Page 231 - California Stormwater Workshop Handouts
P. 231
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...
the Clean Water Act (CWA) is whether an [13] Federal Civil Procedure
individual can show that she has been injured in Causation; redressability
her use of a particular area because of concerns
about violations of environmental laws, not The issue in the causation inquiry for standing is
whether the plaintiff can show there has been whether the alleged injury can be traced to the
actual environmental harm. Federal Water defendant’s challenged conduct, rather than to
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, § that of some other actor not before the court;
505, 33 U.S.C.A. § 1365. causal connection put forward for standing
purposes cannot be too speculative, or rely on
13 Cases that cite this headnote conjecture about the behavior of other parties,
but need not be so airtight as to demonstrate that
[11] Environmental Law the plaintiffs would succeed on the merits.
Private right of action; citizen suits
17 Cases that cite this headnote
Clean Water Act (CWA) allows citizen suits
based on violations of any conditions of a [14] Environmental Law
National Pollution Discharge Elimination Mootness
System (NPDES) permit, even those which are
purely procedural. Federal Water Pollution Federal Courts
Control Act Amendments of 1972, §§ 308, Environment and health
505(f)(6), 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 1318, 1365(f)(6).
1 Cases that cite this headnote Even if environmental groups’ claims for
injunctive or declaratory relief under Clean
[12] Environmental Law Water Act (CWA), based on logging company’s
Organizations, associations, and other groups alleged violations of earlier National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit,
Environmental Law became moot when subsequent permit went into
Other particular parties effect, such mootness would not require
dismissal of groups’ action against company,
Members of environmental organizations since groups’ claims for civil penalties and
demonstrated sufficient causal connection attorneys’ fees would remain viable. Federal
between alleged pollution of creek used by Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
members for recreational purposes and conduct 1972, § 309(d), 33 U.S.C.A. § 1319(d).
of logging company to support standing in
action, under Clean Water Act (CWA), alleging 13 Cases that cite this headnote
violations of National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit conditions; [15] Federal Courts
inference of causation required no attenuated Inception and duration of dispute; recurrence;
chain of conjecture, and no presumptions that
other actors would behave in any particular way. “capable of repetition yet evading review”
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, § 505, 33 U.S.C.A. § An action becomes moot if the controversy is no
1365. longer live because an event occurs that
precludes the court from ordering effective
7 Cases that cite this headnote relief.
3 Cases that cite this headnote 3
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
