In City of St. Charles v. Union Electric Company, the City of St. Charles (the “City”) brought common law claims sounding in negligence against Defendant Union Electric Company dba Ameren Missouri (“Ameren”), alleging that Ameren contaminated the City’s water supply, causing the City to incur millions in cleanup costs. No. 4:23-cv-00846-MTS (E.D. Mo. 2023). Ameren removed the case to federal court because it had been subject to an administrative settlement with EPA to perform the cleanup pursuant to CERCLA, but on November 2, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri remanded the case back to state court for want of subject matter jurisdiction. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Cost Recovery, Federal Jurisdiction, Removal, Subject Matter Jurisdiction

In Rio Linda Elverta Cmty. Water Dist. v. United States, No. 2:17-CV-01349, 2022 WL 3567143 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2022), the Honorable Kimberly J. Mueller, Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, dismissed  two California water utilities’ federal and state law claims against the federal government and several private sector defendants relating to hexavalent chromium (“Cr6”) pollution at the former McClellan Air Force Base (“Base”) near Sacramento, California.  The water utilities allege that during active operations of the Base, the federal government used products containing Cr6, which contaminated the groundwater aquifer from which the water utilities derive municipal drinking water, making it unsafe for human consumption.  Much of the case turned on the interplay between CERCLA sections 104 and 113(h) in the context of a clean up of a federal facility. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: California, CERCLA, Contribution, Cost Recovery, Drinking Water, Federal Facilities, Groundwater, Negligence, Nuisance, RCRA, Remediation, Removal, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Superfund, Trespass

In order to bring a citizen suit in federal district court under the Clean Water Act, 33 USC  § 1365(a)(1), the plaintiff must first give “notice of the alleged violation” to the alleged violator, the EPA, and the State at least 60 days prior to commencing suit. In  Shark River Cleanup Coalition v. Township of Wall; Estate of Fred McDowell Jr., (No. 21-2060, 3d Cir. August 24, 2022), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals found that the district court erred in its finding that the notice was inadequate because it had not adequately identified the location of the alleged violation as required by the EPA regulations implementing the statutory notice requirement, but upheld the dismissal of the lawsuit on an alternate ground not reached by the district court – that the notice that was given was inadequate because it did not provide “sufficient information to permit the recipient to identify the specific standard, limitation, or order alleged to have been violated” also as required by EPA’s regulations. 40 C.F.R. §135.3(a). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Citizen Suit, Clean Water Act, Federal Jurisdiction, New Jersey, Statutory Notice, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Third Circuit, Waste

Rejecting federal officer removal and federal question removal theories, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District of West Virginia’s remand of a state tort suit against the remediators of an EPA-permitted Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) site.  W.V. St. Univ. Bd. of Govs. v. Dow Chem. Co. et al., No. 20-1712, __ F.4^th __, 2022 WL 90242 (Jan. 10, 2022). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Cleanup, Contamination, Federal Jurisdiction, Federal Procedure, Fourth Circuit, Groundwater, Negligence, Nuisance, Procedure, RCRA, Removal, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Superfund, Trespass, West Virginia

This Blog Post was authored by Timothy Johnson, a summer associate.

Earlier this month, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania concluded that the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board (EHB) erred in its dismissal of the petitioners’ appeal of the approval of a compressor station plan by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Cole v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Env't Prot., No. 1577 C.D. 2019, 2021 WL 2420667 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021). In doing so, the Court held that Section 717r(d)(1) of the federal Natural Gas Act, which provides that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over “civil actions” for review of an approval or denial of a permit or approval required by federal law, does not preclude state administrative agency review of state permitting decisions. Accordingly, the EHB’s review of the matter was not preempted. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Appeals, Administrative Hearing, Air, Citizen Suit, Clean Air Act, EHB, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, Hearing Board, Natural Gas Act, Oil and Gas, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Permits, Pipelines, Preemption, Subject Matter Jurisdiction

This Post was authored by Andrew LeDonne, a MGKF summer associate. 

