Environmental Citizen Suits: Strategies and Defenses

Similar documents
Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act: Enforcement Mechanisms. Jennifer Simon Lento. Associate Nixon Peabody, LLP

CITY OF FORTUNA, Defendant. /

Clean Water Act Section 404 Enforcement

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. RIVER WATCH, non-profit

Citizen Suits Alleging Past Violations Of The Clean Water Act

Management Program Part III. Enforcement Ordinances. Revised 2008 Air Quality Ordinance 8/20/08 1 of 6. Part III. Enforcement Ordinances

The Clean Water Act: Citizen Suits No Longer a Valid Enforcement Tool for Past Violations

A Guide to Monetary Sanctions for Environment Violations by Federal Facilities

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

The Continuing Questions Regarding Citizen Suits Under the Clean Water Act: Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation

Common Law Preclusion and Environmental Citizen Suits: Are Citizen Groups Losing Their Standing?

American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut, 131 S. Ct (2011). Talasi Brooks ABSTRACT

Planning an Environmental Case as a Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 2:12-cv Document 136 Filed 03/31/14 Page 1 of 49 PageID #: 4157

Natural Resources Journal

CITIZEN SUITS The Statutory Power to Abate Environmental Pollution and to Enforce Federal Environmental Statutes as a Private Attorneys General

American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut

Toxic Torts Recent Relevant Decisions. Rhon E. Jones Beasley, Allen Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C.

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:

DEFENDING AGAINST THE CITIZEN SUIT

Citizens Suit Remedies Can Expand Contaminated Site

806 F.Supp. 225 BACKGROUND

December 15, In Brief by Theodore L. Garrett FOIA

Rethinking Citizen Suits for Past Violations of Federal Environmental Laws: Recommendations for the Next Decade of Applying the Gwaltney Standard

Case: 3:14-cv DAK Doc #: 27 Filed: 01/27/15 1 of 17. PageID #: 987

Preparing for and Negotiating or Defending Civil Environmental Enforcement Actions

Case 2:15-cv SMJ Document 42 Filed 01/09/17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON I. INTRODUCTION

In the Supreme Court of the United States

Case 3:15-md CRB Document 3228 Filed 05/17/17 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Enforcing the Clean Water Act Authority, Trends, and Targets

HARVARD LAW SCHOOL Environmental Law Program

Power to the People: The Tenth Circuit and the Right of Citizens to Sue for Equitable Relief Under Section 309(g)(6)(A) of the Clean Water Act

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

Case 2:12-cv SM-KWR Document 81 Filed 07/21/13 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. v. : Civil Action No. GLR MEMORANDUM OPINION

An Overview of Citizen Suits Affecting the Mineral and Energy Industries

REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT. Seminar Presentation Rob Foos

Colorado s Hazardous Waste Program: Current Activities and Issues

A. The citizen suit as a stimulus for stagnant federal and state government action

Clean Water Act Section 303: Water Quality Standards Regulation and TMDLs. San Francisco BayKeeper v. Whitman. 297 F.3d 877 (9 th Cir.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, Defendant.

"Environmental Policy & Law under the Trump Administration: Smooth Sailing or a Bumpy Ride?"

California s General Industrial Storm Water Permit And Citizen Litigation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA OPINION AND ORDER

LIBRARY. CERCLA Case Law Developments ENVIRONMENTAL COST RECOVERY & LENDER LIABILITY UPDATE. Full Article

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. (Argued: Sept. 17, 2003 Decided: December 9, 2003)

Is "Diligent Prosecution of an Action in a Court" Required To Preempt Citizen Suits under the Major Federal Environmental Statutes?

