lawsuit

Subscribe to lawsuit

California’s cap-and-trade program withstood a battle in court, and now the Legislature is proposing changes to the controversial program.  Senator Bob Wieckowski (Democrat – District 10), Chair of the Environmental Quality Committee, has authored Senate Bill 775 (“SB 775”) which would extend the cap-and-trade program to 2030 with modifications.  The existing cap-and-trade program, established under Assembly Bill 32 (2006) or the California Global Warming Solutions Act (“Act”), expires in 2020.  The Act requires the State Air Resources Board (“ARB”) to approve a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to 1990 greenhouse gas emissions level to be achieved by 2020, and to ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40% below the 1990 level by 2030, as outlined in Senate Bill 32 (2016).
Continue Reading Senate Bill Proposes Major Market-Based Remodel of Cap-and-Trade Program

Following closely on the heels of Dollar General’s hazardous waste settlement (about which we reported in our April, 19, 2017 blog post), another discount retailer has been held to account in a big way for its failure to properly manage its waste streams.  On April 21, 2017, a San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge ordered Big Lots Stores, Inc. (“Big Lots”) to pay $3.5 million in civil penalties and costs for environmental violations.  The order is the result of an investigation into the disposal of hazardous waste by Big Lots at its distribution center and its 206 California stores over the past several years.  The lawsuit was brought by 35 District Attorney’s Offices and two City Attorney’s Offices in California.
Continue Reading Another Retailer Shells Out for Hazardous Waste Violations: Big Lots Ordered to Pay $3.5 Million

A reported in a prior blog post, the Western States Petroleum Association (“WSPA”) sued the California Department of Conservation and the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (jointly, the “Department”) in Kern County Superior Court in January alleging that the Department’s oil field wastewater injection prohibitions violate WSPA’s members’ due process rights.  On March 20, 2017, a Kern County judge sided in favor of WSPA, granting an injunction on behalf of Plaintiffs and, separately and independently, on behalf of intervenor B.E. Conway Energy, Inc. and intervenor Sentinel Peak Resources California.  This means that the Department is currently barred from blanket enforcement of its Aquifer Exemption Compliance Schedule Regulations (“Regulations”).
Continue Reading Kern County Judge Grants Injunction, Blocking Blanket Enforcement of Oil Field Aquifer Exemption Regulations

On January 19, 2017, three oil industry trade groups filed suit against the California Department of Conservation and the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (“DOGGR”) (jointly “Department”) in Kern County Superior Court alleging that DOGGR’s oil field wastewater injection regulations violate operators’ constitutional rights.  Western States Petroleum Association, California Independent Petroleum Association, and Independent Oil Producers Agency (collectively “Plaintiffs”) seek “declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the arbitrary and unlawful shut-in of potentially thousands of Class II injection wells in violation of Plaintiffs’ members’ due process rights.”  Complaint at 1.
Continue Reading Oil Industry Caught in “Catch-22” with New Wastewater Injection Approval Requirements; Files Suit Against California Agencies

On November 11, 2016, the Environmental Defense Center (“EDC”) and Santa Barbara Channelkeeper jointly filed suit against several federal agencies including the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (jointly “Agencies”) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  The lawsuit alleges violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).  At the heart of their lawsuit, EDC and Santa Barbara Channelkeeper (jointly “EDC”) claim that the Agencies violated NEPA when they issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”) decision approving the Agencies’ Programmatic Environmental Assessment of the Use of Well Stimulation Treatments on the Southern California Outer Continental Shelf (the “PEA”).
Continue Reading Environmental Groups Sue Federal Agencies Again in Unending Legal Battle Over Offshore Oil Development

Update: September 26, 2016

On September 21, 2016, the Honorable George C. Hernandez, Jr. issued the final Statement of Decision, which affirmed the tentative decision denying all claims for relief.  The court denied CBD’s petition for writ of mandate.

