EPA Develops a Wireless Tool to Get Water Quality Data

EPA’s Water Data Project has recently unveiled a new tool to easily access data collected pursuant to the Clean Water Act about water quality in most lakes, rivers and streams anywhere in the US.

The EPA Environment Justice in Action blog has a posting about the new tool How's My Waterway? 

While the database has been around a while, the new tool enables everyone to quickly and easily access the data to see the condition of their local waters in plain language.

To use the tool, go to How's My Waterway? and enter your location or allow the system to determine your location. I found that the Use My Location button took too long to load on my office computer, so I clicked on Choose a Location button and was taken to a page where I entered my zip code.

The only confusing part about the tool is that the button to actually take you to the database to see the list and maps of waterways is not nearly as prominent as the three ancillary buttons (About How’s My Waterway, Related Links and Help). 

To actually see the reports generated from the database you click on a little arrow that is not highlighted.  EPA should fix this small design problem to make clicking to the database as prominent as the other, less important buttons.  But this is a small issue. 

The reports generated from the data in map or list format load quickly. The list of waterways – at least based on a check of my neighborhood – seems complete.

This tool empowers anyone to wirelessly check on local waters anywhere in the nation quickly and easily. Think about using your smart phone and during a hike checking on the water quality of a lake or stream from the water’s edge.

This is what e-government should be all about.

Why Lawyers Have Bad Reputations

From the New York Post: Dad sues own kid in matter of ‘trust’ .

Why is it that some lawyers seem to think the courts are designed to solve every problem? Do they think suing someone – even their own children – will intimidate? Dominate? Scare? Resolve the problem?

Whatever, here is yet another story about an attorney with more bluster than brains.

As the Post put it, “This’ll make for an awkward Thanksgiving. A high-powered Manhattan lawyer has filed a $3 million libel suit — against his daughter.” 

 The daughter had the temerity to ask for an accounting of her trust fund, managed by the father. 

The merits of this case do not really matter.  Just think about this family Thanksgiving  and be grateful about your own.

According to the Post, the attorney, “who once sued a restaurant for $7 million in a dispute over a $354 tip, said he might be willing to relent” and that the family matter will be resolved. But then why did he file suit in the first place?

California Confidentiality Statute Allows Clients to be Defrauded if Done During Mediation

Does this heading get your attention?  Because it is true, even if the statute allowing this was not designed to produce this outcome.

The strict California mediation confidentiality statute allows this outcome, according to the California Court of Appeals, the second such decision upholding the absolute ban on disclosure of any information if it originated in mediation. 

In two cases with egregious facts the California courts have held that the mediation confidentiality statute means what it states – that no evidence of any statement, act or writing prepared for a mediation is admissible in any subsequent court proceeding. Period. End of story.

I’ve blogged about this before, reporting on a decision by the California Supreme Court in Cassel v.Superior Court,  in which the Court held that private communications between an attorney and client that take place during mediation are confidential – even when the client waives the attorney-client privilege and requests disclosure.

The most recent case is Hadley et al. v. The Cochran Firm Cal. Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 8th Div., 2012  in which the California Court of Appeals held that the statute applied even when an attorney stapled an executed signature page from a confidentiality agreement to a supposed settlement agreement to which the clients had not agreed, thereby settling the case and dismissing their claims without the clients’ authority or knowledge.  Wow, talk about alleged malpractice and fraud.

The trial court dismissed the claims in response to a motion in limine to exclude the evidence of the alleged fraud and malpractice because this all happened during a mediation. The court was apparently following precedent from the Cassel decision by the California Supreme Court and a reading of the plain language of the statute.  The appellate court upheld the decision, holding that the mediation confidentiality statute compelled such a result.

This is no way to encourage mediation or engender client confidence in the mediation process.  These decisions clearly show the dangers of unintended consequences. When the mediation community drafted and supported a statute with an absolute bar, and opposed the Uniform Mediation Act, which takes a far more nuanced approach, I am certain there was no thought given to results such as this.

Delaware Chancery Arbitration Scheme Declared Unconstitutional

I’ve taken a bit of a vacation from blogging. I’m back now. This blog is about the Delaware Chancery Court statute authorizing the Chancery court judges to sit as arbitrators. Authorizing sitting judges to serve as arbitrators and issue private decisions. Remarkable.

