A federal appellate court has overturned a land exchange between the Bureau of Land Management and a private company that hoped to develop a regional landfill in Imperial County. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said the BLM grossly underestimated the value of its land where the landfill was proposed.
The BLM relied on an appraisal that said the "highest and best use" of the 1,745 acres in question was open space or mine waste storage. The appraisal did not consider the property's value as a landfill, even though a number of agencies had issued permits for the proposed landfill. The difference in value could be in the tens of millions of dollars, the court suggested.
"The government must not wear blinders when it participates in a real estate transaction, particularly if the result, as here, is the transfer of a flagrantly undervalued parcel of federal land to a private party," Judge Procter Hug Jr. wrote for the court, which ordered the land exchange set aside.
In 1992, Arid Operations Inc., a subsidiary of Gold Fields Mining Corp., submitted an application to Imperial County to construct the Mesquite Regional Landfill on the BLM's 1,745 acres. As that permit went through the review process, Gold Fields pursued a land swap with BLM. In June 1994, the private firm of Nichols & Gaston determined the property's highest and best use was open space or mine support for the Mesquite Mine, which Gold Fields operates next to the site. Nichols & Gaston valued the land at $610,914. In early 1996, the BLM completed the deal, trading the Imperial County land for 2,642 acres of private property in the Santa Rosa Mountains Wilderness and National Scenic Areas in Riverside County, and in the Little Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness Area in Imperial County, and $919 in cash.
Environmentalists led by a group called Desert Citizens Against Pollution challenged the land exchange administratively but got nowhere. In November 1996, Desert Citizens and two other groups filed a lawsuit seeking to set aside the deal. District Court Judge Rudi Brewster, however, ruled that Desert Citizens had no standing because the group alleged an environmental injury without challenging the government's compliance with an environmental statute. He also ruled there was no causal connection between the alleged injury — loss of aesthetic enjoyment of federal lands — and the purported undervaluation, and he threw out the suit. BLM and Gold Fields consummated the land exchange the next day, although the landfill still has not been developed.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit determined Desert Citizens did in fact have standing. "The recreational or aesthetic enjoyment of federal lands is a legally protected interest whose impairment constitutes an actual, particularized harm sufficient to create an injury in fact for purposes of standing," Judge Hug wrote. "The district court constructed a novel rule by stating that injuries of an environmental or aesthetic nature can be shown only where plaintiffs allege noncompliance with an environmental statute or regulation. … Nothing in our jurisprudence requires citation of a so-called ‘environmental' statute as a prerequisite to standing." Moreover, Hug wrote, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLMPA), 43 U.S.C. §1701 et seq., which governs vast tracts of federal land, is an environmental statute.
Getting to the merits of the case, the Ninth Circuit had little good to say about the Nichols & Gaston appraisal or the BLM's reliance on it. The court held that the appraisal did not meet Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, 43 U.S.C. §1716(f)(2), because it ignored market demand and land use trends in the vicinity.
"The appraisal determines the highest and best use to be utilization in conjunction with Gold Fields' current mining operation. Yet the appraiser well knew that Gold Fields and the BLM fully intended to utilize the land for the Mesquite Regional Landfill, and had taken substantial steps to do so," Hug wrote.
The court noted that an environmental impact report and an environmental impact statement were prepared for the landfill. Imperial County amended its general plan to allow the project, signed a development agreement with Gold Fields, and issued a conditional use permit. The Regional Water Quality Control Board issued discharge requirements and the BLM granted a right of way for rail access to the site. All this occurred before the land transfer.
"Here, the use of the land as a landfill was not only reasonable, it was the specific intent of the exchange that it be used for that purpose," Hug continued. "There is no principled reason why the BLM, or any federal agency, should remain willfully blind to the value of federal lands by acting contrary to the most elementary principles of real estate transactions."
The court pointed out that a different landfill site in Imperial Court was valued at $46,000 an acre for tax purposes, while the BLM valued its property at $350 an acre. Although the valuation standards are different, there was a potential a discrepancy of $80 million.
