Climate Whack-a-Mole; or How the Trump Administration Institutionalizes Ignorance in the Endangered Species Act

Posted on August 27, 2019 by Peter Van Tuyn

Given the severity and finality of the extinction of species on this planet, and the myriad adverse impacts on human society and natural ecosystems of such extinction, Congress passed the hallmark Endangered Species Act in 1973.  Since then it has helped save myriad species from extinction and recover many species to healthy population levels.  The success of the ESA in meeting its goals, and strong public support for the law, did not stop the Trump administration from targeting the ESA to ease what it perceives as its negative impact on economic growth. 

As those familiar with the ESA know, a central duty under the law is for federal agencies to consult with the experts within the federal government before undertaking any activity that might jeopardize a species listed under the ESA or adversely modify such a species’ critical habitat.  This consultation helps both to prevent jeopardy and adverse modification and to identify ways in which the activity could proceed without having such effects. 

Among the Trump administration’s controversial proposals was to change the ESA regulations to create a climate change exemption to the ESA’s expert consultation process.  This proposal would have exempted from such consultation any proposed federal action with “effects that are manifested through global processes,” a phrase that is a clear reference to climate change. 

Not surprisingly, this proposal was met with substantial criticism from ESA supporters, who asserted that there was no legal authority to excise climate change from the ESA’s consultation requirements and that to deliberately do so was extremely foolhardy.  These people undoubtedly breathed a sigh of relief when the final rule came out without this proposal, which the Trump administration abandoned “in the interest of efficiency” in the face of that stinging criticism.  

That sigh, however, was certainly followed by a gasp, as those same people found that the final regulations included a wholly new regulatory approach designed to achieve the same effect.  The Trump administration did this by controlling what the expert agencies can consider as they seek to understand the effects of proposed federal action. 

Here is how it works.  First, the final rule defines “effects of the action” as

all consequences to listed species or critical habitat that are caused by the proposed action, including the consequences of other activities that are caused by the proposed action. A consequence is caused by the proposed action if it would not occur but for the proposed action and it is reasonably certain to occur. Effects of the action may occur later in time and may include consequences occurring outside the immediate area involved in the action.

(emphasis here and elsewhere added).  One layer deeper, the final rule defines the newly-added term “consequence,” in relevant part, as follows: 

Considerations for determining that a consequence to the species or critical habitat is not caused by the proposed action include, but are not limited to:  (1) The consequence is so remote in time from the action under consultation that it is not reasonably certain to occur; or (2) The consequence is so geographically remote from the immediate area involved in the action that it is not reasonably certain to occur; or (3) The consequence is only reached through a lengthy causal chain that involves so many steps as to make the consequence not reasonably certain to occur.

The final rule also defines the term “reasonably certain to occur,” which was not defined in the prior rule, to read, in relevant part, as follows:

Factors to consider when evaluating whether activities caused by the proposed action (but not part of the proposed action) or activities reviewed under cumulative effects are reasonably certain to occur include, but are not limited to:  (1) Past experiences with activities that have resulted from actions that are similar in scope, nature, and magnitude to the proposed action; (2) Existing plans for the activity; and (3) Any remaining economic, administrative, and legal requirements necessary for the activity to go forward. 

Finally, the new rule mandates that the criteria set forth in these new definitions of “consequences” and “reasonably certain to occur” “must be considered by the action agency and the [expert agencies].” 

Although the term “climate change” is not used in the text, the intention to preclude the Services from considering climate change is evident.  To begin with, the definition of “consequences” sets forth three criteria and provides that any one of these would support a non-causation finding.  These three factors – remoteness in time, geographic remoteness, and lengthy causal chain – are classic attributes of climate change.  Indeed, climate change is a global phenomenon that has taken decades to develop from multiple sources, through what may be (or perhaps in some cases may not be) complex causal chains.  Furthermore, the definition of “reasonably certain to occur” takes a retrospective stance, emphasizing “past experiences” and “existing plans,” and thus discounts the possibility of new and novel activities resulting from a proposed action in a climate-altered world. 

By providing that the criteria in these two definitions “must be considered,” the new rule makes it clear that it is creating a mandatory duty for the expert agencies to ignore climate-related impacts in their consultations under the ESA.  Indeed, the preamble to the new rule explains that, in situations where the consequences of activities resulting from a proposed action are “remote in time or location, or are only reached following a lengthy causal chain of events,” the consequences of such activities “would not be considered reasonably certain to occur,” thus removing discretion from the experts to determine the likelihood of occurrence. 

