Environmental Litigation: Cases against EPA and Associated Costs over Time
Published: 2011-08-01T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) faces numerous legal challenges as it implements the nation's environmental laws. Several statutes, such as the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, allow citizens to file suit against EPA to challenge certain agency actions. Where EPA is named as a defendant, the Department of Justice provides EPA's legal defense. If successful, plaintiffs may be paid for certain attorney fees and costs. Payments are made from the Department of the Treasury's Judgment Fund--a permanent fund available to pay judgments against the government, as well as settlements resulting from lawsuits--or EPA's appropriations. For this review, GAO was asked to examine (1) the trends in and factors affecting environmental litigation for fiscal years 1995 through 2010 and (2) Justice's recent costs and recent plaintiff payments from the Judgment Fund and EPA. To conduct this review, GAO obtained and analyzed data from two Justice databases on cases filed under 10 key environmental statutes. To gain stakeholder views on any trends and factors that might affect them, GAO interviewed representatives of environmental and industry groups, state attorneys general, and other experts. GAO estimated the costs of litigation handled by Justice attorneys and payments made for attorney fees and court costs from the Judgment Fund and EPA funds.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: No trend was discernible in the number of environmental cases brought against EPA from fiscal year 1995 through fiscal year 2010, as the number of cases filed in federal court varied over time. Justice staff defended EPA on an average of about 155 such cases each year, or a total of about 2,500 cases between fiscal years 1995 and 2010. Most cases were filed under the Clean Air Act (59 percent of cases) and the Clean Water Act (20 percent of cases). According to stakeholders GAO interviewed, a number of factors--particularly a change in presidential administration, new regulations or amendments to laws, or EPA's not meeting statutorily required deadlines--affect environmental litigation. The costs borne by Justice, EPA, and Treasury also varied without a discernible trend from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2010. Justice spent at least $43 million, or $3.3 million annually, to defend EPA in court during this time. In addition, owing to statutory requirements to pay certain successful plaintiffs for attorney fees and costs, Treasury paid about $14.2 million from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2010--about $1.8 million per fiscal year--to plaintiffs in environmental cases. EPA paid approximately $1.4 million from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2010--about $280,000 per fiscal year--to plaintiffs for environmental litigation claims under relevant statutes. (All amounts are given in constant 2010 dollars.) Justice officials said that they negotiate payments with the successful plaintiffs, who generally receive less than originally requested. Complicating efforts to analyze trends in cases and costs is that Justice maintains data on environmental cases in two separate data systems and does not have a standard approach for maintaining the data. As a result, it is difficult to identify and summarize the full set of cases and costs managed by Justice. Nonetheless, using an iterative electronic and manual process, GAO was able to merge the two sets of data for its purposes. Justice officials said that they do not need to change their approach to managing the data, however, because they do not use it to summarize case data agencywide. Moreover, the officials said they lack resources to adapt their aging systems to accept additional data.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is making no recommendations in this report. GAO provided a draft of this report to the agencies for comment. Justice and Treasury had technical comments, which were incorporated, while EPA had no comments.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: As the primary federal agency charged with implementing many of the  nation’s environmental laws, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  often faces the prospect of litigation over its regulations and other actions.  For example, several environmental statutes have provisions that allow  citizens—including individuals, states, companies, and associations—to  file suit against EPA challenging certain agency actions, such as making  regulations or permitting decisions. Where EPA is named as the  defendant in lawsuits, the Department of Justice, which is generally  responsible for defending federal agencies in court, provides EPA’s legal  defense, and EPA provides technical expertise. Within Justice, the  Environment and Natural Resources Division handles most of the  defense work on EPA environmental litigation cases from its Washington,  D.C., office, but some of the 94 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, particularly those  in the New York City area, also handle a small number of cases and may  work on some cases managed by the Environment and Natural  Resources Division.
Statutes establishing programs administered by EPA, and under which  the agency may be sued, include many of the nation’s most prominent  environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act; Clean Water Act;  Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability  Act (better known as the Superfund law); Emergency Planning and  Community Right-to-Know Act; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and  Rodenticide Act and related provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and  Cosmetic Act; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; Safe Drinking  Water Act; and Toxic Substances Control Act. In addition, EPA may be  sued to challenge the agency’s compliance with section 7 of the  Endangered Species Act, which requires every federal agency, including  EPA, to consult with the federal agencies responsible for species  management if it is proposing an action—including a major construction  project or a regulation or permit—that may affect species protected under  the act or habitat designated as critical to the species’ survival.
In general, plaintiffs and defendants in lawsuits bear their own litigation  costs, although some statutes authorize judges to award attorney fees to  a successful, or prevailing, plaintiff. The same holds true in cases  involving the federal government: if plaintiffs win a lawsuit against a  federal agency, they cannot be awarded attorney fees and court  expenses unless authorized by law. Both Justice and EPA incur costs in  association with litigation, as does the plaintiff. The types of costs include  attorney fees and expenses and court costs. Attorney fees include costs  for attorney representation, which is typically charged according to time  spent on a case. Other attorney expenses may include costs for expert  witnesses, telephone, postage, travel, copying, and computer research  expenses. Court costs include fees charged by courts, such as filing fees  and reporting fees. In addition, EPA and the plaintiff typically incur costs  stemming from time spent on a case, such as meeting with attorneys,  negotiations, preparation for trial, and other activities. Payment for  authorized attorney fees and costs generally comes from the Department  of the Treasury’s Judgment Fund, which is a permanent, indefinite  appropriation available to pay many judgments against, and settlements  by, the United States, or from an agency’s appropriated funds.
Currently, no aggregated data on such environmental litigation or  associated costs are reported by federal agencies. The key agencies  involved—Justice, EPA, and the Treasury—maintain certain data on  individual cases in several internal agency databases, but collectively,  these data do not capture all costs. Each of Justice’s litigation  components maintains a separate case management system that gathers  information related to individual cases, and we have previously reported  that the department’s decentralized data management systems make it  difficult and costly to gather data across divisions. Both Justice and EPA  record some case-related payments, including certain data on attorney  fees and court costs associated with cases, although neither agency  currently reports these data publicly. In addition, Treasury records data  on payments made from its Judgment Fund but does not publish them.
