Case Law Index Environmental Law

January 1, 2002 – June 20, 2022

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)


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)

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)

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


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)


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 Siliconse, 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. Tonawand 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


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


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


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-dependant species). Text


S. Side Quarry, LLC v. Louisville & Jefferson Metropolitan Sewer Dist., 28 F.4th 684 (6th Cir. 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


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


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


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. Beauru 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, — F.3d —, 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

W. 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


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


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


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


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)


Hoffman v. Monsanto Canada, Inc., 7 W.W.R. 665 (2005) (GMO effect on endangered or threatened species)



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


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


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


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


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 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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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 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 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


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


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


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


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 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


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


State ex rel. Yost v. Osborne Co., Ltd., 154 N.E.3d 183 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020) (Ohio EPA did not impermissibly penalize river bank 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 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


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


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


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 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


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


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 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


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