. 2019) (CAA authorized district court to grant injunctive relief) Text
In re Dicamba Herbicides Litigation, 359 F.Supp.3d 711 (E.D. Mo. 2019) (Farmers’ state law claims were not preempted by FIFRA) Text
Voigt v. Coyote Creek Mining Co., LLC, 329 F.Supp.3d 735 (D. N.D. 2018) (Open storage coal pile not subject to mine’s CAA standards) Text
U.S. v. Dico, Inc., 265 F.Supp.3d 902 (S.D. Iowa) (Sellers of buildings contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls were liable under CERCLA) Text
City of Lake Elmo v. 3M Company, 237 F.Supp.3d 877 (D. Minn. 2017) (City had standing to bring CERCLA claim) Text
Richland/Wilkin Joint Powers Auth. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 826 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 2016) (Power authorities likely to succeed on NEPA claim) Text
Richland/Wilkin Joint Powers Auth. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 176 F.Supp.3d 839 (D. Minn. 2016) (Corps adequately considered alternative plan in preparing EIS) Text
Nat’l Parks Conservation Ass’n v. McCarthy, 816 F.3d 989 (8th Cir. 2016) (EPA’s approval of Minnesota’s regional haze plan was not arbitrary and capricious) Text
Nebraska v. U.S. EPA, 812 F.3d 662 (8th Cir. 2016) (Was within EPA’s statutory authority under CAA to disapprove Nebraska’s regional haze plan) Text
Nat’l Parks Conservation Ass’n v. McCarthy, 811 F.3d 1005 (8th Cir. 2016) (EPA’s decision to approve Minnesota’s haze was not arbitrary or capricious under CAA) Text
U.S. v. Missouri, 158 F.Supp.3d 802 (E.D. Mo. 2016) (Federal definition of “major modification” under CAA preempted state’s definition) Text
North Dakota v. U.S. EPA, 127 F.Supp.3d 1047 (D. N.D. 2015) (States likely to succeed on the merits in action challenging EPA’s WOTUS rule) Text
Lakes and Parks All. of Minneapolis v. Fed. Transit Admin., 91 F.Supp.3d 1105 (D. Minn. 2015) (Plaintiffs had narrow cause of action under NEPA) Text
Hawkes Co., Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 782 F.3d 994 (8th Cir. 2015) (Corps determination that property constituted navigable waters was final decision) Text
Ouachita Watch League v. Henry, 59 F.Supp.3d 922 (E.D. Ark. 2014) (Allegations were sufficient to state NEPA claim) Text
El Dorado Chemical Co. v. U.S. EPA, 763 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2014) (EPA rejection of dissolved minerals water quality criteria was reasonable) Text
North Dakota v. U.S. EPA, 730 F.3d 750 (8th Cir. 2013) (EPA’s disapproval of certain parts of North Dakota’s CAA implementation plan was arbitrary and capricious) Text
Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of Lake Traverse Reservation v. U.S. Corps of Eng’rs, 918 F.Supp.2d 962 (D. S.D. 2013) (Corps’ nationwide permit determinations were subject to judicial review) Text
U.S. v. Huseby, 862 F.Supp.2d 951 (D. Minn. 2012) (Landowner’s activities fell within CWA recapture provision) Text
Minnesota Ctr. for Envtl. Advocacy v. U.S. Forest Serv., 914 F.Supp.2d 957 (D. Minn. 2012) (USFS’s decision not to prepare an EIS was not arbitrary and capricious) Text
Missouri Coal. for the Env’t Found. v. Jackson, 853 F.Supp.2d 903 (W.D. Mo. 2012) (EPA approval of water quality standards not arbitrary and capricious) Text
Friends of the Norbeck v. U.S. Forest Serv., 661 F.3d 969 (8th Cir. 2011) (Plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing NEPA claim) Text
Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 645 F.3d 978 (8th Cir. 2011) (Preliminary injunction necessary to halt activity that violated NEPA and ESA) Text
Friends of the Norbeck and Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 780 F.Supp.2d 975 (D. S.D. 2011) (EIS complied with NEPA) Text
Sierra Club v. Clinton, 746 F.Supp.2d 1025 (D. Minn. 2010) (Not necessary to include assessment of trans-boundary impacts in EIS) Text
Sierra Club v. Kimbell, 623 F.3d 549 (8th Cir. 2010) (USFS complied with NEPA) Text
Yankton Sioux Tribe Head Start Concerned Parents v. Longview Farms, LLP, No. CIV. 08-4058, 2009 WL 891866 (D. S.D. Mar. 31, 2009) (no violations of NEPA and historical preservation act by non-federal entity; no alleged violations of CWA and CAA by farrowing operation) Text
Sierra Club v. Kimbell, 595 F.Supp.2d 1021 (D. Minn. 2009) (review of forest management plant) Text
Avila v. CNH Am., LLC, Nos. 4:04CV3384, 4:07CV3170, 2009 WL 151600 (D. Neb. Jan. 2, 2006) (subsurface contamination) Text
Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Harvey, 574 F.Supp.2d 934 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 8, 2008) (Endangered Species Act violations) Text
Ogeechee-Canoochee Riverkeeper, Inc. v. U.S. EPA, No. 606CV102, 2008 WL 2199369 (S.D. Ga. May 27, 2008) (silviculture exemption to § 404) Text
Thomas v. U.S. EPA, No. C06-0115, 2007 WL 4439483 (N.D. Iowa Dec. 17, 2007) (removal and addition of impaired waterbodies)
United States v. Bailey, 516 F.Supp.2d 998 (D. Minn. 2007) (scope of wetlands protection) Text
K.C.1986 Ltd. P’ship v. Reade Mfg., 472 F.3d 1009 (8th Cir. 2007) (CERCLA) Text
Green Acres Enter., Inc. v. United States, 418 F.3d 852 (8th Cir. 2005) (taking, “incidental fallback”) Text
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy v. U.S. E.P.A, No. CIV03-5450(DWF/SRN), 2005 WL 1490331 (D. Minn. June 23, 2005) (invalidating state TMDL)
Dahlman Farms, Inc. v. FMC Corp., 240 F.Supp. 2d 1012 (D.Minn. 2002) (FIFRA preemption) Text
Mo. Soybean Ass’n v. EPA, 289 F.3d 509 (8th Cir. 2002) (jurisdiction) Text
Netland v. Hess & Clark, Inc., 284 F.3d 895 (8th Cir. 2002) (FIFRA preemption) Text
NINTH CIRCUIT
NRDC v. Haaland, No. 21-15163, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 12409 (9th Cir. May 23, 2024) (The Bureau of Reclamation and FWS complied with their obligations under the ESA to conduct an adequate consultation over whether the renewal of government water supply contracts would likely jeopardize the existence of delta smelt.) Text
Friends of the Inyo v. United States Forest Serv., 103 F.4th 543 (9th Cir. 2024) (Under NEPA, the US Forest Service could not combine categorical exclusions when no single categorical exclusion under would cover a proposed action alone.) Text
Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot Citizen Task Force v. Montana, No. 23-3754, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 9778 (9th Cir. Apr. 23, 2024) (A reasonably certain threat of imminent harm to grizzly bears existed had Montana’s wolf trapping and snaring season proceeded as planned.) Text
Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency v. Whittaker Corp., 99 F.4th 458 (9th Cir. 2024) (A regional water agency was entitled to mandatory declaratory judgment under CERCLA, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting prejudgment interests to costs that the agency was unable to recoup.) Text
Alaska v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., No. 3:22-cv-00249-JMK, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49702 (D. Alaska Mar. 20, 2024) (NMFS provided a reasonable explanation for excluding FWS’s Pacific walrus analysis from its 90-day finding on delisting the Arctic ringed seal.) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Little, No. 1:21-cv-00479-CWD, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49611 (D. Idaho Mar. 19, 2024) (Idaho’s laws and rules permitting recreational wolf trapping and snaring violated the ESA because they pose a reasonably certain risk of take of grizzly bears.) Text
Bang v. Lacamas Shores Homeowners Ass’n, No. 3:21-cv-05834-BJR, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225030 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 18, 2023) (An HOA’s stormwater treatment facility and its outlets were considered point sources under the CWA.) Text
Migrant Clinicians Network v. United States EPA, 88 F.4th 830 (9th Cir. 2023) (The EPA failed to comply with the ESA when it did not evaluate the risk streptomycin posed to pollinators, and the EPA did not fully comply with FIFRA when it failed to include additional data in its pollinator risk assessment.) Text
Earth Island Inst. v. United States Forest Serv., 87 F.4th 1054 (9th Cir. 2023) (The US Forest Service did not violate NEPA when it approved the Three Creeks Project.) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Haaland, 87 F.4th 980 (9th Cir. 2023) (It was rational to conclude that the U.S. Army’s use of water from a river basin would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of northern Mexican garter snakes, given FWS’s biological opinion.)
Idaho Conservation League v. Poe, 86 F.4th 1243 (9th Cir. 2023) (Defendant’s dumping of suction dredge waste was an addition of pollutants requiring a permit under the CWA.) Text
Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic v. BLM, No. 3:23-cv-00058-SLG, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201981 (D. Alaska Nov. 9, 2023) (The Services complied with NEPA and the ESA in their approval of oil and gas leases in Alaska under the Willow Master Development Plan.) Text
Earth Island Inst. v. Muldoon, 82 F.4th 624 (9th Cir. 2023) (An environmental organization’s NEPA challenge to the National Park Service’s approval of projects to thin vegetation in preparation for controlled burns was not likely to prevail because the projects would cause minimal environmental impact and because the agency’s determination was not arbitrary or capricious.) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Forest Serv., No. CV 22-114-M-DWM, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144726 (D. Mont. Aug. 17, 2023) (USFS violated NEPA when it failed to take a hard look at a project’s environmental impacts, and FWS violated ESA when it failed to use the best scientific data available to establish an environmental baseline for the grizzly bear.) Text
City & Cty. of S.F. v. United States EPA, 75 F.4th 1074 (9th Cir. 2023) (The EPA implemented the CWA appropriately when it included narrative prohibitions against violating Water Quality Standards in the Oceanside NPDES permit.) Text
Env’t Prot. Info. Ctr. v. Atta, No. 22-cv-03520-TLT, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237139 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2023) (NMFS violated the ESA when it improperly restricted the action area in its Biological opinion and it violated NEPA when it failed to issue an Environmental Impact Statement regarding the Coho Salmon in the Shasta River.)
Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Jeffries, 72 F.4th 991 (9th Cir. 2023) (The US Forest Service did not violate NEPA in its approval of the Walton Lake Restoration Project.) Text
All. for the Wild Rockies v. Gassmann, 678 F. Supp. 3d 1249 (D. Mont. 2023) (USFS violated the ESA when it failed to analyze cumulative effects of state and private activities on grizzly bears.) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States BLM, 675 F. Supp. 3d 1112 (D. Idaho 2023) (Vacatur of BLM’s Final Environmental Impact Statement regarding an open-pit phosphate mine due to NEPA violations.) Text
Forest Serv. Emps. for Env’t Ethics v. United States Forest Serv., 674 F. Supp. 3d 959 (D. Mont. 2023) (USFS’s discharge of fire retardant into navigable waters without an NPDES permit violates the CWA.) Text
Vincent v. Estate of Beard, 68 F.4th 508 (9th Cir. 2023) (Because there was not sufficient identity of claims, a final judgment resolving a contribution claim under CERCLA between two previous owners did not bar a subsequent property owner from pursuing a CERCLA claim against a prior owner.) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 67 F.4th 1027 (9th Cir. 2023) (FWS’s designation of the northern Santa Rita Mountains as occupied critical habitat for jaguar was arbitrary and capricious because it was based on irrelevant photographs and on a single sighting from a different mountain range.) Text
City of L.A. v. FAA, 63 F.4th 835 (9th Cir. 2023) (The FAA failed to comply with NEPA when there was no showing that the FAA completed its analysis prior to finishing its environmental impact statement, and because the FAA did not take a hard look at noise impacts from replacing a terminal at Bob Hope Airport.) Text
All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cooley, 661 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (D. Mont. 2023) (A supplemental environmental impact statement was warranted because grizzly bears were discovered in the Bitterroot Ecosystem.) Text
Yurok Tribe v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, 654 F. Supp. 3d 941 (N.D. Cal. 2023) (The order prohibiting the Bureau of Reclamation from releasing water from Upper Klamath Lake was preempted by the ESA.) Text
IN RE CLEAN WATER ACT RULEMAKING (We therefore must reverse the district court’s order in its entirety and send this case back on an open record for reconsideration of the EPA’s remand motion) Text
Envtl. Defense Ctr. v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Mgmt., No. 19-55526, 2022 WL 1816515 (9th Cir. June 3, 2022) (state of California and environmental groups alleging violations of NEPA, ESA, and Coastal Zone Management Act in federal oil well proposals) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Fish and Wildlife Serv., 33 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2022) (USFS’s approval of open-pit copper mining operation was arbitrary and capricious)
350 Montana v. Haaland, 29 F.4th 1158 (9th Cir. 2022) (finding of no significant impact for coal mine expansion failed to articulate science-based criteria for significance) Text
Cent. Sierra Envtl. Res. Ctr. v. Stanislaus Nat’l Forest, 30 F.4th 929 (9th Cir. 2022) (environmental groups alleging that nonpoint source runoff from cattle grazing in national forest violated state water quality laws) Text
Los Padres ForestWatch v. United States Forest Serv., 25 F.4th 649 (9th Cir. 2022) (determination that 21-inch trees were generally small diameter timber under roadless area conservation rule was arbitrary and capricious) Text
Friends of Clearwater v. Petrick, No. 2:20-cv-00243 BLW, 2022 WL 622460 (D. Idaho Mar. 2, 2022) (environmental organizations challenged timber harvest and prescribed burning plans under Endangered Species Act, National Forest Management Act, and National Environmental Policy Act) Text
Sawtooth Mountain Ranch LLC v. United States, No. 1:19-cv-00118 CWD, 2022 WL 562612 (D. Idaho Feb. 24, 2022) (Forest Service and Federal Highway Administration’s decisions were not arbitrary and capricious related to environmental concerns of proposed path) Text
Ctr. for Envtl. Health v. Vilsack, No. 18-cv-01763 RS, 2022 WL 658965 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2022) (nonprofit organizations challenge USDA’s withdrawal of the Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices Rule as violation of the Organic Foods Production Act) Text
League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Regan, 996 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. 2021) (EPA’s order denying petition to revoke tolerances for use of chlorypyrifos on food products was arbitrary and capricious) Text
Food & Water Watch v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 20 F.4th 506 (9th Cir. 2021) (NPDES permit for concentrated animal feeding operations in Idaho was arbitrary and capricious) Text
Hardeman v. Monsanto Co., 997 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2021) (State law failure to warn claims were not expressly or impliedly preempted by FIFRA) Text
Ctr. for Cmty. Action and Envtl. Justice v. Fed.l Aviation Administration, 18 F.4th 592 (9th Cir. 2021) (FAA’s use of one study area to evaluate multiple environmental impacts of project was not abrogation of its NEPA responsibility to take “hard look”) Text
Whitewater Draw Natural Res. Conservation Dist. v. Mayorkas, 5 F.4th 997 (9th Cir. 2021) (challenges to immigration policies claiming violations of NEPA in failing to consider environmental impacts) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Fish and Wildlife Serv., 33 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2022) (USFS’s approval of open-pit copper mining operation was arbitrary and capricious)
Trout Unlimited v. Pirzadeh, 1 F.4th 738 (9th Cir. 2021) (environmental challenge of EPA’s withdrawal of its proposed action under CWA to prohibit issuance of dredge-and-fill permits for mine development) Text
Bahr v. Regan, 6 F.4th 1059 (9th Cir. 2021) (EPA did not act arbitrarily or capriciously when it determined there was clear causal relationship between wildfire and city’s exceedances) Text
Sovereign Inupiat for a Living Arctic v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 555 F.Supp.3d 739 (D. Ala. 2021) (environmental organizations challenged proposed oil and gas development plans under NEPA, CWA, and ESA) Text
Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Kernen Constr. Co., No. 4:20-cv-01348 YGR, 2021 WL 1734897 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (action for violations of the CWA by construction company) Text
Earth Island Inst. v. Regan, 553 F.Supp.3d (N.D. Cal. 2021) (EPA’s six-year delay in issuing final rule to encourage development of more effective oil spill mitigation products was unreasonable) Text
Inland Empire Waterkeeper v. Columbia Steel, Inc., No. 8:20-01062-FLA, 2021 WL 4295138 (C.D. Cal. 2021) (Citizen suit alleging claims under CWA for discharge of pollutants into waterways) Text
WildEarth Guardians v. Steele, 545 F.Supp.3d 855 (D. Mont. 2021) (biological opinion violated ESA and was deficient under EPA regarding effect of plans on grizzly bears and bull trout) Text
Envtl. Defense Fund v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 515 F.Supp.3d 1135 (D. Mont. 2021) (final rule stating the agency would generally use only publically available dose-response data was a substantive rule) Text
Hawai’I Wildlife Fund v. Cnty. of Maui, 550 F.Supp.3d 871 (D. Haw. 2021) (County was required to obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for wastewater discharge into ocean) Text
Northwest Envtl. Advocates v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. C20-1362 MJP, 2021 WL 6134785 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 5, 2021) (CWA’s state-led cooperative federalism framework did not support ESA’s denial of petition to issue water quality standards for Washington) Text
Cascade Forest Conservancy v. United States Forest Serv., No. 3:21-CV-5202 RJB, 2021 WL 6062629 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 22, 2021) (Forest Service’s finding that project within national volcanic monument would have localized but minor effects was not arbitrary and capricious) Text
Northwest Envtl. Advocates v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 549 F.Supp.3d 1218 (D. Idaho 2021) (EPA violated CWA by failing to publish and promulgate water quality standard for mercury in Idaho)
Stand Up for California! V. United States Dep’t of Interior, 552 F.Supp.3d 962 (E.D. Cal. 2021) (environmental impact statement was not required since prescribing of secretarial procedures for tribe’s gaming operation was not major federal action) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Forest Serv., 532 F.Supp.3d 846 (D. Arizona 2021) (USFS was not a “contributor” subject to liability under the RCRA for spent ammunition from hunters that contaminated national forest) Text
Northwest Ctr. for Alternatives to Pesticides v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 552 F.Supp.3d 1078 (D. Or. 2021) (Environmental groups alleged NEPA violations in agency’s decision to send law enforcement to quell protests by using large volumes of chemical munitions) Text
Humane Soc’y of the United States v. United States Dep’t of Agric., No. 20-03258 AB, 2021 WL 159 3243 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2021) (alleging APHIS violated NEPA and Administrative Procedure Act in connection with 2015 avian influenza assessment)
Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Higgins, 535 F.Supp.3d 957 (D. Idaho 2021) (U.S. Forest Service’s application of categorical exclusion to project was unlawful) Text
2-Bar Ranch Ltd. P’ship v. United States Forest Serv., 996 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2021) (USFS lawfully applied particular standards for protecting stream habitats from the effects of cattle grazing) Text
United States v. Lucero, 989 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2021) (Clean Water Act requires the government to prove the accused was aware of the discharge of pollutants into water) Text
Or. Nat. Desert Ass’n v. Rose, 845 F. App’x 700 (9th Cir. 2021) (Government violation of NEPA) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt, No. 18-73400 (9th Cir. Dec. 7, 2020) (FWS proposed mitigation measures violated the ESA) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Forest Serv., No. CV-20-00020-TUC-DCB (D. Ariz. Nov. 13, 2020) (FWS failed to consult under ESA) Text
Inst. for Fisheries Res. v. U.S. Food and Drug Admin., No. 16-cv-01574-VC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2020) (FDA failed to consider environmental impact of approval of genetically engineered salmon) Text
All. for Wild Rockies v. Burman, CV 20-22-GF-KLD (D. Mont. Oct. 30, 2020) (Request for declaration that Reclamation violated ESA was moot) Text
Friends of the Bitterroot v. Marten, No. CV 20-19-M-DLC (D. Mont. Sept. 29, 2020) (Agency complied with the forest plan) Text
Chilkat Indian Village of Klunkwan v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., No. 19-35424 (9th Cir. Aug. 28, 2020) (Failure to examine environmental impacts of future project did not violate NEPA) Text
Wildlands Def. v. Bolling, No. 4:19-CV-00245-CWD (D. Idaho Aug. 25, 2020) (USFS decision to apply a categorical exclusion did not violate NEPA) Text
Nat’l Family Farm Coal. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 966 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2020) (EPA required to determine whether effect on environment was “adverse” before determining if effect was “reasonable) Text
