## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 3857 S T EV EN B. P OLL ACKAN D B LUE E CO L EGAL C O UN CIL , P laint if fs -App el lants , v.
U NI T ED S TATE S D EPART MENT OF J US T I CE , et al., D efend a nts-A pp ellees. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 08- CV-00320

—Ronal d A . G uzmán, Judge .
A RG UE D M AY 8, 2009

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 13, 2009

Befo re C UDAH Y, M A NI ON, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. M A NI ON, C ircu it Judge. The Uni te d S ta te s g o vern m en t o p er at es a gu n ran ge on t h e s h or es of L ak e M ich ig an . The pl aint i ff s br o ug ht su i t ag ains t se ve r al g o ve r nm entalag en ci es, al l eging tha t the di schar ge ofbul l ets i nt o the l ak e vi o l at es v ar i o us e nv i r o nm ent all aws . The dist ri ct c ourtdi sm i sse d the s uitf orwa n t of j uri sdic ti on a ft e r co nc l ud i ngth e p l a i nt i ff s l a c k e d c o ns t i t ut i o na l s t a nd

i n g . T h e p l a i n t i ff s a p p e a l, a n d w e a ffi r m.2 N o. 08

- 3857

A fte r th e F BI le arned of bu ll ets ent eri ng Foss Park, i t c los ed 1 the r an g e i n Apri l 20 08
. The FBI i m pro ved the r ang e and under t ook fur the r s t udi es t o pr eve ntbul l et s fro m e nteri ng the par k. Acc or di ng t o a M ay 11, 20 09, l et t ers en tt o the c our t, the FB I i ntends t o reopen the range at the earl ie stposs ible date. I. I n 1 9 1 8 , the Uni t e d S t a t e s Na vy a nd Mar i ne Co r ps bega n op er at ing a gun r ange i n N or th Chic ago , I l l i noi s. Ove r the y ea r s, many di sc ha r g ed l ea d b ull et s f r o m the ra nge l anded i n an ar ea ofLake M i chi gan c overin g 2, 975 ac r es . The mil i ta r y us ed th e s i te unt i l 1 97 6 when th e Feder alBurea u o fI nvest i gat i on ( “FBI ”) l eas ed the ra nge. The F BIb o ug htthe s i te i n 1 98 7. A t so m e po i ntthe ran ge w as im p roved by ad d ing an ea r t h en berm back sto p to prev en t bul l ets fro m l anding i n the l ake

. Despit e the be rm , so m e bul l ets es caped i nto Lake M i chi gan a nd nearby Fos s Par k. 1 I n additi on t o thi s gun rang e, the gov er nm ent a l so o per at ed a sh o tgun r an ge o n the s i te
. Pe l l et s f r o m the shot guns l anded i n Lake M i chi gan. H owever, th e gover n m en t n o lon ge r op er at es a sh ot gu n ran ge th er e. A d d iti o na l l y, i n 2 00 6 th e Uni te d S ta te s Coa stGua r d c o ndu c t e d l i v e - fi r e e xe r c i s e s fr o m bo a t s o n La k e Mi c hi gan usi ngl e a d b ul l e t s a nd b ul l e t s fr o m t ho s e e xe r c i s es lan d ed in t h e w at er . L ea d is a t ox ic s u b st an c e a n d , i f i ngest ed i n suffi ci ent quanti ti es, pose s a thr eatto hum an he al th

. P lain tiff St ev en P olla c k is a n at to rn ey w h o liv es in H i gh l a nd P a r k, I l l i no i s , thi r t e e n mi l e s s o uth o fthe r ange.N o. 08

- 3857 3 H e i s the exec uti ve dir ecto r ofpl ain tiff Blue Eco Legal Council( “Blue Eco”) , an e nvi ro nm entalgr oup “w i th an i nter esti n th e envi ro nm entalsa fetyo fthe GreatLakes wat er sh ed, ” th at, a m o ngo th erthi ng s, s ue s pr i va te a nd gov er nm entalpol l uter s t o enf or ce e nvi ro nm entall aw s. Pol lack and Blue Eco br ought thi s s uitag ai nst the U ni ted St ate s Depart m ent o fJ usti ce, the U ni ted S tat es Coast Gu ard , t h e Un i ted S tat es Dep ar tm ent o fthe N avy, th e Uni t e d S t a t e s Mar i ne Co r ps , a nd the Uni t e d S tat es De p a r t me n to fD e fe n s e . T h e p l a i n t i ff s a l l e g e d th a tt he det er i o r at i o n o fthe l ea d b ul l et s i n the wat erha r m ed th e en vi r o nm en t, i n v i o l at i o n o fthe Cl ea n W at erAct, the Resour ce Conse rv ati on a nd Reco ver y Act, the Com prehe ns i ve Env i r o nm en ta l Re spo ns e, Compens at i o n, a nd Liab i l i ty A ct, and sta te nuis ance l aw . Pol l ack and Blue Eco sought$5 5. 2 m i l l i on i n dam age s: $3 5. 2 m ill i on t o pay a pri vate co m pany to r em ove bul l ets from t h e la ke bot tom and $20 m i l l i on i n to rtdam age s forpubli c nui sance to fun d a “ s up pl em enta l e nv i r o nme nt a l p r oj e c t ” t o b e a dm i ni ste re d by e nvi ro nm entalgr oups chos en bythe cour t. To es tabl i sh stan d ing, the pla i nti ff s r el i ed on a ffi davi ts s u b m it ted by Pollack and anot he r Blue Ec o m em ber, Da rr en M i l l er, wh o i s a l so a r esi dent ofH i ghl and Park. Po l l a c k ’ s a ffi da v i ts t a t e d tha th e e nj oye d w a t c hingb i r ds i n the Gr ea t Lak es wat er sh ed, v i si te d pub l i c p arks al o ng the L ak e M i chi gan s hor el i ne, drank w ate r f ro m Lake M i ch i g ana t hi s ho m e i n Hi g hl an d Park, a nd a te fr es hw at er an d oc ea n fish . M iller’s affid av i t w as n ea rly i denti calto Pol l ack’ s. T h e d efe n d an ts m ov ed fo r d ism iss al u n d er Fe d er al R u le ofCi vi l Pro cedure 12(b) ( 1) , ar gui ng tha t the co urt l acke d4 N o. 08

- 3857 subj ect- m att erj uri sdic ti on be cause Pol l ack and Blue Eco d id n ot p os se ss c on st itu tio n al sta n d in g to as se r t th eir cl ai m s. The di stri ct c o ur t g r an te d the mot i o n, c o nc l udi ng fi r sttha t Po l l ac ka nd M i l l er ’ s co nc ern ove r dr i nk i ng wat erdi d no t pr o vi de st an di ngb eca us e th e dr i nk i ng w ate r i n H i ghl and Park w as bel ow the envi ro nm ental l i m i t o n l ead pol l uti on a l l owed bythe ci ty gov er nm ent, th ereby negatin g an y claim of ha rm by Pollack an d M il ler. M o r e o v e r, th e d i s t r i c tc o u r th e l d th a tth e i r c o nc er ns ove r bi rds, fi sh, and w i l dli fe were too ge nera l and did not al l ege any pa rt i cul aro r speci fi c har m thathad bee n c a us e d b y the b ul l e t s . T he di s t r i c tc o ur tc o nc l ud e d that be ca us e Po l l ac ka nd M i l l erdi d notpos se ss s ta ndi ng, Bl ue Eco di d not posses s standi ng on thei r behal f

. A ccor dingl y, the d i str i ct c ourtdi sm i sse d the s uitf orl ack ofsubj ectm at te r j u ris d ict ion . Th e p lain tiffs ap p ea l.

