outdoor lighting

Town of Superior v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service

Full Case Name
The TOWN OF SUPERIOR, a Colorado municipality, City of Golden, Colorado, WildEarth Guardians, Rocky Mountain Wild, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, United States Department of the Interior, Ken Salazar, acting in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior, Daniel M. Ashe, acting in official capacity as Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Steve Guertin, acting in his official capacity as Regional Director of the Mountain-Prairie Region of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Steve Berendzen, acting in his official capacity as Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Manager, Defendants, and The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Jefferson, Colorado, City of Arvada, Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority, Natural Resource Trustees of the State of Colorado, and the Board of Land Commissioners of the State of Colorado, Defendant-Intervenors
Description

The Court found that, in approving the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority’s proposal, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service complied with the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Rocky Flats Act, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act.

Date
12-21-2012
Court
United States District Court for the District of Colorado
Jurisdiction
United States
Incident Location
Jefferson, CO; Boulder, CO; Broomfield, CO
Disputed Act

Plaintiffs alleged that the approval by the defendant United States Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) of the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority (JPPHA) application violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Rocky Flats Act, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act. Plaintiffs sought an order holding unlawful and setting aside the FWS’ decision to enter into the land exchange and transfer the corridor to JPPHA. The plaintiffs' concerns about the highway include "increased noise and artificial light" which could negatively impact wildlife by "interfering with the ability to avoid danger, locate food, reproduce, migrate, avoid collisions, and evade predators."

Holding
The Court found that, in approving the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority’s proposal, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service complied with the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Rocky Flats Act, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act. The Court dismissed the case.
Disposition

Andrews v. Antero Res. Corp.

Full Case Name
Robert L. ANDREWS, et al., Plaintiffs Below, Petitioners v. ANTERO RESOURCES CORPORATION and Hall Drilling, LLC, Defendants Below, Respondents
Description

Plaintiffs brought suit against Defendant companies, which held leasehold rights to develop oil and gas underlying the plaintiffs' properities, as they alleged the shale development by defendants caused them to lose the "use and enjoyment" of their properties. The Court affirmed the lower court's summary judgment in favor of defendant companies because it agreed with the finding that "effects on the surface owners resulting from the horizontal drilling were within the implied rights to use the surface granted by virtue of the severance deeds, and did not impose a substantial burden on the surface owners."

Date
06-10-2019
Court
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
Jurisdiction
Virginia
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Harrison County, NY
Disputed Act

Defendant companies has leasehold rights to develop oil and gas underlying various properties in Harrison County, including surface properties that are owned or resided on by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs brought suit because they alleged that the defendants' development of the shale had caused them to lose "the use and enjoyment" of their properties due to "excessive heavy equipment and truck traffic, diesel fumes and other emissions from the trucks, gas fumes and odors, vibrations, noise, lights, and dust."

Holding
The Court affirmed the lower court's summary judgment in favor of defendant companies. The Court agreed with the lower court's finding that "effects on the surface owners resulting from the horizontal drilling were within the implied rights to use the surface granted by virtue of the severance deeds, and did not impose a substantial burden on the surface owners."
Disposition

EQT Production v. Boro of Jefferson Hills, Aplt.

Full Case Name
EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY and ET Blue Grass Clearing, LLC, Appellees v. BOROUGH OF JEFFERSON HILLS, Appellant
Description

The Court found the testimonial evidence of the residents from the other municipality about the effects of the company's construction site in their municipality to be "relevant and probative" to the municipality in this case denying the same company a conditional use permit for a construction site. Part of the residents' concerns from the other municipality was about bright lights and light pollution coming from the company's construction site.

Date
05-31-2019
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction
Pennsylvania
Plaintiffs
Incident Location
Allegheny Township, PA
Disputed Act

Plaintiff company applied for a conditional use permit to construct a natural gas production complex within the Borough of Jefferson Hills (the Borough). In deciding against the permit, the Borough considered as evidence the testimony of residents of another municipality regarding the impacts to their health, quality of life, and property which they attributed to a similar facility constructed and operated by the same company in their municipality. Part of the residents' concerns from the other municipality was about bright lights and light pollution coming from the company's construction site.

Holding
The Court vacated the lower court's finding that the testimonial evidence of the residents from the other municipality about the effects of the company's construction site in their municipality was "speculative" and instead found that evidence to be "relevant and probative" to the municipality in this case denying the same company a conditional use permit for a construction site. The Court remanded the case to the lower court with instructions to reconsider its decision in light of the Court's opinion.
Disposition

City of Chula Vista v. Superior Court

Full Case Name
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent; CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, Real Party in Interest
Description

The Court found that substantial evidence supported the decision of the California Coastal Commission to disapprove the City's plan, which would have allowed excessive light pollution from economic development to endanger native species in the coastal zone.

Date
07-02-1982
Court
Court of Appeals of the State of California
Jurisdiction
California
Plaintiffs
Incident Location
Chula Vista, CA
Disputed Act

The City of Chula Vista formulated a development plan for its bayfront. The California Coastal Commission found the City's plan to be in conflict with the California Coastal Act, which required local governments within coastal zones to develop plans that would protect coastal resource areas. Specifically, the California Coastal Commission found that excessive light pollution from the city's proposed development would adversely impact native species in the costal zone.

Holding
The Court found that substantial evidence supported the decision of the California Coastal Commission to disapprove the City's plan to comply with the California Coastal Act, and denied the City's petition for writ of mandamus. This left in place the Superior Court's decision entering judgment in favor of the California Coastal Commission. The California Coastal Comission had refused approval of the City's plan that would have allowed excessive light pollution from economic development to endanger native species in the coastal zone.
Disposition