City of Oakland v. BP PLC, 969 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (Climate-change public nuisance suit did not raise substantial federal question) Text
California River Watch v. City of Vacaville, No. 2:17-cv-00524-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal. July 20, 2020) (Contaminated drinking water not “solid waste” RCRA) Text
California v. Bernhardt, No. 4:18-cv-05712-YGR (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2020) (BLM failed to take NEPA-required “hard look”) Text
Friends of the Clearwater v. Higgins, No. 2:20-cv-00243-BLW (D. Idaho July 13, 2020) (USFS required to prepare biological assessment before beginning construction for vegetation management project) Text
Crow Indian Tribe v. United States, 965 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2020) (Delisting Yellowstone grizzly bear violated ESA) Text
Northern Alaska Envtl. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 965 F.3d 705 (9th Cir. 2020) (BLM did not violate NEPA by failing to prepare new NEPA analysis) Text
Nat. Res. Defense Council v. Bernhardt, 820 Fed.Appx. 520 (9th Cir. 2020) (NEPA challenge ripe when EIS was promulgated) Text
Sierra Trail Dogs Motorcycle and Recreation Club v. U.S. Forest Serv., 470 F.Supp.3d 1186 (D. Nev. July 6, 2020) (Modification of off-highway vehicle standard was not significant change requiring a SEIS) Text
Hunters v. Marten, No. CV 19-47-M-DLC (D. Mont. July 1, 2020) (Biological opinion violated ESA) Text
Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future v. Wheeler, 469 F.Supp.3d 920 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2020) (EPA CAA duty to perform only by technology-based standards) Text
American Wild Horse Campaign v. Bernhardt, 963 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2020) (BLM not required to draft EIS before implementing wild horse gather plan) Text
Friends of Animals v. Silvey, 820 Fed.Appx. 513 (9th Cir. 2020) (BLM decision not to prepare EIS was not arbitrary and capricious) Text
Coal. to Protect Puget Sound Habitat v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 466 F.Supp.3d 1217 (W.D. Wash. June 11, 2020) (Vacatur of nationwide CWA permit was warranted) Text
Friends of Rapid River v. Probert, 816 Fed.Appx. 59 (9th Cir. 2020) (USFS did not violate the Forest Plan) Text
Demoruelle v. Kurcharski, 463 F.Supp.3d 1107 (D. Haw. May 29, 2020) (Resident has standing under citizen-suit provision of ESA) Text
California v. Bernhardt, 460 F.Supp.3d 875 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2020) (States established standing to bring NEPA claims) Text
Rivers. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 815 Fed.Appx. 107 (9th Cir. 2020) (Biological opinion complied with mandate to use best scientific data) Text
Northern Plains Res. Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 460 F.Supp.3d 1030 (D. Mont. May 11, 2020) (Corps CWA permit partially vacated) Text
Bark. V. United States Forest Serv., 958 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2020) (USFS failed to prepare EIS) Text
Wildearth Guardians v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt, 457 F.Supp.3d 880 (D. Mont. May 1, 2020) (Corps failed to take request “hard look” at environmental impacts in violation of NEPA) Text
Oregon Nat. Desert Ass’n v. United States Forest Serv., 957 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2020) (USFS’s grazing authorizations complied with NFMA) Text
All. for the Wild Rockies v. Marten, 455 F.Supp.3d 956 (D. Mont. April 20, 2020) (Agencies demonstrated that proposed project would not reduce value of lynx critical habitat) Text
Northern Plains Res. Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 454 F.Supp.3d 985 (D. Mont. April 15, 2020) (Corps violated ESA by issuing permit without consultation) Text
Native Ecosystems Council v. Marten, 807 Fed.Appx. 658 (9th Cir. 2020) (USFS decision that no further NEPA procedures were required was warranted) Text
State v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., No. 18-cv-00521-HSG, No. 18-cv-00524-HSG (N.D. Cal. March 27, 2020) (Repeal of rule did not require EIS) Text
Native Ecosystems Council v. Marten, No. CV 18-87-M-DLC (D. Mont. March 26, 2020) (Agency not required to prepare EIS) Text
Native Ecosystems Council v. Erickson, 804 Fed. Appx. 651 (9th Cir. 2020) (Forest Plan amendment supported by best available evidence) Text
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. United States Forest Serv., 443 F.Supp.3d 995 (D. Ala. March 11, 2020) (EIS insufficiently specific to constitute hard look) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Fish and Wildlife Serv., 441 F.Supp.3d 843 (D. Ariz. Feb. 10, 2020) (Critical habitat was properly designated) Text
Native Village of Nuiqsut v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 432 F.Supp.3d 1003 (D. Ala. Jan. 9, 2020) (Issuance of FONNSI was not arbitrary or capricious) Text
Greater Hells Canyon Council v. Stein, 796 Fed. Appx. 396 (9th Cir. 2020) (USFS did not violate NFMA) Text
Cottonwood Envtl. Law Ctr. v. Bernhardt, 796 Fed.Appx. 368 (9th Cir. 2020) (Bison management plan was ongoing federal action that required SEIS) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Ross, No. 4:19-cv-031350KAW (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2019) (Biological Opinion violated ESA) Text
Idaho Conservation League v. U.S. Forest Serv., 429 F.Supp.3d 719 (D. Idaho Dec. 18, 2019) (USFS examination of impacts to groundwater was insufficient) Text
Western Watersheds Project v. Schneider, No. 1:16-CV-83-BLW 2019 WL 5225454 (D. Idaho Oct. 16, 2019) (BLM likely violated NEPA) Text
Swan View Coal. v. Weber, No. 19-35004 2019 WL 3717908 (9th Cir. Aug. 7, 2019) (FWS satisfied all ESA obligations) Text
Western Watersheds Project v. Bernhardt, 392 F.Supp.3d 1225 (D. Or. 2019) (Plaintiffs likely to succeed on claim that BLM violated NEPA) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Ilano, 928 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2019) (USFS action did not require NEPA review) Text
Bark v. U.S. Forest Serv., 393 F.Supp.3d 1043 (D. Or. 2019) (USFS did not violate NEPA by considering only proposed action and no action alternative) Text
WildEarth Guardians v. Provencio, 923 F.3d 655 (9th Cir. 2019) (USFS reasonably determined that EIS was not needed) Text
California v. U.S. EPA, 385 F.Supp.3d 903 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (Plaintiffs entitled to declaratory judgment that EPA violated CAA) Text
Bair v. California State Dep’t of Transp., 385 F.Supp.3d 878 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (CDT violated NEPA) Text
Citizens for Clean Energy v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 384 F.Supp.3d 1264 (D. Mont. 2019) (Government obligated under NEPA to undertake environmental analysis) Text
Upper Missouri Waterkeeper v. U.S. EPA, 377 F.Supp.3d 1156 (D. Mont. 2019) (EPA was arbitrary and capricious in allowing dischargers 17 years to meet standards) Text
Puget Soundkeeper All. v. Total Terminals Int’l, LLC, 371 F.Supp.3d 857 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (Port could be liable for tenant’s discharges) Text
Triumvirate, LLC v. Bernhardt, 367 F.Supp.3d 1011 (D. Alaska 2019) (BLM violated NEPA) Text
WildEarth Guardians v. Jeffries, 370 F.Supp.3d 1208 (D. Or. 2019) (USFS violated ESA and NEPA) Text
Friends of Animals v. Silvey, 353 F.Supp.3d 991 (D. Nev. 2018) (BLM satisfied its obligations under NEPA) Text
Indigenous Envtl. Network v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 347 F.Supp.3d 561 (D. Mont. 2018) (Department of State violated NEPA) Text
Havasupai Tribe v. Provencio, 906 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2018) (USFS’s mineral report did not require preparation of EIS) Text
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. U.S. Forest Serv., 907 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2018) (USFS violated NEPA and NFMA) Text
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Pruitt, 337 F.Supp.3d 989 (W.D. Wash. 2018) (EPA violated CWA by failing to issue TMDLs) Text
Cascadia Wildlands v. Carlton, 341 F.Supp.3d 1195 (D. Or. 2018) (USFS complied with NEPA) Text
Montana Envtl. Info. Ctr. v. Thomas, 902 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2018) (EPA’s interpretation of CAA regulation was reasonable) Text
Indigenous Envtl. Network v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 317 F.Supp.3d 1118 (D. Mont. 2018) (State Department was required to issue supplemental EIS under NEPA) Text
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wheeler, 899 F.3d 814 (9th Cir. 2018) (EPA was obligated to revoke tolerances for use of chlorpyrifos) Text
Los Angeles Waterkeeper v. Pruitt, 320 F.supp.3d 1115 (C.D. Cal. 2018) (EPA interpretation of CWA provision not entitled to deference) Text
Deschutes River All. v. Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 331 F.Supp.3d 1187 (D. Or. 2018) (CWA certification for project did not require strict compliance with state water quality criteria) Text
Native Ecosystems Council v. Erickson, 330 F.Supp.3d 1218 (D. Mont. 2018) (USFS not required to prepare EIS under NEPA) Text
Friends of Wild Swan v. Kehr, 321 F.Supp.3d 1179 (D. Mont. 2018) (USFS properly declined to prepare single EIS for two projects) Text
U.S. v. HVI Cat Canyon, Inc., 314 F.Supp.3d 1049 (C.D. Cal. 2018) (Wetlands had significant nexus with navigable water) Text
Friends of Santa Clara River v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 887 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2018) (Corps did not violate CWA by failing to select least environmentally damaging practicable alternative) Text
North Coast Rivers All. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 313 F.Supp.3d 1199 (E.D. Cal 2018) (Grant of new right to water districts did not trigger EIS requirement) Text
Olympic Forest Coal. v. Coast Seafoods Co., 884 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2018) (CWA permit required for discharging pollutants from non-concentrated aquatic animal production facilities) Text
Native Ecosystems Council v. Marten, 883 F.3d 783 (9th Cir. 2018) (Project’s EIS complied with NEPA) Text
AquAlliance v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 287 F.Supp.3d 969 (E.D. Cal. 2018) (EIS violated NEPA) Text
Hawai’I Wildlife Fund v. Cty. of Maui, 881 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 2018) (County’s discharge of pollutants into groundwater violated CWA) Text
Havasupai Tribe v. Provencio 876 F.3d 1242 (9th Cir. 2017) (EIS was not required under NEPA) Text
Wild Wilderness v. Allen, 871 F.3d 719 (9th Cir. 2017) (USFS did not violate NEPA or NFMA) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Ilano, 261 F.Supp.3d 1063 (E.D. Cal. 2017) (NEPA review did not apply to USFS determination) Text
Montana Envtl. Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Office of Surface Mining, 274 F.Supp.3d 1074 (D. Mont. 2017) (Environmental assessment violated NEPA) Text
All. for the Wild Rockies v. Bradford, 856 F.3d 1238 (9th Cir. 2017) (Barriered roads did not violate NEPA, ESA, or NFMA) Text
Ellis v. Housenger, 252 F.Supp.3d 800 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (EPA decision to convert FIFRA registrations triggered duty to consult under ESA) Text
Western Exploration, LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 250 F.Supp.3d 718 (D. Nev. 2017) (BLM and USFS required to prepare supplemental EIS) Text
Protect Our Communities Found. v. Black, 240 F.Supp.3d 1055 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (EIS satisfied NEPA requirements) Text
Yurok Tribe v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 231 F.Supp.3d 450 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (Plaintiffs established that listed Coho salmon faced irreparable harm as result of increased infection rates.) Text
Ctr. for Envtl. Law and Policy v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 228 F.Supp.3d 1152 (E.D. Wash. 2017) (Hatchery’s discharging pollutants without NPDES permit violated CWA) Text
Great Basin Res. Watch v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 844 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2016) (BLM’s failure to quantify cumulative air impacts of proposed project violated NEPA) Text
Helping Hands Tools v. U.S. EPA, 848 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2016) (EPA did not abuse its discretion under CAA) Text
Japanese Village, LLC v. Fed. Transit Admin., 843 F.3d 445 (9th Cir. 2016) (EIS satisfied NEPA requirements) Text
Friends of Maha’ulepu, Inc. v. Hawai’I Dairy Farms, LLC, 224 F.Supp.3d 1094 (D. Haw. 2016) (Allegations that dairy farm violated CWA) Text
Juliana v. U.S., 217 F.Supp.3d 1224 (D. Or. 2016) (Substantive due process protect a fundamental right to a climate system that sustains human life) Text
Sierra Club v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 840 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2016) (EIS sufficiently addressed significant environmental impacts) Text
Oregon Nat. Dessert Ass’n v. Jewell, 840 F.3d 562 (9th Cir. 2016) (BLM failed to comply with NEPA requirements) Text
Pacificans for a Scenic Coast v. California Dept. of Transp., 204 F.Supp.3d 1075 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (Agency had to reinitiate ESA consultation when it learned of increased risk to listed species.) Text
U.S. v. HVI Cat Canyon, Inc., 213 F.Supp.3d 1249 (C.D. Cal. 2016) (Adjoining shorelines within the meaning of CWA includes the edge of intermittent streams) Text
Bhar v. U.S. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2016) (EPA’s approval of certain SIP provisions was contrary to CAA) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 833 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2016) (BLM not required to issue Incidental Take Statements for plants under ESA) Text
Ctr. for Envtl. Health v. McCarthy, 192 F.Supp.3d 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (EPA was authorized but not obligated to mandate label disclosure of inert pesticide ingredients under FIFRA) Text
Idaho Conservation League v. Bonneville Power Admin., 826 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2016) (Agency decision to revert to fluctuating winter lake levels did not require EIS under NEPA) Text
Oregon Nat. Desert Ass’n v. Jewell, 823 F.3d 1258 (9th Cir. 2016) (BLM failed to adequately assess baseline numbers of sage grouse present at project site as required by NEPA) Text
Hardeman v. Monsanto Co., 216 F.Supp.3d 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (FIFRA did not preempt consumer claim that pesticide manufacturer’s label failed to adequately warn of dangers) Text
Idaho Wool Growers Ass’n v. Vilsack, 816 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2016) (USFS’s failure to consult with agency when making a decision to reduce domestic sheep grazing was harmless under NEPA) Text
Arizona ex rel. Darwin v. U.S. EPA, 815 F.3d 519 (9th Cir. 2016) (EPA determination that Arizona SIP did not comply with CAA was reasonable) Text
Wildlands v. Woodruff, 151 F.Supp.3d 1153 (W.D. Wash. 2015) (Wildlife Services acted arbitrarily by not preparing EIS for proposed action) Text
ONRC Action v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 798 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 2015) (CWA permit not required for water flowing into river from human-made channel) Text
Puget Soundkeeper All. v. Whitley Mfg. Co., Inc., 145 F.Supp.3d 1054 (W.D. Wash. 2015) (Proof that stormwater contained any particular substance not required to establish CWA violation) Text
Lindberg v. U.S. Forest Serv., 132 F.Supp.3d 1255 (D. Or. 2015) (USFS took “hard look” under NEPA) Text
Cascadia Wildlands v. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 801 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2015) (Aggregation of past and foreseeable future actions in considering cumulative impacts permissible under NEPA) Text
Western Watersheds Project v. Lueders, 122 F.Supp.3d 1039 (D. Nev. 2015) (BLM’s environmental assessment contained sufficient discussion of cumulative impacts to satisfy NEPA requirements) Text
California River Watch v. Fluor Corp., 119 F.Supp.3d 1108 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (CERCLA cost recovery action was not time-barred) Text
U.S. v. Roach, 791 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2015) (Business owner subject to criminal liability under RCRA) Text
Building Indus. Ass’n of the Bay Area v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 792 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2015) (NMFS did not have to apply specific methodology when excluding areas from critical habitat under ESA) Text
WildEarth Guardians v. Montana Snowmobile Ass’n, 790 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2015) (EIS failed to comply with NEPA) Text
Oregon Wild v. U.S., 107 F.Supp.3d 1102 (D. Or. 2015) (USFS decision not to prepare EIS was rational) Text
Grand Canyon Trust v. Williams, 98 F.Supp.3d 1044 (D. Ariz. 2015) (Reopening of mining operation did not require new EIS) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. EPA, 90 F.Supp.3d 1177 (W.D. Wash. 2015) (Challenging EPA decision not to identify any water experiencing ocean acidification as impaired under CWA) Text
Cmty. Ass’n for Restoration of the Env’t, Inc. v. Cow Palace, LLC, 80 F.Supp.3d 1180 (E.D. Wash. 2015) (Manure store in commercial dairy’s lagoons was “solid waste” under RCRA) Text
All. for the Wild Rockies v. Austin, 55 F.Supp.3d 1294 (D. Mont. 2014) (USFS did not violated NEPA or NFMA in calculating Canada lynx habitat) Text
Conservation Congress v. Finley, 774 F.3d 611 (9th Cir. 2014) (USFS appropriately considered recovery plan information in assessing logging project’s potential effects on northern spotted owl.) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Skalski, 61 F.Supp.3d 945 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (USFS reasonably concluding no supplemental EIS was needed) Text
Western Watershed Project v. Jewell, 56 F.Supp.3d 1182 (D. Idaho. 2014) (BLM violated NEPA) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 65 F.Supp.3d 742 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (EPA duty to consult under ESA triggered by re-registrations of pesticides) Text
Sierra Club. U.S. EPA, 762 F.ed 971 (9th Cir. 2014) (EPA had to apply CAA standards in effect at time of its permitting decision) Text
All. for Wild Rockies v. Bradford, 35 F.Supp.3d 1246 (D. Mont. 2014) (USFS did not violate NEPA, NFMA, or ESA) Text
Idaho Wool Growers Ass’n v. Vilsack, 7 F.Supp.3d 1085 (Agency properly complied with NEPA) Text
Valley, County, Idaho v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 998 F.Supp.2d 919 (D. Idaho) (EIS violated NEPA) Text
Native Fish Soc. v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 992 F.Supp.2d 1095 (D. Or. 2014) (NMFS violated NEPA by approving a project without preparing an EIS) Text
Hawai’I Wildlife Fund v. Cty. of Maui, 24 F.Supp.3d 980 (D. Haw. 2014) (Failure to obtain NPDES permit violated CWA) Text
Wild Wilderness v. Allen, 12 F.Supp.3d 1309 (D. Or. 2014) (EA prepared pursuant to NEPA considered reasonable range of alternatives) Text
Coppola v. Smith, 982 F.Supp.2d 1133 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (Water systems operator’s operation of well did not establish CERCLA liability) Text
Pace v. Bonham, 5 F.Supp.3d 1127 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (Live fish released into lakes as part of stocking program were not pollutants) Text
Western Watersheds Project v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 971 F.Supp.2d 957 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (BLM’s environmental assessment violated NEPA) Text
Western Watersheds Project v. Abbey, 719 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2013) (BLM’s environmental assessment violated NEPA) Text
Soda Mountain Wilderness Council v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 945 F.Supp.2d 1162 (D. Or. 2013) (BLM did not violate NEPA) Text
Oceana, Inc. v. Bryson, 940 F.Supp.2d 1029 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (NMFS was not required under NEPA to conduct EIS) Text
Cascadia Wildlands v. U.S. Forest Serv., 937 F.Supp.2d 1271 (D. Or. 2013) (NEPA required that USFS prepare EIS for logging project) Text
Central Sierra Envtl. Res. Ctr. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 916 F.Supp.2d 1078 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (EIS prepared by USFS complied with NEPA) Text
California Dump Truck Owners Ass’n v. Nichols, 924 F.Supp.2d 1126 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (EPA’s approval of CAA state implementation plan deprived district court of jurisdiction for preemption challenge to state regulation) Text
Western Watersheds Project v. Salazar, 993 F.Supp.2d 1126 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (Final EIS for solar energy project complied with NEPA) Text
Landwatch v. Connaughton, 905 F.Supp.2d 1192 (D Or. 2012) (USFS violated NEPA by failing to take a “hard look” at water diversion project) Text
Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil, 696 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2012) (CAA displaced federal common law claim) Text
League of Wilderness Defenders/Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. U.S. Forest Serv., 883 F.Supp.2d 979 (D. Or. 2012) (USFS’s cumulative impacts analysis violated NEPA) Text
Pacific Rivers Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 689 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2012) (EIS failed to take hard look at consequences to individual fish species) Text
WildEarth Guardians v. Jackson, 870 F.Supp.2d 847 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (CAA did not mandate EPA to promulgate additional regulation for ozone following revised NAAQS) Text
Northwest Envtl. Advocates v. U.S. EPA, 855 F.Supp.2d 1199 (D. Or. 2012) (EPA required to review state’s nonpoint source provisions) Text