Case 3:14-cv JLH Document 34 Filed 02/25/15 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Environmental Law, Eleventh Circuit Survey

Defending Against Citizen Suits Under Environmental Laws

Case 2:16-cv BJR Document 34 Filed 08/03/16 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) WHEREAS, Portland General Electric Company ( PGE ) is an Oregon corporation;

Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp.: Administrative and Procedural Tools in Environmental Law. by Ryan Petersen *

Case 3:17-cv WWE Document 52 Filed 02/07/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. MEMORANDUM OPINION (June 14, 2016)

Legal Quick Hits: Preparing for and Responding to EPA Information Requests

ALI-ABA Course of Study Clean Water Act. April 23-24, Excerpt From: Trends in Citizen Enforcement Suits Under the Clean Water Act

Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Environmental Law Commons

Protecting Your Position When Responding to Clean Air Act Information Requests from EPA

Natural Resources Journal

Case 9:08-cv DMM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/18/2008 Page 1 of 6

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT GENERAL PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY General NPDES Permit Number MDR10 State Discharge Permit Number 03 GP

Trends in Civil and Criminal Environmental Enforcement. Michael Volkov Tom Echikson Washington, DC

Judges' Bench Memorandum: Thirteenth Annual Pace National Environmental Moot Court Competition

Case 2:13-cv JCC Document 77 Filed 03/12/14 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. This Settlement Agreement is made by and between: 1) Sierra Club; and 2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL NO. 1:08CV318

CA. No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TWELFTH CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

PACE ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION CLINIC, INC.

Case 2:11-cv FMO-SS Document 256 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:11349

Case 2:08-cv TS -SA Document 391 Filed 05/11/11 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION

Air and Radiation Docket U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mailcode: 6102T 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20460

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TWELFTH CIRCUIT

When Will the Federal Govenment Waive the Sovereign Immunity Defense and Dispose of Its Violations Properly

Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 49 Filed: 08/21/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:1179 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Case 1:16-cv DPG Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2017 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WHAT TO DO IF YOUR CLIENT MAY INFRINGE BOTH OF TWO INTERFERING PATENTS? Charles L. Gholz 1, 2

Fourth Circuit Summary

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles

INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS: AVOIDING PITFALLS. Sherilyn Pastor, McCarter & English, LLP (and) Rosemary Stewart, Hollingsworth LLP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN DECISION AND ORDER

Case COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL PENALTIES. Federal Water Pollution Control Act 33 U.S.C 1251 et seq Administrative

Chapter 7 Clean Water Act Compliance and Enforcement: EPA Targets the Coal Industry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

Administrative & Judicial Challenges to Environmental Permits. Greg L. Johnson

MS4 Remand Rule. Intergovernmental Associations Briefing September 15, 2015

CASE NOTES recent environmental cases and final rules

Notwithstanding a pair of recent

Fordham Urban Law Journal

Case 1:17-cv JPO Document 1 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Circuit

Subject Matrer Jurisdiction, Standing, and Citizen Suits: the Effect of Gwaltney of Smithfield v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc.

Transcription:

Environmental Citizen Suits: Strategies and Defenses Tom Lindley August 2008 Topics Federal laws create options for citizen suits CWA, CAA, RCRA, TSCA, ESA, etc. Initial investigation and evaluations Corrective actions Client objectives Business objectives Litigation defenses Litigation considerations Trends Penalties Attorneys fees Settlements Avoiding such suits: audits

Clean Water Act Citizen Suits 33 U.S.C. 1365(a)(1): against any person... alleged to be in violation of (A) an effluent standard or limitation... or (B) an order issued by the [EPA] or State "Effluent standard or limitation" means: unlawful act under 33 U.S.C. 1311(a); effluent limitation or standard of performance; or an NPDES permit or condition thereof Clean Water Act Citizen Suits Ongoing violation is required: Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Found. Inc., 484 U.S. 49 (1987) At time of complaint: good faith belief that violation is ongoing Summary judgment: post-complaint violations or reasonable likelihood of future violations