In this context, you asked us to review environmental litigation data. Our  objectives were to examine (1) trends, if any, in environmental lawsuits  against EPA from fiscal year 1995 through fiscal year 2010, as well as  stakeholders’ views of factors affecting any trends, and (2) Justice’s  recent costs for representing EPA in defensive environmental lawsuits  and the federal government’s recent payments to plaintiffs.
To conduct our work, we obtained and analyzed historical data from two  components within Justice—Justice’s Environment and Natural  Resources Division, which defends EPA in most environmental litigation  cases, and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, which manages data  for the 94 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices. We gathered data from the  Environment and Natural Resources Division’s Case Management  System database that tracks basic information on cases, including lead  plaintiffs’ names, filing and disposition dates, and relevant statutes. We  also collected data from the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys’ Legal  Information Office Network System, a database that contains similar—but  not exactly the same—information for cases handled in part or in entirety  by the 94 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices. At the start of our engagement, Justice  officials informed us that their databases were designed for management  purposes rather than trend analysis. Nevertheless, since these databases  were the best available sources of information on cases against EPA, we  worked with Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division and  the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys to use the data. From both  databases, we examined data on lawsuits filed in federal court from  October 1, 1994, through September 30, 2010 (i.e., fiscal year 1995  through fiscal year 2010) that were identified as brought under  10 environmental statutes and led by EPA. We excluded cases involving  the Freedom of Information Act and contract, employment, or other  generally applicable laws under which EPA may also have been sued.  We also excluded cases filed under the National Environmental Policy Act  (NEPA), which applies to major federal actions significantly affecting the  environment, because, according to Justice, few NEPA cases are filed  against EPA, and such cases are generally handled by the U.S.  Attorneys’ Offices and other sections of the Environment and Natural  Resources Division, such that significantly more time would be required to  include them.
To get their views on any environmental litigation trends and the factors  that underlie them, we interviewed a nonprobability sample of the  following stakeholders: officials from EPA and Justice; representatives of  six environmental groups, six industry associations, and the National  Association of Attorneys General; representatives of six state attorneys  general or state environmental offices; and a university law professor who  is expert in data on citizen suits. The findings from our interviews with  stakeholders cannot be generalized to those to whom we did not speak.
We estimated the costs of environmental litigation on the basis of the  following three factors: (1) Justice attorneys’ labor for fiscal year 1998  through fiscal year 2010, (2) payments made by Treasury from the  Judgment Fund for plaintiffs’ attorney fees and court costs from fiscal  year 2003 through fiscal year 2010, and (3) payments made from EPA  appropriations from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2010 (the years  for which relevant payment data were available). Because EPA does not  track its attorneys’ time by case, we were not able to include data on EPA  attorney costs spent on environmental litigation cases. In addition, the  government may also incur other costs associated with litigation,  including the costs of revising regulations in response to lawsuits, EPA  overhead costs, and costs associated with delays in EPA permitting, but  we did not have reliable data to quantify these costs.
For both Justice databases, we assessed the data and found them to be  sufficiently complete and accurate for the purposes of this report. When  certain case information was found missing or incorrect in some of the  data fields, we did additional research on these cases using the federal  courts’ electronic records database and corrected the data. Inconsistent  formatting of key data elements produced significant problems for  completing our analysis and required significant manual review by GAO  and Justice.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2010 through July 2011,  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: To carry out its responsibilities under the nation’s environmental laws,  EPA conducts an array of activities, such as promulgating regulations;  issuing and denying permits; approving state programs; and issuing  enforcement orders, plans, and other documents. Many of these activities  may be subject to legal challenge.
subsections: section_title: Environmental Statutes and Lawsuits against the Federal Government
paragraphs: Generally, the federal government has immunity from lawsuits, but federal  laws authorize three types of suits related to EPA’s implementation of  environmental laws. First, most of the major environmental statutes  include “citizen suit” provisions authorizing citizens—including individuals,  associations, businesses, and state and local governments—to sue EPA  when the agency fails to perform an action mandated by law. These suits  are often referred to as “agency-forcing” or “deadline” suits. Second, the  major environmental statutes typically include judicial review provisions  authorizing citizens to challenge certain EPA actions, such as  promulgating regulations or issuing permits. Third, the Administrative  Procedure Act authorizes challenges to certain agency actions that are  considered final actions, such as rulemakings and decisions on permit  applications. As a result, even if a particular environmental statute does  not authorize a challenge against EPA for a final decision or regulation,  the Administrative Procedure Act may do so. Table 1 lists key  environmental laws under which EPA takes actions—or that govern EPA  actions—that may be subject to challenge in court.
Supporters of provisions allowing legal challenges to actions of the  federal government assert that they provide a check on the authority of  federal agencies as they carry out—or fail to carry out—their duties. For  example, in passing the 1977 Clean Air Act amendments, a key sponsor  indicated that authorizing citizens to sue agencies to compel them to  carry out their duties is integral to a democratic society. According to  others, citizen suits against government agencies have achieved benefits,  such as ensuring the implementation of congressional directives or  accelerating regulatory programs. Similarly, the Administrative  Procedure Act arose out of the expansion of the federal government in  the New Deal, with concerns about agencies’ adjudicative powers, their  exercise of delegated legislative power by rulemakings, and the scope of  review of agency administrative action by courts.
A lawsuit challenging EPA’s failure to act may begin when the aggrieved  party sends EPA a notice of intent to sue, if required, while a lawsuit  challenging a final EPA action begins when a complaint is filed in court.
Before EPA takes final action, the public or affected parties generally  have opportunities to provide comments and information to the agency. In  addition, administrative appeals procedures are available—and in many  cases required—to challenge EPA’s final action without filing a lawsuit  in a court. For example, citizens can appeal an EPA air emission permit  to the agency’s Environmental Appeals Board. These administrative  processes provide aggrieved parties with a forum that may be faster and  less costly than a court.