So, the Trump administration reacted to the hammering of its proposed attempt to institutionalize the ignorance of climate change impacts on listed species and their habitat with an approach that appears for the first time in the final rule and is effectively the same. This may not be the end of the matter, however, as I suspect the gasps of ESA supporters will turn to anger, and then to action, as they likely head to the courtroom to challenge the final rule.

Of Robots, Sensors and Drones: ACOEL and ELI Invite You to “Greentech 2019”

Posted on August 26, 2019 by Bradley Marten

Co-authored by Scott Fulton and Rob Kirsch

This fall, on October 1-3, 2019, ACOEL is partnering with ELI and other organizers to convene “Greentech 2019” in Seattle, a first of its kind conference bringing tech industry leaders together with environmental lawyers, policy makers and academics.  Speakers on five industry panels will discuss how environmental laws can promote, and sometimes obstruct, our ability to deploy new technologies that have the potential to be protective of natural resources and the environment.  See www.greentechconference.org.  New ACOEL member Paul Hagen will moderate a panel and is a member of the conference Planning Committee. Speakers include leaders from the energy, manufacturing, transportation, services and food industries.

The Greentech Conference is an outgrowth of a certain amount of whiskey being drunk by the three of us at last year’s ACOEL meeting in Jackson Hole.  We were discussing ELI’s upcoming 50th Anniversary celebration (Scott is ELI’s President) and hit on the idea of hosting a conference in Seattle focusing on the next 50 years of environmental law. That future, we have come to believe, will be informed as much by technology as by environmental regulation. And in shaping it, ELI and ACOEL will want to be at the table. A good and concise summary of some of the ideas that will be addressed at the Greentech Conference can be found in ACOEL Member Dan Esty’s 2017 monograph entitled “Red Lights to Green Lights: From 20th Century Environmental Regulation to 21st Century Sustainability,” and in Dan’s forthcoming book, “A Better Planet:  Big Ideas for a Sustainable Future.” Also setting the stage is a related piece that Scott did with tech guru Dave Rejeski called, “A New Environmentalism: The Need for a Total Strategy for Environmental Protection."

Numerous other ACOEL members are thinking about, and acting on, the “big ideas” being discussed at the Greentech Conference. The program can be downloaded here. We hope that you and your colleagues can attend and that you will help get the word out about this important event.

In addition to ELI, and Brad and Paul’s law firms and Rob’s former law firm, the conference is sponsored by a number of other ACOEL member organizations, by major technology companies (Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Intel, and First Solar), innovative manufacturers, universities and NGOs.  Sponsorship information can be found here. If you – or a colleague – are able to join us, you can register here. There are special discounted rates for public sector and academic attendees, and an early-bird discount that is available for all through August 31.

Please feel free to forward this invitation to your clients, students, cohorts and friends.

If It Walks Like a Duck and Talks Like a Duck, It May Still Not Be Sauce for the Gander

Posted on August 23, 2019 by Seth Jaffe

Earlier this week, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the “Wehrum Memo,” which reversed EPA’s longstanding policy of “once in, always in” regarding MACT jurisdiction, was not final agency action subject to judicial review.  Like Judge Rogers, I dissent. 

The majority makes much of its effort to clarify this “byzantine” area of the law.  My take is that, to the extent the court has succeeded in that effort, it is only by reducing the law to this simple rule:  If the guidance document appears to impose obligations on the regulated community, then it is a regulation and can be challenged.  If it lessens obligations on the regulated community, then it is guidance and may not be challenged.

This may benefit my clients, but seems an odd view of the law.

The majority and dissent agreed that the Wehrum Memo was the “consummation” of EPA’s decision making process.  The question thus became whether it constituted an agency action “by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow.”  The Court concluded that the Wehrum Memo does not have such an effect, because parties currently subject to MACT can only take advantage of EPA’s new policy by seeking to amend their Title V permit, and states can ignore the Wehrum Memo and permits can, in any case, always be appealed.

However, as Judge Rogers’s dissent noted, the Court pretty much had to ignore the decision Appalachian Power v. EPA, in which the Court stated that “’rights’ may not be created, but ‘obligations’ certain are….  The entire Guidance … reads like a ukase.”

When one reads Appalachian Power together with Sackett v. EPA, one conclusion becomes clear – courts are not going to allow agencies to promulgate guidance that allows them to exercise coercion against regulated entities who face significant costs and risks if they ignore the enforcement implications of agency “guidance.”

