New Year's Thought: Young Environmentalists Taking Action

An interesting lawsuit is making its way through the federal courts. The action was filed in California but was recently transferred to D.C. for procedural reasons.  What is unique about the case is that the plaintiffs are children.  One of the lead plaintiffs is  Alec Loorz, who at the age of 12, started an organization called Kids-vs-Global-Warming.  The plaintiff children claim "standing", that is the legal right to bring the action, since they are beneficiaries of the Public Trust to our shared natural resources.  The Public Trust Doctrine, simply defined, is that the federal government has a duty to its citizens to exercise the highest duty of care when dealing with natural resources that are necessarily held in common for all.  The government holds vital resources in "trust" for present and future generations of its citizens.  By failing to control atmospheric contamination that has caused "catastrophic and irreparable damage", the government has breached its fiduciary duty, allege the plaintiffs.  The Complaint details impacts caused by climate change, including melting glaciers and rising sea levels.  The plaintiffs do not seek to tell Congress how to address these issues, but rather are asking the courts to order the federal government "to do its job."   

Regardless of one's view on climate change, or the use of the courts to handle these issues, it is refreshing to see youth engaged and taking action on issues of great importance.

To learn more about this lawsuit, visit Our Children's Trust, an Oregon based group that is also involved in this lawsuit.

Legal Update - 2011

There were two important legal rulings in 2011 issued by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which, after the United States Supreme Court, is seen as the most influential tribunal for environmental decisions given the sprawling geography and population within its jurisdiction. Both cases involve the Clean Water Act and offer guidance for future interpretation and application of the Act.

In Northwestern Environmental Defense Center v. Brown, 640 F.3d 1063, the Court struck down an EPA rule that purported to exempt runoff from logging operations from the Clean Water Act's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit requirements. The Court ruled that stormwater that flows down logging roads and is then collected by and discharged from a system of channels is, indeed, "point source" discharge, thereby requiring a NPDES permit. This ruling is viewed as either closing a major loophole within the Act, or dramatically expanding its scope, depending on one's perspective.

Another case involving the Clean Water Act is NRDC v. County of Los Angeles, 636 F.3d 1235. There, the Court found the County of Los Angeles liable for discharging polluted urban stormwater into navigable waters. What makes this case important is that the polluted water at issue did not originate on county property. Rather, the county's flood stations and storm water system collection systems were sufficient to establish county control over a "point source" for purposes of triggering the requirements of the Act. The County has appealed this ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Next year will likely see more important environmental decisions from the Ninth Circuit.