II. At i ss ue i n thi s ca se i s Po l l ac k ’ s an d Bl ue Ec o ’ s co nst itu tio n al s ta n d in g t o b rin g th is law su it. U n d er A rt icle II I o fth e C o n s t i t u t i o n, fe d e r a l c o u r t s a r e l i mi t e d t o h e a r i ng “Ca se s” a nd “ Con tr o ve rsi es . ” Thi s pr o vi si o n l i m i ts the j ud i ci alp ow er “t o the t ra dit i onalr ol e o fA ngl o- A m er i can c ou rt s, w h ich is t o re d re ss or p re ve n t a c tu al or im m in en tly thre ate ned i nj ury to perso ns cause d by pri vate o r offic ial vi ol ati on o fl aw . ” Sum m ers v. E arth Is la nd Ins t. , 12 9 S
. Ct. 11 42 , 1 14 8 ( 20 09). Thi s r es tr i ct i o n o n the po wero fthe cour ts “ ‘ i s found ed on co ncer n abo ut the proper

— an d proper l y l i m i ted

— ro le of t h e c ou rt s in a d em o c ra tic so c iety
. ’ ” Id

. ( quoti ng Warth v. Sel din , 422 U
. S. 490, 498 (1975 ))
.N o. 08

- 3857 5 Pe rm itti ng a court to d ecid e a c ase w he re the p lai nt iff does not have sta nd i ng w oul d “ al l ow[] cour ts to ov er see leg isla tiv e a n d ex ec u tiv e a c tio n ” a n d th u s “ sig n ifica n tly alt er th e a lloc at ion of p ow er . . . aw ay from a d em oc ra tic f or m o fgo ver nm ent. ” Id . at 1 14 9 (q u ot at ion om itt ed ). Inord er to sh ow st an d in g, a p lai nt iff m us t show that he is un d er th reat of sufferi ng“ i nj ur y i n f a c t ” th a ti s co nc r e t e an d p a r t i c ul a r i z e d; th e thr ea t m us t be a ctua l a nd i m m i ne nt, no t co nj ectur alor hypotheti cal ; i t m ust be f ai rl y t ra ceabl e t o the c hal l enged ac ti on o fthe defe nd ant; and i t m ust b e like ly th at a fav or ab le jud icia l d ec isio n w ill p re ve n t o r re d re ss th e inj u ry . Id .; a cco rd S ierra C lu b v. Fra nk lin C o un ty P o w er of Il l
. , LL C, 546 F. 3d 918, 92 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. A n or ga n iza tion has st an di ngwhena ny of its m embe r s ha s st an di ng, the law su it inv olves i nt erests “ge rm an e to t h e organizat ion’s pu rpos e, ” an d nei therthe cl ai m as ser ted northe re l i ef r eque st ed r equi r es an i ndi vi dualt o pa r ti ci pat e i n the law su it. S i e r r a Cl ub , 54 6 F
. 3d at 924. A t i ssue here i s ( a) whethe r Po l l ac k has s ta ndi ng ; a nd (b) whethe r Bl ue Eco ha s st an di ngthr o ug h P o ll acko r M i l l er . The pl aintif f s be ar th e b u rd en of p ro vin g s ta n d in g. Wis consin R igh t t o Life, Inc. v. Sch o ber, 366 F.3d 485 , 489 (7th C ir. 20 04 )
. W e r ev i ew a di st r i ctc o ur t’ s dec i si on on s ta ndi ng d e n ov o. Id

. Se ve ra l Su p re m e C ou rtd ec is i o n s g u id e o u r an aly sis . In Su m m ers , se ver alenvi ro nm entalorg ani zati ons chal l enged a deci si on o fthe U ni ted S tat es For estS er vi ce t o perm it a s al vage s ale of 238 acr es ofti m beri n Se quoi a N ati onal6 N o. 08

- 3857 For estthathad bee n da m age d i n a fi re , witho ut pro
vi di ngn o t i c e , a p e r i o d fo r p ub l i c c o mm e nt, o r a n a pp eal proce ss. 12 9 S . C t. at 1147

- 48. The Fo re st Se rv i ce a cted acco rdi ng to i ts own re gul ati ons, w hi ch perm i t it to ex em pt fro m thes e r equi re m ents sal vage sa l es ofti m ber loc at e d o n l e ss th an 25 0 a c re s. Id

. a t 11 47
. The e nv i r o nm entalo rg ani zati ons fi l ed sui t t o chal l enge the r egul atio n s. Id

. at11 49. The o rg ani zati ons conte nd ed they posse sse d standi ng ba sed o n thei r m em ber s’ “r ecr eat i onal i nter esti n the N ati onalFor es ts .” Id

. at11 49. The go vernm en t co nc ede d tha t o ne mem be r o fthe o r g an i zatio ns ha d s ta ndi ngt o c ha l l en ge th e s al e o fthe 2 38 a cr es a nd th e parti es set tl ed the cl ai m r el ati ng to thatpart i cul ar sa lva ge sa le. Id

. The o rg ani zati ons sti l l as ser ted the f aci al cha l l enge to the r egul ati ons them sel ves. The o rg ani zati o ns s ubmi tt ed an a ffi dav i t o fJ i m Be ns m an, who as se r te d “ th at he ha s vi si te d m an y Nat i o na l F o r es ts a nd pl an s to v i sit sever alunn amed Nat i o na l F o r es ts i n the futur e . ” Id . at 1 15 0. Su m m ers hel d that thi s a ffi davi t was i nsuffi ci ent t o provi de sta nd i ng, st ati ng tha t i t f ai l ed “to al l ege that anypart i cul arti m bersale oro therproj ect c laim ed to b e u n l aw fu lly su bj ec t t o th e re gu lat ion s w ill i m pede a s peci fi c an d concret e pl an o fBensm an’ s t o enj oy the Nati onalFo re sts
. ” Id

. A lthou gh Be ns m a n ’s affi dav i t di d r efer en ce pa r ti cul ars al es i n the Al l eghe ny N ati onalFo re st, ther e w as no “fi rm i ntenti on” to vi si t that ar ea . Id