On the other hand, the courts seem to have concluded, if the guidance benefits the regulated community, then there is no harm to making those who want to challenge the guidance wait until some formal appellate opportunity becomes ripe at some point in the future.  However, as Judge Rogers pointed out, “legal consequences flow” from the Wehrum Memo as soon as major sources take enforceable limits to get below MACT thresholds.

I’m very skeptical that the decision contributes towards “clarifying this somewhat gnarled field of jurisprudence,” unless the Court really does intend the law to be that regulated entities can challenge guidance, but others cannot.

Banning PFAS in Food Packaging – Should states do the job of the FDA?

Posted on August 21, 2019 by Kenneth Gray

In June, Maine joined Washington State in presumptive bans on all per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in 2022, if their respective state agencies make findings that there are “safer alternatives.” These laws were adopted in response to public and environmental group pressures over the presence of some PFAS in certain food packaging, the general ubiquitous and persistent nature of other PFAS, and the desire to “do something” about PFAS.

These state PFAS laws were adopted despite the fact that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates PFAS in food contact applications. Since 2000, FDA has authorized the use of food contact substances through the Food Contact Notification program and certain PFAS are currently authorized for use in specific applications related to their non-stick and grease, oil, and water-resistant properties. For example, the Maine legislature barely considered FDA’s regulations in its deliberations on the state law.  

While some PFAS do indeed pose risks under particular exposure scenarios, these new food packaging laws cast a broad net over the entire class of compounds. Apparently applying the discredited “precautionary principle,” these laws lump all PFAS together, despite known differences in toxicity, persistence, and fate. State legislators and administrators are taking independent action even as the FDA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other national health agencies struggle with whether the PFAS compounds have enough commonalities to even identify appropriate subclasses of PFAS compounds.

In Maine, the law leaves important decisions to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the sister agencies it may call on, none of which have experience regulating manufacturing of food packaging, much less understanding or regulating health issues related to food. FDA’s work on food additives requires federal funding and expertise. Maine’s law allows the DEP to force manufacturers to provide information on chemicals, potential for harm, and alternatives, but gives the department no additional resources to analyze that information. In its determinations, the DEP may consider the extent to which the food package is adequately regulated by the federal government or a Maine agency.  This begs the question --Can DEP really do FDA’s job better?  As to PFAS regulation, there is no funding mechanism.

A curious feature of the Maine law exempts the manufacturer of a food or beverage product in a food package as long as the manufacturer has less than $1 Billion in annual national sales of such food and beverage products (presumably U.S. sales). Which raises an additional question -- If a package really poses serious risks to food or beverages, is it sensible public policy to allow manufacturers with lower revenues to market those products?

Of course, the larger question is whether we are better off with individual states regulating the components of food packaging, since a significant amount of food packaging is created for national and regional markets. Not only is there no guarantee that different states will arrive at the same levels of concern for the same chemicals, but if the differing PFAS standards for drinking water are any indication, decisions on PFAS bans and alternatives will vary. It is not hard to imagine the difficulties and frustrations that packaging formulators will have trying to get packaging products to market.

To make the future more interesting, the Maine law also creates a new program regulating food contact chemicals, adopting multiple provisions generally modeled on the state’s Toxic Chemicals in Children’s Products law. DEP may create a list of food contact chemicals of high concern (up to 10, but since structurally related chemicals are included, entire classes can be listed), based on toxicity, persistence, and other factors. The DEP may then designate such food contact chemicals as “priority,” which triggers notice to DEP if more than 100 ppm in the package as a contaminant, or if they are intentionally added above a practical quantitation limit. (If there is no notice to the DEP, the package is simply banned.) The DEP may also request information for chemicals of concern and an assessment of alternatives, or may assess a fee and then secure an assessment by a contractor. And the DEP may impose fees for its work, and for managing information it receives. Perhaps most significantly, Maine may ban priority chemicals if there is a “safer alternative.”

Surely, we live in interesting times.

Trump Track: Speed Bumps on the Road to Species Protection

Posted on August 21, 2019 by Rick Glick

On August 12, 2019, the Trump Administration adopted three new rules in an attempt to rein in the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”).  The rules would undo a rule in place since 1978 affording protections for “threatened” species similar to those listed as “endangered”; limit “critical habitat” designations where species do not now occur; and most controversially, inject economic considerations into the listing process.