Original Post: August 22, 2016

As reported in a previous blog post, Earthjustice, on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (“CBD”), filed a lawsuit against the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (“DOGGR”) in May 2015.  The lawsuit attacked DOGGR’s emergency rulemaking for aquifer exemption compliance.  Not surprisingly, like all of CBD’s spurious lawsuits attacking DOGGR for implementing its regulatory duties, on August 2, 2016, an Alameda County Superior Court judge issued a tentative ruling denying CBD’s petition for writ of mandate. This is another setback for CBD’s litigation strategy of impeding DOGGR in order to cripple the oil and gas industry.

DOGGR issued the emergency rules in response to a letter from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that addressed California’s compliance with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”) and the Class II Underground Injection Control (“UIC”) program.  Following DOGGR’s issuance of the emergency rules, the EPA stated “[t]he State’s emergency regulations to codify deadlines for injection well operators to cease injection, absent EPA-approved aquifer exemptions, is a critical step in the State’s plan to return the California Class II UIC program to compliance with the SDWA.”  In other words, California regulators were doing what they were supposed to do under the law.Continue Reading Court’s Tentative Decision Sides in Favor of DOGGR in CBD’s Wastewater Injection Lawsuit

On August 3, 2016, the Center for Biological Diversity (“CBD”) filed suit against the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (“DOGGR”) and the State Water Resources Control Board (“Water Board”), challenging the regulators’ decision to approve an aquifer exemption for the Arroyo Grande oil field.  In its latest lawsuit against DOGGR, filed in the Superior Court for the City and County of San Luis Obispo, CBD alleges that DOGGR and the Water Board failed to conduct environmental review, in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).  In order to appreciate the claims in the case, some background is necessary.

The Safe Drinking Water Act and Aquifer Exemptions

The federal Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 300g et seq., prohibits injection of fluids that may harm human health into an underground source of drinking water.  An “exempt aquifer” is an aquifer for which protection under the SDWA has been waived because the aquifer does not currently serve as a source of drinking water and could not serve as a source of drinking water in the future due to existing mineral production, depth of the aquifer, or existing contamination.  40 C.F.R § 146.4.  In short, an aquifer is exempt from the SDWA when it could not feasibly serve as a source of drinking water.Continue Reading When Will They Ever Learn? CBD Files Another Questionable Lawsuit Against DOGGR

On July 19, 2016, Alameda County, California (“County”) became the first county in the Bay Area to approve a ban on hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”).  The County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the ban through an amendment to the Alameda County Zoning Ordinance (“Ordinance”).  Gen. Ordinance Code §§ 17.06.100-17.06.400.

The Ordinance bans “high-intensity oil operations” which include fracking, steam injection, cyclic steaming, and all other forms of well stimulation.  The Ordinance allows waterflooding and permits an operator to continue oil production by methods authorized under a Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (“DOGGR”) permit, if those methods are not banned.  Waterflooding, a technique that includes recycling produced water to the oil reservoir, may be done only by water that is produced from the well itself.  “Produced water” is water that comes to the surface through oil production and oftentimes has no beneficial reuse due to its natural characteristics.  The Ordinance prohibits disposal of hydraulic fracturing fluids, drawing a distinction between produced water and fracking fluids.  “High-intensity oil operations” does not include injection of produced water.Continue Reading Alameda Fracking Ban: All Bark with No Bite

About Stoel Rives Environmental Law

Learn More

Few firms view their Environment, Land Use, and Natural Resources practices as core legal services. Stoel Rives is one of them. The firm ranks #8 in the United States according to Law360’s list of the largest practices of its kind. Our sophisticated compliance counseling, permitting, regulatory development, and litigation practices continue a long tradition of specialization and deep experience. Our environment, land use, and natural resource attorneys incorporate prior agency experience, technical acumen, and industry knowledge into their legal advice. They also build strong relationships with agency officials and industry associations. Our litigation successes include landmark decisions. More than 60 attorneys, paralegals, and compliance analysts comprise Stoel Rives’ nationwide Environment, Land Use & Natural Resources practice.