Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Federal District Court Holds that CERCLA Procedure for Natural Resource Damage Assessments Not Required as a Matter of Law
- Local Law Prohibiting Natural Gas Piping is Preempted, Ninth Circuit Holds
- District Court Failed to Consider Maui Factors as to Mining Company's Groundwater Discharges, Tenth Circuit Holds
- Federal District Court Excludes Expert Testimony in Flint Water Cases as Unreliable
- Federal District Court Rejects Divisibility of Harm Defense, Imposing Joint and Several Liability in CERCLA Action
Topics
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- Georgia
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- FIFRA
- Major Questions Doctrine
- Lead Paint
- 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
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- National Priorities List
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Successor Liability
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- National Contingency Plan
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- Historic Resources
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Gold King Mine
- 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
- First Circuit
- PCBs
- Property Damage
- Building Materials
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Innocent Party
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Coal Ash
- Injunction
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- 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
- Energy
- Electric
- Fifth Circuit
- Indemnification
- Ninth Circuit
- Arizona
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Inspection
- Residential
- New York
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- D.C. Circuit
- HAPs
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Mercury
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Fifth Amendment
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Interior
- Tenth Circuit
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Water
- Illinois
- Diligent Prosecution
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- 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
- EPA
- Boiler MACT
- Rulemaking
- Consent Decree
- CISWI
- Enforcement
- Equity
- Laches
- Delay Notice
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- Contribution
- Standing
- NPDES
- Procedure
- Medical Monitoring
- Dimock
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Contamination
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- Certification
- CLE
- Decisions of Note
- Cases to Watch
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Work Product
- CERCLA
- Cost Recovery
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Real Estate
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Rapanos
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- Odors
- Trespass
- Farming
- Hog Barn
- Informal Agency Action
- Administrative Hearing
- New Jersey
- ISRA
- Air
- Cancer
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Railroad
- RCRA
- Waste
- Speaking Engagements
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Removal
- Third Circuit
- Permits
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Clean Air Act
- Supreme Court
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Multi-District Litigation
- Statute of Repose
- Enforcement Action
- Wetlands
- Deeds
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Clean Water Act
- Mineral Rights
- Due Process
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
- Drilling
- Exploration
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
- Danielle N. Bagwell
- Brielle A. Brown
- Kate Campbell
- Stephen D. Daly
- Thomas M. Duncan
- Kelly A. Hanna
- Jessica D. Hunt
- Todd D. Kantorczyk
- Dylan G. LaMorte
- Brandon P. Matsnev
- Giselle F. Mazmanian
- Nicole R. Moshang
- Shoshana (Suzanne Ilene) Schiller
- Diana A. Silva
- Alice Douglas Solomon
- Natalia P. Teekah
- Garrett D. Trego
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.