Opinion ID: 2318832
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Distance from the Pollutant.

Text: Federal cases have not articulated a clear standard for gauging distance from a pollutant discharge to a plaintiff's activities that defines the affected area; rather, the affected areas are highly dependent on the individual facts of each case. The largest affected area in the relevant federal cases was 40 miles downstream of a toxic discharge of mercury. Laidlaw, 528 U.S. at 183, 120 S.Ct. at 705, 145 L.Ed.2d at 628. In another case, however, a court declined to find injury in fact where the plaintiffs used a creek 18 miles downstream of an oil refinery's stormwater discharge. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Crown Cent. Petrol., 95 F.3d 358, 361 (5th Cir.1996). The Fifth Circuit stated, At some point, however, we can no longer assume that an injury is fairly traceable to a defendant's conduct solely on the basis of the observation that water runs downstream. Under such circumstances, a plaintiff must produce some proof.... Crown Cent., 95 F.3d at 362. This reasoning applies well to the circumstances of the instant case where there is no traditional discharge, just the alleged potential, at most, for long term, cumulative land use and hydrologic changes. In yet another situation, the Fourth Circuit concluded that a plaintiff's activity, 16.5 miles downstream, was within the affected area of discharges of numerous heavy metals and chemical contaminants in excess of permitted limits. Friends of the Earth v. Gaston Copper Recycling Corp., 629 F.3d 387, 397 (4th Cir.2011) (Gaston Copper III). Another court found that a distance of two to four miles was not too far and not so tenuous for harm to the plaintiffs' interests from a discharge of pollutants where reports indicated regular exceeding of permit limits. Friends of the Earth v. Chevron Chem. Co., 900 F.Supp. 67, 75 (E.D.Tex.1995). Four miles downstream of hog waste discharges was within the affected area when the plaintiff observed the water at that distance getting darker, increased algae, and dead fish floating in the water. Am. Canoe Ass'n v. Murphy Farms, 326 F.3d 505, 518 (4th Cir.2003). Two Seventh Circuit cases involved pollution discharges into a lake, potentially a more static body of water. In one, the court found, based on the proposed permitted emissions from a nuclear facility, that a plaintiff's activity three miles away was within the affected area. Sierra Club v. Franklin Cnty. Power of Ill., 546 F.3d 918, 925 (7th Cir.2008). In the other case, the court found that a plaintiff located 13 miles away from a bullet lead discharge into Lake Michigan was not within the affected area. Pollack v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 577 F.3d 736, 743 (7th Cir.2008) (stating that, without some support for the assertion that he will be affected by the drift or polluted sediment or water, Pollack has not shown that he has standing to pursue this lawsuit). Based on the wide ranges of distances from the challenged activities in the federal cases, it would be impossible to determine in the present case if 8.5 miles downstream of the wetland fill and stream culvert is, or is not, within the affected area, based on distance alone. In the instant case, there are no permit exceedances of any pollutants from a discrete discharge point and there are no specific allegations of toxic chemicals or metals being released from the permitted activities. The relatively small size of the wetland and stream impacts, the large size of the Western Branch watershed, the natural occurrence and dynamic variability of nutrients and sediments in the natural environment, and the distance of 8.5 miles from the impact site to the closest point of the permitted activities and the nearest part of the Western Branch frequented by Linthicum convinces me that I cannot agree with the Majority opinion that Linthicum is within the affected area of this MDE permit or that the Circuit Court erred. Petitioner asserts that another problem is that the wetland impacts, in concert with other similar impacts, present a cumulative harm to Linthicum's interest. Petitioner's argument finds support superficially in the Fourth Circuit's statement that a plaintiff must merely show that a defendant discharges a pollutant that causes or contributes to the kinds of injuries alleged. Gaston Copper I, 204 F.3d at 161. Applying this theory to multiple upstream hog waste discharges, however, the court in American Canoe noted that traceability is a closer call when third parties could also have contributed to the alleged injuries. Am. Canoe Ass'n, 326 F.3d at 520. In the present case, the challenged permit activity occurs in an urban environment where there are large numbers of unrelated sources of nutrient and sediment discharges, including developments, agricultural activities, wastewater treatment plants, and natural sources, that contribute a large volume of pollutants to the Western Branch. To countenance Linthicum attributing harm to his interests from less than one acre of wetland fill and several streams placed in culverts, 8.5 miles downstream from that relatively small impact, in a relatively large watershed, without some additional support or evidence that the challenged activity is in part actually responsible, is to render meaningless the traceability requirements of federal standing. In other cases where the claimed environmental harm was prospective, as in this case, plaintiffs were able to show injury in fact by demonstrating that they had a reasonable fear of pollutants that would prevent them from visiting the affected area or would lessen their aesthetic, recreational, or economic interest. In Franklin Power, an environmental organization challenged the proposed construction of a nuclear power plant and demonstrated standing satisfactorily with a prospective injury in fact through a member's statement that she would discontinue her biennial recreation trips due to fears that pollutants emitted by the plant would harm her and diminish her aesthetic enjoyment of the nearby lake. 546 F.3d at 925. In the present case, Linthicum has not stopped or slowed his recreation in the Western Branch since the construction under the permit was completed, and does not state that he intends to stop in the future. Petitioner emphasizes the cumulative and prospective nature of the harm in this case, as if to ask this Court to grant him flexibility in showing injury in fact due to the complexities of the overall situation. [5] In fact, the pleading requirements for future harm are relatively simple, as demonstrated in the Franklin Power case. Had Linthicum alleged that he would not return to his previously enjoyed recreation due to the permitted activity, the Petitioner would be closer to addressing the prospective harm element. Instead, Linthicum's affidavit and testimony speak to concerns and displeasure with future environmental degradation caused by cumulative urbanization in the upland areas of the watershed. [6] Thus, Petitioner failed to show that Linthicum's interests were in the affected area and that the alleged harms were traceable to the permit activities.