Sierra Club v. Chesapeake Operating, LLC
248 F.Supp.3d 1194, 2017 WL 1287546, 47 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20054 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) citizen suit under the Burford abstention and primary jurisdiction doctrines when a complex and coherent state administrative scheme, managed by an expert agency, is actively addressing the same matter of substantial public concern, and federal court interference would be disruptive.
Facts:
- Devon Energy, New Dominion, and Chesapeake Operating (Defendants) engaged in deep injection of liquid waste from oil and gas extraction activities in Oklahoma.
- Following an increase in these activities, Oklahoma experienced a dramatic rise in earthquake frequency and severity, from a maximum of 167 earthquakes before 2009 to 5,838 in 2015.
- Seismologists linked the increased seismic activity to the defendants' wastewater disposal practices, and the earthquake risk in Oklahoma became the highest in the nation.
- The increased seismic activity caused property damage and posed a risk of substantial harm to public health and infrastructure.
- Beginning in 2013, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC), the state agency with exclusive jurisdiction over these injection wells, began implementing a comprehensive regulatory response.
- The OCC's response included a 'traffic light' system for new permits, new monitoring rules, and numerous mandatory directives requiring operators to reduce injection volumes or cease operations.
- The Governor of Oklahoma also formed a Coordinating Council on Seismic Activity and approved emergency funds to aid the OCC's response.
Procedural Posture:
- Sierra Club filed a civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief against Chesapeake Operating, Devon Energy, and New Dominion in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
- Sierra Club brought its claim under the citizen suit provision of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
- The defendants filed separate motions to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the Burford abstention and primary jurisdiction doctrines require a federal court to dismiss a RCRA citizen suit alleging that wastewater injection from oil and gas operations causes earthquakes, when a state administrative agency with exclusive jurisdiction is actively regulating the same activity?
Opinions:
Majority - Friot, J.
Yes, a federal court should dismiss the suit under the Burford abstention and primary jurisdiction doctrines. Federal court review would be disruptive of Oklahoma's comprehensive efforts to establish a coherent policy on seismic activity, a matter of substantial public concern. The Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) is the primary regulator, has established a complex program to address the issue, and has taken significant action, including issuing mandatory volume-reduction directives. Furthermore, timely and adequate state review is available, as Sierra Club can seek the same relief directly from the OCC, with appeals to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction also compels dismissal because the technical issues—involving geology, geophysics, and petroleum engineering—are not within the conventional experience of judges and are better suited for the expert agency. Allowing the suit to proceed would create a risk of conflicting orders between the court and the OCC, undermining the uniformity and consistency of the state's regulatory response.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the power of the Burford abstention and primary jurisdiction doctrines as defenses against federal environmental citizen suits, particularly when a competent state agency is actively engaged. It establishes that even where a federal statute like RCRA provides for federal court jurisdiction, courts may defer to a state's complex regulatory scheme to avoid disruption and to leverage agency expertise. The ruling signals to potential plaintiffs that federal courts may be unwilling to interfere in widespread, technical environmental issues that are already the subject of a robust and ongoing state administrative response. It effectively channels such disputes into state administrative bodies before federal litigation can proceed.