Western Watersheds Project v. Salazar, 843 F.Supp.2d 1105 (D. Idaho 2012) (BLM decision to renew grazing permits violated FLPMA) Text
Ass’n of Irritated Residents v. U.S. EPA, 686 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2012) (EPA did not have unlimited discretion under CAA to ignore evidence that a state implementation plan might be inadequate) Text
Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack, 844 F.Supp.2d 1006 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (Agency complied with NEPA in deregulating genetically engineered alfalfa) Text
Washington Envtl. Council v. Sturdevant, 834 F.Supp.2d 1209 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (CAA did not prevent state from regulating greenhouse gases) Text
Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd., 832 F.Supp.2d (E.D. Wash. 2011) (State of Washington was not liable for clean up costs under CERCLA) Text
Ctr. for Envtl. Law and Policy v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 655 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2011) (Bureau of Reclamation complied with NEPA by adequately discussing cumulative impacts in EIS) Text
Hinds Investments, L.P. v. Angioli, 654 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2011) (Owners failed to allege that manufacturers had enough control over hazardous waste to establish RCRA claim) Text
Earth Island Inst. v. Gibson, 834 F.Supp.2d 979 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (USFS complied with NEPA) Text
Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. 10-17719, 2011 WL 676187 (9th Cir. Feb 25, 2011) (organic seed business owners did not demonstrate that herbicide-resistant sugar beets posed likelihood of genetic contamination)
Family Farm Alliance v. Salazar, No. 1:09-CV-01201 OWW, 2010 WL 4323058 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2010) (farmer action against Fish and Wildlife Service regarding threatened Delta smelt) Text
W. Watersheds Proj. v. Interior Bd. of Land Appeals, No. 09-35708, 2010 WL 3960577 (9th Cir. Oct. 12, 2010) (group challenging grazing permits issued by Bureau of Land Management not eligible for fees under Equal Access to Justice Act) Text
Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. Grantham, No. 2:10-cv-02350-GEB-CMK, 2010 WL 3958640 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2010) (challenge to U.S. Forest Service’s Panther Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project)
Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2010) (preliminary injunction against U.S. Forest Service relating to logging project and timber sales granted) Text
League of Wilderness Defenders Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Allen, 615 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2010) (use of commercial logging to reduce risk from fire and disease) Text
Ctr. For Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. C 10-04038, 2010 WL 3835699 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2010) (motions for intervention in sugar beet matter by Monsanto and Betaseed granted in part; attack on plaintiff’s standing overruled)
Conservation Congress v. U.S. Forest Serv., No. CIV. S-07-2764 LKK/KJM, 2010 WL 3636142 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2010) (challenge to Forest Service’s vegetation management project dismissed) Text
W. Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink, 620 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2010) (challenge to changes in nationwide grazing regulations on federal lands) Text
City of Emeryville v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2010) (action by pesticide manufacturer to enforce settlement involving contamination clean-up) Text
Hapner v. Tidwell, 621 F.3d 1239 (9th Cir. 2010) (challenge to approval of commercial logging of national forest) Text
Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., No. 08-01927, 2010 WL 3222183 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2010) (alleged violation of Endangered Species Act for promulgations of rules)
N. California River Watch v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. C 10-0534 PJH, 2010 WL 3184324 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2010) (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act)
W. Watersheds Project v. Rosenkrance, No. CV 09-365-E-BLW, 2010 WL 3522244 (D. Idaho July 29, 2010) (issuance of grazing permit by BLM was arbitrary and capricious) Text
Grand Canyon Trust v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, CV-07-8164-PHX-DGC, 2010 WL 2643537 (D. Ariz. June 29, 2010) (Endangered Species Act) Text
Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Goldstene, — F.Supp.2d —-, 2010 WL 2490999 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (challenge to Global Warming Solutions Act) Text
Oregon Natural Desert Ass’n v. Tidwell, — F.Supp.2d —-, 2010 WL 2246419 (D. Or. 2010) (challenge under the ESA and NFMA for grazing permits) Text
Adam Bros. Farming, Inc. v. County of Santa Barbara, 604 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2010) (challenge to wetland delineation as a taking) Text
Ctr. For Biological Diversity v. E.P.A., No. C07-02794 JCS, 2010 WL 2143658 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2010) (pesticide did not have an effects determination under Endangered Species Act)
Western Watersheds Project v. U.S. Forest Service, No. 09-0629-E-BLW, 2010 WL 1816254 (D. Idaho May 04, 2010) (failure to follow NEPA for noxious weeds and global warming) Text
Wild Fish Conservancy v. EPA, No. C08-0156-JCC, 2010 WL 1734850 (W.D. Wash. April 28, 2010) (challenge to state regulations exempting salmon farms) Text
Native Ecosystems Council v. Tidwell, 599 F.3d 926, 2010 WL 843761 (9th Cir. 2010) (failure to comply with NEPA in updating grazing allotments) Text
Sierra Club v. Johnson, No. C 08-01409 WHA, 2010 WL 147951 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2010) (attorneys fees under CERCLA)
Glasser Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., No. 08-35764, 2009 WL 5184208 (9th Cir. Dec. 28, 2009) (incidental take permit for salmon hatchery) Text
Family Farm Alliance v. Salazar, Nos. 1:09-CV-00407 OWW DLB, 1:09-CV-01201 OWW DLB, 2009 WL 4716050 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2009) (biological opinion under ESA)
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Lubchenco, No. C-09-4087 EDL, 2009 WL 4545169 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2009) (listing animal under ESA)
In re Delta Smelt Consol. Cases, — F.Supp.2d —, 2009 WL 3823934 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (biological opinion for delta smelt) Text
In re Delta Smelt Consolidated Cases, 663 F.Supp.2d 922 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (ESA standing) Text
Cent. Delta Water Agency v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 653 F.Supp.2d 1066 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (standing to bring NEPA claim) Text
California ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 575 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2009) (NEPA economic analysis and ESA consultation required before removing roadless rule in national forests) Text
Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Larson, 641 F.Supp.2d 1120 (D. Idaho 2009) (No violations of NEPA in allowing phosphate mining to expand) Text
Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 632 F.Supp.2d 968, 2009 WL 1883728 (violation of NEPA and ESA in promulgating forest management plans) Text
Ctr. For Biological Diversity v. Wagner, No. 08-302-CL, 2009 WL 2176049 (D. Or. June 20, 2009) (claim that decision to allow grazing violated NEPA)
Geertson Seed Farms v. Johanns, 570 F.3d 1130, (9th Cir. 2009) (upholding injunction for not complying with NEPA) Text
Ctr. For Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 623 F.Supp.2d 1044 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (violations of the ESA) Text
Grand Canyon Trust v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 623 F.Supp.2d 1015 (D. Ariz. 2009) (operation of dam does not violated the ESA) Text
Wildearth Guardians v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., No. 2:07-cv-00837 CW, 2009 WL 1078600 (D. Utah Apr. 22, 2009) (challenging permit to take endangered prairie dogs) Text
Adams v. United States, No. 03-0049-E-BLW, 2009 WL 1034762 (D. Idaho Apr. 16, 2009) (testimony on compliance with NEPA) Text
W. Watersheds Project v. Dryer, Nos. CV-04-181-S-BLW, CV-02-521-S-BLW, 2009 WL 484438 (D. Idaho Feb. 26, 2009) (grazing permits; Endangered Species Act violations)
Sierra Forest Legacy v. U.S. Forest Serv., 598 F.Supp.2d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (claim management plan violated NEPA and ESA) Text
Bark v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., No. CV 07-1536-MO, 2009 WL 279087 (D. Or. Feb. 5, 2009) (no NEPA violations by BLM in opening up area for logging) Text
Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Kimbell, No. 06-36013, 2009 WL 141376 (9th Cir. Jan. 21, 2009) (no violation of NEPA)
Silver Dollar Grazing Ass’n v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., No. 07-35612, 2009 WL 166924 (9th Cir. Jan. 13, 2009) (grazing management plan did not violate NEPA)
Cent. Mont. Wildlands Ass’n v. Kimball, No. 06-35938, 2009 WL 117851 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2009) (no violations of NEPA by Forest Service)
League of Wilderness Defenders v. U.S. Forest Serv., 549 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2008) (NEPA violation in approving selective logging program) Text
Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., Nos. C 05-1144 PJH, C 04-4512 PJH, 2008 WL 5210945 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2008) (attorney’s fees under ESA)
Greater Yellowstone Coal. v. Timchak, No. CV-08-388-E-MHW, 2008 WL 4911410 (D. Idaho Nov. 13, 2008) (violations of NEPA in expansion of phosphorus mine) Text
Western Watersheds Projects v. U.S. Forest Serv., No. C 08-1460 PJH, 2008 WL 2952837 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2008) (denial of intervention; NEPA violations in grazing permits)
Our Children’s Earth Found. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 527 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2008) (technology based standards) Text
Cloud Found., Inc. v. Kempthrone, 546 F.Supp.2d 1003 (D. Mont. 2008) (statute of limitations to challenge forest plant; no violations of Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act) Text
W. Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink, 538 F.Supp.2d 1302 (D. Idaho 2008) (violations of NEPA and ESA in grazing permit regulations) Text
Ariz. Cattle Growers’ Ass’n v. Kempthorne, 534 F.Supp.2d 1013 (D. Ariz. 2008) (designation federal land as critical habitat under the ESA) Text
Ass’n of Irritated Residents v. Fred Schakel Dairy, No. 1:05-CV-00707, 2008 WL 850136 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (motion to dismiss CAA challenge to dairy)
Or. Natural Desert Ass’n v. U.S. Forest Serv., No. 07-634-AS, 2008 WL 140657 (D. Or. 2008) (grazing runoff is not a point source) Text
Idaho Watersheds Project v. Jones, 253 Fed.Appx. 684 (9th Cir. 2007) (water diversion and the ESA)
Center For Food Safety v. Johanns, Civ. No. 03-00621 JMS/BMK, 2007 WL 3072860 (D.Hawai’i, 2007) (attorney’s fees under ESA in biotech case)
Stevens County v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 507 F.Supp.2d 1127 (E.D. Wash. 2007) (NEPA did not require issuance of EIS) Text
Ventana Wilderness Alliance v. Bradford, No. C 06-5472 PJH, 2007 WL 1848042 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2007) (no violations of NEPA in allowing grazing) Text
- Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink, Nos. CV-05-297-E-BLW, CV-06-275-E-BLW, 2007 WL 1667618 (D. Idaho June 8, 2007) (new grazing regulations violated NEPA and ESA) Text
Ctr. For Food Safety v. Johanns, CV. No. 03-00621 JMS-BMK, 2007 WL 3072863 (D.Hawai’i, 2007) (Field testing of GMOs and compliance with ESA and NEPA)
Ass’n of Irritated Residents v. C&R Vanderham Dairy, No. 1:05-CV-01593 OWW SMS, 2007 WL 2815038 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (dairy regulation under the CAA and California state law).
Coldani v. Hamm, No. Civ S-07-660, 2007 WL 2345016 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (CWA citizen suit requirements, navigable waters)
Bowoto v. Chevron Corp. No. C 99-02506 SI, 2007 WL 2349336 (N.D.Cal. 2007) (International environmental law)
City of Los Angeles v. County of Kern, 509 F.Supp.2d 865 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (no preemption of local bans on land applications of biosolids) Text
Lindner v. Meadow Gold Dairies, Inc., 515 F.Supp.2d 1154 (D. Haw. 2007) (complying with the CWA did not frustrate a lease) Text
N. Cal. River Watch v. City of Healdsburg, 496 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2007) (significant nexus to navigable waters) Text
U.S. v. Moses, 496 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2007) (water of the United States, what is a discharge) Text
San Francisco Baykeeper v. Cargill Salt Div., 481 F.3d 700 (9th Cir. 2007) (waters of the United States) Text
Geertson Seed Farms v. Johanns, No. C 06-01075 CRB, 2007 WL 518624 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (GMO crop as “significant environmental impact” under the ESA) Text
Envtl. Prot. Info. Ctr. v. Pac. Lumber Co., 469 F.Supp.2d 803 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (discharge, point source, navigable waters) Text
Or. Natural Desert Ass’n v. U.S. Forest Serv., No. 07-634-AS, 2007 WL 140657 (D. Or. Jan. 10, 2007) (grazing runoff is not a point source)
Physicians Comm. for Responsible Medicine v. EPA, No. C 05-04093 CRB, 2006 WL 3000657 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (challenge to EPA program) Text
Chem. Producers & Distrib. Ass’n v. Helliker, 463 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2006) (pesticide registration) Text
Wash. Toxics Coal. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 457 F.Supp. 2d 1158 (W.D. Wash. 2006) (challenge to FWS and NMFS regulations) Text
Geertson Farms, Inc. v. Johanns, 439 F. Supp. 2d 1012 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (ESA claim re: pesticide used on GMO hay) Text
Forest Guardians v. Johanns, 450 F.3d 455 (9th Cir. 2006) (agency did not re-initiate consultations under ESA to grazing allotments) Text
W. Watersheds Project v. U.S. Forest Serv., No. CV-05-189-E-BLW, 2006 WL 1697181 (D. Idaho June 12, 2006) (permanent injunction to prevent further grazing on allotments till supplemental EIS done)
Ass’n of Irritated Residents v. Fred Schakel Dairy, 2005 WL 3299508 (E.D.Cal. 2005) (administrative procedures) Text
Baccarat Fremont Developers, LLC v. U.S. Army Corps Eng’rs, 425 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2005) (jurisdiction over wetlands) Text
City of Livingston v. Dow Chem. Co., No. C 05-03262 JSW, 2005 WL 2463916 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (removal to federal court on water contamination claim)
City of Oceanside v. Dow Chem. Co., No. C 05-02482 JSW, 2005 WL 2463917 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (removal to federal court on water contamination claim)
Montara Water & Sanitary Dist., No. C 05-02480 JSW, 2005 WL 2463918 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (removal to federal court on water contamination claim)
City of Alhambra v. Dow Chem. Co., No. C 05-02595 JSW, 2005 WL 2463952 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (removal to federal court on water contamination claim)
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Leavitt, No. C 02-01580JSW, 2005 WL 2277030 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (ESA citizen suit)
Fairhurst v. Hagener, 422 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2005) (application of pesticide) Text
Adams v. United States, 420 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2005) (herbicide drift) Text
W. Watersheds Project v. Bennett, 392 F.Supp.2d 1217 (D. Idaho 2005) (violations of NEPA in issuing grazing permits) Text
Washington Toxics Coalition v. Environmental Protection Agency, 413 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2005). (EIS regarding pesticides) Text
Forest Guardians v. Veneman, 392 F.Supp.2d 1082 (D. Ariz. 2005) (challenging biological opinion under the ESA) Text
Ctr. for Food Safety v. Veneman, 364 F.Supp.2d 1202 (D.Hawai’I 2005) (GMO effect under ESA) Text
United States v. Adam Bros. Farming, Inc., No. CV-00-7409 CAS (RNBx), 2005 WL 5957827 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2005) (control of discharges in waters of the U.S.)
Davidson v. Arch Chem. Specialty Prod., Inc., 347 F.Supp. 2d 938 (D.Or. 2004) (FIFRA preemption) Text
Wash. Toxics Coal. v. EPA, 357 F.Supp. 2d 1266 (W.D. Wash. 2004) (challenge to EPA committee) Text
United States v. Adam Bros. Farming, Inc., 369 F.Supp.2d 1180 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (jurisdiction of the CWA) Text
Chem. Producers & Distrib. Ass’n v. Helliker, No. CV 02-9781 AHM, 2004 WL 1490376 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (FIFRA preemption) Text
Vanderzanden Farms, L.L.C. v. Dow Agrosciences, L.L.C., 323 F.Supp. 2d 1075 (D. Or. 2004) (FIFRA preemption) Text
Chem. Producers & Distrib. Ass’n v. Helliker, 319 F.Supp. 2d 1116 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (FIFRA preemption) Text
United States v. Phillips, 367 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2004) (navigability of waters) Text
Or. Natural Desert Ass’n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 312 F.Supp.2d 1337 (D. Or. 2004) (duty to manage livestock grazing within wild and scenic river corridors with forest plan standards) Text
United States v. Adam Bros. Farming, Inc., 369 F.Supp.2d 1166 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (jurisdiction of the CWA) Text
Forest Guardians v. Veneman, 305 F.Supp.2d 1118 (D. Ariz. 2003) (10-year grazing permits should not have been based on three-year environmental impact studies) Text
Envtl. Def. Ctr., Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 344 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1085 (2004) (review of discharge regulations) Text
Friends of Wild Swan v. U.S. EPA, 74 F. App’x 718 (9th Cir. 2003) (review of state’s TMDLs for water quality limited segments)
Akee v. Dow Chem. Co., 272 F.Supp. 2d 1112 (D.Haw. 2003) (FIFRA preemption) Text
City of Arcadia v. U.S. EPA, 265 F.Supp.2d 1142 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (approval of state-submitted TMDLs) Text
N. Plains Res. Council v. Fid. Exploration & Dev. Co., 325 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2003) (invalidating state created CWA permit exemption) Text
Nw. Envtl. Advocates v. U.S. EPA, 268 F.Supp.2d 1255 (D. Or. 2003) (review of water quality standards and antidegradation plan) Text
Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton, 240 F.Supp.2d 1090 (D. Ariz. 2003) (adequacy of critical habitat designation) Text
Hiebenthal v. Meduri Farms, No. 02-664-AS, 2002 WL 31971590 (D. Or. 2002) (CWA) Text
League of Wilderness Defenders/Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Forsgren, 309 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2002) (citizen suit under NEPA and CWA) Text
Hiebenthal v. Meduri Farms, 242 F. Supp. 2d 885 (D. Or. 2002) (jurisdiction) Text
Idaho Watersheds Project v. Hahn, 307 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2002) (injunction requiring grazing permits to conform with NEPA) Text
Cmty. Ass’n for Restoration of Environ. v. Henry Bosma, 305 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2002) (CWA, dairy) Text
United States v. New Portland Meadows, Inc., Civil No. 00-507-AS, 2002 WL 31180956 (D.Or. 2002) (discharge of pollutants from horse racetrack facility)
Ass’n to Protect Hammersley, Eld, & Totten Inlets v. Taylor Res., Inc., 299 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) (CWA challenge against shellfish producer) Text
San Francisco BayKeeper v. Whitman, 297 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2002) (review of state submitted TMDLs) Text
Wash. Toxics Coal. v. EPA, No. C01-132C, 2002 WL 34213031 (W.D. Wash. 2002) (ESA)
Pronsolino v. Nastri, 291 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 926 (2003) (TMDL authority) Text
Cal. Sportfishing Prot. Alliance v. Diablo Grande, Inc., 209 F.Supp.2d 1059 (E.D. Cal. 2002) (standing, navigable water, discharge) Text
Borden Ranch P’ship v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 261 F.3d 810 (9th Cir. 2001), aff’d by an equally divided court, 537 U.S. 99 (2002) (normal farming exemption to § 404, recapture provision) Text
Nathan Kimmel, Inc. v. DowElanco, 275 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2002) (FIFRA preemption) Text
TENTH CIRCUIT
Rocky Mt. Wild v. Dallas, 98 F.4th 1263 (10th Cir. 2024) (The US Forest Service and the FWS did not violate the ESA by extending a permit for the incidental take of Canada lynx, and the 2018 Biological Opinion and corresponding Incidental Take Statement were not arbitrary and capricious, and the USFS properly analyzed the environmental impacts under NEPA.) Text
Defs. of Wildlife v. United States Forest Serv., 94 F.4th 1210 (10th Cir. 2024) (The US Forest Service did not act arbitrarily when it relied on FWS’s 2021 Biological Opinion regarding Canada lynx, because the opinion did not violate the ESA and appropriately addressed the impact of the Land Management Plan on the lynx population.) Text
Stone v. High Mt. Mining Co., Ltd. Liab. Co., 89 F.4th 1246 (10th Cir. 2024) (Reversal of district court’s finding of CWA violation after the district court found evidence of a gold mining company discharging pollutants into groundwater violated the CWA.) Text
W. Watersheds Project v. Vilsack, No. 22-CV-214-SWS, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219258 (D. Wyo. Sep. 29, 2023) (USFS did not violate the ESA or NEPA when it amended the plan for the Thunder Basin National Grassland.)
