Volume 10 | For week ending 19 September 2025
Table of Contents
- Air Pollution and Emissions
- Ecology and Natural Resources Damage
- Employee DEI
-
Governance
- When lithium mining starts, who benefits, and who’s at risk? Inside this Salton Sea case
- Charleston walks away from lawsuit against fossil fuel companies
- Lawsuit seeks to force release of projected water use by Microsoft data centers
- US court rejects environmental challenge to SpaceX’s expanded launch site
- Toxic Substances and Human Health
-
Water and Hydrogeology
- Campbell Soup admits 5,400 Clean Water Act violations tied to Maumee River discharges
- Environmental group, developer reach settlement in Durham sediment pollution case
- Chinese-linked mining firms in Zambia sued by Copperbelt farmers over ‘ecological catastrophe’
- Court strikes down Inland Empire water deal after City of Ontario lawsuit reveals environmental violations and risks to local water supply
- Environmental lawsuit settlement forces Napa landfill to pay millions for 2019 spill
- DEC files lawsuit against Buffalo Sewer Authority over raw sewage discharge
Air Pollution and Emissions
Zug Island’s EES Coke Battery singlehandedly put air quality over federal limits: Expert testimony
| Date | 2025-09-17 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Detroit / River Rouge, Michigan (United States) |
| ESG Category | Air Pollution and Emissions |
| Plaintiffs | United States of America (EPA enforcement action); Sierra Club (intervenor) |
| Defendants | EES Coke Battery, LLC (Zug Island coke facility operator); DTE Energy Co.; DTE Energy Services, Inc.; DTE Energy Resources, LLC (affiliates alleged to be operators) |
| Status | Bench trial underway in E.D. Michigan; court previously found EES Coke Battery liable on Clean Air Act counts; remedies, penalties, and DTE operator liability at issue |
| Overview | At the federal bench trial over emissions from the EES Coke Battery on Zug Island, air-quality expert Lyle Chinkin testified that sulfur dioxide (SO₂) and particulate pollution from the facility alone pushed ambient concentrations over federal limits across downriver Detroit communities. Using AERMOD and CAMx modeling with facility-reported data and NWS meteorology, he showed near-field SO₂ exceedances and regional PM2.5 contributions, with modeled plumes detectable as far as the U.S. Gulf Coast. The case is the U.S. EPA’s Clean Air Act enforcement against EES Coke Battery (and DTE affiliates), with the government seeking roughly $140 million in penalties plus injunctive relief. |
| Why it matters | This is a remedies-and-penalties phase where technical proof drives outcomes. Expect close scrutiny of stack parameters, model selection/inputs (AERMOD, CAMx), Significant Impact Levels, and NAAQS compliance—along with feasibility and costs of controls (e.g., desulfurization/LAER in nonattainment). Forensic air-modeling experts, emissions inventory specialists, health-risk assessors, and utility/industrial economists will be central to quantifying impacts, evaluating control options, and informing any supplemental environmental projects. The court’s approach to “single-source NAAQS exceedance” and parent-operator liability standards could shape future coke/steel and heavy-industry enforcement in nonattainment areas. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | Planet Detroit, Planet Detroit trial primer, Planet Detroit penalty piece, Court docket summary (CourtListener), Justia docket entry, FindLaw decision excerpt |
Chevron: Lawyer in $51B lawsuit failed to disclose support for climate research
| Date | 2025-09-17 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Portland (Multnomah County), Oregon (United States) |
| ESG Category | Air Pollution and Emissions |
| Plaintiffs | Multnomah County — Oregon county government seeking damages for 2021 heat-dome impacts. |
| Defendants | Chevron Corp.; Exxon Mobil Corp.; American Petroleum Institute; McKinsey & Co.; et al. — alleged contributors to climate-related harms. |
| Status | Active. Chevron’s motion to strike references to two Nature studies filed mid-September 2025; hearing requested; case continues in Multnomah County Circuit Court. |
| Overview | Chevron asked an Oregon state court to strike references to two Nature studies cited by Multnomah County in its $51 billion climate damages suit over the 2021 heat dome. The company alleges the county’s lead counsel, Roger Worthington, helped support one paper and posted early drafts of another on his firm’s website without disclosing that involvement when the studies were used in court filings. Chevron says the omission raises “fraud on the court” concerns and seeks a hearing on counsel conduct. The underlying case targets dozens of fossil fuel actors and allies for exacerbating extreme heat and wildfire-smoke harms in Oregon. |
| Why it matters | Expert evidence sits at the core of climate-liability suits. Chevron’s motion spotlights scrutiny of research independence, funding acknowledgments, draft circulation, and attorney–expert interactions. For expert witnesses, it’s a reminder that Rule 702/Daubert challenges may hinge not only on methods and attribution models but also on disclosure rigor and perceived conflicts. Expect increased demands for detailed funding statements, data provenance, version histories, and firewalling between counsel and authors. Attorneys and experts should anticipate hearings probing research support, editorial control, and whether litigation strategy influenced peer-reviewed work. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | E&E News, Climate Case Chart, Gibson Dunn – Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. bio, Worthington & Caron – Roger G. Worthington bio |
