Environmental Impact Litigation
 

Smith & Lowney works with clients to develop "impact litigation" strategies to translate specific lawsuits into far reaching environmental protection.

The following are representative cases:

Ocean Resources Management Act (ORMA). In an early lawsuit to protect the Grays Harbor Estuary, we came across an environmental law that had been ignored by the Department of Ecology and everyone else.  Ecology’s position was that the language of ORMA was too strong to be given respect.  Eventually the State Supreme Court ruled that ORMA means what it says, providing environmentalists with a strong new (old) tool for protecting coastal waters and shorelines.  

Puget Soundkeeper Alliance v. Department of Ecology.  Successfully challenged Washington’s Clean Water Act permit for industrial dischargers, which covers approximately 1200 facilities. Our victory on summary judgment lead to a negotiated legislative process in which Smith & Lowney represented the environmental community. The process resulted in tougher standards for future industrial and construction stormwater permits and created a funded inspection program for these dischargers.  

Victims of Carnival Cruise Lines.  In a novel legal strategy, we represented victims of Carnival Cruise Lines’ environmental crimes and sought to intervene in the criminal proceeding against Carnival. Although the court denied the petition to intervene, the lawsuit highlighted Carnival’s pattern of criminal behavior, playing a role in the international movement to hold Carnival accountable for its environmental crimes. Learn more here and here.

Washington Trout Harvest and Hatchery Litigation. Smith & Lowney has represented Washington Trout in a series of successful lawsuits as part of its campaign to reform salmon hatchery and harvest practices in the Pacific Northwest. We brought litigation against the state over its Puget Sound hatchery program’s compliance with the Endangered Species Act and against the federal government for its approval of Puget Sound Chinook harvest plans.

Thomas v. Albertson’s Inc.; Dolin, et al., v. Safeway inc.; Krupp, et al., v. Kroger Co. We sued the largest grocery chains for failing to label artificial coloring in farmed salmon. After the suit caused a firestorm of media attention, Safeway, Kroger, and Albertsons began labeling color additives at over 6,000 grocery stores.

National Audubon Society v. Butler.  We successfully challenged U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plan to "manage" the world's largest colony of Caspian terns in Columbia River estuary, obtaining injunctive relief.   

Puget Soundkeeper Alliance v. Dept. Of Ecology and B.P.  PSA challenged implementation of “whole effluent toxicity” requirements in NPDES permits, winning across-the-board changes that make toxicity limits enforceable. 

Sierra Club and Center for Environmental Law and Policy v. EPA.  This case challenged the lack of a comprehensive PCB-reduction plan (known as a Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL) for highly polluted segments of the Spokane River.  In 2015 we won a crucial victory when a federal judge ordered EPA and Ecology to prepare a definite plan and schedule for the study. Unfortunately, the plan EPA filed in response to the court’s order is wholly inadequate to protect human health or to comply with the law. We continue fighting in court to protect the Spokane River and those who depend on it.   

Protecting Hanford Workers.  Hanford Challenge and the United Association of Plumbers and Steamfitters Local Union 598 brought this lawsuit because the Energy Department and private contractor were failing to protect Hanford workers from chemical vapors.  After the lawsuit was consolidated with a similar suit filed by the State of Washington, the plaintiffs won a settlement that resulted in improved conditions for workers. 

» For more information or to request a case evaluation, click here.