Wyoming v. United States EPA, 78 F.4th 1171 (10th Cir. 2023) (The EPA erred in evaluating a state implementation plan for a small powerplant because it treated Clean Air Act guidelines as binding when they were not, and the EPA properly approved state implementation plans for two other powerplants.) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States DOI, 72 F.4th 1166 (10th Cir. 2023) (The Bureau of Reclamation took the requisite hard look under NEPA regarding a water contract with the state of Utah, and the Bureau’s Finding of No Significant Impact was neither arbitrary nor capricious.) Text
W. Watersheds Project v. Haaland, 69 F.4th 689 (10th Cir. 2023) (FWS’s 2019 Biological Opinion was arbitrary and capricious as it failed to consider whether to limit the lethal take of female grizzly bears in a project area.) Text
Resort Ctr. Assocs., Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Regan, No. 21-4150, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 13189 (10th Cir. May 26, 2023) (Affirming the district court’s ruling that the EPA acted within its authority under CERCLA when it ordered a study of soil contamination potential of a residential development.) Text
DINÉ CITIZENS AGAINST RUINING OUR ENVIRONMENT v. Haaland, No. 21-2116 (10th Cir. Feb. 1, 2023) (We REVERSE and REMAND to the district court to apply the Allied-Signal factors and the test for injunctive relief in the first instance. We enjoin any APD approvals based on the deficient EAs and EA Addendum until the district court determines the appropriate remedy on remand) Text
Cyprus Amax Minerals Co. v. TCI Pac. Commc’n, LLC, 28 F.4th 996 (10th Cir. 2022) (upheld piercing of corporate veil and contribution liability for company when its predecessor’s subsidiary had operated zinc smelters) Text
Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Cnty. of San Miguel v. United States Bureau of Land Mgmt., No. 17-cv-02432 JLK, 2022 WL 472990 (D. Colo.Feb. 9, 2022) (issuance of oil and gas leases challenged claiming violations of NEPA, ESA, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act)
Bd, of Cnty. Comm’rs of the Cnty. of San Miguel v. United States Bureau of Land Mgmt., No. 18-cv-01643 JKL, 2022 WL 472992 (D. Colorado Feb. 9, 2022) (BLM did not comply with NEPA and the ESA when issuing oil and gas leases in Southwest Colorado)
Rio Hondo Land & Cattle Co., L.P. v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 95 F.3d 1124 (10th Cir. 2021) (EPA’s relaxation of pollutant limitations permit did not violate CWA’s anti-backsliding rule) Text
Utah Physicians for a Healthy Env’t v. Diesel Power Gear, LLC, 21 F.4th 1229 (10th Cir. 2021) (nonprofit organization claims violation of Clean Air Act by businesses selling custom modifications to diesel trucks to bypass emission-control devices) Text
Natural Res. Defense Council v. McCarthy, 993 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2021) (Bureau of Land Management’s re-opening of area was non-discretionary and thus exempt from NEPA) Text
State v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 989 F.3d 874 (10th Cir. 2021) (Colorado claiming violation of NEPA and Administrative Procedure Act and seeking to invalidate a narrowing of the navigable waters rule in the CWA) Text
Rocky Mountain Peace & Justice Ctr. v. United States Fish and Wildlife Serv., 548 F. Supp.3d 1042 (D. Colo. 2021) (challenge to FWS for approving public trail plan over wildlife refuge without supplemental impact statement or environmental assessment) Text
NRDC v. McCarthy, 993 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2021) (environmental analysis under NEPA when re-opening a temporarily closed area) Text
Friends of the Clearwater v. Higgins, 847 F. App’x 394 (9th Cir. 2021) (Denial of preliminary injunction to prevent timber harvest under NEPA) Text
Rocky Mountain Wild v. Bernhardt, No. 2:19-cv-00929-DBB-CMR (D. Utah Dec. 10, 2020) (BLM failed to properly analyze reasonable alternatives in NEPA analysis) Text
Swomley v. Schroyer, No. 19-cv-01055-TMT (D. Colo. Sept. 3, 2020) (USFS not required to prepare EIS for timber project) Text
Sierra Club v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 964 F.3d 882 (10th Cir. 2020) (CAA permit remanded to EPA) Text
Oregon-California Trails Ass’n v. Walsh, 467 F.Supp.3d (D. Colo. June 17, 2020) (FWS’ error in considering cumulative rather than indirect effects of project was not harmless) Text
Wild Watershed v. Hurlocker, 961 F.ed 1119 (10th Cir. 2020) (USFS not required to analyze extraordinary circumstances before applying statutory categorical exclusion from NEPA) Text
New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau v. United States Dep’t of Int., 952 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2020) (Designation of critical habitat was arbitrary and capricious) Text
Kiamichi River Legacy All., Inc. v. Bernhardt, 439 F.Supp.3d 1258 (E.D. Okla. Feb. 11, 2020) (Governor and chief of Native American tribes required parties in ESA action) Text
Renewable Fuels Ass’n v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 948 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2020) (Small refinery ineligible for CAA exemption) Text
High Country Conservation Advocates v. United States Forest Serv., 951 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2020) (USFS acted arbitrarily by eliminating proposed alternative from SFEIS) Text
WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 947 F.3d 635 (10th Cir. 2020) (Corps did not have to consult with FWS) Text
WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 429 F.Supp.3d 1224 (D. N.M. Dec. 20, 2019) (Corps considered reasonable range of alternatives) Text
WildEarth Guardians v. Bernhardt, 423 F.Supp.3d 1083 (D. Colo. Nov. 8, 2019) (OSM violated NEPA) Text
Wild Watershed v. Hurlocker, 393 F.Supp.3d 1086 (D. N.M. 2019) (USFS did not trigger NEPA review) Text
WildEarth Guardians v. Conner, 920 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 2019) (USFS did not violate NEPA in concluding that an EIS was not required) Text
Citizens for a Healthy Cmty. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 377 F.supp.3d 1223 (D. Colo. 2019) (BLM and USFS complied with NEPA by taking a hard look at cumulative climate change impacts of proposed project) Text
Front Range Nesting Bald Eagle Studies v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 353 F.Supp.3d 1115 (D. Colo. 2018) (FWS did not impermissibly preordain the outcome of its NEPA analysis) Text
Wilderness Workshop v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 342 F.Supp.3d 1145 (D. Colo. 2018) (BLM violated NEPA by failing to assess indirect environmental effects of oil and gas leases) Text
Colorado v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 362 F.Supp.3d 951 (D. Colo. 2018) (FWS did not violate NEPA in making critical habitat designation for the Gunnison sage-grouse) Text
Western Watersheds Project v. Christiansen, 348 F.Supp.3d 1204 (D. Wyo. 2018) (USFS violated NEPA by failing to examine a reasonable range of alternatives in its EIS) Text
WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 322 F.Supp.3d 1134 (D. Colo. 2018) (BLM’s conformity analysis did not violate CAA) Text
Dine Citizens Against Ruining our Env’t v. Jewell, 312 F.Supp.3d 1031 (D. N.M. 2018) (BLM’s approval of over 300 applications for permits to drill did not violate NEPA) Text
Benham v. Ozark Materials River Rock, LLC, 885 F.3d 1267 (10th Cir. 2018) (District court did not err in finding that mining company discharged without CWA permit) Text
New Mexico v. U.S. EPA, 310 F.Supp.3d 1230 (D. N.M. 2018) (Claim adequately stated against government contractor for operator liability under CERCLA) Text
Jarita Mesa Livestock Grazing Ass’n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 301 F.Supp.3d 1010 (D. N.M. 2017) (USFS’ failure to consider non-environmental socioeconomic impacts in environmental analysis did not violate NEPA) Text
Grand Canyon Trust v. Energy Fuels Res. (U.S.A.) Inc., 269 F.Supp.3d 1173 (Construction of evaporation pond at uranium mill did not violate CAA regulations) Text
Schoenhofer v. McClaskey, 861 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2017) (Kansas regulation requiring application of pesticide in preconstruction areas was not preempted by FIFRA) Text
Western Watershed Project v. Jewell, 221 F.Supp.3d 1308 (D. Utah 2016) (NPS did not violate NEPA in categorically excluding grazing permit from environmental analysis) Text
Rocky Mountain Wild v. Walsh, 216 F.Supp.3d 1234 (D. Colo. 2016) (Decision not to list wildflowers as threatened under the ESA based on a 15-year conservation agreement was arbitrary and capricious.) Text
Cure Land, LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 833 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 2016) (Agency failure to explain removal of target zone component of river conservation program from NEPA analysis was not arbitrary and capricious) Text
Utah Physicians for a Healthy Env’t v. Kennecott Utah Copper, LLC, 191 F.Supp.3d 1287 (D. Utah 2016) (EPA approval in addition to state approval was not required to allow increased copper mining in Utah under CAA) Text
Jarita Mesa Livestock Grazing Ass’n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 140 F.Supp.3d 1123 (D. N.M. 2015) (Challenging USFS’s decision to reduce the number of grazing permits in a national forest under NEPA) Text
WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 120 F.Supp.3d 1237 (D. Wyo. 2015) (Final EIS took hard look at impacts of project on climate change as required by NEPA) Text
U.S. v. Richter, 796 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2015) (Definition of “waste” in Colorado hazardous waste regulation was consistent with definition under RCRA regulations) Text
Rags Over the Arkansas River, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 77 F.Supp.3d 1038 (D. Colo. 2015) (BLM complied with NEPA in its consideration of project’s impact on bighorn sheep population) Text
WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. EPA, 770 F.3d 919 (10th Cir. 2014) (EPA’s approval of cap-and-trade program for regulating sulfur dioxide emissions did not violate CAA) Text
WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. E.P.A., 759 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2014) (EPA had no duty to consult with FWS about effect of emissions on endangered fish near power plant.) Text
Western Watersheds Project v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 721 F.3d 1264 (BLM complied with NEPA’s hard look requirement in granting 10-year grazing permit) Text
WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. EPA, 728 F.3d 1075 (10th Cir. 2013) (Notice of violation did not demonstrate utility’s noncompliance with CAA) Text
Oklahoma v. U.S. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201 (10th Cir. 2013) (EPA properly rejected state implementation plans for failure to comply with CAA guidelines) Text
U.S. v. Hamilton, 952 F.Supp.2d 1271 (D. Wyo. 2013) (Creek was a WOTUS) Text
Moyle Petroleum v. LaHood, 969 F.Supp.2d 1332 (D. Utah 2013) (Commercial property owner lacked standing to pursue claims for procedural violations of NEPA) Text
WildEarth Guardians v. Lamar Utilities Bd., 932 F.Supp.2d 1237 (D. Colo. 2013) (Electric utility’s steam-generating unit was a major source polluter for purposes of the CAA) Text
Town of Superior v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 913 F.Supp.2d 1087 (D. Colo. 2012) (Reliance by FWS on non-NEPA study related to radiation exposure that was conducted pursuant to CERCLA standards satisfied NEPA requirements) Text
US Magnesium, LLC v. U.S. EPA, 690 F.3d 1157 (10th Cir. 2012) (EPA’s interpretation of CAA provision relating to state implementation plan was reasonable) Text
Colorado Envtl. Coal. v. Salazar, 875 F.Supp.2d 1233 (D. Colo. 2012) (BLM failed to consider alternatives under NEPA) Text
Colorado Tr. For Prot. & Benefits v. Souder, Miller & Associates, Inc., 870 F.Supp.2d 1173 (D. Colo. 2012) (Drilling did not discharge contaminants into WOTUS) Text
WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 828 F.Supp.2d 1223 (D. Colo. 2011) (USFS failed to consider reasonable alternatives in NEPA analysis) Text
United States v. Questar Gas Mgmt., No. 2:09CV167DAK, 2010 WL 3952016 (D. Utah Oct. 8, 2010) (right to intervene in a Clean Air Act action commenced by the United States) Text
Oklahoma ex rel. Edmondson v. Tyson Foods, 619 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 2010) (denial of intervention by Indian tribe into CERCLA action for poultry waste disposal) Text
Wyoming State Snowmobile Ass’n v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., No. 09-cv-00095, 2010 WL 3743933 (D. Wyo. Sept. 10, 2010) (challenge to revised designation of critical habitat for Canada lynx)
Forest Guardians v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 611 F.3d 692 (10th Cir. 2010) (Endangered Species Act) Text
WildEarth Guardians v. Nat’l Park Serv., 604 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2010) (challenge to proposal to reduce elk populations) Text
San Juan Citizens Alliance v. Stiles, No. 08-cv-00144-RPM, 2010 WL 1780816 (D. Colo. May 03, 2010) (NEPA challenge) Text
Ctr. For Native Ecosystems v. Salazar, — F.Supp.2d —-, 2010 WL 1961740 (D. Colo. 2010) (de-listing of an endangered species) Text
Colorado Wild v. Vilsack, — F.Supp.2d —-, 2010 WL 1257988 (D. Colo. 2010) (NEPA action against proposed sale of timber in a nation forest) Text
Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation, 601 F.3d 1096 (Tenth Circuit 2010) (challenge under the Endangered Species Act) Text
Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 05-CV-0329-GKF-PJC, 2010 WL 653032 (N.D. Okla. Feb. 17, 2010) (poultry litter litigation; litter not a nuisance per se)
Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 262 F.R.D. 617 (N.D. Okla. 2009) (poultry waste litigation; claim Cargill withheld evidence) Text
WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, No. CV-09-00574-PHX-FJM, 2009 WL 4270039 (D. Ariz. Nov. 25, 2009) (listing of prairie dogs under ESA) Text
Wildearth Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 668 F.Supp.2d 1314 (D.N.M. 2009) (violations of NEPA; opening federal lands to grazing) Text
Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 05-CV-329-GKF-PJC, 2009 WL 2252129 (N.D. Okla. July 24, 2009) (motion to strike certain expert witnesses in poultry litter litigation) Text
Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 258 F.R.D 472, (N.D. Okla. 2009) (dismissal of damages in claims of watershed contamination) Text
Greater Yellowstone Coal. v. Tidwell, 572 F.3d 1115 (10th Cir. 2009) (environmental analysis not required for elk program) Text
Attorney Gen. of Okla. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 565 F.3d 769 (10th Cir. 2009) (upholding denial of injunction to stop application of poultry waste in watershed) Text
W. Org. of Res. Councils v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 591 F.Supp.2d 1206 (D. Wyo. 2008) (BLM properly followed NEPA) Text
Chihuahuan Grasslands Alliance v. Kempthorne, No. 07-2183, 2008 WL 4542310 (10th Cir. 2008) (violations of NEPA in leasing federal lands) Text
Edmondson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 05-CV-329-GKF-SAJ, 2008 WL 4453098 (N.D. Okla. Sept. 29, 2008) (denial of injunction to stop application of poultry litter) Text
Ctr. For Native Ecosystems v. Cables, 509 F.3d 1310 (10th Cir. 2007) (livestock grazing violations under ESA, CWA) Text
Oklahoma ex rel Edmondson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 05-CV-329-GKF-SAJ, 2007 WL 4027646 (N.D. Okla. 2007). (poultry waste in Illinois River watershed; discovery order)
Kersenbrock v. Stoneman Cattle Co., LLC, 2007 WL 2219288 (D.Kan. 2007) (citizen suit under the CWA) Text
Karr v. Hefner, 475 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2007) (diligent prosecution by EPA, adequacy of notice letter) Text
Or. Nat’l Res. Council v. Hallock, Civil No. 02-1650-CO, 2006 WL 1142223 (D.Or. 2006)(ESA, NPDES permit)
U.S. v. Hubenka, 438 F.3d 1026 (10th Cir. 2006) (tributary rule, dredge and fill by irrigation district) Text
Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. EPA, 415 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir. 2005) (review of state water quality standards) Text
Pound v. Airosol Co., 368 F.Supp. 2d 1161 (D.Kan. 2005) (CAA, citizen suit) Text
Sierra Club v. Seaboard Farms Inc., 387 F.3d 1167 (10th Cir. 2004) (definition of “facility” under CERCLA) Text
Pound v. Airosol Co., 316 F.Supp. 2d 1079 (D. Kan. 2004) (CAA, citizen suit) Text
Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Keys, 333 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 2003) (consequences of species designation) (vacated on procedural grounds by Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Keys, 355 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2004)) Text
Swartz v. Beach, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1239 (D. Wyo. 2002) (CWA violations, takings issues) Text
Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist. v. Norton, 294 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 2002) (challenge to species designation under ESA) (upholding Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist. v. Babbitt, 206 F.Supp.2d 1156 (D. N.M. 2000)) Text
Anderson v. Dow Agrosciences, L.L.C., 262 F.Supp.2d 1280 (W.D. Okla. 2003) (FIFRA preemption) Text
Sierra Club v. Seaboard Farms, Inc., 2002 WL 32443305 (W.D. Okla. 2002) (CERCLA)
New Mexico Cattle Growers Ass’n v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2001) (challenge to critical habitat designation) Text
Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist. v. Babbitt, 206 F.Supp.2d 1156 (D. N.M 2000) (challenge to species designation under ESA) Text
Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation v. Babbitt, 199 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2000) (wolf reintroduction) Text
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Carson v. Monsanto Co., 92 F.4th 980 (11th Cir. 2024) (FIFRA did not preempt a Georgia common law failure-to-warn claim regarding warning labeling on Roundup weedkiller.) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Haaland, No. 23-CV-20495-PAS, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3885 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2024) (The National Park Service violated the ESA when it failed to consult with FWS before issuing an agreement and release to facilitate development of the Miami Wilds project area.) Text
Sierra Club v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., No. 2:20-cv-13-SPC-NPM, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195748 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2023) (FWS’s amended Biological Opinion regarding the Florida panther complied with the ESA, and The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did not err in relying on the opinion to authorize an expansion of a three-mile stretch of Road 82.) Text
Lowman v. FAA, 83 F.4th 1345 (11th Cir. 2023) (The FAA did not violate NEPA when it approved an expansion of Lakeland Linder International Airport.) Text
Savage Serv. Corp. v. United States, 25 F.4th 925 (11th Cir. 2022) (Oil Pollution Act displaced any cause of action plaintiffs could have brought under common law or Suits in Admiralty Act) Text
Parris v. 3M Co., No. 4:21-CV-40 TWT, 2022 WL 976007 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 30, 2022) (CWA, RCRA, negligence, public nuisance, and punitive damages claims sufficiently alleged despite town’s permit for sludge disposal) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., NO. 2:19-CV-14243-ROSENBERG/MAYNARD (S.D. Fla. Sept. 15, 2020) (Reliance on mapping application not adequately explained in ESA listing decision) Text
SOSS2, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, No. 8:19-cv-462-T-23JSS (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2020) (Corps’ analysis of environmental effects of project was rational) Text
St. Johns Riverkeeper, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 462 F.Supp.3d 1256 (M.D. Fla. May 26, 2020) (Corps’ cumulative impacts analysis complied with NEPA) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 941 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2019) (Environmental impacts too attenuated to require consideration of NEPA analysis) Text
Cahaba Riverkeeper v. U.S. EPA, 938 F.3d 1157 (11th Cir. 2019) (EPA did not abuse its discretion under the CWA) Text
Georgia v. Wheeler, No. 2:15-CV-00079, 2019 WL 3949922 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 21, 2019) (Invalidating the 2015 WOTUS rule) Text
Altamaha Riverkeeper v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 355 F.Supp.3d 1181 (S.D. Ga. 2018) (Corps adequately analyzed alternatives as required by CWA) Text
Sierra Club, Inc. v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 320 F.Supp.3d 1298 (M.D. Fla. 2018) (Corps did not violate CWA by permitting conversion of wetland mitigation bank) Text
Georgia v. Pruitt, 326 F.Supp.3d 1356 (S.D. Ga. 2018) (Preliminary injunction warranted against enforcement of WOTUS rule) Text
Nat. Res. Defense Council v. Nat. Park Serv., 250 F.Supp.3d 1260 (M.D. Fla. 2017) (NPS took a sufficiently “hard look” at adverse impacts of project under NEPA) Text
Arnold v. U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co., LLC, 274 F.Supp.3d 1272 (N.D. Ala. 2017) (CERCLA discovery rule did not extend statute of limitations in toxic tort action) Text
Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc. v. 3M Co., 234 F.Supp.3d 1153 (N.D. Ala. 2017) (Plaintiffs adequately pled that discharges from wastewater treatment plant constituted “solid waste” under RCRA) Text
Gulf Restoration Network v. Jewell, 161 F.Supp.3d 1119 (S.D. Ala. 2016) (Agencies failed to consider reasonable alternatives in NEPA analysis) Text
City of Eufaula, Ala. V. Alabama Dep’t of Transp., 71 F.Supp.3d 1272 (M.D. Ala. 2014) (State road-widening project was not subject to NEPA’s procedural protections) Text
Nat’l Parks Conservation Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 46 F.Supp.3d 1254 (M.D. Fla. 2014) (NPS took required “hard look” at project impacts under NEPA) Text
Alabama Envtl. Council v. Adm’r, U.S. EPA, 711 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2013) (EPA did not satisfy procedural requirements for invoking CAA’s error-correction mechanism to revise previously approved SIP) Text
Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. Dept. of Navy, 895 F.Supp.2d 1285 (11th Cir. 2012) (The ESA did not require NMFS to include an incidental take statement for a portion of its biological opinion.) Text
Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 877 F.Supp.2d 1271 (M.D. Fla. 2012) (Agency decision was arbitrary and capricious under NEPA) Text
Defenders of Wildlife v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Mgmt., 684 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2012) (BOEM appropriately summarized potential project impacts in NEPA analysis) Text
Defenders of Wildlife v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Mgmt., Regulation, Enf’t, 871 F.Supp.2d 1312 (S.D. Ala. 2012) (BOEM did not violate NEPA by approving lease sale bids after oil spill) Text
Florida Wildlife Fed’n, Inc. v. Jackson, 853 F.Supp.2d 1138 (N.D. Fla. 2012) (Determination that numeric nutrient standard was needed was not arbitrary or capricious) Text
Gates v. W.R. Grace & Co., No. 8:08-cv-2560-T-27TBM, 2009 WL 1455316 (M.D. Fla. May 21, 2009) (liability for contamination to neighbor’s land by fertilizer plant) Text
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. United States, 566 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2009) (challenging biological opinion done under the ESA) Text
Griffin Indus., Inc. v. Irvin, 496 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 2007) (civil rights suit; requiring two competitors to follow different regulations) Text
Sierra Club, Inc. v. Leavitt, 488 F.3d 904 (11th Cir. 2007) (state’s impaired waters list) Text
Bayer CropScience, LP v. Booth, No. Civ.A. 7:04-CV-92, 2005 WL 2138759 (M.D. Ga. 2005) (FIFRA preemption)
Booth v. Bd. of Regents, No. Civ.A. 7:05-CV-34, 2005 WL 2099246 (M.D. Ga. 2005) (FIFRA preemption)
Sierra Club v. U.S. EPA, 377 F.Supp.2d 1205 (N.D. Fla. 2005) (EPA’s review of state’s NPDES authorization) Text
Fla. Pub. Interest Research Group Citizen Lobby, Inc. v. EPA, 386 F.3d 1070 (11th Cir. 2004) (review of state’s impaired waters list) Text
Oken v. Monsanto Co., 371 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2004) (FIFRA preemption) Text
Sierra Club v. Hankinson, 351 F.3d 1358 (11th Cir. 2003) (awarding attorney’s fees for citizen suit) Text
Oken v. Monsanto Co., 218 F.Supp. 2d 1361 (S.D. Fla. 2002) (FIFRA preemption) Text
Fishermen Against Destruction v. Closter Farms, 300 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir.2002) (CWA) Text
Sierra Club v. Meiburg, 296 F.3d 1021 (11th Cir. 2002) (TMDL standards, abuse of court’s discretion) Text
D.C. CIRCUIT
Env’t Comm. of the Fla. Elec. Power Coordinating Grp., Inc. v. EPA, 94 F.4th 77 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (The EPA exceeded its statutory authority under the Clean Air Act when it did not make a necessary determination before calling automatic exemptions regarding a state implementation plan.) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Regan, Civil Action No. 21-119 (RDM), 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26823 (D.D.C. Feb. 15, 2024) (FWS’s programmatic biological opinion violated the ESA because it lacked required species-specific analysis.) Text
Alabama v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, Civil Action No. 15-696 (EGS), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201284 (D.D.C. Nov. 9, 2023) (The US Army Corps of Engineers did not violate NEPA or the CWA in its operation of reservoirs in Alabama.) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., Civil Action No. 21-791 (TJK), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176314 (D.D.C. Sep. 30, 2023) (FWS relied on a reasonable interpretation of the ESA when it listed the American Burying Beetle as “threatened.”) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Haaland, No. 22-cv-3588 (DLF), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139815 (D.D.C. Aug. 11, 2023) (FWS failed to satisfy its non-discretionary duty under the ESA to develop and implement a recovery plan for the 44-State listing of gray wolves.) Text
Pub. Emps. for Env’t Responsibility v. EPA, 77 F.4th 899 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (In implementing the RCRA, EPA acted within the scope of its discretion when it promulgated a rule deeming waste hazardous if it was corrosive.) Text
El Puente v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 683 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2023) (The US Army Corps of Engineers did not violate NEPA, ESA, or CWA in its approval of the San Juan Harbor dredging project.) Text
Am. Soybean Ass’n v. Regan, 77 F.4th 873 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (In a challenge under FIFRA, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction as the EPA did not hold a public hearing prior to issuing orders regulating the use of a pesticide.) Text
Wynnewood Ref. Co., LLC v. EPA, 77 F.4th 767 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (The EPA rule requiring shorter intervals between compliance deadlines for fuel refineries to meet the sale of renewables issued under the Clean Air Act was not arbitrary or capricious.) Text
California v. EPA, 72 F.4th 308 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (The EPA’s promulgation of the Aircraft Rule was within its authority under the Clean Air Act.) Text
Me. Lobstermen’s Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 70 F.4th 582 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (NMFS’s issuance of a Biological Opinion was arbitrary and capricious because the ESA did not authorize a substantive presumption in favor of a species, rather requiring the term “likely” to be interpreted by its plain meaning.) Text
Dakota Rural Action v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 668 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2023) (Farm Service Agency’s exclusion of medium concentrated animal feeding operations loans from NEPA review was arbitrary and capricious.) Text
Save Long Beach Island v. United States DOI, 663 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2023) (Plaintiff’s NEPA claims regarding a wind energy lease were not ripe for review.) Text
Midwest Ozone Grp. v. EPA, 61 F.4th 187 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (Petitioner failed to show that the EPA’s Promulgation of the Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Update Rule was arbitrary or capricious, or that the rule violated the CAA.) Text
Friends of the Earth v. Haaland, No. 21-2317 RC, 2022 WL 254526 (D. D.C. Jan. 27, 2022) (exclusion of foreign consumption in greenhouse gas emissions calculation was arbitrary and capricious) Text
Pub. Emp. for Envtl. Responsibility v. Nat’l Park Serv., No. 19-3629 RC, 2022 WL 1657013 (D. D.C. May 24, 2022) (challenge under NEPA, APA, and others to National Park Service’s rule allowing electronic bicycles to be used)
Growth Energy v. EPA, 5 F.4th 1 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (groups challenged EPA’s rule setting annual targets for renewable fuel volumes pursuant to CAA’s Renewable Fuel Standard program) Text
Standing Rock Sious Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 985 F.3d 1032 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (tribes’ criticisms of Army Corps’ consideration of leak detection system for pipeline presented an unresolved controversy requiring preparation of an EIS) Text
Truck Trailer Mfr. Ass’n, Inc. v. EPA, 17 F.4th 1198 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (trailers are not “motor vehicles” under CAA therefore EPA is not authorized to regulate trailers’ effects on greenhouse gas emissions) Text
Hawkins v. Haaland, 991 F.3d 216 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (landowners’ action against Bureau of Indian Affairs to prevent enforcement of tribes’ water rights did not establish causation or redressability necessary for standing) Text
Am. Fuel & Petrochemical Mfr. v. EPA, 3 F.4th 373 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (EPA’s rule granting fuel volatility waiver for fuel blends containing gasoline and up to 15% ethanol exceeded EPA’s authority under CAA) Text
Loper Bright Enter., Inc. v. Raimondo, 544 F.Supp.3d 82 (D. D.C. 2021) (rule for administering future fishing industry-funded monitoring did not violate national NEPA and was not arbitrary and capricious) Text
Sierra Club v. EPA, 21 F.4th 815 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (challenge to rule allowing states to demonstrate compliance with CAA’s reasonable further progress milestones through implementation-based method) Text
Flaherty v. Raimondo, 531 F. Supp.3d 76 (D. D.C. 2021) (NEPA did not require that EIS take hard look at fishery’s definition or consider all reasonable alternatives to address river herring bycatch) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Regan, 539 F.Supp.3d 136 (D. D.C. 2021) (environmental organizations’ claims that EPA’s decision granting CWA permitting authority to Florida violated CWA, APA, ESA and Rivers and Harbors Act did not establish standing or injury-in-fact) Text
Oceana, Inc. v. Raimondo, No. 21-5120, 2022 WL 2028199 (D.C. Cir. June 7, 2022) (National Marine Fisheries Service did not violate Magnuson-Stevens Act with regulatory efforts to protect dusky shark population) Text
Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Ass’n v. EPA, 11 F.4th 791 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (EPA adequately explained its changed position and did not act arbitrarily under CAA related to audit testing of residential wood heaters) Text
Phoenix Herpetological Soc’y, Inc. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., No. 19-cv-00788 APM, 2021 WL 620193 (D. D.C. Feb. 17, 2021) (Related to captive bred wildlife permits and the ESA)
Shafer & Freeman Lakes Envtl. Conservation Corp. v. FERC, 992 F.3d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (Failure to explain why dam procedures did not violate regulation prohibiting FWS requirements) Text
Am. Lung Ass’n v. EPA, 450 U.S. App. D.C. 385, 985 F.3d 914 (2021) (EPA acted unlawfully in adopting the Affordable Clean Energy Rule (ACE Rule)) Text
WildEarth Guardians v. Bernhardt, No. 16-1724 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 13, 2020) (agency violated NEPA by failing to sufficiently consider the impacts of climate change on project) Text
Oceana, Inc. v. Ross, No. 15-0555 (PLF) (D. D.C. Oct. 9, 2020) (Challenge to incidental take permit) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt, No. 1:20-cv-00529 (TNM) (D. D.C. Aug. 20, 2020) (Group stated claim under ESA civil-suit provision) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Ross, No. 18-112 (JEB) (D. D.C. Aug. 19, 2020) (Vacatur of biological opinion) Text
POET Biorefining, LLC v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 970 F.3d 392 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (EPA biofuel guidance was not arbitrary or capricious) Text
New York v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 964 F.3d 1214 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (EPA CAA determination was arbitrary and capricious) Text
Clean Wisconsin v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 964 F.ed 1145 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (NAAQS violated CAA) Text
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 471 F.S.upp.3d 71 (D. D.C. July 6, 2020) (Deficiencies in Cors’ decision not to prepare EIS weighed in favor of vacatur) Text
Maryland v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 958 F.3d 1185 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (CAA good neighbor obligations not violated) Text
Gulf Restoration Network v. Bernhardt, 456 F.Supp.3d 81 (D. D.C. April 21, 2020) (BOEM complied with NEPA by considering “no action” alternative) Text
Louisiana Envtl. Action Net. V. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (CAA required EPA to add limits on air toxics) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Ross, No. 18-112 (JEB) (D. D.C. April 9, 2020) (NMFS required to include incidental take statement) Text
Nat. Res. Defense Council v. Wheeler, 955 F.3d 68 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (EPA had to use notice-and-comment procedures to issue CAA rule) Text
Food & Water Watch. United States Dep’t of Agric., 451 F.Supp.3d 11 (D. D.C. March 26, 2020) (FSA sufficiently complied with NEPA) Text
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 440 F.Supp.3d 1 (D. D.C. March 25, 2020) (Corps required to prepare EIS) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt, 442 F.Supp.3d 97 (D. D.C. Feb. 12, 2020) (Plaintiffs did not establish standing under ESA) Text
American Wild Horse Campaign v. Bernhardt, 442 F.Supp.3d 127 (D. D.C. Feb. 13, 2020) (BLM considered all reasonable alternatives required by NEPA) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F.Supp.3d 69 (D. D.C. Jan. 28, 2020) (FWS decision to list bat species as “threatened” was arbitrary) Text
State of Wisconsin v. EPA, 938 f.3d 303 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (EPA’s failure to require upwind states to eliminate their contributions to downwind pollution by statutory deadline violated CAA’s good neighbor rule) Text
American Fuel and Petrochemical Mfrs. v. EPA, 937 F.3d 559 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (EPA did not violate CAA in taking cost considerations into account in deciding to exercise its full cellulosic waiver authority) Text
Anacostia Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Wheeler, No. 16-CV-1651 (CRC), 2019 WL 3803639 (D. D.C. Aug. 12, 2019) (EPA erred in approving TMDLs) Text
Idaho Conservation League v Wheeler, 930 F.3d 494 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (EPA’s interpretation of CERCLA provision was entitled to deference) Text
California Cmtys. Against Toxics v. EPA, 928 F.3d 1041 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (EPA’s determination that legitimate recycling of hazardous materials did not constitute “discard” of such materials under RCRA was reasonable) Text
New York v. EPA, 921 F.3d 257 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (EPA did not abuse its discretion under CAA) Text
WildEarth Guardians v. Zinke, 368 F.Supp.3d 41 (D. D.C. 2019) (BLM could not defer its NEPA analysis) Text
Sierra Club v. Wheeler, 330 F.Supp.3d 407 (D. D.C. 2018) (CAA does not impose a certain deadline for EPA to develop a federal implementation plan for solid waste incinerators) Text
Util. Solid Waste Activities Grp. V. EPA, 901 F.3d 414 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (RCRA provision governing regulation of open dumps permits EPA to regulate in active sites) Text
Air All. Houston v. EPA, 906 F.3d 1049 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (EPA did not have authority to promulgate rule delaying implementation of rule amending CAA regulations) Text
Nat. Res. Defense Council v. EPA, 896 F.3d 459 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (EPA’s rule interpreting CAA provision was reasonable) Text
American Rivers v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 895 F.3d 32 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (FERC’s determination that project would have no significant impacts violated NEPA) Text
Nat’l Envtl. Dev. Ass’n’s Clean Air Proj. v. EPA, 891 F.3d 1041 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (EPA impermissibly interpreted CAA’s uniformity obligation) Text
Nat. Res. Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA, 301 F.Supp.3d 133 (D. D.C. 2018) (Trash pollution plan violated CWA) Text
Util. Air Regulatory Grp. V. EPA, 885 F.3d 714 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (EPA’s amendment to CAA regional haze rule was reasonable) Text
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 301 F.Supp.3d 50 (D. D.C. 2018) (Agencies did not violate NEPA’s anti-segmentation principle) Text
Mayo v. Reynolds, 875 F.3d 11 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (NPS not required to prepare new NEPA analysis for each year of 15-year plan) Text
Alaska v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 273 F.Supp.3d (D. D.C. 2017) (USDA’s prupose and need statement for Roadless Area Conservation Rule did not violate NEPA’s rule of reason) Text
Sierra Club v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 867 F.3d 189 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (Department of Energy did not violate NEPA in assessing application to export liquified natural gas) Text
Gov’t of Province of Manitoba v. Zinke, 273 F.Supp.3d 145 (D. D.C. 2017) (NEPA analysis for project adequately considered impact of climate change-induced increases in turbidity of intake water) Text
Clean Air Council v. Pruitt, 862 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (CAA did not authorize EPA to stay, pending reconsideration, final methane rule’s provision regulating low-production wells) Text
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 255 F.Supp.3d 101 (D. D.C. 2017) (Corps took requisite “hard look” at project risks under NEPA) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Zinke, 260 F.Supp.3d 11 (D. D.C. 2017) (Department of Interior did not have mandatory duty to complete review of its NEPA procedures for offshore oil and gas exploration) Text
Waterkeeper All. v. EPA, 853 F.3d 527 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (EPA’s final rule creating exemption to CERCLA reporting requirements was not reasonable interpretation of statutory ambiguity) Text
Defenders of Wildlife v. Zinke, 849 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (Upholding FWS rule to remove the gray wolf in Wyoming from the endangered species list.) Text
Humane Soc’y of the U.S. v. Zinke, 865 F.3d 585 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (FWS’s designation of a distinct population segment of grey wolf was arbitrary and capricious.) Text
Silver State Land, LLC v. Schneider, 843 F.3d 982 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (FLPMA did not supplant BLM’s plenary power to terminate invalid modified competitive sale of public land to developer) Text
Indian River County v. Rogoff, 201 F.Supp.3d 1 (D. D.C. 2016) (Counties alleged existence of major federal action for which NEPA analysis was required) Text
U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (EPA’s failure to issue emissions limits for hazardous air pollutants from five subcategories of solid waste incinerators violated CAA) Text
WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 830 F.3d 529 (EPA acted reasonably within its statutory authority under CAA in adopting relaxed deadlines for state compliance) Text
Mingo Logan Coal Co. v. EPA, 829 F.3d 710 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (EPA adequately explained decision to modify discharge permit) Text
Public Employees for Envtl. Responsibility v. Hopper, 827 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (BOEM’s environmental impact statement failed to take required “hard look” under NEPA) Text
Sierra Club v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 827 F.3d 36 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (FERC complied with NEPA by adequately considering indirect environmental effects of project) Text
Public Employees for Envtl. Responsibility v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 189 F.Supp.3d 1 (D. D.C. 2016) (Appropriate remedy for FWS NEPA violates was to vacate orders until new NEPA analysis could be done) Text
Nat’l Parks Conservation Ass’n v. U.S. 177 F.Supp.3d 1 (D. D.C. 2016) (USFS’s purpose and need statement for NEPA analysis was not too narrow) Text
Public Employees for Envtl. Responsibility v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 177 F.Supp.3d 146 (D. D.C. 2016) (Environmental assessment prepared in connection with FWS did not comply with NEPA) Text
Mayo v. Jarvis, 177 F.Supp.3d 91 (D. D.C. 2016) (NPS was not required by NEPA to prepare site-specific EIS annually for elk hunting) Text
Silver State Land, LLC v. Schneider, 145 F.Supp.3d 113 (D. D.C. 2015) (FLPMA did not require BLM to issue land patent to purchaser where consummation of sale would have been unlawful) Text
Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 803 F.3d 31 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (NEPA review of entire oil pipeline construction project was not warranted) Text
Western Org. Res. Councils v. Jewell, 124 F.Supp.3d 7 (D. D.C. 2015) (Government had not duty under NEPA to supplement original EIS for federal coal management program) Text
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (Requirements for States to reduce their emissions under the CAA by more than the amount necessary were invalid) Text
Mississippi Comm’n on Envtl. Quality v. EPA, 790 F.3d 138 (D. D.C. 2015) (EPA’s interpretation of “nearby” in CAA to not include broad, multi-state areas was reasonable) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. EPA, 106 F.Supp.3d 95 (D. D.C. 2015) (Court of appeals had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to FIFRA’s jurisdiction grant) Text
Union Neighbors United, Inc. v. Jewell, 83 F.Supp.3d 280 (D. D.C. 2015) (FWS complied with EA on application for permit for incidental taking of endangered Indiana bats) Text
Ctr. for Food Safety v. Jewell, 83 F.Supp.3d 126 (D. D.C. 2015) (Remand to FWS was appropriate under NEPA to consider environmental impacts of using genetically modified crops of wildlife refuge) Text
Nat. Res. Defense Council v. EPA, 777 F.3d 456 (D. D.C. 2014) (EPA’s extension of schedule of attainment deadlines for ozone standard violated the CAA) Text
Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 64 F.Supp.3d 128 (D. D.C. 2014) (NEPA review was not required for entire private oil pipeline prior to construction) Text
Zook v. McCarthy, 52 F.Supp.3d 69 (D. D.C. 2014) (EPA did not have nondiscretionary duty to list pollutants from animal feeding operations as criteria pollutants under the CAA) Text
Sierra Club v. EPA, 755 F.3d 968 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (EPA’s Gasification Exclusion Rule exempting residuals of refining process used for fuel from RCRA regulation violated RCRA) Text
Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. FERC, 753 F.3d 1304 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (FERC violated NEPA by failing to consider cumulative impacts) Text