Ecology and Natural Resources Damage
States, tribes resume salmon litigation after Trump administration pulls out of Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement
| Date | 2025-09-19 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Portland, Oregon (United States) |
| ESG Category | Ecology and Natural Resources Damage |
| Plaintiffs | States of Oregon and Washington; Nez Perce Tribe; Yakama Nation; Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation; Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation; and conservation/fishing groups (e.g., National Wildlife Federation, American Rivers, PCFFA, Sierra Club, Idaho Rivers United, NW Sportfishing Industry Association, NW Energy Coalition, Columbia Riverkeeper, Idaho Conservation League). |
| Defendants | U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; NOAA Fisheries/National Marine Fisheries Service — federal agencies responsible for Columbia–Snake hydrosystem operations and ESA consultations. |
| Status | Stay lifted Sept. 11, 2025; litigation resumed; parties discussing schedule/possible summary judgment path |
| Overview | Oregon and Washington, four Lower Columbia River Treaty Tribes (Nez Perce, Yakama Nation, Umatilla, Warm Springs) and conservation groups have restarted their long-running federal case over Columbia–Snake River dam operations after President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the 2023 Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement (RCBA). Judge Michael H. Simon (U.S. District Court, District of Oregon) lifted the stay on 11 September 2025, clearing the way for merits proceedings on challenges to the 2020 BiOp and EIS governing hydrosystem operations. The RCBA had paused litigation in exchange for up to $1 billion in salmon recovery investments; that deal is now defunct. |
| Why it matters | Expert witnesses will be pivotal as the case returns to the merits: fisheries biologists and population modelers to assess dam passage survival and temperature impacts; hydrology and river operations experts to evaluate spill, flow, and drawdown scenarios; power-system planners to address reliability and replacement resources; and treaty rights/cultural experts to contextualize obligations to tribes. With the stay lifted, courts may move quickly toward summary judgment, so parties will need rigorous, decision-grade analyses of alternatives (including Snake River dam breaching) and near-term injunctive measures for juvenile outmigration in spring 2026. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | SeafoodSource, Columbia Basin Bulletin, Oregon Public Broadcasting, Earthjustice press release, Associated Press |
Plea to prevent fishers from using plastics and pollute ocean
| Date | 2025-09-17 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu (India) |
| ESG Category | Ecology and Natural Resources Damage |
| Plaintiffs | S. Lenin — President, Kanyakumari District Meen Thozhilalar Sangam (fishermen’s association). |
| Defendants | Kanyakumari District Administration officials — government authorities responsible for coastal management/enforcement. |
| Status | Public Interest Litigation admitted; court has sought response from district administration (pending). |
| Overview | The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) sought a response from Kanyakumari district authorities after a public-interest petition alleged local fishers are polluting nearshore waters during squid breeding season (August–October) by submerging plastic bottles, sand-filled plastic bags, and coconut leaves to attract eggs. Petitioner S. Lenin, president of the Kanyakumari District Meen Thozhilalar Sangam, said prior representations to curb the practice were ignored. A division bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and C. Kumarappan issued notice to the administration, citing risks to marine life and the coastal ecosystem from plastic debris associated with these aggregation methods. |
| Why it matters | For expert witnesses, the case could trigger technical scrutiny of marine litter from fishing practices and the feasibility of non-plastic squid aggregation methods. Expect demand for testimony on debris quantification, fate and transport, ingestion/entanglement risks to fish and invertebrates, and alternatives that preserve artisanal livelihoods. Experts may also be asked to interpret India’s Plastic Waste Management Rules and coastal protections as they apply to nearshore fisheries, and to propose enforceable mitigation and cleanup measures. This petition can serve as a template for similar actions linking fishing gear/practices to ocean plastic and ecosystem health in India’s coastal districts. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | The Times of India |
Cambodian authorities tracking land encroachers in Kirirom Park
