Roberts v. Department of Natural Resources, Board of Oil, Gas, & Mining

Ten youth plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in Utah District Court asserting that the Utah Department of Natural Resources Board of Oil, Gas, and Mining; the Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining; and the Division’s director violated the plaintiffs’ rights under the Utah Constitution by issuing permits for oil, gas, and coal development. The complaint alleged that many of the plaintiffs in this case previously sued State defendants asserting that the State’s energy policies and practices violated fundamental rights to life and health and that the Utah Supreme Court’s decision in that case—<a href="https://www.climatecasechart.com/collections/natalie-r-v-state_e89104">Natalie R. v. State</a>—affirmed dismissal of the case “but reversed the district court’s dismissal with prejudice, opening the door for Plaintiffs to challenge ‘the constitutionality of any specific state action, such as a granted permit or other regulatory decision.” The complaint alleged that since the Supreme Court’s decision, the State defendants had issued 364 permits for new oil and gas wells and 1 permit for coal development. They contended that issuance of the permits “will worsen Utah’s localized air pollution and add more climate pollution to the atmosphere that lasts for hundreds of years, substantially harming Plaintiffs’ health and safety and significantly diminishing their lifespans.” The complaint further alleged that the permits were not necessary because non-fossil fuel energy sources were available at lower cost and with greater reliability. The complaint asserted violations of the plaintiffs’ substantive due process rights to life and liberty under Article I, Sections 1 and 7 of the Utah Constitution. It also asserted that issuance of the permits without consideration of pollution emissions, harms to health and safety, and the availability of other means of meeting energy needs violated the plaintiffs’ procedural due process rights under Article I, Section 7. The plaintiffs asked the court to grant declaratory and injunctive relief, including ordering review of all challenged permits and revocation of permits and other actions “as necessary to ensure that fossil fuel development permitted by Defendants is narrowly tailored to meet energy needs and avoid harm to Plaintiffs.” The plaintiffs also requested attorneys’ fees and costs.