. Su m m ers st ate d that “ [ t] hi s v ague desi re to re turn i s insuffi ci ent t o sat i sfy the r eq u i re m ent o f i m m i nent i nj ury. ” Id

. at11 50- 51. Con ve r se ly, the S upr eme Co ur t f o und s ta ndi ngt o s ue i n Frien ds o

f the E a rth, Inc . v. Laid la w E nv iro nm enta l Serv ices ,N o. 08

- 3857 7 52 8 U. S
. 1 67( 20 00 )
. I n Lai dl aw , a was te wat ert r ea tment pla nto b t a i ne d a s t a t e p e r mi tt o di s c ha r g e t r e a t e d wa ter c on ta in in g k n ow n p o l l u ta n ts int o a rive r. Id

. at17 5- 76. Three envi ro nm entalo rg ani zati ons sued, bas i ng their sta nd i ng o n m em ber s a ffecte d by the pol l uti on. Fo r exam ple , o ne m em berst ate d that she li ved tw o m i l es f ro m the r i verand that she had pi cni cked, walk ed, watched bi r ds, a nd waded in the r i ve r b efo r e th e po l l ut i o n a nd because o fthe pol l uti on had since ce ased those acti vi ti es. Id . at 1 82
. Laidl aw hel d that thi s a nd si m i l arst ate m ents “adequatel y docum ented i nj ury i n f act. ” Id . at 1 83
. Lai dl aw expla i ned that “envi ro nm entalpl ai nti ff s a dequ ate l y a l l ege i nj ury i n f act w hen they aver that they use the a ffecte d are a and are p er so n s fo r w hom the aes theti c and r ecr eat i onal val ues o fthe ar ea w i l l be l ess ened by the c hal l enged acti vi ty. ” Id

. On th e o the r ha nd, the S upr eme Co ur t he l d tha t en vi r o nm en ta l pl aint i ff s di d no t ha ve s ta ndi ngi n L uj an v. N at i o nal Wi l dl i

f eFe de r at i on , 4 97U. S
. 8 71 ( 19 90 )
. I n Lujan , ane nv i r o nm en ta l o r g an i za ti o n c ha l l en g ed a gov ernm entalact i on th at al l ege dlyo pened pu bl i c l ands f or m in in g. Id . at 8 79 . Th e a ffid av it of o n e m em b er st at ed : M y rec re ati onalu se and aes theti c enj oym ent offedera l l ands, part i cul ar l y those i n t he vi ci ni ty ofS outh Pa ss - Gr ee n Mount ain, W y o m i nghav e be ena nd co n t i n u e t o b e a d v e r s e l y a ffe c t e d i n f a c tb y th e unlaw fu l ac tio n s of th e B u re au an d th e D ep ar tm e n t . In parti cul ar, the So uth Pass- Green M ountai n ar ea of W y o m ing ha s be eno pen ed to the s ta k i ngo fmin i ng cl ai m s and o i l and gas l eas i ng, an a cti on wh i ch thr eat
-8 N o. 08

- 3857

en s th e ae sthe ti c be au tya nd wi l dl if e h abi ta t po te nti alo fthes e l ands. Id . at 8 86 ( e m p h as is a d d ed ). Lujan hel d that s tandi ng was no t es tabl i sh ed by“ av er m en ts whi chs ta te o nl y tha t o ne ofr espondent’ s m em b er s use s unspeci fi ed port i ons of an i m m ense tr act ofte rr i to ry , o n so m e por ti ons of w h ich m in in g a c tiv ity h as oc c u rre d or p ro b ab ly w ill occurbyvi rtue o fthe gov er nm entalact i on. ” Id

. at88 9. I n a ddi t i o n t o the s e S up r e me Co ur tc a s e s , P ol l ack di r ec ts o ura tt en ti o n t o o urr ec ent d ecis i o n in Si e r r a Cl ub v. Franklin Coun ty Po w erof Ill
. , i n w hi ch w e hel d t hat an envi ro nm entalo rg ani zati on pos ses sed st anding to s e e ka n i nj un c t i o n a g a i ns ta p o we r c o mpa nytha thad ob ta in ed a st at e p er m it t o b u i l d a c oa l p ow er p lan t in southe rn I l l i noi s. 54 6 F
. 3d at 923. The envi ro nm ental o r g an i za ti o n c l ai m ed st an di ngb as ed o n a mem be r who had vacati oned ev er y tw o yea rs since 19 87 on a l ake thre e m i l es f ro m the propos ed si te
. Id

. a t 92 5. The m embe r s tated tha t sh e fi sh ed, k ay ak ed, c amped, a nd enj oye d the be auty ofthe l ake , and that she would ce ase h er trip s if th e p ow er p lan t w as bu ilt. Id

. F ra nklin Cou nty hel d that the m em berhad est abl i shed i nj ury- i n-f act ba se d o n h er“ l i k ely e xpo su r e” t o po l l ut an ts fr o m the coa l pow erpl ant a nd the cess ati on o fhervac atio n tr i ps. Id

. at92 5- 26. M or eov er, the cl ai m ed i nj ury w as fair ly tr ac e a b l e t o th e p r o p o s e d p o we r p l a n t
. Al th o u g h the e xt e nto fp o l l ut i o n wa s u nc l e a r, we s t a t e d: W e a gr ee that no one know s the u l ti m ate m agni tude of M c K asson ’s injury

— for ex am p le, w e d on ’t k n ow if th e par ti cul at e m at te r fr o m the p lant w i l l b l o t o uttheN o. 08

- 3857 9 skyo r m er el y c re ate a thi n haze that ’ s no t v i sibl e t o th e na ke d ey e, or if th e airb or n e m er c u r y w i ll actual l y s pread 45 m i l es to poi son fi sh thatM cK ass on c u r r e n t l y c o n s u me s fr o m a p o n d n e a r h e rh o me ( wh i c h i s a n o th e r h a r m s h e c l a i ms s h e wi l l s u ffe r )
. We d o k n o w, h o we v e r, th a t th e p l a n t wi l l r e l e a s e s o me pol l utants and that M c K ass on be l i eve s t hese pol l utants w i l l r uin her abil i ty to enj oy Rend Lake an d ta in t t h e s u rro u n d in g a re a. Id

. a t 92 7. Acco r di ng l y, we he l d th atthe mem be r a nd thus th e pl aint i ffo r g an i za ti o n h ad sta ndi ngt o c ha l l en g e th e bui l ding ofthe pow erpl ant. Po l l ac ka l so r el i es he av i l y o n Fr i e nds of t heEar t h, Inc . v. Gast on Coppe rRe cy cl i ng Corp
. , 204 F.3d 149 (4th C ir. 2000), in w h ich th e F ou rt h C irc u it h eld th at tw o in d ivid u als ha d st a n d i n gt o s u e a s me l t i n gp l a n tth a twa s d u mpi ng pol l utants up str eam fro m them