| Date | 2025-09-13 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Phnom Sruoch District, Kampong Speu Province (Cambodia) |
| ESG Category | Ecology and Natural Resources Damage |
| Plaintiffs | Ministry of Environment (Cambodia) — national environmental regulator (anticipated plaintiff pursuing legal action). |
| Defendants | Unidentified individual(s) alleged to have cleared land and built structures inside Kirirom National Park. |
| Status | Investigation active; authorities state they will pursue legal action and arrests, but no public docket or named defendants as of Sept. 13, 2025. |
| Overview | Cambodia’s Ministry of Environment says it is investigating illegal land clearing and construction inside Preah Suramarit–Kosamak “Kirirom” National Park (Kampong Speu). A spokesperson reported that an 80%-finished vacation home, plans for a second house, two lodging tents, ~150 meters of razor-wire fencing, and coconut plantings were found after inspections on Sept. 10–11. Officials said they will coordinate with the Ministry of Justice and pursue legal action under Cambodia’s new Code of Environment and Natural Resources, citing provisions that prohibit unpermitted construction and encroachment in conservation zones. Arrests are being sought; specific defendants have not been publicly identified. |
| Why it matters | For expert witnesses, this matter highlights protected-area enforcement and evidentiary needs in encroachment cases. Authorities will likely rely on site inspections, GPS/GIS mapping, and remote sensing to document clearing, fencing, and structures; regulatory experts may be asked to interpret the Code of Environment and Natural Resources (e.g., Articles 379, 386, 850, 855) and how permitting applies in conservation zones. Ecology specialists can assess habitat disturbance and restoration requirements, while valuation experts quantify damages and remediation costs. Clear chain-of-custody for photographic and geospatial evidence, plus compliance monitoring plans, will be critical if charges or civil actions proceed. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | Cambodianess, Open Development Cambodia – entry referencing related Khmer Times coverage |
Employee DEI
Court approves $43M settlement in Disney gender pay discrimination case
| Date | 2025-09-17 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Los Angeles, California. (United States) |
| ESG Category | Employee DEI |
| Plaintiffs | LaRonda Rasmussen, et al. — current and former female Disney employees alleging lower pay and fewer promotions than men. |
| Defendants | The Walt Disney Company and related Disney entities — global media and entertainment company. (s3.documentcloud.org) |
| Status | Final approval granted by Judge Elihu M. Berle on September 15, 2025; Order to Show Cause re: compliance set for June 2, 2026. |
| Overview | A Los Angeles Superior Court judge granted final approval to a $43.25 million class-action settlement resolving claims that The Walt Disney Company underpaid women in California, denied promotions, and assigned unpaid work. Beyond monetary relief, Disney agreed to have an outside labor economist conduct annual pay-equity analyses for certain positions over three years. The case — filed in 2019 as Rasmussen et al. v. The Walt Disney Company — follows class certification in December 2023 and preliminary approval in May 2025. The minute order confirms final approval and sets a compliance hearing to oversee distribution and follow-through. |
| Why it matters | For expert witnesses, this case underscores how pay-equity disputes hinge on rigorous statistical analyses, job architecture benchmarking, and compensation governance. Courts required forward-looking remedies (external labor economist reviews) alongside cash relief — amplifying demand for labor economists, industrial/organizational psychologists, and HR compensation experts who can test “substantially similar” work, control for legitimate factors, and guide remediation. It’s also a template for compliance monitoring post-settlement, including court-scheduled status reporting, which often calls for neutral expert input and defensible methodologies. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | ESG Dive, Minute Order, Los Angeles Superior Court, Order Granting Preliminary Approval, Cohen Milstein case page |
Governance
When lithium mining starts, who benefits, and who’s at risk? Inside this Salton Sea case
| Date | 2025-09-18 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Niland / Imperial County, California (United States) |
| ESG Category | Governance |
| Plaintiffs | Comité Cívico del Valle; Earthworks — advocacy nonprofits challenging the EIR approvals. |
| Defendants | County of Imperial — lead agency that approved the project; Controlled Thermal Resources (US), Inc.; Hell’s Kitchen PowerCo 1, LLC; Hell’s Kitchen LithiumCo 1, LLC — project applicant and real parties in interest. |
| Status | On appeal at the California Fourth District Court of Appeal; appellants filed arguments on September 11, 2025; trial court dismissed the CEQA suit in January 2025. |
