The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (“LDEQ”) recently instituted a pilot program of making its Electronic Document Management System (“EDMS”) available on the internet for a six-month trial period. The EDMS is the electronic repository of official records that have been created or received by LDEQ.  All documents that are defined as “public records,” including e-mail, either created or received by any LDEQ personnel are placed in the EDMS and can be searched on the internet through LDEQ’s website. All public documents that have not been labeled as confidential pursuant to LDEQ’s confidentiality statute, La. R.S. 30:2030, and that are dated July 1, 2005 or later are part of the pilot. The only exception is documents concerning radiation media as LDEQ has asserted confidentiality of these pursuant to its authority to keep potentially sensitive national security information as confidential.
Continue Reading Will Your Settlement Negotiations With LDEQ Be Published on the Web?

The Louisiana Solid Waste Regulations, LAC 33:VII (the “LSWR”), have largely existed in their current state since February 1993, when the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (“LDEQ”) completely rewrote the Aold@ solid waste regulations. Now, in the culmination of an over 20-month joint effort by LDEQ, the regulated community, and the public, LDEQ hopes to propose comprehensive amendments to the LSWR. (These amendments may be proposed by as early as July of this year.)   Unlike the 1993 revisions, however, the current draft amendments are not a wholesale rewrite of the LSWR. Instead, LDEQ proposes to reorganize, streamline, and supplement the existing regulations to make them easier to understand and apply. LDEQ also has attempted to ease the compliance burden, where possible, without increasing risk to public health or environment. That said, for the most part, the proposed amendments constitute a “tweaking,” not an overhaul, and existing regulations will continue in their current form, although perhaps reordered and renumbered.
Continue Reading PROPOSED REVISIONS TO LOUISIANA SOLID WASTE REGULATIONS

The United States Department of Justice, in a case of first impression, attempted to hold a landowner responsible for the Coast Guard’s response costs in the clean up of abandoned oilfield equipment in United States of America v. Louisiana Land & Exploration Company, USDC, Eastern District of Louisiana, No. 03-3208, Section “L”. Defendant LL&E was the surface owner of the property, which it purchased subject to an existing mineral lease. The lessee had engaged in operations for several years and had installed wells, tanks and other drilling and exploration equipment on the property. Although the operator allegedly ceased operations, LL&E never received any notification that the lease was being terminated.

In 2001, the US Coast Guard reported an oil spill from a storage tank on the property. Because the property allegedly was located in marshlands adjacent to a bayou which drained into the Gulf of Mexico, the US Coast Guard initiated clean up pursuant to the Oil Spill Pollution Act of 1990 (“OPA 90″). Upon completion, it sought to recover response costs of approximately $800,000 from the landowner under the theory that the operator had abandoned its equipment and that, pursuant to OPA 90 and La. C.C. art. 493, LL&E became the owner of this equipment when the lease “terminated” and was therefore responsible for all damage it caused.Continue Reading LANDOWNER NOT LIABLE UNDER OPA 90 FOR ABANDONED OILFIELD EQUIPMENT

Effective Date: Upon signature of the governor which occurred on June 8, 2006.

Limitation On Some Matters: Does not apply to a case in which the court, on or before March 27, 2006 (first day of the legislative session), has issued or signed an order setting the case for trial, regardless if such trial date is continued.

Opt-in Provision: A party who filed a judicial demand has the right to come under S.B. 655 and can do so by filing a notice in the court where the case is pending, a notice of the exercise of such right within 60 days of the effective date of the Act.

Remediation Monies: Monies for remediation projects awarded shall be placed in the registry of the court and the remediation plan shall be implemented under the supervision of the agency with the court maintaining supervisory jurisdiction until plan completed. Monies may be funded incrementally. Any leftover funds are returned to the party who paid the money into the registry of the court. The money does not go to the landowner, but into the remediation project. Note that an award will include monies for investigation and remediation.

“Feasible Plan:” The definition of “feasible plan” for a remediation to be performed under the Act means the most reasonable plan which addresses “environmental damage” (see definition below) in compliance with the Constitution to protect the environment, public health, safety and welfare, and is in compliance with the specific relevant and applicable standards and regulations promulgated by a state agency in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act in effect at the time of clean up to remediate contamination resulting from oilfield or exploration and production operations or waste.Continue Reading SUMMARY OF KEY FEATURES OF S.B. 655 (the “Act”)

The U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion June 19, 2006 in Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States, cases focusing on the extent of the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers (“COE”) over wetlands under the Clean Water Act (“Act”).  The Act allows the Corps to regulate “navigable waters of the United States.”  However, “navigable waters” under the Act is defined as “the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas” and are not limited to waters that are “navigable” in the traditional sense.  33 U.S.C. §1362(7).  For years the Corps interpreted the Act expansively to assert jurisdiction over virtually all wetlands regardless of how remote the connection to a navigable water, using the Commerce Clause as a basis. That was prior to the Supreme Court decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty. v. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159, 167, 121 S.Ct. 675, 148 L.Ed.2d 576 (2001) (“SWANCC”), which held that “isolated” wetlands do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Corps and that wetlands must be adjacent or have a “significant nexus” to navigable waters to fall within the Corps’ jurisdiction.  Following SWANCC, the Corps and the courts have wrestled with the meaning of “isolated” and “significant nexus,” with the Corps ever seeking to retain the broadest jurisdiction. .
Continue Reading Wetlands Jurisdiction…More Questions Than Answers

Distinguished fellow blogger Stephen Holzer, at Environmental Legal Blogs has an excellent short analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Rapanos v. United States. Check it out here, and check out his blog frequently for similar insightful posts. His concluding comment on the case:

“Nonetheless, for those of us accustomed over the last 40-50 years to seeing the Supreme Court rarely put brakes of any kind on the federal government’s appetite for expansion, today was indeed one for the books.”
Continue Reading Stephen Holzer (Environmental Legal Blogs) Analyzes Supreme Court Decision on Clean Water Act