Nat’l Envrtl. Dev. Ass’n’s Clean Air Project v. EPA, 752 F.3d 999 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (EPA directive that it would continue applying CAA permitting standard espite Sixth Circuit ruling against the standard violated EPA regulations) Text
WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. EPA, 751 F.3d 649 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (EPA’s denial of petition to initiate rulemaking was reasonable under CAA) Text
Nat’l Ass’n of Mfrs. v. EPA, 750 F.3d 921 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (EPA’s decision to lower the air quality standard for particular matter was reasonable under CAA) Text
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. U.S., 35 F.Supp.3d 92 (D. D.C. 2014) (Government was not an operator of rocket motor production facilities under CERCLA) Text
Communities for a Better Env’t v. EPA, 748 F.3d 333 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (EPA’s decision not to alter primary air quality standards for carbon monoxide was reasonable under CAA) Text
WildEarth Guardians v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 8 F.Supp.3d 17 (D. D.C. 2014) (BLM took hard look at impact on climate change of its decision to lease public land for coal mining in compliance with NEPA) Text
Oceana v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Mgmt., 37 F.Supp.3d 147 (D. D.C. 2014) (Agency complied with NEPA’s hard look requirement in approving oil leases in area of Deepwater Horizon oil spill) Text
Powder River Basin Res. Council v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 37 F.Supp.3d 59 (D. D.C. 2014) (BLM complied with NEPA’s hard look requirement in considering impacts on elk herd from proposed oil and gas development) Text
Oceana, Inc. v. Pritzker, 24 F.Supp.3d 49 (D. D.C. 2014) (Agency amending its fishery management plan complied with NEPA’s hard look requirement) Text
WildEarth Guardians v. Jewell, 738 F.3d 298 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (BLM complied with NEPA’s hard look requirement in considering the effect of its decision to lease public lands for coal mining) Text
Mississippi v. EPA, 744 F.3d 1334 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (EPA properly considered body of scientific evidence in revising air quality standards for ozone under CAA) Text
Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 990 F.Supp.2d 9 (Corps was not required to conduct full NEPA review in connection with oil pipeline) Text
Appalachian Voices v. McCarthy, 989 F.Supp.2d 30 (D. D.C. 2013) (RCRA amendment removed regulation of coal ash, as hazardous waste, from RCRA’s general regulatory scheme) Text
Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA,734 F.3d 1115 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (CAA authorized EPA to regulate sewage sludge incinerators) Text
City of Dover v. U.S. EPA, 956 F.Supp.2d 272 (D. D.C. 2013) (Report addressing nutrient levels for tidal estuary was not a water quality standard) Text
Mingo Logan Coal Co. v. U.S. EPA, 714 F.3d 608 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (EPA had authority under CWA to withdraw disposal site specification post-permit) Text
In re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act List and Section 4(d) Rule Litigation, 709 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (Upholding FWS’s decision to list the polar bear under the ESA.) Text
Conservation Force v. Salazar, 699 F.3d 538 Text
Desert Citizens Against Pollution v. EPA, 699 F.3d 524 (EPA reasonably interpreted CAA provision naming seven hazardous air pollutants) Text
Ctr. for Food Safety v. Salazar, 898 F.Supp.2d 130 (D. D.C. 2012) (FWS took hard look under NEPA at problem presented by decision to allowing farming on wildlife refuge land) Text
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (EPA exceeded its authority under the good neighbor provision of CAA) Text
Nat’l Envtl. Dev. Ass’n’s Clean Air Project v. EPA, 686 F.3d 803 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (NAAQS set for sulfur dioxide was reasonable under CAA) Text
American Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 684 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (EPA did not violate CAA in adopting new, one-hour primary NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide) Text
Coal. for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (EPA endangerment finding under CAA was not arbitrary and capricious) Text
Flaherty v. Bryson, 850 F.Supp.2d 38 (D. D.C. 2012) (Agency violated NEPA by failing to take hard look at environmental consequences of annual catch limits for Atlantic herring) Text
Woodstream Corp. v. Jackson, 845 F.Supp.2d 174 (D. D.C. 2012) (Under FIFRA, EPA may place conditions on rodenticide registrations unrelated to test data) Text
Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, 661 F.3d 1147 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Corps complied with NEPA in issuing FONSI for development located on wetlands) Text
Alaska v. Lubchenco, 825 F.Supp.2d 209 (D. D.C. 2011) (NMFS’s decision to list the Cook Inlet beluga whale under the ESA was reasonable.) Text
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation P’ship v. Salazar, 661 F.3d 66 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (BLM considered reasonable range of alternatives under NEPA in addressing proposal to expand natural gas development) Text
Nat. Res. Defense Council v. EPA, 661 F.3d 662 (EPA’s interpretation of CAA conformity provision was reasonable) Text
Sierra Club v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 777 F.Supp.2d 44 (D. D.C. 2011) (Agency’s financial assistance as to power plant expansion project was major federal action subject to NEPA) Text
Reckitt Benckiser, Inc. v. Jackson, 762 F.Supp.2d 34 (D. D.C. 2011) (EPA lacked authority under FIFRA to bring a misbranding action in lieu of a cancellation proceeding) Text
Reed v. Salazar, No. 08-2117 (CKK), 09-640 (CKK), 2010 WL 3853218 (D. D.C. Sept. 28, 2010) (order to set aside annual funding agreement for operation of bison range between Fish and Wildlife Service and Indian tribe) Text
Cloud Found. v. Salazar, No. 1:09-CV-1651, 2010 WL 3338546 (D. D.C. 2010) (challenge to federal removal of wild horses from horse range) Text
Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, No. 07-1756(RCL), 2010 WL 3292182 (D. D.C. Aug. 20, 2010) (successful challenge against decision to allow filling of wetlands for shopping mall development) Text
Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. E.P.A., No. 09-0548, 2010 WL 3245302 (D. D.C. Aug. 18, 2010) (EPA’s designation of two Arizona rivers as “traditional navigable waters” under the Clean Water Act) Text
Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, No. 09-0236, 2010 WL 3238848 (D. D.C. Aug. 17, 2010) (federal government’s revised critical habitat designations for piping plover) Text
Howmet Corp. v. E.P.A., 614 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (manufacturer violated Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) Text
New Hope Power Co. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, — F.Supp.2d —-, 2010 WL 2838538 (D. D.C. 2010) (prior converted croplands; renewable energy; jurisdiction on CWA) Text
In Defense of Animals v. Salazar, — F.Supp.2d —-, 2010 WL 2076921 (D. D.C. 2010) (challenge under NEPA and the Wild Horse Act) Text
Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, — F.Supp.2d —, 2010 WL 1140719 (D.D.C. 2010) (no NEPA violations in elk feeding rules) Text
Am. Soc’y for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Feld Entertainment, Inc., — F.Supp.2d —, 2009 WL 5159752 (D.D.C. 2009) (standing; Endangered Species Act) Text
Friends of Animals v. Salazar, 670 F.Supp.2d 7 (D.D.C. 2009) (listing of animals as threatened or endangered under the ESA) Text
Natural Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (challenging change rules for NAAQS for ozone to eight-hour standard) Text
Catawba County v. EPA, 571 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (no violations in promulgation of NAAQS for fine particulate matter) Text
Friends of Animals v. Salazar, 572 F.3d 1115 (D.D.C. 2009) (standing under ESA; allowing for the breeding and hunting of endangered elk by private ranches) Text
Am. Farm Bureau Fed’n v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 559 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (review of NAAQS standards) Text
County of San Miguel v. Kempthorne, 587 F.Supp.2d 64 (D.D.C. 2008) (listing of Gunnison sage-grouse on Endangered Species List) Text
Otay Mesa Prop. L.P. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 584 F.Supp.2d 122 (D.D.C. 2008) (critical habitat designation) Text
Weaver’s Cove Energy, LLC v. R.I. Dep’t of Envtl. Mgmt., 524 F.3d 1330 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (lack of standing to challenge dredge and fill inaction by state) Text
Ass’n of Irritated Residents v. E.P.A., 494 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (review of EPA enforcement action) Text
Hawai”i Orchid Growers Ass’n v. Johanns, 249 Fed. Appx. 204 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Imports threatening endangered species)
Physicians Comm. for Responsible Medicine v. EPA, 451 F.Supp. 2d 223 (D.D.C. 2006) (EPA rulemaking) Text
Friends of Earth, Inc. v. EPA, 446 F.3d 140 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (review of EPA approved TMDLs) Text
Natural Res. Def. Council v. Johnson, 422 F.Supp. 2d 105 (D.D.C. 2006) (EPA pesticide registration) Text
Beyond Pesticides v. Johnson, 407 F.Supp. 2d 38 (D.D.C. 2005) (EPA pesticide reregistration) Text
Gem County Mosquito Abatement Dist. v. EPA, 398 F.Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2005) (county gov. NPDES permit) Text
Bravos v. Green, 306 F.Supp.2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004) (review of state implementation TMDL plan) Text
Beyond Pesticides v. Whitman, 360 F.Supp. 2d 69 (D.D.C. 2004) (EPA registration) Text
Beyond Pesticides v. Whtiman, 294 F.Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2003) (EPA registration) Text
CropLife Am. v. EPA, 329 F.3d 876 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (EPA rulemaking) Text
Friends of Earth v. U.S. EPA, 333 F.3d 184 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (lack of subject matter jurisdiction to review TMDL) Text
San Juan Audubon Soc’y v. Wildlife Serv., 257 F.Supp. 2d 133 (D.D.C. 2003) (citizen suit standing) Text
Nw. Coal. for Alternatives to Pesticides v. EPA, 254 F.Supp. 2d 125 (D.D.C. 2003) (EPA and FOIA) Text
Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Bosworth, 209 F.Supp.2d 156 (D.D.C. 2002) (failure to comply with NEPA when renewing grazing permits) Text
Am. Crop Protection Ass’n v. EPA, 182 F.Supp. 2d 89 (D.D.C. 2002) (non-testifying experts’ opinions) Text
Cheminova A/S v. Griffin L.L.C., 182 F.Supp. 2d 68 (D.D.C. 2002) (FIFRA registration) Text
FEDERAL CIRCUIT
City of Wilmington v. United States, 68 F.4th 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (Because the City of Wilmington’s stormwater management fees were not “reasonable service charges” under the CWA, the CWA did not waive the US Army Corps of Engineers’ sovereign immunity.) Text
City of Wilmington v. United States, 157 Fed.Cl. 705 (Fed. Cl. 2022) (City’s charges assessed and fee adjustment process were not proper under CWA)
Penna v. United States, 153 Fed.Cl. 6 (Fed. Cl. 2021) (relating to whether government’s discharge of chemicals onto landowners’ property constituted a taking)
Biloxi Marsh Lands Corp. v. United States, 152 Fed.Cl. 254 (Fed. Cl. 2021) (relating to whether efforts to mitigate erosion and salinity from channel no longer caused marsh landowners’ justifiable uncertainty) Text
United Affiliates Corp. v. United States, 154 Fed. Cl. 335 (Fed. Cl. 2021) (relating to takings claims following EPA’s withdrawal of permit issued under CWA for mining-generated waste operations)
Landgraf v. United States, No. 20-66C, 2020 WL 2466138 (Fed. Cl. May 13, 2020) (relating to agreement between landowners and Natural Resources Conservation Service through the former Wetlands Reserve Program to restore properties)
Frazer/Exton Dev., L.P. v. United States, 809 Fed.Appx. 866 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (property owners knew or should have known about government’s alleged contamination of soil and groundwater no later than the year owners completed remediation of site) Text
Baley v. United States, 942 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Termination of water deliveries to preserve fish habitat was not a taking) Text
American Vanguard Corp. v. United States, 142 Fed.Cl. 320 (Fed. Cl. 2019) (FIFRA did not create the right to sell pesticides) Text
Lost Tree Village Corp. v. United States, 787 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Corps’ denial of wetland fill permit was a taking) Text
Pioneer Reserve, LLC v. United States, 119 Fed.Cl.201 (Fed. Cl. 2014) (Wetlands mitigation banking instrument was a contract) Text
Shell Oil Co. v. United States, 751 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Gas contracts required government to indemnify oil producers for cleanup costs incurred under CERCLA) Text
Lost Tree Village Corp. v. United States, 115 Fed.Cl.219 (Fed. Cl. 2014) (Denial of wetland fill permit was a taking) Text
Blue Lake Forest Prods., Inc. v. United States, 86 Fed. Cl. 366 (Fed. Cl. 2009) (breach of timber sales contract because of environmental regulations)
Brace v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 337 (Fed. Cl. 2006), aff’d, 250 F. App’x 359 (Fed. Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1658 (2008) (CWA restoration plan was not a taking)
Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 504 (Fed. Cl. 2005) (consequences of species designation)
Hansen v. United States, 65 Fed. Cl. 76 (Fed. Cl. 2005) (groundwater contamination)
Brace v. United States, 51 Fed. Cl. 649 (Fed. Cl. 2002) (“navigable waters”, takings)
Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist. v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 313 (Fed. Cl. 2001) (consequences of species designation)
INTERNATIONAL COURTS
Hoffman v. Monsanto Canada, Inc., 7 W.W.R. 665 (2005) (GMO effect on endangered or threatened species)
ALABAMA
Cahaba Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Water Works Bd. of City of Birmingham, No. 1200645, 2022 WL 571047 (Ala. Feb. 25, 2022) (dismissal reversed because plaintiffs stated a claim that easement created by Board did not comport with agreement’s requirements) Text
Black Warrior Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Alabama Dep’t of Envtl. Mgmt., No. 2200609, 2022 WL 497466 (Ala. Civ. App. Feb. 18, 2022) (applicant’s water-quality based effluent limitations was more stringent than technology-based effluent limitations) Text
Ex part LeFleur, 329 So.3d 613 (Ala. 2020) (residents were required to show that landfill’s alternative-cover materials for solid waste were less effective than earth to have standing) Text
Breland v. City of Fairhope, No. 1180492, 2020 WL 7778223 (Ala. Apr. 23, 2020) (property owner’s right to fill wetlands) Text
Ala. Dep’t of Envtl. Mgmt. v. Ala. Rivers Alliance, Inc., 14 So.3d 853 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) (reversing approval of NPDES permit that would lead to violation of water quality standards) Text
Ala. Dep’t of Envtl. Mgmt. v. Legal Envtl. Assistance Found., Inc., 922 So.2d 101 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005) (review of water quality antidegradation regulations) Text
Ex parte Legal Envtl. Assistance Found., Inc., 832 So.2d 61 (Ala. 2002) (review of antidegradation policy) Text
ALASKA
Sagoonick v. State, 503 P.3d 777 (Alaska 2022) (Claims for injunctive relief to combat climate change presented non-justiciable political question) Text
Jacko v. State, Pebble Ltd. P’ship, 353 P.3d 337 (Alaska 2015) (Borough’s clean water initiative was impliedly preempted by state law) Text
Alaska Fish & Wildlife Conservation Fund v. State, 347 P.3d 97 (Alaska 2015) (Regulations establishing community system of subsistence hunting for moose and caribou were not unconstitutional) Text
Cook Inlet Fisherman’s Fund v. State, 357 P.3d 789 (Alaska 2015) (Decision by Department of Fish and game to close set net fishery was not fishery mismanagement) Text
Alaska Ctr. for the Env’t v. State, 80 P.3d 231 (Alaska 2003) (proposed airport expansion and correlated filling of wetlands was consistent with Alaska Coastal Management Program) Text
Cook Inlet Keeper v. State, 46 P.3d 957 (Alaska 2002) (State’s determination of consistency with Coastal Management Act that excluded drilling platform’s wastewater discharge activities was invalid) Text
ARIZONA
Silver v. Pueblo Del Sol Water Co., 423 P.3d 348 (Ariz. 2018) (Department of Water Resources’ interpretation of “legal availability” is consistent with the statute defining adequate water supply) Text
City of Phoenix v. Arizona Dept. of Envtl. Quality, 74 P.3d 250 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003) (State procedures regarding hazardous waste facility permits were not preempted by federal law) Text
Dillon v. Zeneca Corp., 42 P.3d 598 (Ariz. 2002) (FIFRA preemption) Text
ARKANSAS
Louisiana v. Joint Pipeline Grp., 373 S.W.3d 292 (Ark. 2010) (challenge to issuance of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit by Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality) Text
Harry Stephens Farms, Inc. v. Wormald Americas, Inc., Nos. 2:06CV00166 JMM, 2:07CV00278, 2007 WL 3217525 (E.D. Ark. Oct. 24, 2007) (farmland contamination suit time barred)
McCorkle Farms, Inc. v. Thompson, 84 S.W.3d 884 (Ark. 2002) (pesticide drift) Text
CALIFORNIA
KEEP 70 SAFE v. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, No. C095543 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2023) (Keep 70 Safe’s argument with respect to the conclusion that the project would not significantly impact the release of hazardous materials is another attempt to cast standard practices, the following of which would result in a less than significant impact, as mitigation measures designed to mitigate a significant impact. For the reasons stated above with respect to the traffic management plan, such standard practices are not mitigation measures) Text
Canyon Vineyard Estates I, LLC v. DeJoria, No. B307176, 2022 WL 1565262 (Ca. Ct. App. April 21, 2022) (Deed stating that land would be held in perpetuity as natural open space created a conservation easement) Text
League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain etc. v. Cnty. of Placer, 75 Cal.App.5th 63 (Ca. Ct. App. 2022) (Substantial evidence supported county’s findings required to rezone land from timber production to permit mixed use development) Text
Almond Alliance of California v. Fish and Game Comm’n, No. C093542, 2022 WL 1742458 (Ca. Ct. App. May 31, 2022) (Term “fish” in Fish and Game Code included terrestrial invertebrates) Text
We Advocate Through Envtl. Review v. Cnty. of Siskiyou, 78 Cal.App.5th 683 (Ca. Ct. App. 2022) (Objectives in environmental impact statements for bottling facility project were too narrow) Text
Sweeney v. California Reg’l Water Quality Control Bd., 61 Cal.App.5th 1093 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (relating to cleanup and abatement order and administrative civil liability order regarding levee constructed on wetland marsh island) Text
Sweeney v. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Dev. Comm’n, 62 Cal.App.5th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (Repair exception from requirement for development activity in tidal marsh did not apply to landowner’s activity that turned marsh into dry island) Text
Farmland Prot. Alliance v. Cnty. of Yolo, 71 Cal.App.5th 300 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (Trial court was required to order county to prepare full environmental impact report) Text
Sierra Watch v. Cnty. of Placer, 69 Cal.App.5th 86 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (Discussion in environmental impact report for proposed resort development related to water and air quality was inadequate) Text
Vasquez v. Dep’t of Pesticide Regulation, 283 Cal.App.5th 672 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (Program capping amount of pesticide applied in township was a regulation under the APA) Text
Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power v. Cnty. of Inyo, 67 Cal.App.5th 1018 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (California Environmental Quality Act exemption for existing “facilities” does not include unlined landfills) Text
Save Civita Because Sudberry Won’t v. City of San Diego, 72 Cal.App.5th 957 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (Agency complied with California Environmental Quality Act guidelines related to impact statement) Text
City of Duarte v. State Water Res. Control Bd., 60 Cal.App.5th 258 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (Board gave sufficient consideration to economic effects of numeric effluent limitations in NPDES permit) Text
City of Duarte v. State Water Res. Control Bd., 60 Cal. App. 5th 258 (2021) (CWA, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems) Text
Santa Clara Valley Water Dist. v. S.F. Bay Reg’l Water Quality Control Bd., 59 Cal. App. 5th 199, 273 Cal. Rptr. 3d 333 (2020) (Denial of water district’s petition challenging order to mitigate environmental effect of flood control project) Text
State Water Res. Control Bd. v. Baldwin & Sons, Inc., 45 Cal. App. 5th 40, 258 Cal. Rptr. 3d 425 (2020) (Enforced investigative subpoenas relevant to water quality violations) Text
All. for California Business v. State Air Res. Bd., 23 Cal.App.5th 1050 (Ca. Ct. App. 2018) (Challenge to regulation approved by EPA as part of state implementation plan under CAA was precluded from state court review) Text
Dep’t of Finance v. Comm’n on State Mandates, 18 Call.App.5th 662 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (CWA did not mandate “maximum extend practicable” standard in providing for pollutant reduction in permits) Text
Coastal Envtl. Rights Found. v. California Regional Water Quality Control Bd., 12 Cal.App.5th 178 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (Approval of NPDES general permit complied with CWA) Text
Conway v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 235 Cal.App.4th 671 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (Water Quality Control Board could state TMDL pollution allocation in terms of concentrations of pollutants) Text