| Overview | Two nonprofits — Comité Cívico del Valle and Earthworks — are pressing an appeal at California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal challenging Imperial County’s approval of Controlled Thermal Resources’ Hell’s Kitchen lithium–geothermal project near the Salton Sea. In their Sept. 11 filing, they argue the EIR downplays water demand, air quality harms (including dust around the shrinking lake), hazardous materials, and tribal cultural impacts. CTR calls the appeal “frivolous,” saying CEQA was satisfied and delays threaten investment. The case follows a January 2025 trial-court dismissal of the groups’ CEQA suit; the appeal seeks stricter review and project safeguards. |
| Why it matters | CEQA appeals like this shape how “direct lithium extraction” is reviewed in arid, EJ-burdened regions. Expert witnesses should expect scrutiny of water-supply assessments (IID and local sources), PM₁₀/PM₂.₅ dust and air-toxics modeling, hazardous-materials management for brines and reagents, and cultural-resources consultation. Administrative-record rigor matters: courts look for transparent methods, up-to-date data, alternatives, cumulative impacts with other Salton Sea projects, and enforceable mitigation. The outcome could set process expectations for Lithium Valley and similar critical-minerals projects nationally. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | KPBS, CalMatters, Water Education Foundation/Aquafornia, Courthouse News — petition PDF, Courthouse News trial ruling, inewsource update |
Charleston walks away from lawsuit against fossil fuel companies
| Date | 2025-09-18 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Charleston, South Carolina (United States) |
| ESG Category | Governance |
| Plaintiffs | City of Charleston — coastal municipality alleging deception and failure to warn about climate harms. |
| Defendants | Brabham Oil Co., Inc.; Colonial Group, Inc.; Enmark Stations, Inc.; Colonial Pipeline Co.; Piedmont Petroleum Corp.; Exxon Mobil Corp.; Shell plc (f/k/a Royal Dutch Shell plc); Chevron Corp.; BP p.l.c.; Phillips 66; Marathon Petroleum Corp.; ConocoPhillips; Hess Corp.; and others — oil & gas producers, refiners, marketers, and distributors. |
| Status | Dismissed by South Carolina Court of Common Pleas on August 6, 2025; City declined to appeal by September 5, 2025; case concluded. |
| Overview | Charleston, South Carolina is dropping its climate-liability case after a South Carolina state court dismissed the suit on August 6, 2025. Circuit Judge Roger Young ruled the city lacked a viable basis under South Carolina tort law and that claims were preempted by the Constitution and the Clean Air Act. City officials declined to appeal by the September 5 deadline, effectively ending the case. Defense counsel framed the ruling as part of a wider trend of dismissals in state and federal courts. The 2020 complaint had targeted major oil companies and local distributors over alleged climate deception and resulting damages to the coastal city. |
| Why it matters | Expert evidence often takes a back seat when climate cases are decided on legal doctrines like preemption, choice of law, and the contours of state torts. For expert witnesses, Charleston’s outcome signals that success may hinge less on attribution or damages modeling and more on how technical analyses map to the precise causes of action (e.g., failure to warn, consumer protection) that can survive jurisdictional and preemption challenges. It also illustrates the importance of documenting city-specific harm pathways (flood, sea-level rise, heat) and tying them to alleged deceptive practices, while preparing for heightened scrutiny of standing, remedies, and administrability. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | E&E News, Climate Case Chart – City of Charleston v. Brabham Oil Co., Inc. (case page & filings), Charleston County Public Index (case no. 2020CP1003975), National Law Review note on dismissal, Law360 recap of non-appeal (https://www.law360.com/articles/2388127/charleston-sc-not-appealing-dismissal-of-climate-suit) |
Lawsuit seeks to force release of projected water use by Microsoft data centers
| Date | 2025-09-16 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Racine, Wisconsin (United States) |
| ESG Category | Governance |
| Plaintiffs | Milwaukee Riverkeeper, Inc. — nonprofit environmental organization seeking records on data-center water use |
| Defendants | City of Racine — municipal government; Racine Water Utility — city water provider; Dr. Anjuman Islam (official capacity) — Executive Director, Racine Water Utility |
| Status | Filed; petition for writ of mandamus pending |
| Overview | Midwest Environmental Advocates (MEA) filed a mandamus action in Racine County Circuit Court on behalf of Milwaukee Riverkeeper, seeking to compel the City of Racine, its Water Utility, and the utility’s executive director to release records showing projected water use for Microsoft’s $3.3B Mount Pleasant data-center campus. The complaint alleges 210 days of delay after a Feb. 17, 2025 public-records request and cites a June denial invoking “confidentiality.” Plaintiffs want immediate production or a show-cause hearing. The story situates the suit amid rising scrutiny of data centers’ energy–water footprints in Wisconsin. |