Furthermore, the Nichols & Gaston appraisal was too old when BLM used it as a basis for the Record of Decision, the court ruled. The BLM handbook says approved values are good only for six months, and the BLM in California typically presumes appraisals to be valid for one year, according to the court. Yet the Nichols & Gaston appraisal was 20 months old when the BLM issued its Record of Decision.
The Case:
Desert Citizens Against Pollution v. Henri R. Bisson, No. 97-55429, 00 C.D.O.S. 8896, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11827, filed November 6, 2000.
The Lawyers:
For Desert Citizens: William Curtiss, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, (415) 954-4400.
For BLM: Ellen Durkee, Department of Justice, (202) 514-2000.
For Gold Fields, Charles Kaiser, Davis, Graham & Stubbs, (303) 892-9400.
Environmentalists were victorious in one of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' first interpretations of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Clean Water Act. The Ninth Circuit held that two environmental organizations could sue a Northern California lumber company for alleged Clean Water Act violations because the supposed pollution harmed members' recreational use of a creek.
In January, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that South Carolina citizens could sue the operator of a hazardo...
A development agreement between San Luis Obispo County and the developer of a subdivision and resort did not amount to an unconstitutional contracting away of the county's police power, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The opinion validates development agreements as legitimate planning tools and appears to erase any lingering doubts about the constitutionality of the practice.
The Second District Court of Appeal has overturned a City of Los Angeles decision not to permit construction of a billboard, and the court indicated the city could be liable for revenue the would-be sign builder lost.
The opinion by Justice Rueben Ortega strongly suggests that political pressure from the mayor's office influenced the city's Board of Building and Safety Commissioners. The board initially refused to revoke the billboard permit on appeal. After the mayor's office intervened, t...
The Department of Energy could sell 47,000 acres in an area with five endangered species to Occidental Petroleum without consulting the Fish & Wildlife Service, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal has ruled.
The federal legislation authorizing the sale of land outside Bakersfield allowed the sale to go forward without an endangered species consultation, and without Occidental applying for a new "take" permit under the Endangered Species Act, the court held.
National Petroleum Reserve –...
Claims that Sacramento County violated the California Environmental Quality Act while approving a commercial development have been dismissed by the Third District Court of Appeal because the project opponent did not submit a written request for a hearing within 90 days of filing a lawsuit.
The attorney for opponent Forster-Gill, Inc., argued that a telephone call to the court clerk within the 90-day period was adequate, but the appellate court disagreed, ruling that the law "plainly contemplates a written request that can be, and is, filed with the court."
A state appellate court has upheld the California Coastal Commission's denial of a development permit for a small mixed-use project in Morro Bay.
The court rejected developer Dan Reddell's arguments that the commission violated his due process and equal protection rights, and that its decision was a regulatory taking of property. Instead, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that substantial evidence supported the commission's finding that Reddell's project was inconsistent with Morro Bay's local coastal plan (LCP).
A state appellate court has thrown out an Inyo County general plan amendment that the county argued was nothing more than a clarification of a longstanding policy.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, concluded that the amendment was more than a mere clarification and that the county should have completed an environmental impact report before approving the amendment.
A City of West Hollywood moratorium on new multi-family housing development has been declared invalid by the Second District Court of Appeal. The court ruled that the city had not made required findings for the moratorium.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has set back a plan to develop the country's largest solid waste landfill near Joshua Tree National Park. The court ruled that the environmental analysis for the project was inadequate and that the Bureau of Land Management undervalued land it would provide to the landfill developer.
A state appellate court has struck down a California Environmental Quality Act exemption for an air district rule permitting new power plants to offset emissions by paving roads. The court found that the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District did not have adequate evidence to support its finding that the rule could not have a negative impact on the environment.
A developer is not entitled to reimbursement or damages from a consultant hired by a local government to complete an environmental impact report, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled. Even when the consultant fails to complete an EIR in a timely manner, the consultant owes no contractual duty to the developer that paid for the consultant, the court concluded.
In the first decision of its kind, a divided Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel has declared that the City of Goleta's mobile home rent control ordinance constitutes a regulatory taking.