This was a statute so off the wall that I blogged aboutit last November

.

The system was designed to allow large corporate litigants to use the Delaware Chancery court system to litigate in secret – cases were not even docketed – and still get a decision by a judge from the Chancery court.  And to allow the judges to receive large fees as arbitrators. 

As I wrote then, the Delaware Coalition for Open Government saw the statute as unconstitutional and sued the five Chancery judges in Federal District Court challenging the scheme. The complaint argued that the statute unconstitutionally violates the First Amendment’s qualified right of access to civil and criminal trials. 

Thankfully, U.S. District Court Judge Mary McLaughlin agreed that this scheme is unconstitutional, and held on the pleadings that:

Under the Delaware law and Chancery Court rules, a sitting judge of the Chancery Court, acting pursuant to state authority, hears evidence, finds facts, and issues an enforceable order dictating the obligations of the parties. The Court concludes that the Delaware proceeding functions essentially as a non-jury trial before a Chancery Court judge. Because it is a civil trial, there is a qualified right of access and this proceeding must be open to the public. (DELAWARE COALITION FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT v. HONORABLE LEO E. STRINE, JR., et al.CA No. 1-11-1015)

While it is likely that this case will be appealed, what do you think the odds are that the Third Circuit will reverse the decision? 

Use and Benefits of Alternative Dispute Resolution

A Statistical Summary Prepared by the Department of Justice

If anyone needs statistical evidence that ADR saves money and reduces litigation, here it is. Last year the government saved over $12 million in litigation and discovery expenses, over 14,600 days of attorney time, and avoided over 1,200 months of litigation by the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. These savings were achieved primarily through the use of mediation at a cost of under $2 million. Six dollars saved for every one dollar spent is pretty good cost/benefit ratio, if you ask me.

This data is being reported by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR). The ODR was set up to develop Justice Department policy regarding the use of ADR.

These are just the government’s cost savings and, according to the ODR, are “based on detailed case reports submitted by the lead trial counsel in all cases in which a private neutral conducted an ADR process in Department litigation across the country.”

Also note that in 2011 nearly 75% of the voluntary ADR proceedings (cases in which the government and other parties agreed to ADR without being ordered by a court) were “resolved” (i.e., settled). About 50% of cases ordered into ADR, by contrast, were resolved – still a significant percentage but perhaps an indication of why voluntary ADR works so well.

This chart is pretty strong evidence of the cost-saving benefits of ADR.

Category	TOTALS
	2011	2010	2009	2008	2007
Success Rates for ADR
Voluntary ADR Proceedings	73% Resolved	80% Resolved	78% Resolved	79% Resolved	69% Resolved
Court-Ordered Proceedings	53% Resolved	46% Resolved	42% Resolved	51% Resolved	50% Resolved
Cases in Which ADR Achieved Benefits	86%	73%	83%	No Data	No Data
Quantified Benefits of ADR
Litigation or Discovery Expenses Saved	$12,185,750	$11,662,500	$5,940,287	$3,387,750	$3,001,000
Days of Attorney/Staff Time Saved	14,656 Days	12,260 Days	5,829 Days	23,010 Days	2,797 Days
Months of Litigation Avoided	1,231 Months	930 Months	849 Months	661 Months	429 Months
DOJ Support ADR
Expenditures for Mediation Services	$1,931,900	$1,547,874	$1,141,103	$1,362,320	$1,049,891
Number of Case Authorized for ADR Funding	470	718	528	522	505

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Dispute Resolution

U.S. Supreme Court Justices Skeptical of EPA in Sackett v. EPA

I recently blogged about a case before the Supreme Court testing whether parties can seek pre-enforcement judicial review of EPA orders (ACOs) without being subject to fines of up to $70,000 per day for failure to comply with the order.

My earlier blog described the essential details of the case, in which, to recap briefly, the EPA ACO prohibited the Sacketts, owners of a property near a lake, from filling in a portion of the property because EPA claimed it was a wetland.

Supreme Court commentators seem to agree that the oral arguments do not bode well for the government. Lyle Denniston wrote in SCOTUSblog, “With a federal government lawyer conceding almost every criticism leveled at the way the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency compels landowners to avoid polluting the nation’s waterways, the Supreme Court on Monday seemed well on its way toward finding some way to curb that agency’s enforcement powers.”