The ESA was enacted in 1973 and signed into law by President Nixon.  At that time, environmental protection was not seen as the partisan issue it is today.  The Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and formation of the EPA all came during Nixon’s watch with near-unanimous support in the Congress.  Speaking on the ESA, Nixon said:  “Nothing is more priceless and more worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed.”

In enacting the ESA, Congress used uncommonly crisp and unambiguous language.  For example, listing decisions must be “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”  Further, the Act directs federal agencies to “utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened species listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act.” 

The courts have given these words robust interpretations, beginning with TVA v. Hill, which halted the construction of the Tellico Dam to protect endangered snail darters.  Since then scores of ESA cases have protected listed species.  In the Pacific Northwest, these cases often focus on salmon, northern spotted owls and shore birds at the expense of hydropower and the timber industry.

The ESA still enjoys broad public support, but has been on the Republican hit list for decades due to the economic effects associated with species protection.  Of particular note for this Administration, ESA restrictions stand in the way of oil and gas extraction and pipelines.  Yet in an era when the White House and both houses of Congress were all in Republican hands, the Administration was unable to get passed any limitations on ESA jurisdiction. 

The new rules represent the Administration’s shot at reducing the scope of the ESA through policy and rulemaking.  Here is a brief summary of some key elements:

Section 4(d) Rule

Under Section 4(d) of the Act, the fish and wildlife agencies can establish protections or exemptions for certain activities, known as 4(d) rules.  Since 1978 the agencies used a “blanket rule” that treated “threatened” species the same as those designated “endangered. The new rule reverses that default position, and requires a specific 4(d) rule custom made to provide additional protection for threatened species.  This change benefits industry in that the prohibition on “take” of listed species will not automatically apply to threatened species.  Of additional importance is the fact that the new 4(d) rules will take time to develop.  In the interim, presumably development may proceed without fear of prosecution for take of a threatened species.

Critical Habitat

Historically, the agencies have on occasion elected to list as “critical habitat” areas in which listed species do not now occur, but potentially could.  In Weyerhaeuser v. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Supreme Court suggested that such designations would not be available for areas that needed improvement to be good habitat, and remanded the matter back to the FWS.  The new rules require designation of areas as critical habitat where listed species currently exist before considering unoccupied areas, and then imposes new standards to demonstrate the species will benefit if the designation is extended to unoccupied areas. 

The new rule would also allow the agencies to decline designation of critical habitat if they find doing so “not prudent.”  This includes changes to habitat from climate change.  The rationale is that the government cannot control climate change, so taking steps to protect such habitat would be futile.

Section 7 Consultation

ESA Section 7 requires federal permitting or action agencies to consult with the fish and wildlife agencies about potential “jeopardy” to listed species.  The new rule would affect the “baseline” used for such determinations.  The jeopardy determination will apply only to the new activity; consultation is not required for ongoing activities that the action agencies lack discretion to change.  

Assessment of ongoing activities is particularly relevant to the continuing litigation over the application of the ESA to the Federal Columbia River Power System, a series of hydropower and flood control dams in the Snake and Columbia Rivers.  At the heart of the litigation is whether the existence of four Lower Snake River dams should be presumed, limiting evaluations for jeopardy to modifications to the projects or operations.  The agencies argued that the Corps of Engineers, which operates the dams, have no discretion to modify their purpose and therefore the status quo is the proper baseline.  Courts to date have not found this argument persuasive.

Listing Determinations

Perhaps the most controversial rule change concerns consideration of economic impacts in making a listing or delisting decision.  As noted above, the ESA mandates that listing determinations must be based “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”  The previous rule added for emphasis that the listing must be made “without reference to possible economic or other impacts of such determination.”  The new rule eliminates that language and would allow consideration of economic effects, but like the statute, also specifies that the designation must be based on the best available science.  The Administration has offered no plans on how this analysis will be conducted.  Environmental groups, not surprisingly, see this as a back door means of inserting economics into the decision-making.

Conclusion

There is broad scientific consensus that biodiversity among plants and animals is essential to long-term survival of life on the planet.  Species go extinct or are imperiled every day, often but not always due to human activity.  The ESA was intended address the manmade impacts to wildlife, and indeed there have been stunning successes—the bald eagle, grizzly bear and gray wolf to name a few. 

But the economic dislocations from ESA implementation in many instances have been substantial, often without concomitant species recovery.  Columbia River salmon are still in trouble after billions of dollars spent.  Protection of old growth timber for northern spotted owl habitat led to severe hardships to communities reliant on the forest products industry, only to find that the predation of spotted owls by barred owls could lead to the former’s extinction. 

