On March 8, 2018, California regulators reached a settlement agreement with Home Depot wherein the retail giant agreed to pay $27.84 million for various hazardous waste violations.  The State hit Home Depot with penalties for alleged violations identified during inspections occurring between 2013 and 2015, due to improper disposal of certain types of waste, including batteries, aerosol cans, paints, and electronic devices.  Attorney General Xavier Becerra reported that the settlement amount equated to about $16 million in civil penalties, $9 million toward environmental protection and compliance, and nearly $2 million to cover costs.  The State alleged that Home Depot violated California’s Hazardous Waste Control Law, and California’s Unfair Competition Law because “such conduct gives Home Depot a competitive advantage over other regulated entities that are complying with the law.”
Continue Reading Another Hazardous Waste Enforcement Action Costs a Major Retailer Millions

On February 22, 2018, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced that the Department of Justice is opening an environmental justice office within the Environment Section: the Bureau of Environmental Justice (“Bureau”).  “The Bureau’s mission will be to protect people and communities that endure a disproportionate share of environmental pollution and public health hazards.”  Using existing federal and state statutes, the Bureau will accomplish its mission through targeted oversight, investigation, and enforcement actions.

According to the press release, the Bureau’s oversight and enforcement work will focus on:

  • Ensuring compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and land use planning laws;
  • Remediating contaminated drinking water;
  • Eliminating or reducing exposure to lead and other toxins in the environment and consumer products;
  • Challenging the federal government’s actions that repeal or reduce public health and environmental protections; and
  • Penalizing and preventing illegal discharges to air and water from facilities located in communities already burdened disproportionately with pollution.

Continue Reading At the Intersection of Pollution and Poverty, California Attorney General Establishes Bureau of Environmental Justice, and Industry Should Get Prepared

In one of her last major legal actions before leaving office as California’s Attorney General, Kamala Harris, along with the California Coastal Commission (jointly the “Attorney General”), filed suit against various federal agencies in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, challenging the issuance of the Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment (“PEA”) and Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”) for well stimulation treatments on the Southern California Outer Continental Shelf.  The December 19, 2016 Complaint names the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (jointly the “Agencies”) as defendants.  The Attorney General’s lawsuit follows similar lawsuits filed by the Environmental Defense Center and Santa Barbara Channelkeeper on November 11, 2016, and a separate suit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity (“CBD”) on November 15, 2016.

The Proposed Action is the approval of well stimulation treatments at 22 production platforms on 43 leases on the Southern California Outer Continental Shelf, which sits off the coast of the southern half of the state.  The Complaint asserts that the Agencies violated the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and the Coastal Zone Management Act (“CZMA”) because they issued the FONSI for the Proposed Action without adequate environmental review.  The Agencies “improperly concluded that allowing such activities would result in no significant impacts, in violation of the requirements of [NEPA],” despite the substantial record showing the potential for significant environmental effects.  Complaint, at 3.  Further, the Attorney General alleges that the Agencies violated the CZMA by failing to determine whether the Proposed Action is consistent to the “maximum extent practicable” with the enforceable policies in California’s coastal zone management program.Continue Reading California Sues Federal Government Alleging Inadequate Environmental Review of Offshore Drilling Proposal

Yesterday the California Attorney General’s office sent a letter to the Proposition 65 plaintiffs’ bar regarding the use of releases in Proposition 65 cases.  The AG’s letter noted that it is concerned about releases in Prop 65 cases that have been given “in the public interest.”  The letter noted that these releases are typically problematic when they attempt