If a party decides to pursue a case, the litigation process generally  involves filing of a complaint, formal initiation of the litigation; motions to  the court before trial, such as asking for dismissal of the case; and  hearings and court decisions. Throughout this process, the parties to the  litigation can decide to reach a settlement. Negotiations between the  aggrieved party and EPA may occur anytime after the agency action, at  any point during active litigation, and even after judgment. A common  remedy sought in litigation against EPA under the statutes listed in table 1  is for the court to set aside an EPA regulation or permit decision and to  require EPA to reconsider that regulation or permit decision.
section_title: The Equal Access to Justice Act
paragraphs: In the United States, parties involved in litigation generally pay their own  attorney fees and costs, except in instances in which Congress has  provided exceptions for policy reasons, such as to encourage citizens to  bring suits to enforce the law. In these instances, as well as some  common-law exceptions, a prevailing plaintiff may seek award of its  attorney fees and court costs from the losing party. Many of the  environmental statutes in table 1 contain such exceptions authorizing  courts to award fees, which, according to Justice, include awards against  the federal government.
In 1980, Congress enacted the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA)  authorizing the award of attorney fees and costs to parties that prevail in  certain lawsuits against the federal government; the payments are made  from Treasury’s Judgment Fund and agency appropriations. While the  federal government was already subject to some of these exceptions in  environmental statutes, before EAJA was enacted, the federal  government in many other cases was not subject to these exceptions and  therefore was not authorized to make payments to prevailing parties. As  the 1980 conference committee report for EAJA explains, the act’s  premise is that individuals, corporations, partnerships, and labor and  other organizations do not seek review of or defend against unreasonable  government actions because of the expense involved, as well as a  disparity in expertise and resources between the government and the  individual or organization involved. For those cases brought under  statutes that do not make the federal government subject to pay fees and  costs, EAJA thus allows payment of the attorney fees and other costs if  the organizations sought review of a government action and prevailed.  (See app. II for a detailed description of the act.)
Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, EAJA authorizes the  award of the following costs to be paid from Treasury’s Judgment Fund or  an agency’s appropriations, as indicated:    Court costs of prevailing parties against the United States in any civil  action. These costs may include fees for the clerk and marshal,  reporter, printing, witnesses, copies, docket fees, and interpreters and  court-appointed experts and may include an amount equal to the filing  fees. Payment of costs made under this section generally are paid by  Treasury’s Judgment Fund.   Reasonable attorney fees and expenses of a prevailing party to the  same extent as any other party where a statutory or common-law  exception provides for award of fees to a prevailing party. Regarding  the environmental statutes in table 1, according to Justice, many of  the relevant provisions under which EPA may be sued provide for  award of such fees against EPA, independent of EAJA. Nevertheless,  EAJA makes EPA subject to fee awards under all the environmental  statutes’ provisions authorizing courts to award attorney fees and  expenses. Therefore, in many—but not all—of the environmental  lawsuits against EPA, a court may award attorney fees and expenses  of a prevailing party against the agency, independently or as a result  of EAJA section 2412(b). Payment of awards made under this  section generally are paid by Treasury’s Judgment Fund.   Attorney fees and expenses of a prevailing party in most other  cases—that is, when the relevant statute does not authorize courts to  award attorney fees and expenses, and no common-law exception  applies—unless the court finds that the position of the United States  was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an  award unjust. Two laws listed in table 1—the Federal Insecticide,  Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and  Cosmetic Act—as well as some individual provisions of other statutes,  do not authorize payment of fees to prevailing parties. As a result, in  cases brought against EPA under these statutes and provisions,  courts award payment of fees under EAJA section 2412(d).  Payment of awards made under this section is generally made from  agency appropriations.
In addition, to settle a case, the government may agree to pay a plaintiff  court costs and attorney fees and expenses. Payments made in  connection with settlements are paid in the same manner as a court  award for the case.
Some in Congress have expressed concerns that the use of taxpayer  funds to make EAJA payments depletes limited funding; these individuals  have called for transparency of these expenditures. Originally, EAJA  provided for governmentwide reporting on its use and cost. For judicial  proceedings, EAJA required the Director of the Administrative Office of  the U. S. Courts to report annually to Congress on EAJA court activity,  including the number, nature, and amounts of awards; claims involved;  and any other relevant information deemed necessary to aid Congress in  evaluating the scope and effect of awards under the act. The  responsibility for this reporting was transferred to the Attorney General in  1992. In addition, EAJA required the Chairman of the Administrative  Conference of the United States to submit an EAJA report annually to  Congress on administratively awarded fees and expenses. Then, in  December 1995, the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995  repealed the Attorney General’s reporting requirement for fees and  expenses awarded under EAJA and also discontinued reporting of  governmentwide administrative awards of fees and costs under EAJA  after fiscal year 1994.
We have previously reported certain governmentwide EAJA data, as well  as data focused on selected agencies. In 1995, we reported data on the  number of cases and amounts of awarded plaintiff attorney fees  exceeding $10,000 against nine federal agencies for cases closed during  fiscal years 1993 and 1994. In 1998, we provided information on the  history of EAJA, the extent to which one provision of the act was used  governmentwide from 1982 to 1994, and the provision’s use by the  Department of Labor and other agencies. The governmentwide data for  fiscal year 1994 showed, among other things, that the Departments of  Health and Human Services and of Veterans Affairs accounted for most  EAJA payments in court proceedings, under the provision that applies  when the substantive law does not authorize award of attorney fees and  costs.
section_title: The Number of Environmental Litigation Cases against EPA Showed No Discernible Trend over 16 Years, and Stakeholders Stated That Various Factors Affected Yearly Numbers
paragraphs: The number of environmental litigation cases brought against EPA each  year from fiscal year 1995 through fiscal year 2010 varied but showed no  discernible trend. According to the stakeholders we interviewed, a  number of factors—particularly presidential administration, the passage of  new regulations or amendments to laws, or EPA’s failure to meet  statutory deadlines—affect the number of environmental litigation cases  each year and the type of plaintiffs who bring them.
subsections: section_title: No Trend Was Discernible in the Number of Cases Brought against EPA from Fiscal Year 1995 through Fiscal Year 2010
paragraphs: The number of environmental litigation cases brought against EPA each  year from fiscal year 1995 through fiscal year 2010 varied but did not  change systematically over time. The average number of new cases filed  each year was 155, ranging from a low of 102 new cases filed in fiscal  year 2008 to a high of 216 cases filed in fiscal year 1997 (see fig. 1).  From fiscal year 1995 through fiscal year 2001, the average number of  new cases was 170; from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2010, the  average number of new cases was 144, a difference of 26 fewer new  cases on average. The average number of new cases in these periods  varied from the long-term average of 155 cases by less than 10 percent.  In all, Justice defended EPA in nearly 2,500 cases from fiscal year 1995  through fiscal year 2010.
