Diné Citizens Against Ruining the Environment v. Haaland

The federal district court for the District of New Mexico granted a joint motion to dismiss a lawsuit originally filed in 2019 that challenged the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) NEPA review for applications for permit to drill (APDs) in the Mancos Shale/Gallup Sandstone formation of the San Juan Basin. In 2023, the Tenth Circuit found that the NEPA review was deficient, including because the agency failed to take a hard look at direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. In the settlement pursuant to which the plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed, BLM agreed to reconsider the approximately 199 APDs for which the Tenth Circuit found deficiencies and to prepare new or supplemental NEPA documentation. BLM also temporarily paused development authorized by certain APDs challenged in the lawsuit.

–

–

The federal district court for the District of New Mexico dismissed a lawsuit challenging BLM’s NEPA review of 370 applications for permits to drill (APDs) in the Mancos Shale/Gallup Sandstone formation of the San Juan Basin. The court noted that this case “originated from a separate, extensively litigated case” (see <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/dine-citizens-ruining-environment-v-zinke/">here</a>) challenging more than 300 APDs in which the Tenth Circuit ultimately found that BLM failed to adequately consider cumulative impacts on water resources in five environmental assessments (EAs) but otherwise rejected the plaintiffs’ claims. BLM subsequently completed an “EA Addendum” to supplement the NEPA analysis and concluded for all APDs that the supplemental analysis in conjunction with the earlier analysis “did not demonstrate that the APDs in question would affect the human environment or result in cumulative impacts not already disclosed.” The district court found that BLM had not predetermined its decision to grant the subject APDs and also concluded that BLM’s supplementation was permissible. The district court noted that the EA Addendum reanalyzed several factors, including cumulative effects of greenhouse gas emissions, “though the Tenth Circuit did not explicitly require it to do so.” The plaintiffs contended that the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions was flawed in several ways, and the court rejected each of these contentions. First, the court said the plaintiffs’ argument that BLM merely quantified greenhouse gas emissions without analyzing them was without merit. Second, the court found that BLM’s decision to use a 100-year time horizon instead of a 20-year timeframe to analyze the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions “does not misrepresent or diminish the impact of its environmental conclusions, and is consistent with the law and other similar federal emissions practices.” Third, the court found that the plaintiffs did not establish that BLM failed to consider the APDs’ cumulative impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. The court characterized the plaintiffs’ argument as a request that the court “require an agency to codify Plaintiffs’ beliefs about climate change and its origins in federal oil drilling in the agency’s NEPA documentation.” Fourth, the court found that NEPA did not require that BLM evaluate greenhouse gas emissions in the context of carbon budgets. The court’s analysis of the merits was conducted in the context of a preliminary injunction motion, but the court said further analysis or argumentation would not change its disposition as to the merits and therefore granted the defendants’ request that the plaintiffs’ claims be dismissed with prejudice.

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

On August 28, 2019, the court issued a sua sponte order to explain why it had not yet set a hearing on the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary relief. The court noted the burdens it and other southwest border courts were facing and the need to prioritize criminal cases. The court also said it saw no basis for a temporary restraining order and that the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief might be subject to a ripeness challenge.

–

–

–

–

On August 1, 2019, four environmental groups filed a complaint and a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in the federal district court the District of New Mexico challenging BLM’s approval of at least 255 applications for permits to drill in Mancos Shale/Gallup formations. The complaint—which cited significant increases in methane emissions as a consequence of continued expansion of Mancos Shale development—alleged that BLM continued to approve drilling permits despite having failed to complete its assessment of hydraulic fracturing and even though the Tenth Circuit ruled that BLM had failed to considered the cumulative impacts of oil and gas production in the Mancos Shale.