| Why it matters | For expert witnesses, this case tests transparency obligations around large tech infrastructure and the interplay between NDAs and public-records laws. If courts compel disclosure, future siting disputes may rely on expert analysis of water-cooling designs, peak/average withdrawals, thermal loads, and ratepayer impacts. If confidentiality prevails, experts may need to develop methodologies for estimating water demand from limited data. Either way, hydrologists, utility-rate analysts, and data-center cooling engineers will be central to quantifying environmental impacts and rebutting or supporting claimed burdens on municipal systems and Great Lakes resources. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | Wisconsin Public Radio, Complaint PDF — Milwaukee Riverkeeper v. City of Racine et al. |
US court rejects environmental challenge to SpaceX’s expanded launch site
| Date | 2025-09-16 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Boca Chica (Cameron County), Texas (United States) |
| ESG Category | Governance |
| Plaintiffs | Center for Biological Diversity; American Bird Conservancy; Surfrider Foundation; Save RGV; Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation of Texas, Inc. — environmental NGOs and a tribal nation challenging FAA approvals. |
| Defendants | Federal Aviation Administration — U.S. aviation regulator; Billy Nolen — then-Acting FAA Administrator (official-capacity). |
| Status | Dismissed at the district court on September 15, 2025 (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia). |
| Overview | A federal judge in Washington, D.C., dismissed a 2022 lawsuit from conservation and community groups that challenged the Federal Aviation Administration’s approval of expanded rocket launch operations at SpaceX’s Starbase site near Boca Chica, Texas. The court found the FAA took the requisite “hard look,” including on light impacts to wildlife, and left intact mitigation measures tied to the agency’s programmatic environmental assessment and licensing for Starship. Plaintiffs had alleged harms from noise, light, traffic, habitat disturbance, and debris affecting endangered species and sensitive coastal habitat adjoining a national wildlife refuge. |
| Why it matters | For expert witnesses, this ruling underscores how NEPA disputes often turn on standards of review (hard-look reasonableness) rather than relitigating science de novo. It spotlights analysis areas likely to be scrutinized in spaceport cases: light-at-night effects on sea turtles and shorebirds, acoustic/noise thresholds, debris and fire risk modeling, access closures, and the adequacy and enforceability of mitigation/monitoring plans. Experts should be prepared to document methods, thresholds, and ecological pathways clearly enough to survive deferential review—and to address how adaptive management, lighting controls, and operational caps are tracked and verified over time. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | Deccan Herald, Reuters, Climate Case Chart, Justia Docket |
Toxic Substances and Human Health
3M Corporation pays $4 million to Columbus in ‘forever chemical’ lawsuit settlement
| Date | 2025-09-17 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Columbus, Ohio (United States) |
| ESG Category | Toxic Substances and Human Health |
| Plaintiffs | City of Columbus — municipal government and water provider for Columbus and surrounding suburbs. |
| Defendants | 3M Company — PFAS manufacturer; (article notes suit against “several major chemical companies,” but only 3M named in this settlement). |
| Status | Settled as to 3M (initial $4M received on Sept. 17, 2025); broader PFAS litigation against others not detailed in article. |
| Overview | Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein announced the city has received $4 million in initial settlement funds from 3M tied to litigation over PFAS (“forever chemicals”). The case is one of hundreds nationwide alleging manufacturers knew of PFAS risks but failed to warn the public. City officials say Columbus’ drinking water currently meets federal standards, but a portion of the settlement may go toward future water-system upgrades serving the city and more than 20 suburbs. The payment reflects Columbus’ participation in broader PFAS litigation and follows multi-billion-dollar settlements 3M has reached with public water systems elsewhere. |
| Why it matters | For expert witnesses, this underscores how PFAS manufacturer settlements translate into local infrastructure planning. Even where tap water meets standards, cities will document potential upgrades (e.g., GAC/IX/RO, residuals handling, monitoring) and justify allocations of settlement dollars. Experts in PFAS treatment design, lifecycle costs, and O&M will be needed to set realistic timelines and performance metrics. Risk communication and epidemiology experts may help agencies explain risk where concentrations are low but public concern is high. Coverage experts can opine on how settlements interact with ongoing litigation against other manufacturers and with evolving federal/state PFAS standards. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | CW Columbus / WSYX, WSYX (mirror story), City of Columbus — Press Release PDF, The Columbus Dispatch |
Retired Nevada Supreme Court justice claims Real Water caused husband’s death
| Date | 2025-09-16 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Las Vegas / Henderson, Nevada (United States) |
| ESG Category | Toxic Substances and Human Health |
