
Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Finds Local Stormwater Charge Constitutes A Tax
- Nuns’ Religious Freedom Lawsuit Against Pipeline Held To Be Impermissible Collateral Attack On FERC Approval
- Court Grants Contractor’s Partial Summary Judgement Motion in King Gold Mine Case
- Not All Objects Labeled as “100% Recyclable” Must be Recycled, Court Finds
Topics
- 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
- Solvents
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- National Contingency Plan
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Historic Resources
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- Delaware
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- PCBs
- Property Damage
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Innocent Party
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- Effluents
- FOIA
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Pipelines
- Texas
- Missouri
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Drinking Water
- Michigan
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Clean Streams Law
- Hearing Board
- Civil Penalties
- Arranger Liability
- Retroactive
- Sovereign Immunity
- Damages
- Stigma
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Fair Market Value
- Storage Tank
- Indemnification
- Energy
- Electric
- Fifth Circuit
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Inspection
- Residential
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Mercury
- D.C. Circuit
- HAPs
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Fifth Amendment
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Interior
- Tenth Circuit
- Mineral Leasing Act
- California
- Zoning
- Act 13
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Illinois
- Water
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Montana
- Navigability
- Riverbed
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Green House Counsel
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Boiler MACT
- Rulemaking
- CISWI
- Enforcement
- Consent Decree
- Equity
- Laches
- Delay Notice
- EPA
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- Procedure
- Standing
- NPDES
- Medical Monitoring
- Dimock
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Certification
- Contamination
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- CLE
- Work Product
- Decisions of Note
- Cases to Watch
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- CERCLA
- Cost Recovery
- Real Estate
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Donovan
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Trespass
- Farming
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- Odors
- ISRA
- New Jersey
- Informal Agency Action
- Administrative Hearing
- Railroad
- RCRA
- Waste
- Air
- Cancer
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Speaking Engagements
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Removal
- Clean Air Act
- Permits
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Multi-District Litigation
- Statute of Repose
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Deeds
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Clean Water Act
- Mineral Rights
- Due Process
- Enforcement Action
- Wetlands
- Drilling
- Exploration
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
In a January 6 decision, U.S. v. Brace, No. 21-2966 (3rd Cir. Jan. 6, 2023), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that a long-standing consent decree prohibiting discharge to wetlands is valid and unambiguous. This decision is a good reminder that Consent Decrees have a long shelf life and that private parties should negotiate carefully to ensure both its short-term and long-term interests are protected.
In 1996, the United States entered into a Consent Decree with the Appellants, a farm and its operators, prohibiting them from discharging pollutants into a 30-acre wetlands site on part of their property. The Consent Decree included a hand-drawn map depicting the wetlands. It further required the Appellants to “restore the hydrologic regime” of the wetlands by, among other things, removing a drainage tile system, filling in two surface ditches, and constructing a dam check.
Twenty years later, in January 2016, the United States alleged the Appellants violated the Consent Decree by discharging into the wetlands, installing a new drainage tile system (after removing the old one), and removing the dam check that they previously installed. The United States then moved to enforce the Consent Decree in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
The Appellants made a variety of arguments in response, chief among which was that the Consent Decree was ambiguous in that the hand-drawn depiction of the wetlands site did not clearly delineate the site’s boundaries. The Court summarily rejected this argument because the Appellants’ discharges covered an 18-acre area; “[a]ny ambiguity in the precise borders . . . cannot reasonably account for the prohibited discharges in such a wide-ranging area.”
They also argued that the Consent Decree’s objective of “restor[ing] the hydrologic regime” was ambiguous. The Court likewise rejected this argument, concluding that while the Consent Decree did not define “hydrologic regime,” it did explicitly require certain actions, such as removing the drainage system and installing a dam check. The intent to restore the integrity of the area was, therefore, clear. The Appellants further claimed that government agents informed them that reversing course on those actions—i.e., installing the drainage and removing the check—was permissible. But the Court determined that even if such representations were made, they could not supersede the unambiguous and contrary terms of the Consent Decree.