The greatest number of cases was filed in fiscal year 1997, which,  according to a Justice official, may be explained by the fact that EPA  revised its national ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate  matter in 1997, which may have caused some groups to sue. In addition,  according to the same official, in 1997 EPA implemented a “credible  evidence” rule, which also was the subject of additional lawsuits. The  fewest cases against EPA (102) were filed in fiscal year 2008, and Justice  officials were unable to pinpoint any specific reasons for the decline. In  fiscal years 2009 and 2010, the caseload increased. A Justice official said  that it is difficult to know why the number of cases might increase  because litigants sue for different reasons, and some time might elapse  between an EPA action and a group’s decision to sue.
As shown in figure 2, most cases against EPA were brought under the  Clean Air Act, which represented about 59 percent of the approximately  2,500 cases that were filed during the 16-year period of our review.  Cases filed under the Clean Water Act represented the next largest group  of cases (20 percent), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act  represented the third largest group of cases (6 percent).
The lead plaintiffs filing cases against EPA during the 16-year period fit  into several categories. The largest category comprised trade  associations (25 percent), followed by private companies (23 percent),  local environmental groups and citizens’ groups (16 percent), and  national environmental groups (14 percent). Individuals, states and  territories, municipal and regional government entities, unions and  workers’ groups, tribes, universities, and a small number of others we  could not identify made up the remaining plaintiffs (see table 2). Appendix  I gives more information about our method of developing these categories  and classifying cases.
According to the stakeholders we interviewed, a number of factors— particularly a change in presidential administration, the passage of  regulations or amendments to laws, and EPA’s failure to meet statutory  deadlines—affect plaintiffs’ decisions to bring litigation against EPA.  Stakeholders did not identify any single factor driving litigation, but  instead, attributed litigation to a combination of different factors.
According to most of the stakeholders we spoke with, a presidential  administration is an important factor in groups’ decisions to bring suits  against EPA. Some stakeholders suggested that a new administration  viewed as favoring less enforcement could spur lawsuits from  environmental groups in response, or industry groups could sue to delay  or prevent the administration’s actions. For example, a presidential  administration that seems to favor less enforcement of requirements  under environmental statutes could motivate increased litigation. Other  stakeholders suggested that if an administration is viewed as favoring  greater enforcement of rules, industry may respond to increased activity  by bringing suit against EPA to delay or prevent the administration’s  actions, while certain environmental groups may bring suit with the aim of  ensuring that required agency actions are completed during an  administration they perceive as having views similar to the groups’ own.
Most of the stakeholders also suggested that the development of new  EPA regulations or the passage of amendments to environmental statutes  may lead parties to file suit against the new regulations or against EPA’s  implementation of the amendments. When EPA issues new or amended  regulations, parties may take issue with the specific new provisions. One  stakeholder noted that an industry interested in a particular issue may  become involved in litigation related to the development of regulations  because it wishes to be part of the regulatory process and negotiations  that result in a mutually acceptable rule. In addition, several of the  stakeholders noted that if EPA does not meet its statutory deadlines,  organizations or individuals might sue to enforce the deadline. In such  suits, interested parties seek a court order or a settlement requiring EPA  to implement its statutory responsibilities.
In addition, some stakeholders said that some statutes are broadly written  or contain vague language or definitions; such statutes are more likely to  be litigated because different parties want to define the terms and set  precedent for future cases. For example, a stakeholder representing  states’ perspectives said that under the Clean Water Act, an area of  frequent litigation is the definition of “navigable waters.” Through lawsuits,  litigants have argued about whether a certain body of water comes within  the definition and can therefore be regulated under the act.
A few stakeholders identified two other factors that may affect litigation:  (1) the maturity of the statute in question and (2) the use of existing laws  to address new problems. The stakeholders said that the focus of  litigation over a particular statute changes with time, as early cases may  set precedents that will affect how the statute is implemented later. Also,  a representative of an environmental organization said that because no  major rewriting of any environmental statutes has occurred in 20 years,  plaintiffs are increasingly bringing suits, and judges are making decisions,  about how to interpret statutes in situations for which rules were not  explicitly written. For example, parties disagree over whether the Clean  Air Act should be used to regulate greenhouse gases, such as carbon  dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide—substances that some stakeholders  say the act was not originally designed to regulate.
section_title: Available Data Indicate That Costs Associated with Environmental Litigation against EPA, including Payments to Plaintiffs, Have Varied over the Past 10 Years with No Discernible Trend
paragraphs: Data available from Justice, Treasury, and EPA show that the costs  associated with environmental litigation cases against EPA have varied  from year to year with no discernible trend. Justice’s Environment and  Natural Resources Division spent a total of about $43 million to defend  EPA in these cases from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 2010, averaging  $3.3 million per year. Some cost data from the Department of Justice  are not available, however, in part because Justice’s Environment and  Natural Resources Division and the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices do not have a  standard approach for maintaining key data for environmental litigation  cases. For example, while the Environment and Natural Resources  Division tracks attorney hours by case, the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices do not.  Treasury paid a total of about $14.2 million to prevailing plaintiffs for  attorney fees and costs related to these cases from fiscal years 2003  through 2010, averaging about $1.8 million per year. EPA paid a total of  $1.4 million from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2010 in attorney fees  and costs, averaging about $280,000 per year.
subsections: section_title: On Average, Justice Spent at Least $3.3 Million a Year Defending EPA against Environmental Litigation in Fiscal Year 1998 through Fiscal Year 2010
paragraphs: Our analysis of data from Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources  Division found that from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2010, Justice  spent at least $3.3 million on average annually to defend EPA against  environmental litigation, for a total of $43 million. (The Environment and  Natural Resources Division fiscal year 2010 budget was $110 million.)  The U.S. Attorneys’ Offices’ database, however, does not contain  information on attorney hours worked by case, which meant that we could  not include the time these attorneys spent on each case in our estimate.  According to Justice officials, however, the $3.3 million average per year  represents the majority of Justice’s time spent defending EPA each year,  given that the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices handle a small number of  environment-related cases each year. Overall, as shown in figure 3,  annual costs increased by an average of about 3 percent each year from  fiscal year 1998 through 2010, ranging from a low of $2.7 million in fiscal  year 1998 to a high of $3.9 million in fiscal year 2007.