There is nothing easy, or cheap, about preventing extinction.  It is hubris to suggest government can fix the problem.  But, having created much of the problem, it seems we have to try.  Our effort must extend beyond only saving the “charismatic mega fauna” that dominate media reports, like salmon and polar bears.  Although the public generally supports saving iconic species, support wanes for lesser known species. That is particularly so in rural communities with natural resource-based economies.  Yet these relatively unknown species also play essential roles in the ecosystem. 

The ESA, as well as the other major environmental statutes, is in need of reform to address the unintended consequences of the Act.  That is a task only Congress can perform, but until they do the executive and judicial branches will fill the vacuum.  In the meantime, environmental groups and some states have announced plans to challenge the new rules, which means another several years of litigation and uncertainty. 

That is not a recipe for sound policy, but is what we have until the national consensus on the environment returns.  And no, I’m not holding my breath either.

The Bureau of Land Management’s NEPA Review of Land Plans: Is Net Zero A Reasonable Alternative?

Posted on August 20, 2019 by Robert Uram

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) requires the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to review and revise its land use plans periodically. In the current round of reviews, the BLM is seeking to roll back protections for areas of critical environmental concern, to reduce lands managed for wilderness, and to greatly expand lands available for oil and gas and coal leasing. Since production and consumption of oil, gas, and coal result in the release of vast amounts of carbon, these changes threaten to worsen the outlook for global warming.

Before it can adopt these land use changes, the BLM must, of course, comply with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). Now nearing its 50th anniversary, NEPA is one of the most important federal environmental laws. While NEPA does not mandate that a federal agency take actions that are most protective of the environment, it does require decision makers to fully disclose the environmental impacts of any major federal action in an Environmental Impact Statement. Additionally, an EIS must present and consider reasonable alternatives to a proposed federal action that might mitigate environmental impacts. Consideration of alternatives is at the heart of an EIS. An EIS that does not cover a full range of reasonable alternatives is deficient.

Increased future fossil fuel development on public lands will lead to enormous increases in climate change gases. The fact that fossil fuel development affects global temperatures has long been clear to federal decision makers. Indeed, as long ago as 1979, the Programmatic EIS for the Federal Coal Leasing program warned that coal use was a contributor to greenhouse gases and could result in increased temperatures of 2-3° Celsius. The BLM will certainly make some attempt to disclose these impacts, but mere disclosure is not enough. The BLM needs to present meaningful alternatives that would address climate change concerns.

To date, the BLM has been considering a short list of alternatives in its land use planning EISs,  a no-action alternative that would keep the current land use plan in place, and several alternatives that vary the amount of protection for sensitive lands and the extent of lands open to fossil fuel development. If Judge Skelly Wright (the author of the seminal NEPA case, Calvert Cliffs v. Atomic Energy Commission) were alive today, he would undoubtedly call the BLM’s approach “crabbed.”

In particular, the BLM’s alternatives fail to present the decision maker with an alternative that would directly address the increase of carbon emissions. Many authoritative analyses, including the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, have concluded that the world needs to achieve net zero carbon emissions economy-wide by 2050 to limit the temperature rise to 1.5˚C above pre-industrial levels. Net zero carbon dioxide can be achieved by balancing carbon emissions with carbon removal or offsets or simply eliminating carbon emissions altogether.

To comply with NEPA, the BLM needs to add a “net zero” land-use planning alternative that would reduce or mitigate net carbon impacts from activities in the planning area to zero by 2050 or another date certain. This alternative would, by necessity, constrain fossil fuel development and provide for offsetting carbon reductions. A net zero alternative can be fully consistent with FLPMA.

Net zero land use planning is not unrealistic. Many countries, states, local governments, and private businesses have or will adopt net zero policies, and many development projects are being planned to achieve net zero now. Even very large carbon producing projects can achieve net zero emissions. For example, a master planned community in southern California that will build 21,000 homes and 11.5 million square feet of commercial and office space associated with 60,000 jobs was originally planned with little consideration of climate effects. Years of litigation, environmental analysis, and private initiative transformed the project into a net zero project by incorporating a combination of onsite and offsite measures.

