On April 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held, in the case of California Dep’t of Toxic Substances Control v. Westside Delivery, LLC, that a purchaser of land at a California tax sale was not entitled to the third party defense for clean-up costs contemplated by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act’s (CERCLA), known also as Superfund. The Ninth Circuit concluded that The panel concluded that Westside Delivery, LLC (Westside) had a “contractual relationship” with the pre-tax-sale owner of the property and that the previous owner caused contamination of the site “in connection with” its contractual relationship with Westside. The case has been remanded for further proceedings.
Articles Posted in Environmental
Important Environmental Insurance Ruling Issued In Protracted Insurance-Coverage Dispute
The latest ruling in the long-running environmental insurance case, Olin Corporation v. Lamorak Ins. Co., was released on April 18, 2018, by Judge Rakoff of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of New York. Judge Rakoff granted motions for summary judgment filed by Olin Corporation (Olin) and The London Market Insurers, and awarded Olin $55M for its claims against Lamorak Insurance Company (Lamorak).
Alleged Government Inaction Did Not Amount to Inverse Condemnation and a Compensable Taking
On April 20, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided the case of St. Bernard Parish Government, et al., v. U.S., reversing a decision by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The Court of Claims had found that a Constitutional compensable “taking” had occurred with respect to the owners of real property located in St. Bernard Parish and the Lower Ninth Ward of the City of New Orleans, whose properties had been damaged as a result of the damage wrought by Hurricane Katrina and other recent hurricanes.
“In summary, we conclude that the allegations of government inaction do not state a takings claim, and that plaintiffs have not established that the construction or operation of MRGO caused their injury.”
This could be a very important ruling affecting many thousands of Texas and Southeastern United States claims that are being filed in the Court of Claims in the wake of Hurricane Harvey.
Federal Appellate Courts Call Some Fouls
Recent federal court rulings illustrate how the courts are serving as an umpire sometimes restraining the government and litigants.
On April 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a ruling, in Kuehl, et al., v. Sellner, et al., affirming the District Court’s decision which held that the defendants had violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in their operation of the Cricket Hollow Zoo (a licensed facility), located in Manchester, IA. The plaintiffs, which included the Animal Legal Defense Fund, sued the Sellners alleging that the conditions in which some endangered species (lemurs and tigers) were housed in the zoo amounted to a mistreatment of these endangered species.
The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 Reinstates the Oil Spill Liability Tax
Section 40416 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 temporarily reinstates the Oil Spill Liability Tax that expired on December 31, 2017 for the period beginning on March 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018. Section 4611 of the Internal Revenue Code has, for many years, imposed a tax of $0.09 cents per barrel on crude oil received at a refinery, and on petroleum products entered into the U.S. for consumption, use, or warehousing.
New Presidential Memorandum for Administrator of EPA on Accelerating NAAQS Review and Regional Haze Program
Accelerating air permitting decisions will be very helpful to almost everyone in business. An important Presidential environmental policy memorandum dated April 12, 2018 directing the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take specific actions to ensure efficient and cost-effective implementation of the U.S. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS, pronounced \’naks\) program, including permitting decisions for new and expanded facilities, and with respect to the Regional Haze Program, was published in the April 16, 2018 edition of the Federal Register.
Briefly, the memo, acknowledgrd that the periodic statutory review of the NAAQS for the “criteria pollutants” (ozone, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, lead and carbon monoxide) has resulted in delayed Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan (SIP) reviews and has also had the effect of making the processing of preconstruction permits to construct new manufacturing facilities or their modification much more difficult.
Twelve Federal Agencies Commit to Implement Executive Order to Streamline Environmental Review and Approval of Major Infrastructure Projects
On April 9, 2018, the heads of twelve Federal agencies and departments entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) committing their respective agencies to implement certain concepts and directives from Executive Order (“EO”) 13807,[1] the Trump administration’s effort to streamline environmental review and approval of major infrastructure projects. The signatory agencies are the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Energy, and Homeland Security, the Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, as well as the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council. These agencies frequently are involved in large-scale, complex infrastructure projects, such as traditional and renewable energy facilities and interstate pipelines; highway and bridge improvements, and transportation projects. While much of the MOU recites requirements previously set forth in the EO, it adds details and deadlines regarding interagency coordination, communication and dispute resolution in order to carry out the EO’s “One Federal Decision” concept and the goal of completing environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) within two years.
Ninth Circuit Upholds Corps’ Issuance of CWA Section 404 Permit for Newhall Ranch Project Near Santa Clarita, CA
On April 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a unanimous opinion, rejected the challenges to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) decision to issue a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit to the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall), which is planning a large residential and commercial project in Los Angeles County near Santa Clarita, CA (the Newhall Ranch project). The Newhall Ranch project, which involves the discharge of dredge and fill materials into the Santa Clara River, has been scaled back and modified, and the Ninth Circuit held that it is consistent with the CWA, the Corps’ regulations and procedures, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Ninth Circuit provides an excellent primer on the Section 404 permitting process. The case is Friends of the Santa Clara River v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Eighth Circuit Considers Judicial Estoppel in Hazardous Substance Release-Related Personal Injury Case
On April 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit decided the case of Kirk v. Schaeffler Group USA, Inc., et al., a personal injury action commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri alleging injury resulting from the release of thousands of gallons of trichloroethylene (TCE) at the FAG Bearings Corporation’s (FAG Bearings) facility in Joplin, MO. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s judicial estoppel ruling on the successor liability issue and concluded that the jury’s verdict on compensatory damages stands but their general verdict requires a new trial on Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim against FAG Bearings.
California District Court Rules Against EPA On Claims that It Failed to Timely Act
On March 30, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California decided the case of Californians for Renewable Energy, et al., v. EPA. The plaintiffs, public interest organizations located in several states, filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) complaining that EPA failed to act on anything like a timely basis on their administrative complaints. EPA argued that the case should be dismissed because of (a) improper venue; (b) lack of standing; and (c) mootness. The District Court rejected these arguments, and denied EPA’s motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiffs’ and EPA’s motion for summary judgment, each in part. However, the District Court reserved judgment until the parties had an opportunity to meet and confer on the outstanding issues and then advise the court where things stand.