Articles Posted in Environmental

On November 7, in U.S. v. American Commercial Lines, LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling that American Commercial Lines (ACL), the owner of a tug boat whose contracted crew’s actions caused a massive oil spill in the Mississippi River, cannot rely on the Oil Pollution Act’s (OPA) third party defenses to avoid paying the U.S. Government another $20 million to reimburse the government’s response costs, and otherwise it was not entitled to limited liability because of the nature of the conduct of the operator’s employees.

There is no dispute that the July 23, 2008 spill was caused by [DRD Towing Company’s (DRD)] wrongful conduct and regulatory violations, committed in the course of carrying out its contractual obligation to transport ACL’s fuel-filled barge. Accordingly, the spill was caused by the gross negligence, willful misconduct or regulatory violations of ‘a person acting pursuant to a contractual relationship with’ ACL, and ACL is therefore not entitled to limited liability.

Continue Reading ›

On November 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its long-awaited ruling in Ecological Rights Foundation v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, which clarifies the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act’s (RCRA) Section 1006 anti-duplication provision that can play a key role in RCRA enforcement actions. The Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s ruling and remanded the matter to enable the District Court

“to consider EcoRights’ arguments with respect to the stormwater pathway that the relevant wastes are “solid wastes” and that PG&E’s actions present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment under RCRA.”

Continue Reading ›

On October 25, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the Dan Calver Wallen’s conviction for killing three grizzly bears in violation of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq. (ESA). The case was remanded to the Magistrate Judge to give the defendant an opportunity to establish his defense. The case is U.S. v. Wallen.

Continue Reading ›

On October 10, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the conviction of a “land man” for the crimes of conspiracy and mail fraud in connection with a scheme to defraud investors he enticed to invest in plan to mine “blue gem coal.” The case is U.S. v. Phillips.

According to the Court of Appeals “[l]and men scout rural property for coal mining potential and negotiate leases with the landowners to mine it.” As a land man, the Mr. Phillips’ job was to search for rural properties with coal mining potential, and then to negotiate leases with the landowners. According to the Court of Appeals, blue gem coal is a very valuable commodity, but applicable state and federal environmental regulations make it difficult to mine.

New Century Coal, the company that employed Mr. Phillips, purported to own land on which valuable deposits of blue gem coal were located, and with the services of a former NASCAR driver, the defendant participated in a plan to defraud investors to invest in the company which did not, in fact, own any such valuable lands.

The Court of Appeals states in its opinion that the company “has swindled more that $14 million from more than 160 investors.” “The government accused twelve people of being in on the scheme. Most of them, including the mastermind, Brian Rose, pleaded guilty. Only Johnny Phillips went to trial. The government charged him with three crimes: conspiring to commit mail and wire fraud, conspiring to launder money, and laundering money.” In his defense, Mr. Phillips argued that he was not aware of the fact that the company had not secured the rights to mine this coal, and that he found nothing suspicious about his accomplices and their use of fake names. The case was argued on October 5, 2017, and decided on October 19, 2017.

On October 11, the U.S. States District Court for the District of Columbia issued its latest ruling on the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAP). The case is Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. US Army Corps of Engineers and Dakota Access, LLC. Partial relief was granted by the District Court when it was convinced that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps of Engineers) Environmental Assessment inadequately addressed the consequences of an oil spill, and certain environmental justice issues.

Continue Reading ›

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in two significant cases: Nat’l Assoc. of Mfr. v. Dep’t of Defense and Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC.

In National Association of Manufacturers, the Court is being asked to determine which court is authorized to review the recent redefinition of “Waters of the United States” promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps of Engineers). The relevant statute is 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1) and (2), and it is notorious for its complex provisions. If jurisdiction lies in the federal district courts, then many lawsuits are likely to be filed in courts throughout the country, creating uncertainty and stretching out the effective date of the new rule. If jurisdiction is limited to the courts of appeal, this should reduce the cost of litigation, but may be contrary to other provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA).

Continue Reading ›