Justice maintains separate, decentralized databases containing  environmental case information and does not have a standard approach  for collecting and entering data on these cases. Without a standard  approach, it is it difficult to identify and summarize the full set of  environmental litigation cases and costs managed by the department  agencywide. Specifically, the department’s Environment and Natural  Resources Division and the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices maintain different  case management systems, and these systems do not use the same  unique number to identify cases, making it possible to track cases within  each component but not to align and merge cases from the two  components. Because the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices may assist the  Environment and Natural Resources Division in certain case activities, a  single case may appear in both systems, each with a different unique  identifier. The only piece of data in both databases that can in practice be  used to identify cases managed by both components is the court number,  yet neither system has adopted the standard court number format used in  the federal judiciary’s Public Access to Court Electronic Records system,  an electronic service that allows public access to case and docket  information from federal appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts.  According to an official of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, the  individual U.S. Attorneys’ Offices may enter the court numbers in the  specific formats used by the courts in their individual jurisdictions,  although the official also said that there is no formal or written guidance  for proper format of court numbers. Without such standard identifying  numbers, it is difficult to identify a full and unduplicated list of  environmental litigation cases and to derive descriptive statistics on costs,  statute, or opposing parties. Because the department’s data on  environmental litigation cannot be reliably merged or aggregated to  provide summary information on environmental cases, we had to use an  iterative electronic and manual process to compile data from the two  systems to conduct our review and identify the full set of environmental  litigation cases and associated costs.
Moreover, not only are the two Justice databases separate, but the two  agency components do not collect the same types of data on  environmental cases. Specifically, the U.S. Attorneys’ database does not  collect data on the number of hours attorneys spend on an individual case  or information on the statute under which a case is filed. As a result, it is  impossible to gather complete data on all environmental litigation cases  and costs from these databases. For example, we were unable to  calculate the total number of hours that Justice attorneys worked on  environmental cases—and hence, total costs of attorney time—because  the U.S. Attorneys’ time is not tracked by case.
By employing an iterative electronic and manual process to standardize  the court numbers associated with all cases and matching cases from the  two systems by these numbers, we were ultimately able to merge the two  sets of data on environmental litigation cases managed by Justice’s  Environment and Natural Resources Division and the U.S. Attorneys’  Offices for purposes of this report. Justice officials said, however, that  they do not plan to change their approach to managing the data because  they use the data in each system to manage individual cases, not to  identify and summarize agencywide data on cases or trends. Officials  said that their systems were designed for internal management purposes  and not agencywide statistical tracking. Furthermore, while funds are  spent to maintain the systems, officials indicated that the systems are old,  and adding data fields or otherwise making changes to the systems may  be technically infeasible or too costly. Justice officials said that the  department previously sought to develop and implement a single case  management system to gather common data agencywide, but the project  was terminated in 2010 after a 2009 Office of the Inspector General  report found that the project was more than 2 years behind the initial  estimated completion date and that the project’s total cost would be more  than $18 million over budget. Because the two Justice components are  not regularly required to merge and report their data in a systematic way,  we are not making a recommendation regarding these data or systems.
section_title: On Average, Treasury Paid Successful Plaintiffs $1.8 Million Annually from the Judgment Fund over the Last 8 Years, and EPA Paid about $280,000 a Year over the Last 5 Years
paragraphs: In addition to Justice’s costs of defending EPA, costs of litigation include  payment of attorney fees and court costs to plaintiffs who prevail in  lawsuits against EPA. As part of the payment process, Justice negotiated  payment amounts with prevailing parties before finalizing the amount to  be paid. For most of the claims under the 10 environmental statutes in  this report, payments to successful plaintiffs were made from Treasury’s  Judgment Fund. Justice defended approximately 2,500 EPA-related  cases filed from fiscal year 1995 through fiscal year 2010, but the number  of environmental litigation cases from which plaintiffs received payments  was small, representing about 8 percent of all cases. In addition, EPA  made a small number of payments for attorney fees and costs under the  appropriate provision of EAJA.
From fiscal year 2003—the first year for which Treasury’s Judgment Fund  data are available—through fiscal year 2010, Treasury made, on average,   26 payments totaling $1.8 million per year for EPA-related environmental  cases. The average Judgment Fund payment was $68,600 per payment.  Treasury paid a total of about $14.2 million out of its Judgment Fund to  prevailing plaintiffs for attorney fees and costs related to these cases (see  fig. 4). The largest share of monies (46 percent) were made in cases filed  by national environmental groups, followed by monies paid for cases filed  by local environmental and citizens’ groups (29 percent). The payments  ranged from as little as $145, to the administrator of a law school clinic for  a Clean Air Act suit, to as much as $720,000, to a private law firm for a  Clean Water Act suit. According to Justice officials, payments are made  either to the plaintiff or to the plaintiff’s attorneys. Appendix III lists  payments from Treasury’s Judgment Fund for the environmental statutes  in our review.