. One i nd i vi du alo w ned a h o me o n th e a ffe c t e d w a t e r whe r e h e fi s h e d , s wa m, a n d b o a te d

. Id

. a t1 5 2

- 5 3
. Ano the r i nd i v i du a l o pe r a t e d a canoe i ng co m pany on the pol l uted ri ver . Id

. at15 3. Based on th es e in d ivid u als ’ st an d i n g, G a ston C o pp erhel d that thei r or gani zat ion s had st anding to chal l enge the r el eas e of t h e p ollu ta n ts
. Id

. at16 0. As no te d abo ve , i n thi s ca se Bl ue Ec o b as es i ts s ta ndi ng on nea rl y i denti calaffi davi ts f ro m two ofi ts m em ber s, Po l l a c ka n d Mi l l e r . P o l l a c ke s s e n t i a l l y c l a i ms f o ur inj u rie s: (1) t h at h e d rin ks w at er d ra w n from L ak e M ich ig anf o r Hi g hl an d Pa r ka nd “ o th erl o ca l muni ci p a l i ti es ” an d th e s hoot i ng o fl ead bul l ets pol l utes thi s water ; ( 2) that he enj oys “w atch ing w il d li fe in th e G reat L a k e s w ater-10 N o. 08

- 3857

s he d” a nd tha the “i s co nc e r ne d” ab o utth e effe c to n b i r ds f ro m the shoo ti ng; ( 3) that he enj oys “the pu bl ic a reas alo n g t h e Illino is p or tio n of L ak e M ich iga n ” a n d h e is c o n c e r n e d th a tp e o p l e i n F o s s P a r ka n d th e a dj o i ni ng beach w i l l be hurt, ther eby m aking i t “ l ess l i kel y that [ he] wi l l vi si t” tha t par k ; a nd ( 4) tha t he e nj o y s “e at i ngfr es hw ate r and ocea n fi sh” a nd he i s co ncer ned that bul l ets fi re d i nto the w at er wil l “e nter [ ] the w ate r col um n and bi oaccu m u lat[e ] i n the ti ssues and or gans offi sh, ” there by l es se ni nghi s des i r e to e atfi sh

. P olla c k’s int en tio n to d rin k w a t e r a n d h is fe ar th at h is w ate r has be en co ntam i nated byl ead fro m bu l l ets d oes not g i v e r i s e t o s t a n d i n g . He r e l i e s o n Fran kl i n Coun ty an d G a ston C o pp erto ar gue that hi s drinki ng waterta ken fro m Lake M i chi ga n g i ves hi m st anding. H owever, thi s ca se i s m ate ria lly dist i ngui shabl e fro m tho se because Pol l ack is n o t d ow n st re am from th e a lleg ed p ollu ta n ts an d it is u n c l e a r wh e th e r th e i r p r e s e n c e a ffe c t s h i m. I n Gast on C o pp er, the ind ivi d ua ls w ere d o w ns tream from the en try poi nt f or the pol l utants. H er e, the ri cochet i ng bul l ets f ro m the Fos s Par k s i te and the s hotgun ra n ge e n terLake M ich iga n atN or th C h ica go , I llin oi s . H igh lan d P ar k is appr o xi m at ely thi r te enmil es fr o m Nor thChi ca g o a nd draw s i ts w ate r f ro m a differ ent sect i on ofLake M i chi gan than N or th Chic ago . I t i s uncl eari fany pol l ution fr om bul l et s di sc ha r g ed in to La k e M i ch i g anwi l l t r av elthe th irteen m il es from Foss Park to H ighland P ark. T o clari fy th i s p o i nt, P o l l a c ka l l e g e s tha ts e di men ti n the r egi on travels in a coun ter-clockw ise direction, from Foss Park to Hi g hl an d Pa r k, a nd c i tes a r epo r t o fthe Env i r o nm ental Pro tect i on A gency . H owever, that re port does notN o. 08

- 3857 11

su gg es t t h at su c h a p at te rn of m ov em e n t e x ist s. See U
. S. En v t l

. P r o t
. Ag e nc y & Go v ’ to fCa na da, T he Gr e a tLakes : A n Envir onm entalA tl as and Resourc e Boo k, ch. 2, § 4 (3d ed . 199 5), ava il ableat http: //w w w . epa. gov/g l npo/at l as/ i nd ex. htm l

. H ence, Pol l ack has no t s ati sfi ed hi s bur den ofsho w i ng t h at decayi ng bul l ets nearN or th Chic ago w il l affect his w ater su p p ly in H ig hlan d Park. Poll ack’s b elie f th at th e b u llet s a ffec t h im is a lso u n like th e a ir p oll uti o n a t i ss ue i n Franklin Coun ty, b e c a u s e i ti s c o mm onl y unders too d that a i r pol l uti on ca n tr avelthr ee m i l es thr o ug h the a i r a nd di ffer en t wi nd c o nditi o ns coul d e asi l y b l ow the pol l uti on o nto l and at that di sta nce. Inco n tr as t, it is n otrea d ily ap p ar en t t h a t P olla c k w ou ld be a ffecte d by the sho oting ati ssue here

. T ak en to its ex tr em e, P olla c k’ s a r gu m en t w ou ld p er m it any per son l i vi ng o n ornearLake M i chigan t o ass er t that he h as b een har m ed by the b ull ets , bec ause the l ead co ul d po te nt i al l y ha ve b ee n c ar r i ed to e ve r y p ar t o fthe lak e. H ow ev er , L uj an m ak es c l ea rtha t when a va ste nvi ro nm entalar ea i s invol ved and the pol l uti on a ffects one discret e area w hile a p lai nt iff inten d s to visi t a different di scr ete ar ea, t h at pl ai nti ffdoes nothave st anding. Si m i l ar l y, Pol l ack dri nks t re ated water f ro m o ne di scr ete ar eawhi l e th e defen dan ts ’ a ct i vi ti es affe cta di ffer en t di s c r e t e a r e a . Wi tho uts o me s up po r tf o r the a s s e r ti on th athe wi l l b e affec te d b y the dr i ft o fpo l l ut ed se di m en t orwater, Pol l ack has no t s how n thathe ha s s tandi ng to pu r s ue thi s l a ws ui t
. T hu s , b e c a us e i ti s n o tr e adil y a pparent that Pol l ack w oul d be a ffecte d by the di schar ge o fb ul l et s, he do es no t ha ve s ta nd ing ba se d o n Hi g hl an d Pa r k ’ s dr i nk i ngwat ert ak enfr o m La k e M i ch i g an .12 N o. 08