| Plaintiffs | Abbi Silver, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Kirk W. Jaster (retired Nevada Supreme Court justice and family alleging wrongful death). |
| Defendants | Affinitylifestyles.com, Inc.; Real Water, Inc.; Sprouts Farmers Market; KeHE (food distributor); additional retail defendants per complaint. |
| Status | Newly filed and active (complaint filed September 16, 2025, in Clark County District Court). |
| Overview | Retired Nevada Supreme Court Justice Abbi Silver filed a wrongful-death/product-liability suit in Clark County District Court alleging that “Real Water” bottled water triggered the ALS that led to her husband Kirk W. Jaster’s death in September 2024. The complaint says testing detected hydrazine in Real Water and cites scientific literature linking the chemical to progressive neurodegenerative disease. Defendants include the manufacturer and certain retailers/distributors. Prior Nevada trials over Real Water injuries produced very large verdicts. Silver resigned from the high court in 2022 to care for Jaster and now serves on the Nevada Gaming Commission. |
| Why it matters | For expert witnesses, this case centers on toxic exposure causation linking an alleged contaminant (hydrazine) in a consumer beverage to ALS onset and progression—raising complex general and specific causation questions. Expect challenges around analytical chemistry (hydrazine detection methods and chain-of-custody), exposure assessment (dose, duration, alternative exposures), and medical causation (ALS pathophysiology). Manufacturing/GMP experts will be key on FDA compliance and process controls; epidemiologists and neurologists will face scrutiny on biological plausibility and differential diagnosis. Retailer/distributor defendants also make supply-chain due diligence and warning adequacy important. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | Las Vegas Review-Journal, KSNV News 3, FOX5 Vegas, Newsweek (defense counsel reference), FDA Outbreak/Recall Page (background) |
EPA asks court to vacate part of PFAS drinking water lawsuit
| Date | 2025-09-15 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Washington, D.C. (United States) |
| ESG Category | Toxic Substances and Human Health |
| Plaintiffs | American Water Works Association (AWWA) and Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) — trade associations for drinking-water utilities |
| Defendants | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; EPA Administrator (official capacity) — federal regulator issuing PFAS drinking water standards |
| Status | Pending before the D.C. Circuit; EPA moved for partial vacatur; petitioners’ response due September 26, 2025 |
| Overview | The U.S. EPA told the D.C. Circuit it agrees with part of a challenge brought by water utilities (and joined by chemical companies) to the 2024 PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation. In a Sept. 11 motion, EPA asked the court to partially vacate the rule as to PFNA, PFHxS, HFPO-DA (GenX), and the hazard-index for mixtures including PFBS, conceding it did not follow Safe Drinking Water Act sequencing when adding those chemicals. EPA will continue defending enforceable limits for PFOA and PFOS and proposes to extend compliance timelines. Petitioners’ response is due Sept. 26, 2025. |
| Why it matters | For expert witnesses, this pivot spotlights how SDWA procedure can make or break national standards. If the court grants partial vacatur, utilities and states may pause or recalibrate monitoring and treatment for the “Index PFAS,” while litigation over PFOA/PFOS continues. Expect demand for experts on regulatory process, risk assessment, and drinking-water treatment efficacy/costs (e.g., GAC, IX, RO), plus damages modeling for compliance investments already underway. Communications and public-health experts may be needed to explain risk tradeoffs from staggered timelines and mixed chemical coverage as utilities manage public expectations and rate impacts. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | Waste Dive, EPA Motion for Partial Vacatur, D.C. Cir. No. 24-1188, AMWA docket materials |
Water and Hydrogeology
Campbell Soup admits 5,400 Clean Water Act violations tied to Maumee River discharges
| Date | 2025-09-17 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Napoleon/Toledo, Ohio (United States) |
| ESG Category | Water and Hydrogeology |
| Plaintiffs | United States of America (EPA enforcement); Environment Ohio & Lake Erie Waterkeeper (citizen enforcers) (Justia Dockets & Filings) |
| Defendants | Campbell Soup Supply Company L.L.C. — operator of Napoleon, OH canning facility discharging to the Maumee River. |
| Status | Liability admitted via joint stipulation (Sept. 15, 2025); remedies/penalties and injunctive relief to be determined in N.D. Ohio cases 3:24-cv-00523 and 3:24-cv-00515. |
| Overview | In a joint court filing, Campbell Soup Supply Co. acknowledged liability for at least 5,400 Clean Water Act violations from April 2018–December 2024 at its Napoleon, Ohio canning plant, which discharges to the Maumee River, a major Lake Erie tributary. The stipulation—filed with the U.S. EPA and citizen-plaintiff groups—covers exceedances for phosphorus, ammonia, E. coli, oil and grease, suspended solids and other parameters. Separate lawsuits filed in March 2024 by DOJ and by Environment Ohio/Lake Erie Waterkeeper are proceeding in the Northern District of Ohio; the admission streamlines the path to trial on penalties and injunctive remedies. |
