The National Sea Grant Law Center is pleased to offer the February 2015 issue of Ocean and Coastal Case Alert. The Case Alert is a monthly newsletter highlighting recent court decisions impacting ocean and coastal resource management. (NSGLC-14-04-02)
- Griepenburg v. Twp. of Ocean, 2015 WL 263913 (N.J. Jan. 22, 2015).
- A New Jersey court upheld a series of zoning ordinances that rezoned a large tract of land from residential and commercial use to an Environmental Conservation district. Landowners Thomas and Carol Griepenburg, who had a large portion of property affected by the ordinances, filed suit. The lower court dismissed the challenge, finding that the ordinances were a valid exercise of municipal zoning power and were not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. An appellate court reversed. On appeal, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that ordinances were valid, as they were a legitimate exercise of the municipality's power to zone property consistent with its Master Plan and Municipal Land Use Law. The court noted that the plaintiffs could apply for a variance, and, if denied, may pursue an inverse condemnation claim.
Virginia
French v. Virginia Marine Res. Comm'n, 767 S.E.2d 245 (Va. Ct. App. 2015).- A Virginia court of appeals ruled on the issuance of a permit for the use of state-owned subaqueous lands. The Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) had issued an after-the-fact permit to a landlocked landowner who had built an access bridge across a shallow mountain creek. A neighbor challenged the permit, alleging that the issuance violated her procedural due process rights. A lower court upheld the permit. On appeal, the court ruled that the VMRC did not deprive the neighbor of her property rights, and the VMRC did not abuse its discretion in issuing the permit.
California
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 2015 WL 543704 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2015).- A California appellate court ruled on the California's Department of Fish and Wildlife's (DFW) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) assessing its fish hatchery and stocking enterprises. Rather than addressing impacts on specific locations managed by the DNR, the EIR examined impacts on individual species that could be located at multiple locations. The EIR also proposed new qualification requirements and monitoring and reporting obligations for private vendors who participate in the stocking programs. The DFW adopted these requirements as mitigation measures. On appeal, the court considered whether the EIR complied with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and whether the DFW's imposition of these mitigation measures on private fish vendors violated the requirements of the state Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court found that the DFW did not violate CEQA in its organization of the EIR, analysis of the project, and its impact mitigation. The court found that the EIR did violate the APA by imposing the requirements on private fish vendors without complying with the APA's notice and hearing procedures.
Hawaii
Hawaii Wildlife Fund v. Cnty. of Maui, 2015 WL 328227 (D. Haw. Jan. 23, 2015).- The U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii ruled on whether the County of Maui violated the Clean Water Act (CWA) by discharging effluent without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit at two of four injection wells at the Lahaina Wastewater Reclamation Facility. The county contended that the discharges were not from a point source, because the pollutant did not pass through point sources throughout its journey to navigable waters. The court rejected this reasoning, finding that pollutants that travel from an initial point source through nonpoint sources and eventually enter navigable waters are still considered discharges from point sources.
Washington
Beatty v. Washington Fish and Wildlife Comm'n, No. 31409-0-III (Wash. Ct. App. Jan. 15, 2015).- A Washington miner sought a permit from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to operate a hydraulic suction dredge outside of the authorized two-week work window. The WDFW offered to issue the permit outside of the window if the miner would comply with the WDFW's request to provide site-specific information so that the agency could assess impacts of the mining on fish life. The miner objected and sought an administrative hearing. The board upheld the condition. The appellate court agreed with the conclusion that the conditions "were reasonably designed to protect fish life and do not impose restrictions unrelated or out of proportion to the proposed dredging activity."
The Case Alert is a monthly newsletter highlighting recent court decisions impacting ocean and coastal resource management.