Clean Water Act Citizen Suits Notice: 60-day notice required except: violations of 33 U.S.C. 1316 (new source performance standards) and 33 U.S.C. 1317(a) (toxic pollutant effluent limitations) Venue: federal district court in the judicial district in which the discharge source is located Clean Water Act Citizen Suits Preclusion 33 U.S.C. 1365(b)(1)(B): if EPA or the State has commenced and is diligently prosecuting a civil or criminal action in a court of the United States t or a State, t no citizen suit may be commenced 33 U.S.C. 1319(g)(6)(A): any violation shall not be subject to a civil penalty action if EPA, Corps, or State (under comparable law) is diligently prosecuting or has concluded administrative penalty action But see 33 U.S.C. 1319(g)(6)(B): limitations in 309(g)(6)(A) do not apply if the citizen suit is filed before commencement of an administrative action, or if 60-day notice has been given before commencement of an administrative action and the citizen suit is commenced before the 120 th day after the date that the notice is given

Clean Water Act Citizen Suits Remedies: declaratory and injunctive relief; civil penalties of $27,500 per violation per day Attorneys fees, expert witness fees, and costs to any prevailing or substantially prevailing party, if the court determines the award is appropriate Clean Air Act Citizen Suits 42 U.S.C. 7604(a)(1): against any person... alleged to have violated (if there is evidence that the alleged violation has been repeated) or to be in violation of (A) an emission i standard d or limitation... or (B) an order issued by the [EPA] or a State "Emission standard or limitation" means: schedule or timetable of compliance; emission limitation;, standard of performance or emission standard; control or prohibition respecting motor vehicle fuel or fuel additive; any permit condition; or any standard, limitation, or schedule established under Title V

Clean Air Act Citizen Suits 42 U.S.C. 7604(a)(3): against any person who proposes p to construct or constructs any new or modified major emitting facility without a [required permit] or who is alleged to have violated... or to be in violation of any condition of such permit Clean Air Act Citizen Suits Ongoing violation perhaps not required by CAA (Congress amended CAA in 1990) But some courts have held that citizens must demonstrate ongoing violations to have constitutional standing to sue. Anderson v. Farmland Indus., Inc., 70 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (D. Kan. 1999); Berry v. Farmland Indus., Inc., 114 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (D. Kan. 2000); see also Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998).

Clean Air Act Citizen Suits Notice: 60-day notice required except violations of 7412(i)(3)(A) or (f)(4) (hazardous air pollutant emission standards) except violation of order issued by EPA under 7413(a) (order to comply with SIP) Venue: federal district court in the judicial district in which the stationary source is located Clean Air Act Citizen Suits Preclusion: 42 U.S.C. 7604(b)(1)(B): if EPA or the State has commenced and is diligently prosecuting a civil or criminal action in a court of the United States or a State, no citizen suit may be commenced

Clean Air Act Citizen Suits Remedies: declaratory and injunctive relief; civil penalties of $27,500 per violation per day Also up to $100,000 of penalty award may be used to fund beneficial mitigation projects to enhance the public health or the environment 42 U.S.C. 7604(g)(2) Attorneys fees, expert witness fees, and costs to any party, if the court determines the award is appropriate Evaluate the 60-Day Notice I. Investigate Alleged Facts Unpermitted activities? Violations of permit conditions? Reporting violations? II. Assess Frequency of Violations Wholly past? Ongoing? III. Conduct Facility Audit Other potential issues?

Take Corrective Actions Stop all alleged violations or confirm no violations Review agency file Seek independent technical evaluations Make operational changes? Comply with past reporting reqs? Obtain permit? Client Objectives Defeat/narrow lawsuit Minimize/defeat i i any penalties Minimize/defeat attorneys fees Avoid other adverse results from suit Avoid future lawsuits Move on with business objectives

Response Considerations Litigation holds to preserve information* Insurance coverage/claim notice* Disclosure of suit in SEC filings Dealing with the news media* Preparing a litigation risk assessment Reservations for litigation costs/losses Litigation Holds to Preserve Information Complying with duty to preserve Developing, implementing and monitoring a litigation hold Identifying relevant documents and data; interviewing key players (including consultants and contractors)