Fluctuations in annual payments may occur, according to Justice officials,  because payments to plaintiffs can be made several years after a case is  completed, in part because Justice attempts to negotiate settlements of  attorney fee claims before seeking a determination by the courts  regarding claims that cannot be settled. Officials said that through this  process of negotiation, the department pays plaintiffs, in the majority of  cases, an amount that is much lower than requested. To determine  attorney fees for each case, Justice considers, among other things,  documentation by the plaintiff, including such factors as (1) the number of  hours the plaintiff’s attorneys spent on the case, which must be  documented by the plaintiff; (2) the job description of the person spending  time on the case (e.g., the costs for a paralegal and a lead counsel would  be very different); (3) the specific tasks performed; and (4) applicable law  in the jurisdiction, such as limits on hourly attorney fees or total amounts  that courts have approved in the past. Although Justice may conclude  that the hours are justified, fees may still be denied because of court  precedent. Each time fees are negotiated, depending on the amount,  Justice’s Assistant Attorney General or the relevant Environment and  Natural Resources Division Section Chief must approve the result,  pursuant to applicable regulations and delegations.
From fiscal year 2006—the first year for which EPA specifically tracked  the payments by type of claim—through fiscal year 2010, EPA made 14  payments, totaling $1.4 million, for attorney fees and other costs under  EAJA. EPA made an average of 2.8 payments per fiscal year, with an  average payment of about $100,000. On average, EPA paid about  $280,000 per year. The largest share of the monies (61 percent) went to  payments for claims filed by local environmental groups, followed by  monies (23 percent) for claims filed by national environmental groups.  Although workers’ groups filed comparatively few lawsuits, one such  group did receive a single payment of $230,000 in fiscal year 2010 (see  fig. 5).
The EPA payments ranged from $1,179, which was paid to an individual  for a Clean Water Act suit in 2010, to $472,967, which was paid to an  environmental group for two Clean Water Act suits, including one appeal.  Appendix III contains a list of payments by payee.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to EPA, Justice, and Treasury for their  review and comment. EPA did not provide comments, and Justice and  Treasury had technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate  congressional committees, the Attorney General of the United States, the  Secretary of the Treasury, the Administrator of EPA, and other interested  parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO  Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3841 or trimbled@gao.gov. Contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found  on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to  this report are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report describes (1) trends, if any, in environmental lawsuits against  the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from fiscal year 1995 through  fiscal year 2010, as well as stakeholders’ views of factors affecting any  trends, and (2) Justice’s recent costs for representing EPA in defensive  environmental lawsuits and the federal government’s recent payments to  plaintiffs.
To examine the changes over time to EPA’s environmental litigation  caseload, we obtained and analyzed data on lawsuits filed against the  agency from databases maintained by two components within the  Department of Justice—the Case Management System database  maintained by Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division and  the Legal Information Office Network System database maintained by  Justice’s U.S. Attorneys’ Offices. We obtained and analyzed data from  these databases for lawsuits:  filed in federal court from fiscal year 1995 through fiscal year 2010  (Oct. 1, 1994, through Sept. 30, 2010); in which EPA was the lead defendant, excluding cases in which EPA  was a defendant but the lead defendant identified by Justice was  another agency, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;   brought under 10 major environmental statutes implemented by or  applying to EPA, including the Clean Air Act; Clean Water Act; Safe  Drinking Water Act; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act;  Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and  Liability Act (Superfund); Emergency Planning and Community Right- to-Know Act; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act;  Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; Toxic Substances Control Act;  and the Endangered Species Act as it applies to EPA.
We excluded cases filed under the National Environmental Policy Act  (NEPA) because these cases are managed by a number of sections  within the Environment and Natural Resources Division, and because,  according to Justice officials, few cases are filed under NEPA with  EPA as the lead defendant. We also excluded the Freedom of  Information Act, Discrimination in Federal Employment Act, Fair Labor  Standards Act, and other generally applicable laws because the intent  was to focus on challenges to EPA’s core work in implementing  environmental laws. Likewise, we excluded bankruptcy cases and  cases heard in state court unless they were moved to federal court.
To determine if the data were reliable for our purposes, we checked them  for completeness and legitimate values. When we were uncertain of the  data’s accuracy, we requested clarification from the source of the data.  Within each database, we checked for duplicate records and either  combined data across records into one record or removed unnecessary  records. To compile a list of all cases of EPA lawsuits, we needed to  identify duplicate cases across the two databases. Because the common  field in the two systems—court number—is not kept in the same format, it  was necessary for us to standardize court numbers into one format. To do  so, we used the standard court number format used in the federal  judiciary’s Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system,  an electronic public-access service that allows users to obtain case and  docket information from federal appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts.  After electronically processing reports of matched and unmatched cases,  we conducted extensive manual review of the data to (1) confirm that  matched cases from the two databases were in fact the same and (2)  identify cases that were the same but were still not found with the  electronic process. Manual checks of selected individual court cases were  performed using the PACER system to correct information, such as  EPA’s role in the case, the names of plaintiffs, and court numbers.
We analyzed selected data elements—such as plaintiffs’ names, filing  and disposition dates, and relevant statute—over time to identify any  trends in litigation. We also used the data on plaintiffs to identify  categories of plaintiffs that have filed suit against EPA. To do this  analysis, we used a process known as content analysis, searching  national databases for information on each plaintiff and then using this  information to code the plaintiffs according to rules developed by our  internal team of analysts and specialists in program evaluation methods.  Our team created 13 categories into which plaintiffs were coded (see  table 3).
We evaluated the reliability of our plaintiff categories using two pretests  on simple random samples of 40 and 41 plaintiffs, respectively. A  minimum of five analysts independently coded the samples to ensure  they had a common understanding of the categories and made the same  coding decisions. For each pretest, we estimated the analysts’ agreement  rates adjusted for the possibility of agreement by chance. These “kappa”  statistics estimate the reliability of each category. In the first pretest, the  analysts agreed 74 percent of the time across all categories and 71 to 91  percent of the time for the individual categories other than “unknown,”  using the combined category of “local environmental and citizens’  groups.” On the basis of the results of the first pretest, we refined the  definitions of the categories and conducted the second pretest. In the  subsequent pretest, the analysts agreed 87 percent of the time across all  categories and 84 to 95 percent of the time for the individual categories  other than “unknown” and “other.” These agreement rates suggested that  the analysts could reliably classify the plaintiffs according to common  standards in academic literature on intercoder agreement. Classifying the  plaintiffs helped us quantify the number of cases brought each year  against EPA by different types of groups.