To achieve net zero, the project will design homes and business to be energy efficient and use solar power, will install an electric vehicle charging station in every home and build 4,000 other electric vehicle charging stations, half in the community and half offsite. In addition, the project will provide subsidies for converting public transit buses to electric buses and creating an electric school bus program within the community. Offsite, the project will invest in carbon reducing measures in the surrounding area as well as elsewhere in California and other locations.

In these critical times for the planet, NEPA can play an important role in showing a path to net zero. Net zero alternatives for the BLM’s land-use plans and other activities would illuminate the role public lands plays in contributing to (and potentially avoiding) the adverse effects of global warming and identify changes needed to reach net zero for the proposed federal action. It might be too much to hope for that this administration will seize the opportunity to adopt a net zero alternative, but the analysis of what is needed will be informative and can be a blueprint for future administrations.

Does The Mineral Owner’s Dominance Foreclose Environmental Advocacy by the Surface Owner?

Posted on August 8, 2019 by Thomas Hnasko

Since the beginning of recorded mineral law, the owner of the mineral interests has enjoyed an elevated status in its relationship with the surface owner, resulting in the universally accepted notion that the mineral estate is the “dominant” estate.  Based on this long-standing characterization, courts have traditionally declared that, even where the deed creating a split estate is silent, the mineral owner enjoys an implied easement to use so much of the surface estate as is reasonably necessary for the exploration and production of minerals.  A recent, unpublished state court decision explored the intriguing issue of whether the mineral estate’s dominance allows its owner to prevent the surface owner from advocating for environmental protections for the surface in a public forum.     

In the case of Lone Mountain Ranch, LLC v. Santa Fe Gold Corp., No. D-101-CV-2013-02581, in which the author represented the surface estate owner, the mineral estate owner asserted that the surface owner’s participation in public processes designed to impose environmental protections for the surface constituted a violation of, or interference with, the mineral estate’s easement for access to and use of the surface for mineral development. The mineral estate owner claimed that such participation by the subservient surface estate would be detrimental to the development of the minerals and, therefore, contrary to the “dominance” enjoyed by the mineral estate.  At bottom, the mineral estate owner claimed that its easement deprived the surface owner of its right to advocate in a public forum for environmental protection of the surface estate.

Lone Mountain, as the surface estate owner, countered that such an interpretation would transform an access easement into a restrictive covenant and re-write the deed reservation splitting the estates to include promissory and obligatory terms that have nothing to do with physical access.  After hearing from professorial experts in the oil and gas and mineral disciplines, the court agreed with Lone Mountain and held that the dominance enjoyed by the mineral estate refers only to physical access, which the surface owner has no right to obstruct.  The court reasoned that an implied or express easement for access and development does not have the characteristics of a restrictive covenant and thus could not foreclose protected public participation and advocacy for environmental protections of the land.  As a result, instead of acting as a mere bystander to mineral development, a surface owner under a split estate deed may contest and resist mineral development under that estate based on environmental concerns that are unrelated to issues of physical access granted by the easement.

“Go back to where you came from” – a personal journey

Posted on August 7, 2019 by Brenda Mallory

The first time that I remember being told “go back to where you came from,” I was 18. Although not the first time I was targeted because of my race, it was the first time I remember those words. I had just finished my freshman year at Yale and I travelled with three African-American friends from Connecticut to Laconia, New Hampshire for a karate tournament. We were staying in a cabin in an easily forgettable location. In the morning as we loaded the car to leave for the event, we noticed several bunnies grazing in the grass. As kids from an industrialized, urban area, we watched with excitement and nervous laughter as the bunnies did their business and then hopped away. The spell was broken by an angry older white man, who hobbled out of a nearby building, yelling at us to get out of there, to go back to where we came from. We were stunned. The young men in the group responded in protest: we weren’t doing anything and we weren’t going anywhere. Of course, we were leaving but we would not leave until he went back in his cabin. Despite the bravado, we were all shaken and a little on edge when we returned to sleep for the night.

The next time, I was about 23. It was a quiet Sunday morning and I was walking down a major street in my hometown of Waterbury, Connecticut. I was in law school and had escaped for the weekend; I was on my way to the bus station to return to New York. The morning calm was broken by a car screeching around the corner, loud music blaring out the windows, carrying a rowdy bunch of white boys. One of them leaned out the window and yelled, “Hey, Ni*ger,” and some version of “get out of here or go back where you belong.” It was the first time I can remember having the N-word slapped upside my head in such a hostile and aggressive way.