| Why it matters | This is a textbook CWA enforcement scenario where expert analysis will drive remedy and penalty outcomes. Expect needs for wastewater engineering (source control, treatment upgrades), hydrology/hydrogeology (fate and transport to Lake Erie), nutrient-load apportionment and HABs science, microbiology/public health (E. coli risks), and environmental economics (penalty factors, compliance costs, benefits). The case also highlights how joint stipulations can narrow issues to feasibility, timelines, and verification of performance. Experts should be prepared to defend monitoring designs, model selection, and costed alternatives compliant with NPDES limits—and to evaluate interim operational fixes pending capital upgrades. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | Spectrum News 1 Ohio, Environment America/NELC press release, Reuters (background on filings), Justia docket — U.S. v. Campbell Soup (3:24-cv-00523), CourtListener — Env’t America v. Campbell Soup (3:24-cv-00515) |
Environmental group, developer reach settlement in Durham sediment pollution case
| Date | 2025-09-17 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Durham, North Carolina (United States) |
| ESG Category | Water and Hydrogeology |
| Plaintiffs | Sound Rivers — nonprofit protecting the Neuse & Tar-Pamlico River basins. |
| Defendants | Clayton Properties Group, Inc. d/b/a Mungo Homes — residential developer of the Sweetbrier subdivision. |
| Status | Settled via consent decree approved the week of September 15, 2025; obligations include on-site controls and conservation funding; federal case resolved. |
| Overview | Sound Rivers settled a federal Clean Water Act lawsuit against Clayton Properties Group, Inc. (d/b/a Mungo Homes) over sediment runoff from the 216-acre Sweetbrier subdivision in southeast Durham. Under a consent decree, the developer must stabilize exposed soils, add and maintain erosion/sediment controls, and fund conservation of a 62-acre tract in the Lick Creek watershed. Payments include $270,000 to Triangle Land Conservancy, $30,000 in civil penalties to the U.S. Treasury, and $50,000 in attorney fees. The measures aim to stop orange, sediment-laden discharges into Martin Branch and Hurricane Creek that flow to Lick Creek and Falls Lake, a Raleigh drinking-water source. |
| Why it matters | For expert witnesses, this case underscores how citizen suits leverage turbidity data, permit inspections, and BMP maintenance records to secure injunctive relief and conservation remedies. It also shows how “off-site” impacts (sediment to tributaries feeding a municipal reservoir) drive settlement terms and land-protection offsets. Experts should note the focus on compliance with NCG01 construction stormwater permits, quantification of exceedances (e.g., NTUs), documentation of >300 site violations, and the translation of technical fixes (stabilization, sediment ponds, groundcover) into enforceable obligations under a consent decree. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | WUNC, Southern Environmental Law Center — press release, Sound Rivers, Justia Docket, Justia Opinion (order denying motion to dismiss) |
Chinese-linked mining firms in Zambia sued by Copperbelt farmers over ‘ecological catastrophe’
| Date | 2025-09-16 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Chambishi/Kalulushi District, Copperbelt Province (Zambia) |
| ESG Category | Water and Hydrogeology |
| Plaintiffs | 176 subsistence farmers from the Kalusale/Chambishi area representing affected Copperbelt communities |
| Defendants | Sino Metals Leach Zambia Limited — copper leach/processing operator; NFC Africa Mining Limited — copper mine operator in Chambishi |
| Status | Filed (petition lodged Sept. 12, 2025) |
| Overview | A group of 176 subsistence farmers filed a landmark lawsuit in the High Court of Zambia alleging that a February tailings-dam collapse linked to copper operations near Chambishi unleashed millions of liters of highly acidic waste into waterways, killing fish, contaminating drinking water, and destroying crops across the Copperbelt. The suit names Sino Metals Leach Zambia and NFC Africa Mining, both tied to Chinese state-owned interests, and seeks $80 billion for remediation and compensation plus emergency relief funds. Authorities previously ordered interim measures, while public-health warnings underscored ongoing exposure risks; the defendants dispute the scale and persistence of harm. |
| Why it matters | This case sits at the nexus of mining operations, hydrology, toxicology, and community impacts. Expert witnesses will likely be asked to quantify contaminant loads and dispersion, link exposure to health outcomes, and assess agricultural and fisheries losses. Geotechnical and tailings-dam engineers may need to analyze failure modes and operational oversight. Hydrogeologists, aquatic ecologists, and environmental chemists will be central to fate-and-transport and risk assessments; economists will be needed for valuation and remediation-cost modeling. The proceeding could set a benchmark for corporate accountability in African mining and shape standards for emergency response, monitoring, and compensation frameworks in tailings disasters. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | Mining Focus Africa, Inside Climate News, Associated Press, U.S. Embassy Lusaka – Health Alert, Southern Africa Litigation Centre |
