Opinion ID: 1058669
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Individual Standing

Text: We turn now to consider the assertion of Philip Morris and the Commonwealth that the Foundation lacked individual standing to seek judicial review in this case. Code 62.1-44.29 allows any person who has participated, in person or by submittal of written comments, in the public comment process related to, a final decision of the Board to obtain judicial review where there is Article III standing. Code § 62.1-44.3 defines a `Person' as an individual, corporation, partnership, association, governmental body, municipal corporation or any other legal entity. The Foundation is a registered corporation and therefore falls within the relevant definition of person. In order to have Article III individual standing, the Foundation must have pled facts sufficient to meet the test in Lujan and Code § 62.1-44.29 as previously described. The analysis is substantially similar to the analysis for individual standing of the organization's members. The Foundation has alleged injury to itself as an organization separate and apart from any injury to its members. In its petition, the Foundation alleges that it operates fifteen (15) educational programs, which include projects in and around the segment of the James River impacted by the unlawful nutrient discharges authorized by the challenged Permit. Among the [Foundation's] programs that are and will continue to be adversely affected by the unlawful nutrient discharges . . . is the replenishment of underwater aquatic grasses in the vicinity of and downstream from the Philip Morris facility. The Foundation's petition further alleges that the excessive nitrates and phosphates in the wastewater discharge cause algae blooms that impact the usefulness of the James River for the Foundation's educational and recreational programs. The wastewater discharge also harms aquatic plants such as the ones included in the Foundation's planting activities. Based on these allegations, we hold that the Foundation has alleged sufficient facts to establish an injury in fact to itself as an organization. The harms alleged on an individual and representational basis are similar. The reasoning in the previous discussion of causal connection and redressability also applies to the Foundation's assertion of individual standing and does not need to be repeated here. The facts alleged in the Foundation's petition, if true, establish a causal connection with its injury and that the relief sought is redressable by the courts.