Barnum Timber Co. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
633 F.3d 894
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Barnum Timber Co. challenged EPA's decision to retain Redwood Creek on California's §303(d) impaired waters list under the Clean Water Act, via the APA.
- District court dismissed for lack of Article III standing but allowed amendment; Barnum sought leave to amend the complaint.
- Barnum alleged injury-in-fact: reduction in the economic value of Barnum's property due to the §303(d) listing, plus claimed expense costs from land-use restrictions.
- Amended complaint included declarations from forestry experts linking property-value declines to the listing via market perceptions and regulatory triggers.
- District court denied leave to amend, holding the standing deficiency unremedied; Ninth Circuit majority reverses, vacates, and remands.
- Judge Bybee authored the majority opinion; Judge Gwin dissented, arguing lack of standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Barnum have injury-in-fact standing? | Barnum alleges concrete property-value decline due to listing. | EPA listing alone does not cause injury; standing not shown. | Barnum has injury-in-fact sufficient at pleading stage. |
| Is the injury fairly traceable to EPA action? | Listing itself or its market perception links to Barnum's injury. | Causation lies in state regulation and market factors; EPA action not determinative. | Causation shown, via market-perception theory, satisfying traceability. |
| Is redressability satisfied, i.e., would a favorable ruling redress the injury? | APA relief removing Redwood Creek from §303(d) would alleviate injury. | Redressability uncertain due to California's continued regulatory regime and independent state actions. | Redressability satisfied; district court remedy would redress injury if EPA action were invalidated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) (economic injury can support standing at pleading stage)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (agency action must have coercive effect for causation)
- San Diego County Gun Rights Committee v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1996) (standing requires traceable causation; market-injury context examined)
- Pronsolino v. Nastri, 291 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2002) (state vs federal role in nonpoint source regulation and TMDLs)