- 3857 Si m i l ar l y, Pol l ack has f ai l ed to co nnect hi s desi re to ea t fi sh with t h e bull ets i n the w ate r. Fo r one, hi s desi re to eato cean fi sh i s no t i m pli cate d because Lake M i chi gan i s no t th e o ce an . M o r eo ve r, Po ll ack ne ve r a ve r s th athe w il l eat fish from L ake M ichigan itself; instea d , h e refers gener al l y t o “fre shw ate r fi sh. ” Hence, Pol l ack has no t eve n cl ai m ed that h e w i l l ea t fi sh fro m the affecte d re gi on. Thi s s tat em ent i s un like Lai dl aw a nd Franklin C ounty, wh e r e the i nd i v i du a l s a c t ua l l y u s e d the a r e as affec te d b y po l l ut i o n. I nde ed, Po l l ac k ’ s av er m en t th athe eat s fre shw ate r fi sh fro m so m e unnam ed so urce i s l ess su g g es ti ve o fs ta ndi ngthan th e st at ement s i n Lujan a nd Su m m ers , wher e th e i ndi vi dual s atl ea stv i si te d the gener alr egi on affecte d by pol l uti on. A ccor dingl y, P olla c k’s int en tio n to ea t fre sh w at er fish from an u n sp ec ifi ed so urce does not provi de a b asi s forst anding to sue. Pol l ack’ s desi re to vi ew wil d life and to vi si t l oca l park s m ay both be consi dered a cl ai m t h at h e wil l suffer a e s th e t i c h a r m f r o m th e g u n r a n g e . Wh i l e th e S u p r e me Co ur t c l e a r l y r e c o g ni z e s tha t a e s the t i c ha r ms maygi ve ris e t o s ta n d in g, Su m m ers , 12 9 S
. Ct. at114 9, Lujan an d Su m m ers de m o ns tr at e th ata pl aint i ffmustsh o w tha t he ha s ac tu ala es th et i c i nt er es t i n the a r ea a ffec te d b y the pol l uti on. W hen go ver nm entalact i on a ffects a disc re te natura l area, and a pl ai nti ffm er el y s tat es that he “use s unspecifi ed port i ons ofan i m m ense tr act ofte rr i tor y, ” s uch av er m en ts a re ins u fficie n t t o e st ab lish st an d in g. Lujan , 49 7 U.S. a t 88 9. Her e, Po l l ac kc l ai m s g en er al l y tha t he enj o y s wat ch i ngb i r ds i n the “Gr ea t La k es wat er sh ed” a nd vi si ti ng publ i c par ks “al ong th e Ill i noi s por ti on o fLake M i c h i gan. ” How eve r, he ne vercl ai m s that he vi si ts Fos sN o. 08

- 3857 13

A ltho u g h P olla ck v isited Fo ss P ark after he co m m en ced suit, 2 a pl ai nt i ffm us te s t abl i s h s t andi ng a tthe t i m e suiti s fi l ed a nd cannot m an u fa ct u re sta n d in g aft er w a rd s. Lai dl aw , 528 U.S
. at 180 ( st ati ng that the court c onsi ders whether a plaintiff had sta n d in g “a t th e o u tse t o f th e l iti g a tio n ” ); Perry v. Vi l l ageof A rli n g ton Heigh ts , 186 F. 3d 826, 8 3 0 (7 th C ir
. 1999) ( st ati ng that “[ t ] he requi re m en t s ofs t andi ng m us tbe s at i s fi ed fro m the o u tse t” ). P a r ko r w a t c h e s b i r d s i n th a ta r e a . I n s t e a d , P o l l a c kc l a i ms 2 tha t he v i s i t s pa r k s a nd wa t c he s b i r ds wi thin a vas t te r r i to r y . Thi s cl ai m i s si m i lar to the s ta te m en ts i n Lujan a nd Su m m ers , wh er e the i nd i vi du al s nev ercl ai m ed to ha v e a s pe c i fi c i nt e r e s ti n the a c t ua l a r e a a ffe c t e d b y p ollu tio n . Su m m ers , 12 9 S. C t. at 11 50 ; Lujan , 497 U.S
. at88 6. Po l l a c kf a i l s t o de mon s t r a t e tha th i s i nter e s ti n b i r dw atchi ng al ong an unspeci fi ed port i on o fthe Great L ak es waters hed

— a r egi on s tr etchi ng fro m M i nnesot a t o N ew York

— w ill be a ffec te d by th e s h oo tin g ac tiv itie s in a co nfined are a o fN or th Chic ago . S i m i l ar l y, th e s ecti on of L ak e M ich iga n bo rd er in g Illino is s tr et c h es for a p p ro x im ately 70 m il es, an d Poll ack n eve r sp ecifi es w he re al o ngtha t s horel i ne he v i si ts
. Acco r di ng l y, hi s g en er al i ze d s ta te m en ts tha t he v i sits the I l l i no i s sh o r el i ne ofL ak e M i chi gan a nd watches bi rds in the GreatLakes wat er sh ed d o n ot g i ve r i se t o s ta ndi ngt o c ha l l en g e th e shoo ti ng ac ti vi ti es at i ssue here

. Insh or t, P olla c k’s a n d M iller’s int er es ts are to o ge n er ali zed to gi ve ri se to sta nd i ng. “At bot tom [ the pl ai nti ff s] ap p ea r to se ek th e s im p le s at isfa c tio n of se ein g t h e [e n viro nm ental ] l aw s e nfo rce d.” Jarami l l o v. F CC, 16 2 F
. 3d 675,14 N o. 08

- 3857 677 ( D.C. Ci r. 19 98)
. H owever m er i tor i ous thei r case m ay be, the pla i nti ff s l acke d a co nsti tuti onalbasi s t o bring thi s l aw sui t.

III
. Because ne i therPol l ack norM i l l erhas dem onst ra ted th at th ey wer e co nc r et ely a ffec te d b y the s ho o ting ac ti vit i es the y c ha l l en g e, ne i th eri ndi vi dualha s st an di ng to pu rs ue thi s ca se. A ccor dingl y, nei th er P oll ack nor Blu e E co has s tandi ng. The di str i ct c ourt ’ s di sm i ssa l o f thi s s uitf orl ack ofsubj ect- m att erj uri sdic ti on i s A FFI RMED .

