Page 230 - California Stormwater Workshop Handouts
P. 230
Ecological Rights Foundation v. Pacific Lumber Co., 230 F.3d 1141 (2000)
51 ERC 1545, 31 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,246, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8692...
U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 2, cl. 1. one-size-fits-all, mechanistic manner.
14 Cases that cite this headnote 55 Cases that cite this headnote
[5] Environmental Law [8] Environmental Law
Cognizable interests and injuries, in general Organizations, associations, and other groups
The “injury in fact” requirement for standing in Individual members of environmental
environmental cases is satisfied if an individual organizations who alleged they had used creek
adequately shows that she has an aesthetic or for recreational activities several times in the
recreational interest in a particular place, or past, and that logging company’s alleged
animal, or plant species and that such interest is pollution of creek had impaired their enjoyment
impaired by a defendant’s conduct. of those activities, alleged sufficient injury in
fact to bring suit against company in their own
21 Cases that cite this headnote right, and organizations thus had standing to
bring action under Clean Water Act (CWA)
[6] Courts against company for alleged violations of
Supreme Court decisions National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit conditions. 33
Fact that Supreme Court raised issue of standing U.S.C.A. § 1365.
sua sponte in previous opinion did not render
Court’s opinion on that issue less precedential 5 Cases that cite this headnote
than if certiorari had been granted on the issue,
where standing discussion was necessary to [9] Environmental Law
Court’s decision. Organizations, associations, and other groups
5 Cases that cite this headnote Finding of organizational standing based on
injury in fact allegedly suffered by single
[7] Environmental Law member of organization, with respect to
Cognizable interests and injuries, in general member’s aesthetic or recreational interest in a
natural resource, does not require such
Individual can establish “injury in fact,” as individual member to have regular or continuous
required to show standing in an environmental contacts with the resource; so long as sole
suit, by showing a connection to the area of member could have brought citizen suit as an
concern sufficient to make credible the individual, then he has stated an injury in fact
contention that the person’s future life will be sufficient to confer standing on organization that
less enjoyable, such that he or she really has or seeks to sue on his behalf.
will suffer in his or her degree of aesthetic or
recreational satisfaction, if the area in question 11 Cases that cite this headnote
remains or becomes environmentally degraded;
factors of residential contiguity and frequency of [10] Environmental Law
use may certainly be relevant to that Cognizable interests and injuries, in general
determination, but are not to be evaluated in a
The threshold question of citizen standing under
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2
