
Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Tenth Circuit Applies Statute of Limitations That Is “Closest Fit” in CERCLA Action, Overrules Earlier Precedent
- New Jersey Weighs in on State Climate Tort Claims
- First Circuit Holds that Smelling Vehicle Exhaust Constitutes Injury-in-Fact under Clean Air Act
- Ninth Circuit Upholds Vacatur of Some Oil and Gas Leases
- Court Dismisses Microplastics Consumer Protection Suit Citing Federal Preemption
Topics
- NJDEP
- Connecticut
- Pollutants
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Agency Action
- Loper Bright
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Public Trust Doctrine
- Disparate Impact
- Title VI
- Environmental Justice
- Massachusetts
- Internal Investigation
- Evidence
- Citizens Suit
- FIFRA
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- Georgia
- Major Questions Doctrine
- Lead Paint
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Operator Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Environmental Covenants
- Federal Circuit
- Divisibility
- National Contingency Plan
- Apportionment
- Strict Liability
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Public Utilities Commission
- Historic Resources
- Utilities
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- PFAS
- Ohio
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Fees
- Commonwealth Court
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Martime
- Asbestos
- New Mexico
- Tribal Lands
- Gold King Mine
- Utah
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Delaware
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- United States Supreme Court
- Chevron Deference
- Endangered Species Act
- HSCA
- Corporate Veil
- Alter Ego
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- Property Damage
- PCBs
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfield
- Innocent Party
- Brownfields
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- PHMSA
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- Effluents
- FOIA
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Drinking Water
- Michigan
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Clean Streams Law
- Civil Penalties
- Hearing Board
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Tax assessment
- Damages
- Property Value
- Stigma
- Fair Market Value
- Storage Tank
- Indemnification
- Energy
- Fifth Circuit
- Electric
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Discovery Rule
- Fourth Circuit
- Eighth Circuit
- Taxes
- Administrative Appeals
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Residential
- Inspection
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- New York
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Natural Gas Act
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- D.C. Circuit
- Mercury
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- HAPs
- Takings
- Condemnation
- Storage
- Natural Gas
- Takings Clause
- Flooding
- Fifth Amendment
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Interior
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- Insurance Coverage
- Duty to Defend
- Landfill
- Eminent Domain
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Illinois
- Water
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Montana
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Riverbed
- Navigability
- Seventh Circuit
- Indiana
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Green House Counsel
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- EPA
- Laches
- Boiler MACT
- Delay Notice
- Rulemaking
- Equity
- CISWI
- Consent Decree
- Enforcement
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- Procedure
- Standing
- NPDES
- Medical Monitoring
- Dimock
- Legislation
- Case Update
- Louisiana
- Dukes
- Certification
- Contamination
- CLE
- Decisions of Note
- Expert Witness
- Discovery
- Work Product
- Cases to Watch
- Privilege
- Cost Recovery
- CERCLA
- Insurance
- Defense Costs
- Real Estate
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Rapanos
- Odors
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Trespass
- Farming
- Administrative Hearing
- New Jersey
- ISRA
- Informal Agency Action
- Air
- Combustion
- RCRA
- Railroad
- Cancer
- Emissions
- Waste
- Speaking Engagements
- Federal Procedure
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Removal
- Clean Air Act
- Statute of Limitations
- Permits
- Title V
- Superfund
- Cleanup
- Supreme Court
- Multi-District Litigation
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Statute of Repose
- Enforcement Action
- Marcellus Shale
- Due Process
- Deeds
- Clean Water Act
- Wetlands
- Mineral Rights
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Drilling
- Oil and Gas
- Leases
- Exploration
- Royalties
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Relying on the United States Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure, yesterday the New Jersey Supreme Court , inNJDEP v. Huber, ___ N.J. ____ (Apr. 4, 2013), held that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) does not have an unfettered right to inspect residential property in order to ensure compliance or determine violations of the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act, even when the property in question is subject to an FWPA permit.
This long-running case involved residential property owned by the Hubers which was subject to a Freshwater Wetlands General Permit precluding certain activities on portions of the property. After a neighbor complained that the Hubers appeared to be mowing vegetation and conducting fill activity in the restricted area, an NJDEP supervisor went to the property to inspect. Eventually, an administrative order was issued assessing the Hubers a monetary penalty and directing them to restore the property. On appeal, the Hubers claimed that they did not consent to the inspection and therefore the testimony of the inspector should have been excluded.
Although affirming the lower court’s decision upholding the administrative order based upon evidence other than the testimony of the inspector, the NJ Supreme Court agreed with the Hubers as to the constitutional issue. Although recognizing that the FWPA contained broad language that compelled property owners to allow the NJDEP to enter onto a permittee’s property at reasonable times, the Court held that the FWPA “does not purport to authorize forcible, nonconsensual entry in to the backyard of a residential property owner.” Rather, the inspection scheme contained within the FWPA struck an appropriate balance between the significant state interest in preserving wetlands and the privacy rights of homeowners who have a greater privacy expectation than commercial property owners operating in a closely regulated industry. In summary, the Court held that:
Based on the FWPA’s integrated scheme governing freshwater wetlands in New Jersey, land subject to FWPA restrictions so important as to be required by law to be filed of record, which was done here, is subject to the statutory, reasonable right of interest and inspection. In exercising that right, the [NJDEP] must comply with its processed, which require presentation of credentials before seeking consent to entry at reasonable times. If entry is denied, the Commissioner may order that entry be provided, . . . and the [NJDEP] shall be entitled, pursuant to the rules of court, to judicial process to compel access to the property subject to the FWPA permit.
(Citations omitted).
The Court left open, however, several questions that no doubt will be addressed by future courts. For example, the Huber’s property was also subject to a conservation easement but the Court declined to address whether nonconsensual entry was permissible pursuant to the easement because the easement was unknown to the NJDEP inspector at the time of his visit. In addition, the Court did not decide “what showing is required under the FWPA for the [NJDEP] to gain entry to residential proper that is not subject to a FWPA permit.” (Emphasis added).