C UDAH Y, Cir cu i tJudg e, c o nc ur r i ng . Thi s i s witho ut que st i o n a c l o se c as e. A s the c as e l aw l ai d o utb y the m aj or i ty sugge sts , “i nj ury i n f act” can b e a n elusi ve p h en om en on . A lth ou gh in t h e p re se n t c as e a n inju ry is ar gu ab ly tr ac ea b le t o th e d ep os it of t ox ic su b st an c es in potabl e water, such phenom ena a pp earand di sappear f r o m o ne c as e to the ne xtde pen di ngo n su bt l e twi st s i n the alle ga tio n s, tu rn in g b et w ee n th e re al a n d th e h yp ot h et ica l. C om pare generally Lujan v. D ef enders of Wil dlif

e, 50 4 U.S
. 55 5 (19 92 ) (Sc alia , J. ), and Sum m ers v . E arth Isl and Inst it ute, 12 9 S.C t. 11 42 (20 09 ) (Sc alia , J. ), with F r i e nds of t he Ear t h v
. Lai dl aw , 528 U .S. 16 7 (2 00 0) (G in sb u rg, J.). I w rit e s ep ar at elyN o. 08

- 3857 15 to m ake the poi nt thatthe S u prem e Cour t’ s ca se l aw o n thi s s ub j ect i s bo th uncl eari n purpose and extra

o r di na r i l y di ffi cul t to r ec o nc i l e. Cl ose ca se s l i k e th i s o ne ought to m ake thatpoi nt cl early. I n part i cul ar, wh er e a ci ti zen- sui t pr ovi si on pot enti ally se ts the b arf or p r o v i n gth e me r i t s l o we r th a n th e b a r f o r pr o vi ng st an di ng, i t i s i nc um be nt upo n us to ca r efully exami ne w hy the pl ai nti ffbefor e us ei therhas orh as not est ablish ed “inj u ry in fac t.” P er h ap s m or e im p or ta n t, t h is pla i nti ff’ s ca se has pro ceduralfl aw s no t a dd re sse d by the m aj or i ty. The Cle an W ate r A ct incl ud es a ci ti zen- sui t pr ovi si on sta ti ng th at “ any c i ti zen m ay com m ence a ci vi l act i on o n hi s ow n behal fag ai nst a ny per son . . . wh o i s a l l ege d to be in vi ol ati on o fan e fflu ent s tandard o r l i m i tat i on unde r thi s ch apt er . ” 33 U. S
. C. § 1 36 5( a) ( 1)
. An “ effl ue nt sta nd ar d orl i m i tat i on” i s defi ned to i ncl ud e a n y te rm o r c on d itio n of an ap p ro ve d p er m it. Se ei d. , § 1 36 5( f )
. Ci ti ze ns ar e the r e f o r e a utho r i z e d t o b r i ngs ui ta g a i ns ta nyNPD ES p er m it h old er w h o h a s alleg ed ly v iola te d its p er m it. See Fr i e nds of

t heEar t h, Inc . v. Gas t on Coppe rRe cy cl i ng Corp
. , 20 4 F. 3d 149, 15 2 ( 4th Ci r. 20 00)
. The A c t also i ncl ud es a sta tutor y s tandi ng requi re m ent, wh i ch defi nes “ ci ti zen” as “a perso n orper sons havi ng a n intere st w hi ch i s o r m ay be a d ver sel y a ffecte d.” 33 U
. S. C. § 1 365( g)
. Congr ess has ex p lai ne d th a t t h is s t a n d in g r e q uirem en t con fers st an d in g t o its co n st itu tio n al lim i t s. See G a ston C o pp er, 204 F. 3d at 152 ( ci tat i on o m i tte d). Even so , the bro ad na tu r e o fthe c i ti ze n- su i t pr o vi si o n mea ns tha t i n many case s, like thi s o ne, the re alte st w i l l be proo fo fst anding, not ofthe m er i ts.16 N o. 08

- 3857 To have st anding und erthe “cas e o r contr ove rsy” re quir em ent o fA rt i cl e I I Io fthe Consti tuti on, an i nd i vi du alm ust s how an inj u ry in f act that i s bo th concr ete and part i cul ar i zed and actual o r i m m i nent, not conj ectur alo r hypotheti cal ; thatthe i nj ury i s t ra ceabl e t o th e c h alle n ge d ac tio n ; an d th at it is re d re ss ab le. D efend ers of Wil dlif

e, 504 U .S. at 5 60 –6 1; Sie rra C lub v. Franklin Coun ty Pow e rof Il l i noi s , LL C, 54 6 F
. 3d 918, 925 (7th Cir

. 20 08) ( F r a n k lin C o un ty P o w er )
. “Because thes e e l em ents ‘ ar e no t m er e p l e a d in g re q u ire m en ts bu t ra th er an ind isp en sa b le p ar t o f th e . . . ca se , eac h ele m en t m u st be su p p or te d

. . . wi ththe manne r a nd de g r ee o fe vi den ce r equi r ed a t th e succes si ve sta ges o fthe l i ti gat i on. ’ ” Franklin C ounty P o w er, 54 6 F
. 3d at 925 ( quoti ng D ef enders of Wil dlif

e, 50 4 U
. S. at 561). Though the t estf orsho w i ng i nj ury i n f act i s eas y e nough to state, i t is alm ost hop elessly confus ing to ap p ly. W e are to l d tha t“ e nv i r o nme nt a l p l a i nt i ff s a de qu a t e l y a l l e ge i nj ury i n f act w hen theyave r that they use the affecte d are a and are per sons ‘ f orwh om the aesthet i c and r ecr eat i onal val ues o fthe ar ea w ill b e less ened’ by the c hal l enged a c t i v i ty. ” Laidl aw , 52 8 U.S
. at18 3 ( quoti ng Si e r ra Cl ub v. M or t on , 405 U
. S. 727, 735 (1972 ))
. “O f c o urs e, th e d esire to u se or ob se rv e an an im al sp ec ies , ev e n fo r p u re ly es theti c purpose s, i s undeniabl y a co gni zabl e inter est f orpurposes o fst anding. ” D ef enders of Wil d li

fe, 504 U
. S. at 562– 63 ( ci ti ng M or t on , 405 U
. S. at 734). Bu t the i njury in fa c t t es t re q u ire s m or e t h an an inju ry to a c og n iza b le i nt er es t. I t r equi r es that the pl aint i ffb e “a m o ngthe i nj ured

. ” Id. N eve rthel ess , the “ ‘ i nj ury- i n-f act necess ar y for st an d in g n e e d n otbe larg e, an id en tifia b le t rifle w illN o. 08