The next time, I was about 25. I was walking through the North End of Boston with my white Jewish boyfriend, now husband, Mark. Mark had been staying with friends and we were picking up his things. As we passed a group sitting on a stoop, someone yelled, “Get out of here,” followed by, “There was a time they would have been killed for just walking down this street.”

Fast forward about 10 years for the last example I will share. More typical of recent encounters, the specific words were not used, but the message of not belonging or being suspect was clear. I’m in my mid-30s, a partner in a fancy law firm, living in an upper-class neighborhood in Montgomery County, Maryland. I am working a reduced schedule to have more time with my child and am at home on a Friday. The doorbell rings and I answer it holding my two-year-old. The woman standing on my porch, seeming a little annoyed, says, “Hi, do you know how long they’ve lived here?” Seriously not understanding, I ask “who?” She says, “the owners.” With the expressive eyes of my father, I say, “I’m the owner.”

My personal experiences are not unlike those of many African-Americans and other people of color—and much less traumatic than many. Yet, the memories sting and they stay with me. I have always viewed my experiences as evidence of isolated pockets of intolerance, with the mainstream arc of justice and equality bending in the right direction. My message to myself was just keep striving for excellence in the spaces you occupy and, one interaction at a time, my success will help overcome stereotypes and calm fears, leading to a better world for others.

At a time when hateful and divisive rhetoric is growing and spewing from our highest political leaders, it is clear that the journey to our more perfect union and the best ideals for this nation will take more concerted efforts, vigilance, and focus.  And so, I was pleased to join my former Obama Administration colleagues in issuing the Washington Post Op Ed, We are African Americans, we are patriots, and we refuse to sit idly by, committing to invest in the hard work to make this a great country, for all. As the Op Ed concludes, “We plan to leave this country better than we found it. This is our home.”

Brenda Mallory is the Director and Senior Counsel for the Conservation Litigation Project, a project created to protect the environmental and conservation values on public lands. During the Obama Administration, Brenda served as the General Counsel for the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Before then, Brenda held various senior positions at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, including as the Acting General Counsel and the Principal Deputy General Counsel. She also led the legal office supporting EPA’s pesticide and toxics programs. Brenda spent 15 years in private practice, chairing her firm’s Natural Resources Practice Group. She has been a Fellow in the American College of Environmental Lawyers since 2016.

Twenty Years of Waterkeeper Alliance: How the Waterkeeper Movement Shaped and Was Shaped by U.S. Environmental Law

Posted on August 6, 2019 by Karl Coplan

In the late 1980s, when I was an associate at the environmental boutique law firm of Berle, Kass, and Case in New York City, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and John Cronin came to visit the firm to discuss a new project they had started with sportswriter and Hudson River environmentalist Bob Boyle. Boyle wanted to take the British estate tradition of having a streamkeeper to protect streams from poachers and expand it to the entire estuary. Boyle’s organization, the Hudson River Fishermen’s Association, had designated Cronin as the Riverkeeper for the Hudson River estuary, patrolling it for polluters and other modern-day river poachers. Thus was born the idea of having Waterkeepers – individuals acting as non-governmental environmental monitors and enforcers, supported by local, waterbody-based grassroots organizations. The Waterkeeper idea caught on – programs were started in San Francisco, Atlanta and Portland, Maine at about the same time.  And in 1999, the fledgling Waterkeepers formed an alliance to spread the Waterkeeper model and support the growing network of Waterkeeper organizations.

As Waterkeeper Alliance celebrates its twentieth anniversary, it is worth reflecting on how the movement has both shaped, and been shaped by, U.S. environmental law. In a way, the Waterkeeper movement was a natural outgrowth of mid-20th century developments in the law of judicial standing and the Congressional innovation of the environmental citizen suit. By mid-century, the Supreme Court recognized the role of public interest intervenors in agency proceedings, describing these participants as “private attorneys general.” The Riverkeeper concept sought to take this “private attorney general” idea literally and have non-governmental water monitors enforce the environmental laws.

Standing for private law enforcement was a potential hurdle, and the Storm King case on the Hudson River proved pivotal to opening up environmental enforcement standing to non-governmental plaintiffs. Bob Boyle wrote a Sports Illustrated article about the proposed Storm King pumped storage hydroelectric facility and the devastating impact it would have on the Hudson River striped bass fishery. This story led to the 1965 Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission case in which the Second Circuit Court of Appeals explicitly recognized judicial standing based on non-economic recreational, environmental, and aesthetic harms.  A year later, Boyle founded the Hudson River Fishermen’s Association, the predecessor organization to Riverkeeper.