After validating the categories, we searched in public databases of  organizations for information that would allow us to classify each plaintiff.  We used the Nexis Encyclopedia of Associations and the Nexis Company  Profile data systems, both of which identify organizations by North  American Industry Classification System and Standard Industrial  Classification. To the extent possible, we used these codes to classify  plaintiffs. If these sources were not sufficient, we searched the Web  pages of each organization for self-reported information. For the  “individual” category of plaintiff, we confirmed through court records that  those people were in fact suing as private individuals and not, for  example, as mayors or attorneys general of a state. In some cases,  insufficient information was available in Justice’s databases to determine  a given plaintiff’s identity. In such cases, we looked up the case in the  PACER system. Six analysts conducted the content analysis of plaintiffs  in the Case Management System and the Legal Information Office  Network System. Discrepancies in coding were discussed, and  agreement was reached among the analysts or resolved through a group  analyst review.
To obtain stakeholder perspectives on environmental litigation trends and  the factors that underlie them, we interviewed officials from EPA and  Justice; representatives from the offices of five state attorneys general  and one state environment department; representatives from six  environmental groups; and six industry trade associations. We also spoke  with a representative of the National Association of Attorneys General.  Additionally, we interviewed one academic expert who has published  extensively on environmental litigation in legal journals (see table 4). We  selected these representatives on the basis of input from government  officials and other interviewees. We asked the interviewees for their  perspectives about factors that can affect trends in the types of lawsuits  against EPA. We then performed a content analysis to group and  summarize their responses. Not all stakeholders provided views on all  issues, and statements from our sample of stakeholders cannot be  generalized to all groups.
To determine Justice’s costs for representing EPA in defensive  environmental lawsuits and the government’s payments to plaintiffs, we  obtained data on three components of costs: (1) Justice’s costs for its  attorneys’ time defending EPA, (2) payments for attorney and other costs  from the Department of the Treasury’s Judgment Fund for some cases  that the government lost, and (3) payments for attorney and other costs  by EPA for some cases that the government lost. For the first component,  we obtained data from Justice on the number of cases per year that  involved any of the 10 statutes in our scope, as well as the number of  hours Justice attorneys spent working on these cases. To calculate costs,  we multiplied the total hours worked in a given year by that year’s  average hourly pay rate—ranging from $41 to $66 per attorney for fiscal  years 1998 through 2010—which we received from Justice. To adjust for  uncompensated overtime, we reduced the reported annual hours the  attorneys worked by 15 percent, an amount that Justice estimated  represents overtime worked by its attorneys. To adjust the attorneys’  salaries to include benefits and related agency overhead, we increased  the attorneys’ salaries by 84.3 percent, a factor that was provided to us by  Justice on the basis of its actual 2009 costs. To ensure that attorney  costs are comparable across years, we adjusted annual pay rates by  applying the consumer price index for all urban consumers from the  Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and inflated all pay rates  to constant 2010 dollars. When we reported single payments, however,  we did not adjust these figures to constant dollar figures.
To determine the second and third components of litigation costs— Treasury’s Judgment Fund and EPA’s payments to plaintiffs—we  obtained and analyzed data from Treasury and EPA. First, we obtained  and analyzed data from the Department of the Treasury’s Judgment Fund  Internet Claims System, which tracks the progress of plaintiffs’ claims for  Judgment Fund payments from the time they are sent to Treasury until  the time they are paid. To identify data on payments related to the  environmental statutes in our scope, we matched Treasury’s data with  data from Justice’s two databases and eliminated payments that did not  correspond with cases in our scope. When information was determined to  be missing, we asked Treasury to provide us with additional information.  In particular, we learned that Treasury’s data included payments that  were issued but were not cashed or were returned; we worked with  Treasury to remove these payments to avoid counting these as actual  payments and overrepresenting the amount paid from the Judgment  Fund. We deleted Superfund cases because we were unable to discern  from available information whether the Superfund-related payments were  for attorney fees and court costs or for reimbursements of site cleanups,  which is a different category of payment than what is within our scope.  Similarly, to identify EPA payments to plaintiffs within our scope under the  Equal Access to Justice Act, we obtained EPA data on payments made to  plaintiffs and manually matched these cases with the cases in Justice’s  two databases. When certain case information was determined to be  missing, we did additional research on these cases using PACER and  corrected the data. Inconsistent formatting of key data elements produced  significant problems for completing our analysis and required significant  manual review by us and Justice. If we did not find the necessary  information from available sources, we asked EPA to send us relevant  portions of the internal voucher packages used to request payment.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2010 through July 2011,  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Key Provisions and Historical Reporting under the Equal Access to Justice Act
paragraphs: In the United States, parties involved in litigation generally bear their own  attorney fees and costs. For policy reasons, including encouraging  citizens to bring suits to enforce the law, Congress has provided  exceptions to this rule for cases brought under several statutes, such as  the Civil Rights Act. In these instances, as well as some common-law  exceptions, a prevailing plaintiff may seek awards of its attorney fees and  court costs from the losing party.
Historically, the federal government had sovereign immunity from some of  these exceptions, but in some instances, the statutes also waived  sovereign immunity so that a court could award fees and costs against  the federal government, as well as a private party. According to Justice,  many of the key environmental statutes’ provisions authorizing award of  attorney fees and costs apply to the federal government. For example,  EPA pays attorney fees under several provisions of the Clean Air Act and  the Clean Water Act.
Furthermore, in 1980, the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) was  enacted to waive sovereign immunity for the remaining statutes  authorizing award of fees and costs, as well as to authorize the awarding  of fees and costs in other cases. As the 1980 conference committee  report for EAJA explains, the act’s premise is that individuals,  corporations, partnerships, and labor and other organizations did not seek  review of or defend against unreasonable government actions because of  the expense involved, which was compounded by the disparity in  expertise and resources between the government and the individual or  organization involved. EAJA was intended to help certain individuals,  partnerships, corporations, and labor and other organizations by paying  the attorney fees and other costs if the federal government brought an  administrative or judicial action and lost because the action was not  substantially justified. EAJA seeks to (1) encourage parties that are the  subject of unreasonable federal government action to seek  reimbursement for attorney fees and other costs, (2) restrain overzealous  regulators, and (3) ensure that the government pays for the cost of  refining and formulating public policy.