- 3857 17

Ea s tCh i c a go , I nd i a na i s 6 0 m i l e s s ou th ofthe g unr a ng e by 1 car. Ev anst on, Il li nois i s 26 m il es s outh ofthe gun range. 2 suffi ce. ’ ” Fra nk lin C o un ty P o w er, 5 46 F
. 3d at9 25 ( quo ting La Fl e urv. W

hi t m an , 3 00 F
. 3d 25 6, 2 70 ( 2d Ci r . 2 002)) (furt he r i nt erna l qu o t a t ion m arks an d citations om itted ). T he se state m en ts raise m ore qu estio n s than they answ er. W ha t i s th e “a ffec te d ar ea ”? H o w do w e d ete r m i ne w h et h er so m eo n e’s a e st h et ic o r re c re at ion al v alu es w ill be “ l ess ened” o therthan by th eir sa y- so? W hat co unts as a “ tr i fl e” suffi ci ent t o pla ce s om eone “am ong the inj ured”? T his gu idan ce is p a r ticularly difficult to f oll ow w he re th e p lain tiff is o n th e b u b b le: P olla c k d oe s n otlive in N or th C h ica go , w h er e th e d rin kin g w at er is c o n c ed ed ly d raw n from th e “affected area” of the lake, bu t he d oesn ’t live in E as t C h ica go e ith er , or ev en as far a s E va n st on . Is 1 2 H i ghl and Park, thi rt een m i l es a w ay, cl ose eno ugh to be “am ong the inj ured”? T h e m ajorit y rec ite s t h e re lev an t c as e la w w ith ou t re ally en ga gin g w ith it ina w ay th at gi v e s a n an sw er to th is qu est i on. The m aj or i ty quotes Fra nk lin C o un ty P o w er at l ength, f ori nstance , i ncl ud i ng the co urt’ s e xplanat i on th at, al though “ w e don’ t know i fthe parti cul ate m att er f ro m the pla nt wil l b lot o u t the s ky orm er el y c re ate a thin ha z e tha t ’ s n o tv i s ib l e t o the n a k e d e y e , . . . . [ w] e do k no w . . . tha t th e pl an t wi l l r el ea se so m e po l l ut an ts a nd that M cK ass on be l i eve s th ese pol l utants w i l l r uin her ab ility to enj oy R en d L ak e an d ta in t th e s u rro u n d in g a re a.” Fra nk lin C o un ty P o w er, 54 6 F
. 3d at 927. The sa m e ca n be18 N o. 08

- 3857 said here

— w e know thatthe g u n r ange has di schar ged l e a d i n the l a k e , a nd we k no w tha t Po l l a c k b e l i e v e s that lea d in t h e la ke w ill ru in h is a b ilit y t o e nj oy d rin kin g h is w ate r, ea ti ng fi sh and w atchi ng water f owl in the Great Lakes w ate rs hed. I n f act, thi s case i s ar guably an ea si er ca se f o r stan di ngtha n Fra nk lin C o un ty P o w er . The r e, the p ow er p lan t in qu es tio n h ad ye t t o b e b u ilt

— t he i njury w as, al m ostbydefi ni ti on, hypothe ti cal

. H er e, noto nly ha s th e fi r i ngr an g e admi tt ed to di sc ha r g i ng lead i nt o the l ake , i t has adm i tte d to doi ng so witho ut a perm i t o ver th e c ou rs e o f d e c a d es . A n d w h at ev er els e c an be sa id about Pol l ack’ s inj ury, i t i s be yond cav il that l ead i s a toxi c subs ta n c e that e ven in ver y s m al l am ounts causes harm wh en in ges ted bythe hum an bo dy. The m aj or i ty a p p e a r s t o d e p a r tfr o m Fra nk lin C o un ty P o w er ’ s ca pac ious stan d ard, a nd t o s et tl e o n a na r r o wer, mor e demandi ng re quir em ent. Thi s i s par ti cul ar l y u nfortuna te he r e, wher e th e pl ainti ff s’ cas e i s fl aw ed f or p roceduralr eas ons that m ay not re q u ire u s t o re vis itFrankl i n Coun ty Power ’ s r ecentpro nouncem ents on standing

. T he pl ai nti ff s a rguabl y f ai l ed to m ee t th ei r b ur deno fpro o f

. Pol l ac kco r r ec tly ar g ue s tha t he need n ot show envi ro nm entaldegr adati on t o est abl i sh sta nd i ng f ora perm i t v i ol ati on under the Clea n W ate r A ct. S e e G a ston C o pp er, 2 04 F
. 3d at1 59
. “ [ T] he S upr eme Court does not re quir e such p ro of.” Id. G a ston C o pp er expla i ned th ati n Lai dl aw , the Court f ound that “se ver alci ti zen affi davi ts att est i ng to re du ced use of a w ate rway ou t of re as o n a b le fe ar an d co n c er n of p ollu tio n ‘ad eq u at ely docum ented i nj ury i n f act. ’ ” Id. ( quoti ng Lai dl aw , 528 U
. S.N o. 08

- 3857 19 at 183)
. “The C ourtrequi re d no evi dence of actualhar m to the w ate rway . . . ” Id. N eve rthel ess, bec ause the defendants here have chal l enged the fa ct u al basi s forthe pla i nti ff s’ s t a n d i n gt o s u e , P o l l a c kw a s r e q u i r e d t o p r e s e n ts o me com petent proo fo fhi s inj uri es, and hi s proo f i s s ubj ect to re futati on bythe defe nd ants. On a f ac tu alc ha l l en g e to a pl aint i ff’ s st an di ng, “ ‘ th e dist ri ct courtm ay proper l y l oo k b eyo nd the j uri sdic ti onal al l ega ti ons oft he co m pla i nt and vi ew wh ate verev i dence has been subm i tte d o n the i ssue to deter m in e w h ether i n f act subj ect m att er j uri sdic ti on exi sts
. ’ ” A pex D igit al, Inc. v. Sears, Roe b uc k & C o. , 5 7 2 F
. 3 d 4 4 0 , a t* 3 ( 7 th Ci r . 20 09) ( quoti ng Ev e rs v . As t r ue, 5 36 F.3d 65 1, 656– 57 (7th C ir. 20 08 ) ) ( fur th eri nt erna l quo ta ti o n m ar k s an d c i ta ti o ns o m i tt ed)

. I nde ed, “ ‘ th e tr ialc o ur t i s f r ee t o wei g h the evi dence and sat i sfy i tse l fas to t h e ex istence o fi ts pow er to hear th e c ase . ’ ” Id. ( quoti ng M or t e ns on v. Fi rs tFe d. Sa v. & Loan A ss ’n , 549 F.2d 88 4, 89 1 (3 d C ir. 19 77 )). A ga in, i t is und i sputed that the defe nd ants re gul ar l y di schar ged l ea d b ul l et s i nt o La k e M i ch i g anwi th o uta p erm i t an d th at lead i s a toxic ch em ical th at can affect d rinking w ater. T h e n ar ro w qu es tio n is w h et h er P olla c k h ad a “r ea so n ab le fear ” that his dri nki ng waterwas unsafe. Pol l ack prese nted evi dence ofthe “ d ynam i c natur e” of th e w ate rs i n Lake M i chi gan, sugg est i ng tha t the l ead in the waternext to N or th Chic ago can m igr ate thi rt een m iles so u th to H igh lan d P ar k. T h e m ajor ity br u sh es th is evi dence as i de, sta ti ng that the EPA r epor t Po l l ack offer ed i n s uppo r t do es no t sa y whathe s ai d i t s ays . The m ajorit y a ss er ts th at “i t i s c om m on ly u n d er st oo d th at air20 N o. 08