Garland v. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Bd., 210 Cal.App.4th 557 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (Discharge to navigable waters was governed by CWA) Text
Sonoma County Water Coalition v. Sonoma County Water Agency, 116 Cal.Rptr.3d 616 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (challenge to adequacy of county water agency’s urban water management plan rejected) Text
Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v. California Dep’t of Forestry and Fire Protection, 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 351 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (challenge to state approval of timber harvesting plans) Text
Madera Irrigation Dist. v. Madera City Bd. of Supervisors, No. F054218, 2009 WL 783022 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2009) (reversing decision to grant attorney’s fees for violation of state environmental review statutes) Text
Ass’n of Irritated Residents v. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Dist., 85 Cal.Rptr.3d 590(Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (force district to adopt CAA standards for CAFOs) Text
Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Cal. Dep’t of Pesticide Regulation, 39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 393 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (state pesticide regulation) Text
Brazil v. Sara Lee Corp., No. D045925, 2006 WL 181597 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2006) (FIFRA preemption)
Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Dep’t of Food & Agric., 38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 638 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (state pesticide regulation) Text
Cmtys. for a Better Env’t v. State of Water Res. Control Bd., 109 Cal.App.4th 1089 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (water quality-based effluent limitations did not need to be numeric standards) Text
COLORADO
Colorado Union of Taxpayers Found. v. City of Aspen, 418 P.3d 506 (Colo. 2018) (City ordinance requiring grocers to charge customers a “waste reduction fee” on disposable paper bags was not a tax) Text
City of Fort Collins v. Colorado Oil, 369 P.3d 586 (Colo. 2016) (moratorium on fracking within city operationally conflicted with state law) Text
City of Longmont v. Colorado Oil and Gas Ass’n, 369 P.3d 573 (Colo. 2016) (City’s ban on hydraulic fracturing was preempted when it materially impeded application of state oil and gas laws) Text
Colorado Min. Ass’n v. Bd. of Cnty. Com’rs of Summit Cnty., 199 P.3d 718 (Colo. 2009) (County ordinance banning use of certain chemicals in mining operations was impliedly preempted by Mined Land Reclamation Act) Text
Weld Air & Water v. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Comm’n, 457 P.3d 727 (Colo. App. 2009) (relating to Comm’n’s consideration of public concerns) Text
Bd. of Cnty. Com’rs of Gunnison Cnty. v. BDS Intern., LLC, 159 P.3d 773 (Colo. App. 2006) (Whether various water quality, wildlife and livestock regulations that affected gas producers were preempted by state or federal law) Text
People v. Thoro Prod. Co., Inc., 70 P.3d 1188 (Colo. 2003) (ambiguity under statutes relating to whether “disposal” included passive migration of previously spilled waste) Text
CONNECTICUT
Lyme Land Conservation Trust, Inc. v. Platner, 159 A.3d 666 (Conn. 2017) (Landowner violated terms of conservation restriction through installation of residential lawn) Text
Connecticut Energy Marketers Ass’n v. Dep’t of Energy and Envtl. Prot., 152 A.3d 509 (Conn.2016) (Approval of plan to expand use of natural gas did not require preparation of environmental impact evaluation) Text
Comm’r of Envtl. Prot. v. Underpass Auto Parts Co., 123 A.3d 1192 (Conn. 2015) (Court’s remediation order for water quality violations by auto parts companies and their owner was an abuse of discretion because it was effectively unenforceable) Text
Tilcon Connecticut, Inc. v. Comm’r of Envtl. Prot., 119 A.3d 1158 (Conn. 2015) (Department of Environmental Protection not authorized to regulate quarry operator’s excavation activities distinct from water diversion permits) Text
Sams v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 63 A.3d 953 (Conn. 2013) (State agency was not bound by trial court’s finding in enforcement action when it enforced order to remove seawall) Text
River Sound Dev., LLC v. Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Com’n of Town of Old Saybrook, 2 A.3d 928 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010) (Commission’s decision to deny development application did not exceed jurisdiction when substantial evidence supported finding that adverse impacts to wetlands or watercourses would likely result) Text
Red 11, LLC v. Conservation Comm’n of Town of Fairfield, 980 A.2d 917 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009) (upholding order to prohibit agricultural activities impacting wetlands) Text
DELAWARE
Garvin v. Booth, No. S18M-10-040 JJC, 2022 WL 247696 (Del. Super. Jan. 27, 2022) (Delaware Department of Natural Res. and Environmental Control can recover funds paid to a brownfield developer’s contractor pursuant to a Hazardous Substances Cleanup Act provision) Text
Protecting Our Indian River v. Delaware Dep’t of Natural Res. and Envtl. Control, No. S14A-07-003 RFS, 2015 WL 5461204 (Del. Super. Aug. 14, 2015) (Investigations conducted on site of proposed chicken processing facility were comprehensive and consistent with Delaware Hazardous Substances Cleanup Act) Text
Free-Flow Packaging Intern., Inc. v. Sec’y of Dept. of Natural Res. and Envtl. Control of State, 861 A.2d 1233 (Del. 2004) (Department could determine air polluting sources’ base fee categories without promulgating a regulation) Text
Cannon v. State, 807 A.2d 556 (Del. 2002) (Department of Transportation had statutory authority to condemn property for wetlands mitigation) Text
FLORIDA
Citizens v. Brown, 269 So.3d 498 (Fla. 2019) (public utility allowed to recover environmental compliance costs incurred in remediating past harm under Environmental Cost Recovery Clause) Text
City of Fort Lauderdale v. Hinton, 276 So.3d 319 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019) (genuine issue of fact existed regarding city’s responsibility for contamination of residents’ property from hazardous substances) Text
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Comm’n v. Daws, 256 So.3d 907 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018) (Landowners did not plead required elements for taking claims associated with Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s issuing licenses to deer hunters with dogs near private property) Text
Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Concrete Structures, Inc., 114 So.3d 333 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013) (Warrantless environmental inspections did not violate concrete maker’s Fourth Amendment rights after settlement agreement related to environmental violations on property) Text
Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, 993 So.2d 1078 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008) (damages caused by pesticide leaking into fishing grounds) Text
E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Aquamar S.A., 881 So.2d 1 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) (FIFRA preemption) Text
E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Desarrollo Indus., 857 So.2d 925 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003) (FIFRA preemption) Text
Castillo v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 854 So.2d 1264 (Fla. 2003) (pesticide drift) Text
GEORGIA
City of Guyton v. Barrow, 828 S.E.2d 366 (Ga. 2019) (CWA antidegradation rule did not require state agency to complete antidegradation analysis for nonpoint source discharge) Text
HAWAII
Umberger v. Dep’t of Land and Natural Res., 403 P.3d 277 (Haw. 2017) (relating to Hawai’I Envtl. Policy Act’s application to commercial and recreational permits for aquarium collections) Text
Sierra Club v. Dep’t of Transp. of State of Hawai’I, 202 P.3d 1226 (Haw. 2009) (Reauthorized use of State land for ferry service without environmental assessment was unconstitutional) Text
Ohana Pale Ke Ao v. Bd. of Agric., State of Haw., 118 Hawai’I 247 (Haw. Ct. App., 2008) (Environmental assessment required before Board of Agriculture could approve permit to import genetically engineered algae) Text
Sierra Club v. Dep’t of Transp., 167 P.3d 292 (Haw. 2007) (Environmental assessment was required for harbor improvements given the effects of ferry that improvements facilitated) Text
Kelly v. 1250 Oceanside Partners, 140 P.3d 985 (Haw. 2006) (County did not violate its public trust doctrine duty to protect ocean water from development’s storm water runoff) Text
Kepoo v. Kane, 103 P.3d 939 (Haw. 2005) (Substantial energy consumption of proposed power plant required environmental impact statement) Text
In re Waiola O Molokai, Inc., 83 P.3d 664 (Haw. 2004) (Evidence supported finding that proposed water use would not interfere with neighboring wells) Text
Morgan v. Planning Dept., Cnty. of Kauai, 85 P.3d 982 (Haw. 2004) (County planning commission was authorized to modify use permit concerning seawall but not to order property owner to conduct sand replenishment program) Text
IDAHO
Dep’t of Envtl. Quality v. Gibson, 461 P.3d 706 (Idaho 2020) (Grass clipping and leaves left at facility were “solid waste” subject to regulation under Environmental Protection and Health Act and investigation of facility did not constitute a search subject to Fourth Amendment) Text
Idaho Dairymen’s Ass’n, Inc. v. Gooding Cnty., 227 P.3d 907 (Idaho 2010) (County ordinance regulating confined animal feeding operation was not preempted by state law and did not violate due process rights of CAFO operators) Text
Idaho Conservation League, Inc. v. Idaho State Dept. of Agriculture, 146 P.3d 632 (Idaho 2006) (disclosure of Nutrient Management Plans) Text
Asarco, Inc. v. State, 69 P.3d 139 (Idaho 2003) (invalidating state TMDLs) Text
ILLINOIS
Cnty. of Will v. Pollution Control Bd., 135 N.E.3d 49 (Ill. 2019) (Board’s determination of no back-end groundwater monitoring was not arbitrary and capricious) Text
People v. Lincoln, Ltd., 70 N.E.3d 661 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016) (Landowner did not “allow” tenant’s illegal landfill operation and thus could not be liable for tenant’s unpermitted open dumping) Text
E.O.R. Energy, LLC v. Pollution Control Bd., 29 N.E.3d 691 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015) (EPA rather than DNR had jurisdiction over injection of hazardous waste material into Class II wells) Text
People ex rel. Madigan v. Lincoln, Ltd., 890 N.E.2d 975 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008) (Construction debris dumped at landfill was not separated or processed, thus not exempt from waste permit requirement) Text
Illinois Envtl. Prot. Agency v. Illiniois Pollution Control Bd., 896 N.E.2d 479 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008) (Illinois EPA did not make adequate antidegradation assessment for issuing discharge permit for sewage treatment plant expansion) Text
Rochester Buckhart Action Group v. Young, 887 N.E.2d 49 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008) (definition of “new facility” under state law) Text
Valstad v. Cipriano, 828 N.E.2d 854 (Ill. Ct. App. 2005) (allowing state fees for NPDES permits) Text
Kleiss v. Bozdech, 811 N.E.2d 330 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004) (crop damage action) (pesticide drift) Text
Traube v. Freund, 775 N.E.2d 212 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002) (FIFRA preemption) Text
Diehl v. Polo Coop. Ass’n, 766 N.E.2d 317 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002) (FIFRA preemption) Text
INDIANA
INDIANA OFFICE OF UTILITY CONSUMER COUNSELOR v. SOUTHERN INDIANA GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, Supreme Court Case No. 22S-EX-00166 (Ind. Jan. 4, 2023) (The Commission properly held Vectren’s instantaneous netting method is not contrary to law and satisfies the requirements in I.C. § 8-1-40-5) Text
Indiana Dept. of Natural Res. v. Whitetail Bluff, LLC, 25 N.E.3d 218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (Department did not have authority to prohibit game farm from operating high-fence whitetail deer hunting farm) Text
Nat. Res. Defense Council v. Poet Biorefining-North Manchester, LLC, 15 N.E.3d 555 (Ind. 2014) (State was not required to formally amend its CAA state implementation plan before changing how it interpreted “chemical process plants”) Text
Gresser v. Dow Chemical Co., Inc., 989 N.E.2d 339 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (Pesticide registered under FIFRA was entitled to statutory presumption that it was not defective) Text
Byrd v. E.B.B. Farms, 796 N.E.2d 747 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (pesticide drift) Text
IOWA
Iowa Citizens for Cmty. Improvement v. State, 962 N.W.2d 780 (Iowa 2021) (Social justice organizations’ reliance on public trust doctrine to compel environmental legislation presented nonjusticiable political question) Text
Bd. of Water Works Tr. of City of Des Moines v. SAC Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 890 N.W.2d 50 (Iowa 2017) (Trustees could not maintain action against drainage districts based on excessive levels of nitrates in river) Text
Brakke v. Iowa Dep’t of Natural Res., 897 N.W.2d 522 (Iowa 2017) (Department did not have authority to order landowners to quarantine land used as deer preserve for five years after deer tested positive for disease) Text
Iowa Farm Bureau Fed’n v. Envtl. Prot. Com’n, 850 N.W.2d 403 (Iowa 2014) (Member of State’s Environmental Protection Commission’s employment for advocacy group did not disqualify member from voting on water-quality rulemaking) Text
Freeman v. Grain Processing Corp., 848 N.W.2d 58 (Iowa, 2014) (Residents’ claims against milling facility were not preempted by CAA) Text
Sierra Club v. Wayne Weber, L.L.C., 689 N.W.2d 696 (Iowa 2004) (nuisance action) Text
Worth County Friends of Agric. v. Worth County, 688 N.W.2d 257 (Iowa, 2004) (home rule authority) Text
Gacke v. Pork Xtra, L.L.C., 684 N.W.2d 168 (Iowa 2004) (validity of right to farm law) Text
KANSAS
Sierra Club v. Mosier, 391 P.3d 667 (Kan. 2017) (Issuance of permit for construction of coal-fired electric generating facility was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious) Text
Sierra Club v. Moser, 310 P.3d 360 (Kan. 2013) (Department was not required to consider integrated gasification combined cycle technology in its review related to an air emission source construction permit) Text
City of Neodesh v. BP Corp. N. America, Inc., 287 P.3d 214 (Kan. 2012) (Strict liability claims in tort alleging water contamination are governed by the abnormally dangerous activity test and whether owners engaged in such activity was question for jury) Text
Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Sumner Cnty. v. Bremby, 189 P.3d 494 (Kan. 2008) (Group had associational standing to seek review of Kansas Department of Health and Environment’s decision to issue a permit to landfill company) Text
David v. Board of Com’rs of Norton County, 89 P.3d 893 (Kan. 2004) (county CAFO law challenged) Text
KENTUCKY
Brown-Forman Corp. v. Miller, 528 S.W.3d 886 (Ky. 2017) (CAA did not preempt property owner’s state tort claims) Text
Louisville Gas and Elec. Co. v. Kentucky Waterways All., 517 S.W.3d 479 (Ky. 2017) (Discharge permit subject to analysis under EPA regulations imposing limits on pollutants) Text
Com., Energy and Env’t Cabinet v. Shepherd, 366 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2012) (Trial court had jurisdiction to permit interested citizens to intervene in enforcement action under Clean Water Act) Text
LOUISIANA
Borcik v. Crosby Tugs, L.L.C., 222 So.3d 672 (La. 2017) (“Good faith” means an employee was acting with an honest belief that a violation of an environmental law, rule, or regulation occurred) Text
Louisiana Dep’t of Wildlife and Fisheries v. Comite Dirt Pit, Inc., 214 So.3d 874 (La. Ct. App. 2017) (Owner of property along river was not entitled to challenge applicability of Louisiana Scenic Rivers Act to its property) Text
Thomas v. A. Wilbert & Sons, LLC, 217 So.3d 368 (La. Ct. App. 2017) (Negligence in contaminating aquifer in violation of statutory duties constituted “fault” authorizing an action for the reparation of damages to property) Text
Collins v. State ex rel. Dept. of Natural Res., 118 So.3d 43 (La. Ct. App. 2013) (former employee stated a claim under the Environmental Whistleblower Statute) Text
In re Oil & Gas Expl., Dev., & Prod. Facilities, 70 So.3d 101 (La. Ct. App. 2011) (Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality abused its discretion by issuing permit without providing for some type of direct testing or bio-monitoring requirements) Text
M.J. Farms, Ltd. V. Exxon Mobil Corp., 998 So.2d 16 (La. 2008) (Statute governing procedure for oilfield environmental damages claims was constitutional) Text
Giauque v. Clean Harbors Plaquemine, L.L.C., 938 So.2d 135 (La. Ct. App. 2006) (Wetland area was not a surface water body, thus it was not precluded as a site for a hazardous waste injection well) Text
Lake Bistineau Preservation Soc’y, Inc. v. Seales, 922 So.2d 768 (La. Ct. App. 2006) Text
Roche v. Jefferson Davis Elec. Coop., 922 So.2d 759 (La. Ct. App. 2006) Text
Wood v. Becnel, 840 So.2d 1225 (La. Ct. App. 2003) Text
MAINE
Watts v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 97 A.3d 115 (Me. 2014) (Water quality certification issued for hydroelectric dam complied with statutory water quality standards) Text
E. Perry Iron & Metal Co., Inc. v. City of Portland, 941 A.2d 457 (Me. 2008) (Solid Waste Act did not preempt city scrap metal recycling facilities ordinance) Text
Save Our Sebasticook, Inc. v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 928 A.2d 736 (Me. 2007) (Board made sufficient cost-benefit analysis in authorizing hydroelectric power plant project) Text
Conservation Law Found., Inc. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 823 A.2d 551 (Me. 2003) (Permit by rule allowing pile supported dock in coastal wetland without an individual permit upheld) Text
MARYLAND
Maryland Small MS4 Coal. v. Maryland Dep’t of the Env’t, No. 25, 2022 WL 1771709 (Md. Ct. App. June 1, 2022) (Under CWA, general permit for county’s small municipal separate storm sewer system could have conditions more stringent than “maximum extent practicable” standard) Text
Maryland Office of People’s Counsel v. Maryland Public Serv. Comm’n, 228 A.3d 1193 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2020) (Cost to remediate property with tar pond sufficiently related to manufacture of gas by predecessor, as would allow remediation of entire property) Text
Genon Mid-Atlantic, LLC v. Md. Dep’t of the Env’t, 248 Md. App. 253, 241 A.3d 40 (2020) (CWA guidelines on coal-powered plants discharge of pollutants into navigable waters, regulation by EPA) Text
Maryland Dep’t of Env’t v. Anacostia Riverkeeper, 134 A.3d 892 (Md. Ct. App. 2016) (Discharge permits complied with CWA) Text
Maryland Dep’t of Env’t v. Anacostia Riverkeeper, 112 A.3d 979 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2013) (Permit was subject to standard for NPDES permits) Text
MASSACHUSETTS
Kain v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 49 N.E.3d 1124 (Mass. 2016) (Global Warming Solutions Act requires agency to set actual limits for greenhouse gas emissions, not aspirational goals or unenforceable targets) Text
Parkview Electronics Trust, LLC v. Conservation Com’n of Winchester, 43 N.E.3d 335 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016) (Conservation commission was permitted to apply both by-law and state law in determining compliance with wetlands protection standards) Text
Pepin v. Div. of Fisheries and Wildlife, 4 N.E.3d 875 (Mass. 2014) (Priority habitat regulations which prohibited “takes” of State-listed species were not facially invalid) Text
Franklin Office Park Realty Corp. v. Comm’r of Dept. of Envtl. Protection, 466 Mass. 454 (Mass. 2013) (Violation of CAA was willful and not the result of error) Text
Town of Barnstable v. Cape Wind Assoc., LLC, 27 Mass.L.Rptr. 111, 2010 WL 2436837 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2010) (challenge to a final environmental impact report concerning a wind farm)
MICHIGAN
S. Dearborn Improvement Ass’n, Inc. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 971 N.W.2d 46 (Mich. Ct. App. 2021) (Issuance of amended permit for existing source of air pollution was authorized by law) Text
Dep’t of Envtl. Quality v. Sancrant, No. 351904, 2021 WL 2599666 (Mich. Ct. App. June 24, 2021) (Department of Environmental Quality’s civil action against property owners to restore damaged wetlands did not violate double jeopardy) Text
Keep Michigan Wolves Protected v. State, Dept. of Natural Res., No. 328604, 2016 WL 6905923 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2016) (Provision of Scientific Fish and Wildlife Management Act allowing free hunting licenses for military members violated state constitution) Text
Dep’t of Envtl. Quality v. Gomez, 896 N.W.2d 39 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016) (Trial court acted within its discretion in ordering restoration of wetland into which fill material had been placed) Text
Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality (No. 2), 856 N.W.2d 394 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (Wastewater treatment system for nickel and copper mine was sufficiently complete and detailed) Text
Michigan Farm Bureau v. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 807 F.W.2d 866 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011) (DEQ had authority to require feedlot operators to apply for NPDES permit) Text
Sierra Club Mackinac County v. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 766 N.W.2d 857 (Mich. 2009) (upholding reversal of declaratory judgment for state CAFO program) Text
Sierra Club Mackinac Chapter v. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 747 N.W.2d 321 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (review of state general CAFO permit) Text
MINNESOTA
Matter of Reissuance of an NPDES/SDS Permit to United States Steel Corp., 954 N.W.2d 572 (Minn. 2021) (Groundwater was a Class 1 water, thus Minnesota Pollution Control Agency properly applied Class 1 secondary drinking water standards to steel company’s NPDES permit) Text
