|
<br />_~OEC-07-98 08.57 FROH.H.8,S.S,
<br />
<br />ia
<br />Ie)
<br />il-~
<br />,fi.p
<br />;~
<br />: po.
<br />,
<br />
<br />published by CEQ, which Ms, McGinty rd'uscd in a l~.
<br />ta to the Senate, Further opposilion took the fonn oC a
<br />provision in the 1998 Budget Act prohibiting the use of
<br />funds for AHRt, and later. a bill to prevent the iJUple-
<br />mcncallon of AHRI. Flnally ill December 1997, four
<br />members of COfIgfCSS filed a lawsuit In the: U,S, District
<br />Court for the District oC Columbia.
<br />Whatever the merits of AHRI, its method of ac-
<br />ation and Implementation has crated fe:a: and strident
<br />opposition in the Icglslative branch and In the COtlltIlU,
<br />nities the aclrn1nlsl:ration says It IS Intended to help,
<br />Presidenti21 initi2tIves can become reality ...ithout this
<br />type of COlllIOVCrsy, The blllion-<lollar U ,5, Global
<br />Clinute OIangc Research Ptogr2m, for =ple. was
<br />the l'CSlIlt of cattful groUlldworlc with each federal
<br />agency Involved and with Co~ to ensure that all
<br />activities and CJqXndlIlltCS were UIlderstood and
<br />approved. by all componClltS of the government. The
<br />ultimate outcome of AHRI may t3ke a while to be
<br />!'C"calecl. but its a safe bet that a lot of Iawy<:r time will
<br />be a huge component of its net dfecr on the public.
<br />
<br />", '
<br />~;~J .
<br />,. '.~
<br />
<br />Injunctive Relief in
<br />Environmental Cases
<br />
<br />E. Blaine Rawson
<br />
<br />InjWlcUve relief in environmental tion can be
<br />extremely complex and c:xpcnsivc, tills often
<br />attempt to requln: defendants ugh preliminary
<br />injunctions to c-'2luate, mo . or, and remediate COIlt:l.-
<br />mlnation Ions before a On the merits of the: c.asc: is
<br />scheduled. These at pts often lead to arguments that
<br />ttial courtS sho apply different, more lenient stan-
<br />dards for g injunctive relief in environmental
<br />ClSCS, of the comple: allocation oC liability
<br />issues en associated with cnvirotllllenwli' tlon
<br />an e COSlS and burdens of addressing ution prob-
<br />lems, courtS should not alter or m' e rr.zditional
<br />injunctive relief stanc!:l~ in enviro enwlitlgation.
<br />GenealIy, before a court .." an injunction. the
<br />moving patty mUSt prove: (I) lW Iikelihoocllhat
<br />it will evemually prevail on metjl:S; (2) it will suWer
<br />irrepa.cIbIe injury wilho tlu:: injunction; (3) the tlueat.
<br />cned inlllI1" to the m ""'t outWeighs wh2rever d:unage
<br />the injunction ma ClU$C the opposing party; and (4) the
<br />injunction. if islsli'cd, would not be adverse to the public
<br />interest. .Alm~ all courts agree that ttllditional equitable
<br />principL::s mbst be cOnsidered in obl:lining an Injunction
<br />in cnviromDentallitigation. Some environmental plalntlffi;,
<br />howeverJugue that COurts sh0uJ4 modify these tradition-
<br />al equitable prindpL::s for their type of Ct!<:, For example.
<br />the plalntilfs in wason v. Amoco Oil Co. 1998 US, Dist.
<br />
<br />Mr, Rowson Is Q 14wyw in r:be StIlt u.1o, Cil)' offiQl oJ
<br />/fol_ Rob<rrt$.s. Ow"". UP.
<br />
<br />Na&ii Su",",'" 1998
<br />
<br />..............