- 3857

T he m ajor ity a lso focu ses on t h e f act th at the lead lev el in 3 H ighland Pa rk ’s w ateri s not hi gh enou gh to viol ate federal st and ards. T his m ay be beside the point, given thatPoll ack was no tr e q u i r e d t o s h o w a ny env iron m en tal d eg rad atio n to sa tis fy th e r eq u ir em en t s o fsta n d in g . S ee G aston C opp er, 204 F. 3 d a t1 6 0
. Le a d i s to x i c i n a ny am ou nt, an d the a dm i ni s t r a t i ve li m itci ted b y t h e m aj ority is a pract ic al rather than an i dea l c ei l i ng. pol l uti on can tr avel thre e m i l es thro ugh the ai r . . . . [ but] it is not re adily a pp ar ent that Po l l ack w oul d be a ffecte d by the s hoot i ng at is sue her e. ” Su pra at11
. The m aj or i ty goe s o utsi de the re cor d and cit es no author i ty f ori ts as se r ti o n regardi ngwhati s co m m o nl y unde r st o o d abo ut ai r pol l ut ion. Even acce pti ng thi s a sse rt i on, i t i s a l so com m onl y unders too d (a t l eas t a m ong b oater s in Lake M i ch i g a n) tha tthe c ur r e nt s a tthe f o o to fthe l a k e , as d istingui shed fro m the l ar gerbo dy ofwater gener al l y, do tr av elc o unt er - cl o ck wi se a t l ea stpa r t of th e y ea r, a nd th er efo r e th e pl aint i ffs’ log i c do es no t i m pl i ca te the enti re l ake or everypoi nt o n i ts shor el i ne. I t a l so m i sse s th e m ar kt o t ak e Pol lac k ’ s ar g um en t “t o i ts e xt r eme” a nd to p os it w h et h er so m eo n e o n th e ot h er s id e of L ak e M ich igan w ou ld h ave sta nd ing here

— Po ll ack is the p lai nt iff bef or e us, and the f acts and ci rcum sta nces of hi s ca se, nam el y hi s di sta nce thi rt een m i l es f ro m the sour ce o f pol l uti on, ar e what w e m ust a dd re ss. S ett i ng al l o fthat asi de, the dist ri ct c ourt a s s u me d th at Po l l ac k ’ s as se r ti o ns r e g a r d i n g th e l a k e ’ s c u r r e n t s we r e t r u e . I t i s n o t f o r us to fi nd o ther w i se. 3 M or e t o the point i s the f act that th e d efe nd ants pres e n t e d t h e i r ow n ev iden ce te n d in g t o re b u t w h at littleN o. 08

- 3857 21 evi dence thatPol l ack did p u t fo rth. The defendants sh ow ed n oton ly th at H igh lan d P ar k (u n like N or th C h ic a g o ) dr a ws i t s dr i nk i ngwa terfr o m i nt a k e s o ut s i de th e r o ug hl y 3 , 00 0- ac r e ar ea pr es um ab l y a ffec te d b y the fi ring r ange, but al so that H i gh lan d P ar k a nd N or th C h ica go h a v e a tt rib u te d th e s m all a m ou n t o f lea d in th ei r dr i nk i ngw at ert o c o r r o si ve pi pes , no t to the fi r i ng range at i ssue here

. I n thi s re spect, then, our case is unli ke Gast on Cop per, w h er e t h er e w as co m p et en t e vid en ce th at th e po ll ut an ts in qu estion w o u ld trave l m ore th an1 6 m i l es dow ns tr ea m , pa ss i ngthr o ug h the pl ainti ff’ s pri vate l ake o n t he way. H er e, Pol l ack’ s l i m i ted evi dence thatl ead has tr avel ed orwil l t ra ve l so uth to H i ghl and Park and enterthe pla inti ff’ s drinki ng water was o ut wei g he d i n the v iew o fthe di st r i ctc o ur t bythe d efe n d an ts ’ e v i d en c e o f an alt er n at ive ca u se for lea d in the water

— th e co r r o si ve pi pes j us t m en ti o ned

. The di st r i ctc o ur t pr oper l y e xe r ci se d i ts f ac t- fi ndi ngr o l e an d con clud ed that the d efend an ts ha d rebu tted Poll ack’s ev id en c e o f st an d in g. S e eAp ex Dig i t al, Inc. , 5 72 F. 3d 440, at * 3. This i s w hat re al l y see m s to ti p the bal ance i n P oll ack’ s ca se. Perhaps w h at w e ca n sayher e, then, i s that the f ar ther th e plaintiffi s from the “a re a o f inj ury,” the m ore ev id ence he gener al l y m ust pu t f or th to prove that h e is “am ong the i nj ured. ” Perhaps, however, thi s ca se re sol ves as i t doe s m er ely b ecause o fthe proce du ra l turns i t t oo k. I ft h e defe nd ants had m ade a f aci al ch all en ge rath er than a f actu al challenge to Pollack’s sta nd i ng, o r i fPol l ack had pu t for th m or e evidence of l ead’ s l i kel i hood o ftr avel i ng thi rt een m iles south fro m N or th Chic ago , then the c om pla i nt m ay have w i thsto od22 N o. 08

- 3857 th e mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s . T he c a s e l a w i s s o u n c l e a r, h o weve r, thatwe cannot saym or e than that. Pol l ack’ s cl aim s r ega rdi ng ae sthet i c and r ecr eat i onal i nj uri es ar e l ess per suasive and the m aj or i ty add re sse s th em ade qua te l y . Po l l ac kdo es no t al l ege th athe us es the a ffected area . Se eLa i dl aw , 52 8 U.S
. at18 3 ( quoti ng M orton , 40 5 U. S
. a t 735). Inst ea d, he s ay s he e nj o y s wat ch i ngthe w i l dli fe “ i n the GreatLakes w at er sh ed, ” a nd thathe use s p u b lic a re as “a lon g t h e Illino is p or tio n o f L ak e M ich iga n,” an d that he enj oys “e ati ng fre shw ate r and ocea n fish .” These inter est s a re fa r bro ader than an i nt eresti n the ar ea affecte d by the fi ring r ange, howeverthatar ea m i gh t be defi n e d

. As th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t p o i n t e d o u t, a nd t he m aj or i ty re pri ses , the I l lin oi s s hor el i ne Pol l ack cl ai m s t o use is 6 1 mi l e s l o ng, a nd the Gr e a tLa k e s wa t e r s hed encom pas se s a l l fi ve ofthe GreatLakes and i s 750 m i l es w i de. Pol l ack neveral l ege s that he used the beach at Fos s Park, adj acent to the r ange, o r any b each ne arther e. P olla c k ’ s av er m en ts are th u s b ar ely

—b u t o n ly b ar ely

— in su fficie n t t o e st ab lis h i nju ry in fa c t, an d u n for tu n at ely m ay im p air th e salut a ry significanc e of Franklin Coun ty P o w er . For thes e reason s, w ith som e reluctan ce, Iconc ur.

8- 13- 09