Insurance Coverage/Claim Notice Recognize when a "claim" has been made against you Locate and catalog any potentially applicable insurance policies immediately Recognize the need for professional assistance Give notice as soon as possible Cooperate with reasonable requests from insurers Evaluate the insurers' response to tender; pay attention to details of defense offered Don't automatically ti take "no" " for an answer Determine what types of liability insurance you should carry Dealing with the News Media Assign a media spokesperson Don't try to dissuade Return phone calls promptly Be up front and honest or decline to comment Move quickly Anticipate questions and formulate message Don t try to answer every question Explain and be accurate Provide background/off the record Don't denigrate opposition Dispose of negative story quickly

Litigation Defenses Plaintiff's standing Mootness Improper notice Diligent prosecution by agency Action not authorized by statute Truly not liable on facts Litigation Considerations 1. Requests for immediate injunctive relief Opposing injunctive relief: Act quickly Try to establish informal agreements Appear in court 2. Motion strategy: Dismissal/summary mmar judgment 3. Discovery responses from defendant and its consultants

Litigation Considerations (cont.) 4. Agency involvement Effects of involvement May defeat suit by diligent prosecution Can provide protections in any event Benefits to Agency? Preparation for related suits against agency Agency practices DEQ Ecology Litigation Considerations (cont.) 5. FRCP Rule 68 offers of judgment At least 10 days prior to trial If offer not accepted within 10 days, then if final judgment less than offer, offeree must pay costs incurred after offer Subsequent offers not precluded after first offer

Recent Developments Special standing status for plaintiff states Given a state's "stake in protecting its quasi-sovereign interests, [a state] is entitled to special solicitude in our standing analysis. " Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S., 127 S. Ct. 1438 (2007) ESA's consultation regs do not apply to transfer to states of NPDES authority Consultation reqs applies only to discretionary federal actions, Nat'l Assoc. of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S., 127 S. Ct. 2518 (2007) Recent Topics CWA cases Nexus or not to navigable waters (Rapanosp and progeny; EPA/Corps guidance) Standing determined on date claim filed Attorneys' fees Granted only for prevailing claims CAA Who has standing?

Penalty Defenses Evaluate actual alleged environmental harm alternatives Review EPA s and State s actual penalty assessments for similar situations Review agency guidance on penalty assessment rationales Prepare arguments re: proposed result Defeating Plaintiffs Fees or Getting Your Own Past: P was substantially prevailing if its suit was catalyst for agency enforcement action that resulted in end of violations. Fee request must be legally related to relief claimed by P Buckhannon, 532 U.S. 598 (2001) rejected catalyst approach in civil rights context. Sierra Club, 351 F.3d 840 (8th Cir. 2003) applies Buckhannon in environmental context to hold P must receive some relief on the merits Relief must materially alter legal relationship so that D s behavior directly benefits P Change in behavior must be judicially sanctioned, not simply voluntary Standards now bit less clear

Settlement Considerations Ongoing violations Litigation cost analysis Agency enforcement Cost/benefit analysis Ultimate objectives Beware: Settlements do not preclude agencies or other third parties from suing PREPARE GETTING TO YES : THE MUTUAL GAINS APPROACH TO NEGOTIATION Clarify your mandate and define your team Estimate your BATNA 1 (and theirs) Improve your BATNA (if possible) Know your interests Think about their interests Prepare mutually beneficial options CREATE VALUE Explore interests on both sides Suspend criticism Invent without committing Generate options and packages that make the pie larger Use neutrals to improve communication DISTRIBUTE VALUE Behave in ways that build trust Discuss standards or criteria for dividing the pie Use neutrals to suggest possible distributions Design nearly self-enforcing agreements FOLLOW THROUGH Agree on monitoring arrangements Make it easy to live up to communications Align organizational incentives and controls Keep working to improve relationships Agree to use neutrals to resolve disagreements 1 Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. (Thanks to the Consensus Building Institute, Cambridge, MA)

Avoid Suits with Internal Compliance Audits! Where you can avoid such a lawsuit, less costly to do so Use a regular audit program to review operations and permitting Do so through attorney/client and state privileges QUESTIONS?