Matter of Enbridge Energy, Ltd. P’ship, 964 N.W.2d 173 (Minn. Ct. App. 2021) (Public Utilities Commission reasonably found adequate the revised environmental impact statement for oil pipeline company’s request to build pipeline) Text
White Bear Lake Restoration Ass’n ex rel. State v. Minnesota Dep’t of Nat. Res., 946 N.W.2d 373 (Minn. 2020) (Environmental Rights Act pollution and impairment definition applicable to “any conduct” potentially covered DNR’s groundwater permit actions) Text
Matter of Decision to Deny Petitions for a Contested Case Hearing, 924 N.W.2d 638 (Minn. Ct. App. 2019) (Agency not required to designated separate TMDLs for affected lake) Text
In re Dairy Dozen-Thief River Falls, LLP, Nos. A09-936, A09-1406, 2010 WL 2161781 (Minn. Ct. App. June 01, 2010) (timeliness of appeal for feedlot permit) Text
Wakefield Pork, Inc. v. Ram Mut. Ins. Co., 731 N.W.2d 154 (Minn. App. 2007) (odor within pollution exclusion) Text
Berne Area Alliance for Quality Living v. Dodge County Bd. of Com’rs, 694 N.W.2d 577 (Minn.App. 2005) (Environmental Impact Statement) Text
Anderson v. State, 693 N.W.2d 181 (Minn. 2005) (allowable state law claims) Text
Anderson v. State, 674 N.W.2d 748 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004) (pesticide drift) Text
Vasgaard v. Murray County Bd. of Com’rs, 2003 WL 21962493 (Minn. App. 2003) (challenge to denial of petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet)
Wendinger v. Forst Farms, Inc., 662 N.W.2d 546 (Minn. App. 2003) (farming operation challenged) Text
Hentges v. Minn. Bd. of Water & Soil Res., 638 N.W.2d 441 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002) (denial of wetlands exemption) Text
MISSISSIPPI
Adams v. Mississippi State Oil & Gas Bd., 139 So.3d 58 (Miss. 2014) (Oil and Gas Board exceeded statutory authority in adopting rule governing disposal of waste from gas production) Text
Mississippi Dept. of Envtl. Quality v. Pac. Chlorine, Inc., 100 So.3d 432 (Miss. 2012) (Department was authorized to help bankruptcy court find purchaser for contaminated land) Text
Sierra Club v. Miss. Envtl. Quality Permit Bd., 943 So.2d 673 (Miss. 2006) (challenge to issuance of air pollution control permit) Text
MISSOURI
Matter of PVC Mgmt. II, LLC, 623 SW.3d 733 (Mo. Ct. App. 2021) (Clean Water Commission approval of permit for concentrated animal feeding operation was supported by competent and substantial evidence) Text
Friends of Responsible Agric. v. Bennett, 542 S.W.3d 345 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017) (Agricultural organization could not seek judicial review of Clean Water Commission’s final decision by filing petition for writ of mandamus) Text
Mo. Soybean Ass’n v. Mo. Clean Water Comm’n, 102 S.W.3d 10 (Mo. 2003) (no subject-matter jurisdiction to review state list of rivers to be protected under CWA) Text
MONTANA
MONT. RIVERS v. MONTANA DEP’T OF ENVTL., 512 P.3d 1193, 2022 M.T. 132, 409 Mont. 204 (2022) (The District Court erred in concluding that there was no proposed state action pending that would obligate DEQ to prepare or supplement a MEPA analysis) Text
Clark Fork Coal. v. Montana Dep’t of Natural Res. and Conservation, 481 P.3d 198 (Mont. 2021) (Compliance with nondegradation standards was not factor to be considered when analyzing criteria for beneficial water use permit) Text
Park Cnty. Envtl. Council v. Montana Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 477 P.3d 288 (Mont. 2020) (Statutes prohibiting injunctive relief for violation of Montana Environmental Policy Act violated state constitution’s guarantee of clean environment) Text
Montana Envtl. Info. Ctr. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 451 P.3d 493 (Mont. 2019) (Department’s exemption of waters receiving discharges from coal mine’s outfalls from water standards was lawful) Text
Bitterrooters for Planning, Inc. v. Montana Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 401 P.3d 712 (Mont. 2017) (Department was not required to consider environmental impacts other than water quality impacts in issuing wastewater permit) Text
Clark Fork Coal. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 288 P.3d 183 (Mont. 2012) (Creek was of unique ecological significance, barring discharge of stormwater runoff from mine-construction activities into it) Text
Montana Wildlife Fed’n v. Montana Bd. Of Oil & Gas Conservation, 280 P.3d 877 (Mont. 2012) (Board took a sufficient “hard look” at natural gas wells) Text
NEBRASKA
Lingenfelter v. Lower Elkhorn Natural Res. Dist., 881 N.W.2d 892 (Neb. 2016) (Look-back provision of district’s rules governing land irrigation did not violate farmer’s substantive due process rights) Text
Scofield v. State, Dept. of Natural Res., 753 N.W.2d 345 (Neb. 2008) (Department of Natural Resources did not exceed its statutory authority in establishing boundary of state game refuge) Text
D B Feedyards, Inc. v. Envtl. Sci., Inc., 745 N.W.2d 593 (Neb. Ct. App. 2008) (breach of CWA consulting agreement) Text
Premium Farms v. County of Holt, 640 N.W.2d 633, (Neb. 2002) (county regulatory authority) Text
NEVADA
Mineral Cnty. v. Lyon Cnty., 473 P.3d 418 (Nev. 2020) (The public trust doctrine does not permit reallocating water rights already adjudicated and settled under prior appropriation) Text
NEW HAMPSHIRE
State v. Hess Corp., 20 A.3d 212 (N.H. 2011) (State in action against gasoline suppliers was not precluded in recovering damages relating to contamination of private wells) Text
New Hampshire Dept. of Envtl. Serv. v. Marino, 928 A.2d 818 (N.H. 2007) (Trench digging and refilling constituted “excavating”, “removing”, “filling” or “dredging” under Wetlands Act) Text
State v. Elementis Chem., Inc., 922 A.2d 678 (N.H. 2007) (Evidence related to hazardous waste was sufficient to support court’s decision to assess civil forfeiture at rate of $100 per day) Text
Bio Energy, LLC v. Town of Hopkinton, 891 A.2d 509 (N.H. 2005) (Town was preempted by the Air Pollution Control Act from issuing cease and desist order banning burning of certain materials) Text
NEW JERSEY
Del. Riverkeeper Network v. N.J. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 463 N.J. Super. 96, 229 A.3d 875 (Super. Ct. App. Div. 2020) (CWA municipal separate storm sewer systems and stormwater discharge regulations) Text
New Jersey Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 183 A.3d 289 (Superior Ct. NJ Law Div. Union County 2015) (Proposed consent judgment was effective vehicle for cleaning environment related to claims under Spill Compensation and Control Act) Text
In re Freshwater Wetlands Prot. Act Rules, 852 A.2d 167 (N.J. 2004) (allowing expansion of cranberry operations) Text
NEW MEXICO
Nuclear Waste P’ship, LLC v. Nuclear Watch New Mexico, 505 P.3d 886 (N.M. Ct. App. 2021) (New Mexico Environmental Department’s approval of permit modification for method of tracking waste volume from radioactive waste site was not abuse of discretion) Text
Southwest Research and Info. Ctr. v. New Mexico Envtl. Dept., 336 P.3d 404 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014) (Substantial evidence supported modification of radioactive waste facility’s permit to use shielded containers) Text
Citizen Action v. Sandia Corp., 179 P.3d 1228 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007) (Department order requiring federal research facility to remedy its landfill was supported by substantial evidence) Text
The Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. N.M. Water Quality Control Comm’n, 94 P.3d 788 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004) (water quality standards for waters used for fisheries) Text
NEW YORK
Application of Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Seggos, 75 N.Y.S. 3d 854 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018) (Challenging CAFO general permit under CWA) Text
FMC Corp. v. New York State Dep’t of Envtl. Conservation, 101 N.E.3d 379 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018) (Department of Environmental Conservation was authorized under environmental conservation law governing inactive hazardous waste sites to unilaterally remediate contamination) Text
Sierra Club v. Martens, 158 A.D.3d 169 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018) (Department of Environmental Conservation’s issuance of initial water withdrawal permit was not a ministerial act subject to environmental impact statement requirement) Text
Esposito v. Contec, Inc., 47 N.Y.S.3d 180 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017) (Plaintiff’s tort claims against fungicide product manufacturer were not preempted by FIFRA) Text
Global Cos., LLC v. New York State Dep’t of Envtl. Conservation, 35 N.Y.S.3d 830 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016) (Applicant for air permit modification, under CAA, was denied due process by state agency) Text
Nat. Res. Defense Council. Inc. v. New York State Dep’t of Envtl. Conservation, 34 N.E.3d 782 (N.Y. 2015) (Stormwater discharge permitting system did not violate CWA) Text
Blue Lawn, Inc. v. County of Westchester, 293 A.D.2d 532 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002) (compliance with state environmental standards) Text
Nature’s Trees, Inc. v. County of Suffolk, 293 A.D.2d 543 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002) (compliance with state environmental standards) Text
Nature’s Trees, Inc. v. County of Nassau, 293 A.D.2d 544 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002) (compliance with state environmental standards) Text
N.Y. State Lawncare Ass’n v. County of Albany, 292 A.D.2d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002) (compliance with state environmental standards) Text
NORTH CAROLINA
Rural Empowerment Ass’n for Cmty. Help v. State, 281 N.C.App. 52 (N.C. Ct. App. 2021) (Amendments to Right to Farm Act limiting nuisance claims against agricultural operations did not violate Law of the Land Clause) Text
State ex. Rel. Regan v. Wasco, LLC, 837 S.E.2d 565 (N.C. Ct. App. 2020) (Landfill operator’s compliance with injunction requiring it to apply for permit together with landfill owner would not be impossible) Text
Wasco LLC v. N.C. Dep’t of Env’t and Natural Res., Div. of Waste Mgmt., 799 S.E.2d 405 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017) (Provider of financial assurances for post-closure care was operator of landfill under post-closure permit requirement for hazardous waste program) Text
Dunn v. Cook, 693 S.E.2d 752 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010) (conservation easement) Text
NORTH DAKOTA
Nat’l Parks Conservation Ass’n v. N. Dakota Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 945 N.W.2d 318 (N.D. 2020) (North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably in issuing minor source air pollution permit) Text
People to Save the Sheyenne River, Inc. v. N. Dakota Dept. of Health, 697 N.W.2d 319 (N.D. 2005) (Department adequately considered phosphorous loading in downstream waters before issuing water discharge permit for lake) Text
OHIO
State ex rel. Yost v. Osborne Co., Ltd., 154 N.E.3d 183 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020) (Ohio EPA did not impermissibly penalize riverbank maintenance company and principal for dredged material in river) Text
State ex rel. Yost v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, 137 N.E.3d 1267 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019) (The CAA did not preempt Ohio’s Air Pollution Control Act regarding vehicle emission tampering pursuant to the doctrine of field preemption) Text
Oxford Mining Co., L.L.C. v. Nally, 27 N.E.3d 920 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015) (Wetlands should have been categorized as category two for purposes of water quality certification) Text
Citizens Against Am. Landfill Expansion v. Koncelik, 9 N.E.3d 386 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014) (Solid waste laws were intended to primarily regulate possible subsurface leachate releases from landfills) Text
Natl. Wildlife Fedn. V. Korleski, 995 N.E.2d 1261 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013) (Evidence supported issuance of certification allowing sediment dredging and dumping in local waterway) Text
Sierra Club v. Koncelik, 991 N.E.2d 1240 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013) (Air Toxics Rule was consistent with construction of statute that required Environmental Review Appeals Commissoin to adopt it) Text
State ex rel. Ohio Atty. Gen. v. Shelly Holding Co., 984 N.E.2d 996 (Ohio 2012) (Civil penalties for air quality violations are calculated from date of noncompliance until operator demonstrates that it is no longer in violation) Text
State ex rel. Atty. Gen. of Ohio v. State Line Agri, Inc., No. 2010 CA 11, 2011 WL1753327 (Ohio Ct. App. May 6, 2011) (Employee who violated employer’s directions by spreading manure in violation of permit was acting within scope of employment) Text
Paxton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 891 N.E.2d 1269 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008) (Supplier of old fluorescent lamps was not a “generator of hazardous materials” liable for cleanup costs) Text
OREGON
Eastern Oregon Mining Ass’n v. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 445 P.3d 251 (Or. 2019) (State could issue CWA permit regulating discharge) Text
Cascadia Wildlands v. Dep’t of Fish and Wildlife, 455 P.3d 950 (Or. Ct. App. 2019) (Judicial review to determine validity of rule in which gray wolf was delisted as an endangered species was moot when legislature decided to ratify the delisting) Text
Eastern Oregon Mining Ass’n v. Dep’t Envtl. Quality, 398 P.3d 449 (Or. Ct. App. 2017) (DEQ could issue permit regulating discharge) Text
Bridgeview Vineyards, Inc. v. State Land Bd., 154 P.3d 734 (Or. Ct. App. 2007), review denied, 174 P.3d 1016 (Or. 2007) (state dredge and fill permit exemptions) Text
Hawes v. Oregon, 125 P.3d 778 (Or. Ct. App. 2005) (load limits for nonpoint source streams) Text
Owen v. Div. of State Lands, 76 P.3d 158 (Or. Ct. App. 2003) (farm road maintenance exempted from permit requirements) Text
PENNSYLVANIA
EQT Prod. Co. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. of Commonwealth, 181 A.3d 1128 (Pa. 2018) (Clean Streams Law’s prohibition on unauthorized release of contaminants focuses on protecting Commonwealth waters with reference to places of initial entry) Text
Branton v. Nicholas Meat, LLC, 159 A.3d 540 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017) (Spreading of food product waste by farmers was a normal agricultural operation under the Right to Farm Act) Text
SOUTH CAROLINA
Pres. Soc’y of Charleston v. South Carolina Dep’t of Health and Envtl. Control, 845 S.E.2d 481 (S.C. 2020) (Community historical preservation organizations had associational standing to challenge environmental permits) Text
Kiawah Dev. Parnters, II v. South Carolina Dept. of Health and Envtl. Control, 766 S.E.2d 707 (S.C. 2014) (Proposed bulkhead and revetment to stop erosion at spit in coastal tidelands did not benefit the people) Text
Savannah Riverkeeper v. South Carolina Dept. of Health and Envtl. Control, 733 S.E.2d 903 (S.C. 2012) (Department’s negotiation with Army Corps for dredging of river prior to grant of certification usurped authority of river commission) Text
Sandlands C & D, LLC v Cnty. of Horry, 394 S.C. 451 (S.C. 2011) (Ordinance regulating flow of county solid waste was not preempted by South Carolina Solid Waste Policy and Management Act) Text
Normandy Corp. v. South Carolina Dept. of Transp., 688 S.E.2d 136 (S.C. Ct. App. 2009) (Evidence was sufficient for finding that condemned parcel contained no wetlands within jurisdiction of the CWA) Text
SOUTH DAKOTA
In Re Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Air Quality Permit Application of Hyperion Energy Ctr., 826 N.W.2d 649 (S.D. 2013) (Applicant provided sufficient justification for extension of commence construction deadline in PSD permit) Text
In re Conditional Use Permit Denied to Meier, 645 N.W.2d 579 (S.D. 2002) (denial of farming permit) Text
TEXAS
Texas Comm’n on Envtl. Quality v. Maverick Cnty., 642 S.W.3d 537 (Tex. 2022) (Coal mine’s owner was its “operator”, and thus correct applicant for permit to discharge wastewater) Text
Forest Oil Corp. v. El Rucio Land and Cattle Co., Inc., 446 S.W.3d 58 (Tex. App. 2014) (Railroad Commission does not have exclusive jurisdiction to fashion a remedy for non-regulatory based claims for environmental contamination) Text
Sierra Club v. Texas Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, 455 S.W.3d 214 (Tex. App. 2014) (Nearby residents lacked standing to challenge licensing of radioactive byproduct disposal facility) Text
Texas Com’n on Envtl. Quality v. Bosque River Coal, 413 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. 2013) (Addition of 299 cows to dairy farm would not significantly increase the quantity of waste discharged) Text
City of Houston v. BCCA Appeal Grp., Inc., 485 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. App. 2013) (City’s air quality ordinance was not expressly or impliedly preempted by state law governing air pollution) Text
Barrera v. Hondo Creek Cattle Co., 132 S.W.3d 544 (Tex. App. 2004) (right to farm) Text
Collins v. Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n, 94 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. App 2002) (permit to change waste management system challenged) Text
Am. Cyanamid Co. v. Geye, 79 S.W.3d 21 (Tex. 2002) (FIFRA preemption) Text
City of Waco v. Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n, 83 S.W.3d 169 (Tex. App. 2002) (regulation of CAFO permits) Text
VERMONT
State of Vermont Agency of Natural Res. v. Parkway Cleaners, 210 A.3d 445 (Vt. 2019) (Owner of property purchased through tax sale was strictly liable for clean up of previous owner’s release of contaminant) Text
In Re Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee Discharge Permit 3-1199, 989 A.2d 563 (Vt. 2009) (Evidence supported finding that power plant’s thermal discharge did not contribute to the decline of shad in river) Text
VIRGINIA
Campbell Cnty. v. Royal, 720 S.E.2d 90 (Va. 2012) (Oil Discharge Law did not apply to groundwater contamination due to seepage from county landfill) Text
Commonwealth ex rel. Virginia State Water Control Bd. v. Blue Ridge Envtl. Defense League, Inc., 694 S.E.2d 290 (Va. Ct. App. 2010) (Board was entitled to rely on EPA letter in determining compliance with CWA and federal regulations) Text
Chesapeake Bay Found., Inc. v. Commonwealth ex rel. State Water Control Bd., 628 S.E.2d 63 (Va. Ct. App. 2006) (Conservation foundation could sue in a representative capacity to challenge permit for discharge of wastewater) Text
Crutchfield v. State Water Control Bd., 612 S.E.2d 249 (Va. Ct. App. 2005) (farmers challenging approval of NPDES permit) Text
WASHINGTON
Washington State Dairy Fed’n v. State, 490 P.3d 290 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021) (waste discharge permit for concentrated animal feeding operation challenged) Text
Northwest Pulp & Paper Ass’n v. Dep’t of Ecology, 500 P.3d 231 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021) (New section in NPDES permit writer’s manual specifically addressing release of polychlorinated byphenyls was not a rule within meaning of APA) Text
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Dep’t of Fish and Wildlife, 474 P.3d 1107 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020) (Timber hunt rule governing use of bat to hunt black bear as part of bear timber damage program exceeded Department’s statutory authority) Text
Puget Soundkeeper Alliance v. State, Dep’t of Ecology, 424 P.3d 1173 (Wash. 2018) (Newly-developed testing method for wastewater toxicants did not void previously adopted method for monitoring waste discharge permit compliance) Text
Honeywell v. Washington State Dep’t of Ecology, 413 P.3d 41 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017) (Separate civil penalties could be imposed under Shoreline Management Act for each regulated tree that landowners cut without permit) Text
Snohomish Cty. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 368 P.3d 194 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) (CWA did not preempt vested rights doctrine) Text
Puget Soundkeeper All. v. State, Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 356 P.3d 753 (Wastewater discharge permittee violated CWA) Text
Cmty. Ass’n for Restoration of Env’t v. Dep’t of Ecology, 205 P.3d 950 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009) (state general discharge permit approval for animal operations) Text
Mendoza v. State, 135 Wash. App. 1026 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006) Text
Mauk v. South Columbia Basin Irrigation Dist., 116 Wash. App. 1076 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003)
Hickle v. Whitney Farms, Inc., 64 P.3d 1244 (Wash. 2003). (hazardous waste on farmland) Text
Uselmann v. Clark County, 114 Wash. App. 1045, 2002 WL 31630855 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002) (upholding regulatory fee for storm water regulation)
Eriksen v. Mobay Corp., 41 P.3d 488 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002) (FIFRA preemption) Text
WEST VIRGINIA
Found. for Indep. Living, Inc. v. The Cabell-Huntington Bd. of Health, 591 S.E.2d 744 (W.Va. 2003) (Clean indoor air regulations that restricted smoking were valid) Text
Monogahela Power Co. v. Chief, Office of Water Res., Div. of Envtl. Prot., 567 S.E.2d 629 (W.Va. 2002) (Impaired streams list was not order that was appealable to Environmental Quality Board) Text
WISCONSIN
Applegate-Bader Farm, LLC v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Revenue, 955 N.W.2d 793 (Wis. 2021) (Department of Revenue failed to develop reviewable record as to its decision not to issue environmental impact statement under state law) Text
Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Natural Res., 961 N.W.2d 346 (Wis. 2021) (Department had authority to impose animal unit maximum as condition of pollution-elimination permit for concentrated animal feeding operation) Text
Adams v. State Livestock Facilities Siting Review Bd., 787 N.W.2d 941 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010) (Statute governing approval of permits for expansion of livestock facility preempted town ordinance governing same) Text
State v. Schweda, 736 N.W.2d 49 (Wis. 2007) (State’s claims for violations of environmental regulatory laws did not give rise to right to a jury trial) Text