Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment v. Haaland
21-2116 (2023)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An agency's environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is arbitrary and capricious if it relies on an internally inconsistent and irrational methodology for calculating emissions or fails to analyze cumulative environmental impacts when an accepted analytical method is available and has been brought to the agency's attention.
Facts:
- Technological advancements, including horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, made new oil and gas development economically feasible in the Mancos Shale and Gallup Sandstone formations in New Mexico's San Juan Basin.
- The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) began approving Applications for Permits to Drill (APDs) in this area, supported by individual Environmental Assessments (EAs) tiered to a 2003 Resource Management Plan.
- A prior court decision, Diné I, found that some of these EAs were deficient for failing to adequately analyze the cumulative impacts of drilling on water resources.
- In response to Diné I and a new lawsuit, BLM prepared a single "EA Addendum" to supplement its environmental analysis for 81 EAs, which covered a total of 370 proposed wells.
- While preparing the EA Addendum, BLM did not vacate or suspend the drilling permits it had already approved.
- The EA Addendum analyzed environmental impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and groundwater.
- Based on the analysis in the EA Addendum, BLM reaffirmed its original Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSIs) for all 81 EAs, concluding the projects could proceed without a more comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement.
Procedural Posture:
- Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment and other citizen groups (Citizen Groups) filed a Petition for Review of Agency Action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, challenging the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) approval of numerous Applications for Permits to Drill (APDs).
- After BLM issued an EA Addendum to supplement its analysis, Citizen Groups filed an Amended and Supplemented Petition challenging all 81 EAs and 370 APDs covered by the addendum.
- Several energy companies, a trade association, and individual Navajo allottees intervened in the case as defendants to support BLM.
- The district court affirmed the agency action, finding that claims regarding unapproved APDs were not ripe, BLM did not unlawfully predetermine the outcome of its supplemental analysis, and BLM took the required 'hard look' at environmental impacts.
- Citizen Groups, as appellants, appealed the district court's final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Bureau of Land Management's environmental analysis for 370 oil and gas drilling permits violate the National Environmental Policy Act's 'hard look' requirement by failing to adequately assess the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and hazardous air pollutants?
Opinions:
Majority - McHugh, Circuit Judge
Yes, the Bureau of Land Management's environmental analysis violates the National Environmental Policy Act's 'hard look' requirement because it was arbitrary and capricious in its assessment of greenhouse gas (GHG) and hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions. First, the court rejected the Citizen Groups' claim that BLM unlawfully predetermined the outcome of the EA Addendum by not vacating the prior approvals. The court reasoned that because BLM was conducting a supplemental analysis and retained the authority to revoke the permits, it had not made an 'irreversible and irretrievable' commitment. However, the court found BLM's substantive analysis under NEPA's 'hard look' requirement was deficient in two key areas. Regarding GHG emissions, BLM's calculation of direct emissions was irrational because it used a single year's emissions to represent the total emissions over the wells' twenty-year lifespan, a methodology inconsistent with its own assumptions for downstream emissions. Furthermore, BLM failed to analyze the cumulative impact of GHG emissions, relying instead on a simple comparison of emission quantities to state and national totals, which the court found meaningless. BLM acted arbitrarily by claiming no method existed to translate emissions into effects while failing to use or explain its rejection of the 'carbon budget' method suggested by commenters. Second, the court held that BLM failed to take a hard look at the cumulative impacts of HAP emissions. BLM improperly characterized HAP emissions from each well as 'short-term,' ignoring that the construction of over 3,000 wells in sequence would result in long-term, cumulative exposure for the surrounding population. The court found BLM's analysis of cumulative impacts to water resources to be sufficient. The case was reversed and remanded for the district court to determine the appropriate remedy.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens the 'hard look' requirement under NEPA within the Tenth Circuit, particularly concerning climate change and air quality analysis. It establishes that an agency cannot satisfy its obligation by simply quantifying emissions and comparing them to a larger total; it must meaningfully analyze the environmental impact of those emissions. The ruling pressures agencies to either use available scientific tools, such as the social cost of carbon or carbon budget analysis, to assess climate impacts, or provide a robust, non-arbitrary justification for refusing to do so. This precedent makes it more difficult for agencies to approve large-scale fossil fuel projects without a more substantive and scientifically defensible consideration of their cumulative contributions to climate change and public health risks from air pollutants.
