Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Fourth Circuit “Decline[s] to Hit Pause” on Pipeline Project Involving Trenching Through Streams and Wetlands
- When Does NEPA Apply? The Eleventh Circuit Draws a Hard Line in Friends of the Everglades v. DHS
- Supreme Court Broadly Interprets “relating to” in Federal Officer Removal Statute
- Pennsylvania Federal Court Clarifies HSCA Statute of Limitations and “Response Costs” Under HSCA and CERCLA
- New Jersey Federal Court Dismisses PFAS Consumer Suit Against Band-Aid on Standing Grounds
Topics
- State Implementation Plans
- Venue
- NJDEP
- Connecticut
- Pollutants
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Agency Action
- Loper Bright
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Public Trust Doctrine
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Title VI
- Environmental Justice
- Disparate Impact
- Massachusetts
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- FIFRA
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- Georgia
- 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
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Operator Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- National Contingency Plan
- Strict Liability
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Utilities
- Historic Resources
- Public Utilities Commission
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Fees
- Commonwealth Court
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Martime
- Asbestos
- 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
- United States Supreme Court
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- Property Damage
- First Circuit
- PCBs
- Building Materials
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfields
- Innocent Party
- Brownfield
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- PHMSA
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- 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
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Tax assessment
- Property Value
- Stigma
- Fair Market Value
- Damages
- Storage Tank
- Indemnification
- Electric
- Fifth Circuit
- Energy
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Procedure
- Contamination
- Natural Gas
- Residential
- Inspection
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Natural Gas Act
- HAPs
- D.C. Circuit
- Mercury
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Storage
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Fifth Amendment
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- Interior
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Landfill
- Eminent Domain
- Sixth Circuit
- Private Right of Action
- Illinois
- Water
- Citizen Suit
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Diligent Prosecution
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Navigability
- Montana
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Riverbed
- Seventh Circuit
- Indiana
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Green House Counsel
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- EPA
- Enforcement
- Delay Notice
- Equity
- Laches
- CISWI
- Rulemaking
- Consent Decree
- Boiler MACT
- Second Circuit
- Declaratory Relief
- Contribution
- Standing
- NPDES
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Legislation
- Case Update
- Dukes
- Certification
- Louisiana
- CLE
- Privilege
- Expert Witness
- Work Product
- Decisions of Note
- Discovery
- Cases to Watch
- Insurance
- Defense Costs
- Remediation
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Response Action Contractors
- Rapanos
- Donovan
- Army Corps
- Kentucky
- Farming
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- Hog Barn
- Trespass
- Odors
- Informal Agency Action
- ISRA
- New Jersey
- Administrative Hearing
- Waste
- Railroad
- Combustion
- RCRA
- Cancer
- Emissions
- Air
- CERCLA
- Speaking Engagements
- Removal
- Federal Procedure
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Statute of Limitations
- Permits
- Clean Air Act
- Title V
- Cost Recovery
- Supreme Court
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Multi-District Litigation
- Camp Lejeune
- Tolling
- Statute of Repose
- Due Process
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Deeds
- Wetlands
- Enforcement Action
- Clean Water Act
- Mineral Rights
- Exploration
- Drilling
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
- Real Estate
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
When a public interest environmental rights group or other party appeals a decision by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection affecting a planned project, it should name the permittee as a party on the Notice of Appeal and serve them accordingly. On April 11, 2022, the Supreme Court of New Jersey remanded a case back to the Appellate Division and held that an appellant natural gas company should have been named as a party in the Notice of Appeal and served. See In re Proposed Constr. of Compressor Station (CS327), No. 086428 (Apr. 11, 2022).
In June 2021, after Tennessee applied for a HAD, NJDEP determined the project was consistent with the Statewide Water Quality Management Planning Rules and notified Tennessee that the project qualified for exemption under N.J.S.A. 13:20-28(a)(11) of the Highlands Act, which authorized “the routine maintenance and operations, rehabilitation, preservation, reconstruction, repair, or upgrade of public utility lines, rights of way, or systems, by a public utility.” Later, in August 2021, public interest groups—Food & Water Watch, the New Jersey Highlands Coalition, and the Sierra Club—filed a Notice of Appeal and Case Information Statement in the Appellate Division challenging NJDEP's determination. Importantly, the public interest groups neither name Tennessee as a party nor served Tennessee the Notice of Appeal or Case Information statement.
Tennessee moved to intervene as of right pursuant to Rule 4:33-1, but the Appellate Division denied Tennessee’s initial motion and then denied its motion for reconsideration. Tennessee moved for leave to appeal, which the New Jersey Supreme Court granted. The Supreme Court also granted the collective motion filed by the New Jersey Builders Association, New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce, New Jersey Utilities Association, the New Jersey Chapter of NAIOP, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association, and the New Jersey Business & Industry Association seeking leave to appear as amici curiae.
At oral argument, Tennessee argued that it met the standard to intervene as a matter of right under Rule 4:33-1, which provided that unless the rights of the party seeking intervention are adequately represented by an existing party, “anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action if the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the ability to protect that interest…” According to Tennessee, it had an undisputed economic interest in the appeal because it had invested millions of dollars into the approximately $246.3 million project and, any decision that would set aside the permit would potentially delay the construction of its project and impact its ability to meet its contractual obligations. Tennessee further argued that that the Appellate Division should have granted its motion for permissive intervention under Rule 4:33-2 because its underlying interests and status as the permittee made it indispensable to this appeal.
While supporting Tennessee’s arguments to intervene, the amici additionally contended that Tennessee should not have to participate as an intervenor but rather should have been named as a party in appellants' Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 2:5-1(d), which required that an appeal to review the decision of any state administrative agency is taken by the Appellate Division by “serving copies of the notice of appeal on the agency or officer, the Attorney General and all other interested parties.”
The Supreme Court found the amici’s argument compelling and, in remanding, held that based on the role that Tennessee played in obtaining administrative relief from NJDEP, the company was an “interested party” under R. 2:5-1(d) and should have been included as a party in the notice of appeal and served accordingly.