The Supreme Court went on to adopt the Scenic Hudson standard for environmental standing in Sierra Club v Morton, but with an important limitation: organizational plaintiffs would have to show that some individual member of the organization personally suffered one of these environmental, recreational, or aesthetic injuries. This holding set the stage for the growth of waterbody-based grass roots membership organizations litigating to protect their waters from pollution – exactly what became the Waterkeeper model. And in the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments Congress gave such groups something to enforce and the means to enforce it, with strict permitting requirements for point source discharges, numeric permit limits, monitoring requirements, and, most importantly, specific authorization for citizen suits. Congress thus gave life to Waterkeepers as enforcers. In 1983, John Cronin became the Hudson Riverkeeper and started patrolling the river looking for cases to bring as a private attorney general.

While many of the early Clean Water Act citizen suits of the 1980s were brought by Natural Resources Defense Council, as the Riverkeepers, Baykeepers, and Soundkeepers popped up across the country, their influence on the development of US environmental law grew. The grass-roots membership model based on recreational use of rivers, lakes, sounds, and bays was a natural fit with environmental standing requirements. Not surprisingly, given their roots in the Storm King power plant fight, Waterkeepers have played an important role in ensuring regulation of power generation water intakes. John Cronin got the ball rolling when he successfully sued to force EPA to issue the long delayed cooling water intake structure regulations under Clean Water Act § 316(b). When EPA finally issued these rules, it was a Riverkeeper suit that prompted the Second Circuit to remand the rules to remove reliance on offsite restoration as “Best Technology” to reduce aquatic species impacts. It was also (less successfully for Riverkeeper) the same Riverkeeper litigation that later led the Supreme Court to graft cost-benefit analysis onto the “Best Technology” standard in Entergy v. Riverkeeper. Waterkeepers continue to play the role of regulatory watchdog over the power industry. This year, Waterkeeper Alliance won a case requiring reconsideration of the coal ash impoundment effluent limits under the Clean Water Act as well as another case requiring reconsideration of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act regulations governing disposal of power plant coal combustion residuals.

Waterkeepers played a key role in development of Clean Water Act regulations in other areas as well. Another one of the founding Waterkeepers, the Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper, helped bring combined sewer overflows to the regulatory agenda with a successful suit against the City of Atlanta for violating water quality standards. Long Island Soundkeeper brought the cases establishing that recreational trap and skeet shooting ranges required Clean Water Act permits for their discharges, and were responsible for cleaning up past lead shot and target contamination in water bodies. Waterkeeper Alliance brought one of the first cases seeking enforcement of Clean Water Act and RCRA requirements against massive hog Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). Waterkeeper Alliance also brought a successful challenge to EPA’s revisions of the CAFO effluent limitations regulations.

The Waterkeeper movement has grown to over three hundred forty organizations in forty-seven countries, and Waterkeeper affiliates around the world are influencing the global development of environmental law just as the earliest Waterkeepers did in the United States.


NOTE: The author serves as outside counsel for Riverkeeper and Waterkeeper Alliance, and is a member of the Waterkeeper Alliance Board of Directors.

Because I Didn’t Say So!

Posted on August 5, 2019 by Brian Rosenthal

Major sources of air pollution must obtain a Clean Air Act Title V permit under their state’s EPA- approved implementation plan.  Permits, of course, can be challenged.  By petition to the EPA Administrator, the Sierra Club challenged a Utah permit in part based on a challenge to the standard used when the permit was issued in 1997! 

The challenge was denied.  The D.C. Circuit has exclusive venue for nationally applicable regulations or orders or issues of nationwide scope.  So, Sierra Club appealed to the D.C. Circuit but also filed a protective appeal in the Tenth Circuit in case the D.C. Circuit’s exclusive venue was not controlling.  Good move.  Because the issue involved a single permit from a single state, and because the Administrator used a “novel” interpretation of Title V limited to the specific circumstances presented and did not make a determination of nationwide relevance, venue was found to properly lie in the Tenth Circuit. 

It may be creative to conclude that venue is lacking because “the circumstances presented” by the federal air permit challenge are local in nature, but isn’t that always true in a decision on an air permit source with impacts in a single state?  If the Administrator had used other language intimating general application of a standard without a specific finding of a matter of nationwide effect, one has to wonder whether that would produce the same result.  So a word to the careful practitioner.  File the protective appeal in the issuing state’s circuit!