<br />
<br />10,870 247 8827
<br />
<br />PAGE
<br />
<br />4/4
<br />
<br />~
<br />ed that the component of
<br />the aadilion2l injUllctNo d SI2lIdatd ~ a show.
<br />ing of ineparabk: did not apply in silU2t:ions involv-
<br />ing lile cnviro or public Iu:alth, The Wilson dden-
<br />danu count that !he cowt should not dep2tt from the:
<br />traditional Is maely beause the cas< presented
<br />uniqur: or pressing mmtts of pub\ic COu..~.., The
<br />both lhe plainti1rs' and defendants' :ugu.
<br />m t5 and complQtlUsed by appty;ng the U2dition:tl equi-
<br />Ie eu:rors for iDjunctivc reUd. but me weight
<br />gi.-= to tilt: "im:pa:abk: harm" eIonent..
<br />The wasem pl2inlifl's' d2im that should modi,
<br />Cj' the ttllditiOnal injunaive relief in ranironmen-
<br />tal litigation has some suppon. e cOWts ha--.: bsh-
<br />ioned ccccplloD:l or modifi '005 to the U'2ditional
<br />IIljWlctive reDef SI2lId>tQ' cert:lln circumsrances. For
<br />CX3mple. the U~ 5 gooemment convinced a fed.
<br />eral drcult court of in Untl2d Slal8S v,
<br />Betbkbem. Steel . 38 F,3d 862 (7th Or, 1994), that
<br />there was IlO to ~ the equities or make a find-
<br />ing of . e h:um in the RCRA case bcClUSC the
<br />d~dan' conduct was "willfuL' Anoliler !edcr:al court
<br />of ~ has SCItCd that a "coun may rest an injunction
<br />en!jrdy upon a clt'fPT'min.riotl that the 2Ctivit). at issue
<br />constiJ:utes a risk of danger to lhe public' plain.
<br />riff is lhe United. St:au:s or a sovereign state "tted Szm-es
<br />v, Marine ~ Processo,s, 81 F,3d 13 (5th Cir. 1996)_
<br />A federal cIistrIa coun in Ohio held RCRA and the
<br />aCUI Water Act both 5ugg= Cli/ferent ~ts
<br />should be given to thc traditio t.lcrors ancl that the
<br />"iJTep:u2bJe harm' I'>aor s be ICS5Cned in ClSCS
<br />brought uncia these sta ' BudJJ:?olz v, DayPm
<br />Intern4litmalAirport, 995 WI. 811897 (S.D. Ohio
<br />1995), 'These ases, owC\'er. rq>.CllCClt unique circum-
<br />St.al1ces and do n reflect the guidance p",'ic1ed in
<br />Supreme Co~' cedent.
<br />The United S12tCS Supreme Court established in
<br />Weinber? v, Ro~Barcelo, 456 U,S, 305 (1982),
<br />that coons should apply lile traditional injunctive relief
<br />standards in envtronmcntallitigation, In Romer<>-
<br />Barceli>, dtizens sought an injunction to p. . it the
<br />Navy from c1isdI2tging munitions into Atlmtic
<br />Ocean without first complying wi e Oean Water
<br />Act. The Supreme COUct hdd th although the Navy
<br />had viol2ted lile Ocan Water Ct. injunctive reIId was
<br />not warranted, The Court explained where plaintiff and
<br />defendant present competing daims of injury, .the
<br />court balmces the com-eniences of the panics and p0s-
<br />sible injurieS to ~a; according as they may be affected
<br />by the granling.or withholding of the injunction,'
<br />The SuPre:lne Court reaffirmed its position that tra-
<br />ditional eq6!table principles should be applied to
<br />/
<br />injunctions in environmental litigation in Amoco
<br />Production Co, v, Gam.beJl, 480 U,S, 531 (1987). In
<br />Amoco. the Court bal2nccd the possible injury to the
<br />environment ogainst -the bet that the Oil company
<br />(Continued 0" PQge 375)
<br />
<br />
<br />36~
<br />
|