Last month in Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied petitions for review of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA’s” or the “Agency’s”) May 2024 designation of two per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) chemicals—perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (“PFOS”)—as “hazardous substances” (the “Designation”) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA” or the “Act”).  The petitions were filed by industry interest groups that use, transport, or discharge PFOA and PFOS (the “Petitioners”).  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Procedures Act, Agency Action, CERCLA, Contamination, D.C. Circuit, EPA, Loper Bright, PFAS, Pollutants, Potentially Responsible Parties, Rulemaking, Water

In West Virginia Rivers Coalition, Inc., et al. v. The Chemours Company FC, LLC, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated a district court decision to preliminarily enjoin The Chemours Company (“Chemours”) from discharging hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (“HFPO-DA”)—a Chemours-created PFAS chemical— from its Washington Works facility in excess of its permitted limit.  In doing so, the Fourth Circuit took no issue with the district court’s standing analysis, but determined the district court made legal and factual errors in its irreparable harm determination. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Citizens Suit, Clean Water Act, Contamination, Drinking Water, Fourth Circuit, Injunction, Permits, PFAS, Pollutants, Standing, Water

A recent decision from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania offers insight into cost recovery claims under both the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and Pennsylvania's Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act (“HSCA”).  On March 6, 2026, in Blettner Avenue, LLC v. Central Uniform Services, Inc., the Middle District denied Defendants Rental Uniform Services, Inc. (“Rental Uniform Services”) and Cintas Corporation (“Cintas”)’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff Blettner Avenue, LLC (“Blettner”)’s HSCA claim, shedding light on HSCA’s time limitation provision and the scope of “response costs” under the statute.  On the other hand, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Blettner’s CERCLA claim, finding Blettner failed to comply with National Contingency Plan (“NCP”) requirements.  The decision provides useful insight for practitioners to consider regarding statute of limitation under HSCA, the scope of “response costs” under HSCA and CERCLA, and NCP compliance under CERCLA. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Cleanup, Contamination, Damages, Groundwater, HSCA, National Contingency Plan, Pennsylvania, Remediation, Statute of Limitations, Third Circuit, Water

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed a class action lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson entities and Kenvue, Inc. concerning the presence of per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) in Band-Aid products on grounds of standing. This case, Jo Aronstein, et al. v. Kenvue, Inc. et al., is one of many class action lawsuits that have been filed in recent years concerning PFAS in consumer products and offers some insight into how courts are approaching these suits in various jurisdictions. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Class Actions, Contamination, Drinking Water, New Jersey, PFAS, Pollutants, Standing, Water

A federal district court in Massachusetts recently issued companion decisions addressing the “useful product defense” in the context of biosolids that contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).  In twin orders dated December 30, 2025, the court held that biosolid pellets, or “biopellets”—which are produced from treated wastewater solids and used as fertilizer—are “useful products,” providing a defense to liability under Massachusetts’s analogue to the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Class Actions, Contamination, Drinking Water, Massachusetts, Negligence, Nuisance, PFAS, Pollutants, Water

In a precedential decision, the Ninth Circuit recently modified its approach to mandatory injunctive relief in Endangered Species Act (ESA) cases involving multiple species.  The court, in San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper et al. v. County of San Luis Obispo, No. 24-7807 (9th Cir. Dec. 3, 2025), held that “when mandatory injunctive relief under the ESA may benefit one protected species at the expense of other protected species, a court must consider competing equities and the public interest as to those other species.” Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: California, Endangered Species Act, Ninth Circuit, Public Lands, Water, Water Use

The Ninth Circuit’s November 5^th decision in Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation, v. Naples Restaurant Group, LLC exploded onto the scene -- deepening an existing circuit split on whether a Clean Water Act citizen suit stays alive based solely only civil penalties once the alleged wrongful conduct ceases.  Consistent with the Eighth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit answered this question in the negative in Naples Restaurant.  The Second, Third, Fourth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuits have previously answered the question in the affirmative.  Overall, the key takeaway is for parties to make sure they are cognizant of the prevailing rule in their Circuit, and to be prepared to raise or respond to the arguments implicated by the Naples Restaurant opinion. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Citizen Suit, Citizens Suit, Civil Penalties, Clean Water Act, Enforcement, Ninth Circuit, NPDES, Permits, Pollutants, Water

This month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in Confederated Tribes of the Colville Rsrv. v. Teck Cominco Metals Ltd, No. 24-5565, 2025 WL 2525853 (9th Cir. Sept. 3, 2025) that CERCLA permits recovery of natural resource damages with a cultural use component, effectively reversing the district court’s holding that cultural resource damages are not authorized under CERCLA. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Citizen Suit, Citizens Suit, Contamination, Natural Resource Damages, Ninth Circuit, Pollutants, Tribal Lands, Water, Water Use

On June 30, 2025, the Supreme Court denied the Port of Tacoma (the “Port”) and SSA Terminals LLC's (“SSA”) petition for writ of certiorari to review the 9^th Circuit’s decision in Port of Tacoma v. Puget Soundkeeper Alliance addressing whether the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) authorizes citizens to enforce conditions of state-issued pollutant discharge permits adopted under state law that impose a greater scope of coverage than required by the CWA.  The 9th Circuit answered this question in the affirmative, holding that Washington's Industrial Stormwater General Permits (“ISGP”), a CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit, required the Port and SSA to have the necessary stormwater controls across the entire West Sitcum Terminal (the “Terminal”).  The Supreme Court's recent decision to deny certiorari leaves litigants open to a patchwork of Circuit determinations on the scope of the CWA’s citizen suit provision.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Citizen Suit, Citizens Suit, Clean Water Act, Ninth Circuit, NPDES, Permits, Private Right of Action, Stormwater, Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court, Water

On July 9^th, 2025, the Eastern District of New York ruled on a series of motions in Suffolk County Water Authority v. Dow Chemical Company, a case brought by the Suffolk County Water Authority (“Suffolk”) against chemical manufacturers for the alleged contamination of Suffolk’s groundwater supply with 1,4-dioxane (“dioxane”), a chemical classified by the EPA as a “probable human carcinogen.”  Judge Gershon issued an opinion allowing most of the plaintiff’s common law tort claims to proceed to trial while clarifying the standard for expert admissibility under recently amended Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Causation, Contamination, Drinking Water, Evidence, Expert Witness, Groundwater, Negligence, New York, Nuisance, Pollutants, Strict Liability, Trespass, Water