On July 2, 2018, the State of Rhode Island (“RI”) filed suit against twenty-one oil and gas companies in an attempt to hold these organizations liable for climate change impacts RI has and will experience. The defendants (Chevron Corp., et al.) removed the case to federal court. On August 17, 2018, RI filed a motion to remand the case back to state court. On Monday, July 22, 2019, the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted RI’s motion to remand. The remand order was stayed for sixty days for the court to consider whether a further stay pending appeal is warranted. Rhode Island v. Chevron Corp., 2019 WL 3282007 (D.R.I. July 22, 2019). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Clean Air Act, Climate Change, Emissions, Federal Procedure, First Circuit, Nuisance, Oil and Gas, Preemption, Procedure, Subject Matter Jurisdiction

On June 21, 2019, the Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, shaking up Fifth Amendment takings claim jurisprudence. Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, 139 S.Ct. 2162 (2019). In Knick, the Court held that a property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim at the moment a state or local government takes her property without paying just compensation, and that violation of the Fifth Amendment can be remedied in federal court via a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The ruling overturned years of precedent that held that a plaintiff could not bring a takings claim in federal court against a state or local government until she had first exhausted her state court remedies. Knick specifically overruled Williamson County, the 1985 case which established the state-litigation requirement. Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Deeds, Due Process, Fair Market Value, Pennsylvania, Procedure, Property Value, Real Estate, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Supreme Court, Takings, Takings Clause, United States Supreme Court, Zoning

On September 4, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit determined that the Third Circuit, and not the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board (“EHB”), has jurisdiction to review Water Quality Certifications issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) for interstate natural gas projects governed by the Natural Gas Act. See Del. Riverkeeper Network, et al. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., No. 16-221, 2018 WL 4201626 (3d Cir. Sept. 4, 2018). The Third Circuit also held that DEP does not violate Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution (“Environmental Rights Amendment” or “ERA”) by issuing a Water Quality Certification that is conditioned on obtaining substantive permits. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Appeals, Administrative Hearing, Clean Water Act, Condemnation, EHB, Eminent Domain, Energy, Environmental Rights Amendment, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Marcellus Shale, Natural Gas Act, Oil and Gas, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Permits, Pipelines, Procedure, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Third Circuit, Water

Since 2009, the Delaware River Basin Commission (“DRBC”) has effectively placed a moratorium on fracking activity within the Delaware River Basin (the “Basin”), premised on its assertion that any such activity is a “project” over which the DRBC has authority. But in Wayne Land & Mineral Group LLC v. Del. River Basin Comm’n, No. 17-1800, 2018 WL 3233784 (July 3, 2018), the Third Circuit, overturning a Pennsylvania District Court decision, has held that Delaware River Basin Compact’s (the “Compact”) definition of “project” is ambiguous, and that the DRBC may be without authority over fracking. The Third Circuit’s decision creates uncertainty regarding the scope of the DRBC’s authority and the future of fracking and other land use activities in the Basin. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Appeals, Declaratory Relief, Delaware River Basin Commission, Drilling, Energy, Exploration, Groundwater, Marcellus Shale, Mineral Rights, Natural Gas, Oil and Gas, Pennsylvania, Procedure, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Third Circuit, Water

The Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board (the “Board”) recently stirred up some controversy. Last month, in Lancaster Against Pipelines v. DEP, EHB Docket No. 2016-075-L (May 10, 2017), the Board held that it has jurisdiction to review actions taken by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PADEP”) involving interstate natural gas pipelines, despite a 2013 decision issued by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania that held precisely the opposite. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Appeals, Administrative Hearing, Clean Water Act, Due Process, EHB, Energy, Federal Procedure, Hearing Board, Natural Gas Act, NPDES, Oil and Gas, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Permits, Pipelines, Procedure, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Third Circuit, Water