EAJA authorizes the award of the following:    Court costs of prevailing parties against the United States in any civil  action. These costs may include fees for the clerk and marshal,  reporter, printing, witnesses, copies, docket fees, and interpreters and  court-appointed experts and may include an amount equal to the filing  fees.   Attorney fees and expenses against the United States of a prevailing  party to the same extent as any other party, codified at 28 U.S.C. §  2412(b) and hereinafter referred to as “subsection b.” That is, where  there is a statutory or common-law exception that provides for award  of fees to a prevailing party, such exceptions also apply to the federal  government. Regarding the 10 environmental statutes covered in this  report, many of the relevant provisions under which EPA may be sued  provide for award of such fees. However, EAJA makes EPA subject  to fee awards under all the environmental statutes’ provisions  authorizing courts to award attorney fees and expenses. According to  Justice, many of the environmental suits against EPA involve  provisions that authorize fee awards independent of EAJA, but a small  number may fall into EAJA subsection b. A feature of this subsection  is that it does not itself limit the eligibility of prevailing plaintiffs, nor  expressly limit the hourly rate of attorney fees; however, the statute  requires that the fees be “reasonable.” Additionally, any award of fees  made under this section is subject to any limitations that would apply  to analogous awards against private parties, as may be provided by  the underlying statute.   Attorney fees and expenses of a prevailing party in cases even when  no statutory or common-law exception exists to make a private  defendant liable for such fees, unless the court finds that the position  of the United States was substantially justified or that special  circumstances make an award unjust. This subsection of EAJA,  codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) and hereinafter referred to as  “subsection d,” authorized the award of these fees against the federal  government in civil court actions, while another subsection  authorized the award of these fees in certain agency adjudications  such as when a party files an appeal of an agency decision to the  EPA Environmental Appeals Board. Two of the 10 laws covered in  this report—the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act  and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act—as well as some  individual provisions of other statutes, do not authorize payment of  fees to prevailing parties. Cases brought against EPA under these  statutes and provisions, then, fall into EAJA subsection d. This  subsection limits the prevailing plaintiff’s eligibility to receive payment  by defining an eligible party as, at the time the lawsuit is filed, either  an individual with a net worth below $2 million or a business owner or  any partnership, corporation, association, local government, or  organization with a net worth below $7 million and fewer than 500  employees. Tax-exempt nonprofit organizations and certain  agricultural marketing cooperatives are considered parties regardless  of net worth.
Payment of attorney fees by federal agencies under statutes  independently authorizing awards against federal agencies and under  subsection b are made from the Judgment Fund, which is a permanent,  indefinite appropriation available to pay many money judgments against  the United States. Payment of attorney fees by federal agencies under  subsection d is generally made from agency appropriations. Table 5  summarizes key attributes of the three authorizing situations under which  EPA may pay fees and costs.
Originally, EAJA provided for governmentwide reporting on its use and  cost. For judicial proceedings, EAJA required the Director of the  Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to report annually to Congress on  EAJA court activity, including the number, nature, and amounts of  awards; claims involved; and any other relevant information deemed  necessary to aid Congress in evaluating the scope and effect of awards  under the act. The responsibility for this reporting was transferred to the  Attorney General in 1992. In addition, EAJA required the Chairman of the  Administrative Conference of the United States to submit an EAJA report  annually to Congress on administratively awarded fees and expenses.  Then, in December 1995, the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act  of 1995 repealed the Attorney General’s reporting requirement for fees  and expenses awarded under EAJA and also discontinued reporting of  governmentwide administrative awards of fees and costs under EAJA  after fiscal year 1994. Currently, there are no statutory requirements in  effect for agency or governmentwide reporting of payments made under  EAJA for either administrative or judicial proceedings. According to  officials from the Administrative Conference of the United States, the  conference has begun to obtain and compile such information for fiscal  year 2010, noting that there has been continued interest in Congress  (including pending legislation) regarding data about payments under  EAJA. Officials told us the conference has requested EAJA data from 50  government agency conference members, as well as a few additional  agencies that had previously reported EAJA activity to the conference.  The chairman plans to publish a report for fiscal year 2010 later in 2011.
We have previously reported certain governmentwide EAJA data, as well  as data focused on selected agencies. In 1996, we reported data on the  number of cases and amounts of awarded plaintiff attorneys’ fees  exceeding $10,000 against nine federal agencies for cases closed during  fiscal years 1993 and 1994. In 1998, we provided information on the  history of EAJA, the extent to which one provision of the act was used  governmentwide from 1982 to1994, and the provision’s use by the  Department of Labor and associated agencies. The governmentwide  data showed, among other things, that the Departments of Health and  Human Services and of Veterans Affairs accounted for most EAJA  payments in court proceedings, under the provision that applies when the  substantive law does not authorize award of attorney fees and costs.
section_title: Appendix III: Department of the Treasury and Environmental Protection Agency Payments
paragraphs: This appendix provides data on payments for attorney fees and court  costs made by the Department of the Treasury for fiscal year 2003  through fiscal year 2010 and by the Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA) for fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2010. Payments for attorney  fees and expenses and court costs may be made to a plaintiff or directly  to a plaintiff’s attorney. In cases involving multiple plaintiffs, one or more  plaintiffs or their attorneys may receive payment. The first plaintiff named  in the case title does not necessarily receive the payment. Table 6 shows  payments from the Judgment Fund.
In addition to payments from the Judgment Fund, EPA made payments  under EAJA to successful plaintiffs. Table 7 shows payments made by  EPA for fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2010.
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual contact named above, Susan Iott (Assistant  Director), Jacques Arsenault, Elizabeth Beardsley, Jennifer Beveridge,  Colleen Candrl, Ellen W. Chu, Bernice Dawson, Cindy Gilbert, Cynthia  Grant, Anne K. Johnson, Rebecca Makar, Mehrzad Nadji, and Jeff Tessin  made key contributions to this report.