Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Fourth Circuit Clarifies Irreparable Harm Showing Required to Obtain Preliminary Injunction to Prevent PFAS Discharges in Excess of Permit Limits
- 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
Topics
- State Implementation Plans
- Venue
- NJDEP
- Connecticut
- Pollutants
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Loper Bright
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Agency Action
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Public Trust Doctrine
- Environmental Justice
- Disparate Impact
- Title VI
- Massachusetts
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- Georgia
- 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
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Successor Liability
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- Apportionment
- National Contingency Plan
- Divisibility
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- Public Utilities Commission
- Utilities
- Historic Resources
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- PFAS
- Ohio
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration
- 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
- National Forest Management Act
- FERC
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Corporate Veil
- Alter Ego
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- Building Materials
- Property Damage
- First Circuit
- PCBs
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfield
- Brownfields
- Innocent Party
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- PHMSA
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- TMDL
- Stormwater
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Hearing Board
- Clean Streams Law
- Civil Penalties
- Arranger Liability
- Retroactive
- Sovereign Immunity
- Stigma
- Damages
- Fair Market Value
- Tax assessment
- Property Value
- Storage Tank
- Energy
- Fifth Circuit
- Indemnification
- Electric
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- OPRA
- Attorney-Client
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Taxes
- Administrative Appeals
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Procedure
- Contamination
- Natural Gas
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Residential
- Inspection
- New York
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Natural Gas Act
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- HAPs
- Mercury
- D.C. Circuit
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Storage
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Fifth Amendment
- Causation
- Spill Act
- NEPA
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- Interior
- California
- Zoning
- Act 13
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Landfill
- Eminent Domain
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Water
- Illinois
- Citizen Suit
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Diligent Prosecution
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Riverbed
- Navigability
- Montana
- Seventh Circuit
- Indiana
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- Rulemaking
- Consent Decree
- Boiler MACT
- EPA
- Enforcement
- Delay Notice
- Equity
- Laches
- CISWI
- Second Circuit
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- NPDES
- Standing
- Medical Monitoring
- Dimock
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- Certification
- CLE
- Decisions of Note
- Cases to Watch
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Discovery
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Remediation
- Consultant Liability
- Response Action Contractors
- Negligence
- Army Corps
- Rapanos
- Donovan
- Class Actions
- Kentucky
- Farming
- Nuisance
- Hog Barn
- Trespass
- Odors
- ISRA
- Informal Agency Action
- New Jersey
- Administrative Hearing
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Waste
- RCRA
- Railroad
- Cancer
- Air
- Speaking Engagements
- CERCLA
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Removal
- Federal Procedure
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Permits
- Clean Air Act
- Superfund
- Cost Recovery
- Supreme Court
- Cleanup
- Tolling
- Statute of Repose
- Multi-District Litigation
- Camp Lejeune
- Mineral Rights
- Clean Water Act
- Due Process
- Marcellus Shale
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Deeds
- Wetlands
- Enforcement Action
- Exploration
- Drilling
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
- Real Estate
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Showing 3 posts in Utah.
In an opinion and order released on November 21, 2022, the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico overseeing litigation arising from the Gold King Mine spill granted a defendant-contractor’s partial summary judgement motion seeking dismissal of claims that it was liable under CERCLA as a transporter, operator, or arranger. In re Gold King Mine Release, No. 1:18-md-02824-WJ, 2022 WL 17093503, at *1 (D. N.M. Nov. 21, 2022). The court held that one of the contractor defendants, Weston Solutions, Inc. (“Weston”), was not subject to CERCLA liability because it only assisted with operating the water management system rather than controlling any operations related to the release of contaminant from the King Gold Mine (“Mine”). Id. This decision follows the court’s earlier denial of a Motion to Dismiss in which the court held that the plaintiffs adequately pled operator, arranger, and transporter liability. In re Gold King Mine Release, No. 1:18-md-02824-WJ, 2019 WL 1282997, at *2-4 (D. N.M. Mar. 20, 2019) (slip opn.). Our blog post discussing the court’s first holding on this issue can be found here. Read More »
In an opinion and order released last week, the MDL court in In re Gold King Mine Release denied response contractors’ motions to dismiss. No. 1:18-md-02824-WJ, 2019 WL 1282997 (D. N.M. March 20, 2019) (slip opn.). The 2015 Gold King Mine release sent over three million gallons of contaminated wastewater into rivers in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. In the wake of the spill, the State of New Mexico, the State of Utah, the Navajo Nation, and multiple individual plaintiffs filed suit against the mine’s owner, the federal government, EPA, and EPA response contractors, Weston Solutions, Inc. and Environmental Restoration, LLCC (the “Response Contractors”). The court’s opinion, which allows the majority of plaintiffs’ CERCLA and tort claims to move forward, comes on the heels of a similar order denying the Federal Government’s motions to dismiss. See In re Gold King Mine Release, No. 1:18-md-02824-WJ, 2019 WL 999016 (D. N.M. Feb. 28, 2019) (slip opn.). Our blog post discussing that earlier opinion and order can be found here. Read More »
In an opinion and order released last week, the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico denied the federal government’s motions to dismiss claims relating to the 2015 Gold King Mine wastewater spill. In re Gold King Mine Release, No. 1:18-md-02824-WJ, 2019 WL 999016 (D. N.M. Feb. 28, 2019) (slip opn.). The district court was not convinced by the government’s argument that it was entitled to sovereign immunity and that the plaintiffs’ complaints were inadequate. It denied the motions and allowed all but one of the plaintiffs’ claims to proceed to discovery. Read More »