The Legal Planet blog stated: “What distinguishes this case from a routine examination of dry administrative law concepts is the overt hostility towards EPA and its regulatory efforts that many of the Justices displayed in their questions from the bench.”

Here is an example of from the transcript of the oral argument:

Justice Breyer: If we agree then, look, for 75 years the courts have interpreted statutes with an eye towards permitting judicial review, not the opposite. And yet -- so here you are saying that this statute that says nothing about it precludes review, and then the second thing you say is that this isn't final. So I read the order. It looks like about as final a thing as I have ever seen. So tell me why I am wrong on those two points. (A copy of the argument transcript can be found here)

The interesting question is likely to be how the Sacketts win, not whether, and the reasoning and basis for the decision is the important issue, not who wins and who loses.

Will the opinion be a narrow ruling, limited to enforcement of the Clean Water Act? Will it include other federal environmental statutes enforced by EPA by Administrative Orders?

And, most significantly, will the Court base its decision on constitutional grounds, as suggested in several friends of the Court briefs, and hold that the lack of judicial review of ACOs is an unconstitutional deprivation of due process?

Supreme Court Case on EPA’s Power to Order Environmental Compliance

On January 9, 2012, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument on a case that may establish the extent, both under law and the Constitution, of the power of the EPA to order compliance with certain environmental laws – and seek judicial enforcement of those orders.

The two questions presented to the Court are 1) whether parties can seek pre-enforcement review of EPA administrative compliance orders under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §704 (“APA”); and 2) whether, if not, the inability to seek pre-enforcement review is a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.

The Court granted certiorari to hear an appeal of Sackett v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Docket No. 10-1062) http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-1062.htm. This case comes up from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Circuit with the most cases, by far, recently reviewed and overturned by the Supreme Court. In the last term, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit in 19 out of 26 cases, an extremely high 79% reversal rate.

The facts of the case are about the actions Chantell and Michael Sackett took on their own 0.63-acre -vacant lot near Priest Lake in Idaho. The Sacketts filled in a portion of the lot with dirt and rock to build a house. EPA issued a compliance order alleging that the filled in area of the property is a wetland subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. (“CWA”), and that the Sacketts were unlawfully discharging pollutants into waters of the United States without a permit, in violation of 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a).

The Sacketts, without first seeking a CWA Section 404 permit, a jurisdictional determination or informal guidance from the Army Corps of Engineers or EPA, sought a hearing with EPA to challenge the finding that their property was subject to the CWA; EPA refused to grant the hearing, so the Sacketts filed suit in the US District Court seeking an injunction and declaration from the Court that EPA did not have jurisdiction, alleging that EPA’s compliance order was (1) arbitrary and capricious under the APA; (2) issued without a hearing in violation of the Sackett’s due process rights under the Constitution; and (3) issued on an unconstitutionally vague standard of “any information available.”

The District Court granted EPA’s motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, agreeing with the government that the CWA precludes judicial review of EPA compliance orders before EPA initiates an enforcement action in federal court. The Ninth Circuit agreed (622 F.3d 1139), stating that “We join our sister circuits and hold that the Clean Water Act precludes pre-enforcement judicial review of administrative compliance orders, and that such preclusion does not violate due process.” Id. at 1141.

This case has become a big deal for the environmental law cognoscenti. Amicus briefs in support of the Sacketts were filed by many, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Mountain States Legal Foundation and the American Petroleum Institute, among many others.

Interestingly, the APA Watch, a nonprofit organization which describes itself as devoting “significant effort to combating federal agencies’ exceeding their authority under the Administrative Procedure Act…” filed a brief supporting neither party but expressing its concerns about issues not raised by the parties to this litigation under the APA to protect future litigants.

While not raised by the Sackett’s in their case, APA Watch points out that parties injured by non-final agency action have an independent right of redress under the APA §10(c), even when that action is not made reviewable by the underlying statute.

This case presents equities on both sides of the question. On the one hand, agencies charged with protecting the environment must have the statutory and judicial tools necessary to enforce against parties who take action – even on their own properties – that violate the environmental laws that were enacted to protect all of us; on the other hand, the Constitution sets forth due process principles intended to restrain unfair and inequitable governmental actions.
I look forward to seeing how the Supreme Court balances these equities; my guess is that whatever the decision, the Court will recognize and protect the APA interests articulated by APA Watch.