Court strikes down Inland Empire water deal after City of Ontario lawsuit reveals environmental violations and risks to local water supply
| Date | 2025-09-16 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Ontario (San Bernardino County), California (United States) |
| ESG Category | Water and Hydrogeology |
| Plaintiffs | City of Ontario — Southern California municipal government challenging IEUA’s approvals under CEQA. |
| Defendants | Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) — municipal water district; lead agency for the Chino Basin Program. |
| Status | Trial court granted petition for writ of mandate on September 4, 2025, setting aside IEUA’s EIR certification and approvals; IEUA’s board has authorized an appeal (reported September 19, 2025). |
| Overview | A San Bernardino County Superior Court judge granted the City of Ontario’s CEQA challenge to the Inland Empire Utilities Agency’s Chino Basin Program (approved May 2022). The court set aside IEUA’s certification of the EIR and related approvals, finding CEQA violations: (1) unlawful “piecemealing” by omitting effects tied to the Feather River Exchange, (2) an unstable/inconsistent project description (25-year analysis vs. 50-year benefits), and (3) biased objectives that foreclosed reasonable alternatives. The ruling notes the EIR failed to analyze transferring 375,000 acre-feet to Northern California. Judgment issued September 4, 2025; press release issued September 16, 2025. |
| Why it matters | CEQA adequacy is central to large water-supply projects. For expert witnesses, this decision underscores scrutiny of “project description” stability, alternatives analysis, and claims of segmentation/piecemealing—especially where interbasin exchanges (e.g., Feather River pulse flows) are integral. Expect litigation records to probe water-supply modeling horizons, hydrologic accounting (acre-feet transfers), environmental trade-offs, and whether objectives predetermine outcomes. Testimony from water resources engineers, hydrologists, CEQA practitioners, and fisheries/ecosystem experts may be critical in any remand EIR or appeal, as agencies must show complete, non-biased analysis of local supply impacts and feasible alternatives. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | PR Newswire, City of Ontario, Hey SoCal |
Environmental lawsuit settlement forces Napa landfill to pay millions for 2019 spill
| Date | 2025-09-16 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Calistoga (Napa County), California (United States) |
| ESG Category | Water and Hydrogeology |
| Plaintiffs | Napa County District Attorney’s Office — county prosecutor bringing a civil environmental enforcement action. |
| Defendants | Vista Corporation; Clover Flat Land Fill Inc. — owners/operators of Clover Flat Landfill. |
| Status | Settled; terms announced September 12, 2025, with court approval pending as of that date. |
| Overview | A landfill in Napa Valley agreed to a multi-million-dollar settlement over a March 2019 release of about 40,000 gallons of leachate into streams that flow to the Napa River. Investigators also documented an unauthorized road through a former stream channel and removal of vegetation. Under the settlement, the owners/operators will restore 4.24 acres of habitat on site (estimated ~$4 million), fund local restoration projects ($1.55 million for Bale Slough–Bear Creek; $954,000 for Huichica Creek; $150,000 for Huichica or Suscol Creek), and pay $100,000 in civil penalties, with injunctive terms restricting future discharges and stream alterations. Court approval is pending. |
| Why it matters | This settlement shows how post-incident investigations expand beyond a single spill to broader habitat and stream-channel impacts—and how remedies can blend on-site restoration, watershed-scale projects, penalties, and enforceable injunctions. Expert witnesses should note the technical touchpoints likely to be scrutinized: leachate generation and containment, hydrologic connectivity to tributaries, stream-crossing design and channel modification, restoration planning and success criteria, and monitoring/reporting needed to verify compliance. The allocation of funds across multiple restoration projects also highlights opportunities for damages economists and restoration ecologists to document benefits and cost-effectiveness for court-approved consent judgments. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | Local News Matters, Napa County District Attorney – Press Release, SFGATE/Bay City News |
DEC files lawsuit against Buffalo Sewer Authority over raw sewage discharge
| Date | 2025-09-16 |
|---|---|
| Geography (Country) | Buffalo, New York (United States) |
| ESG Category | Water and Hydrogeology |
| Plaintiffs | New York State Department of Environmental Conservation — state environmental regulator alleging permit and CSO violations. |
| Defendants | Buffalo Sewer Authority — municipal wastewater utility operating Bird Island WWTP and a combined sewer system. |
| Status | Filed (New York State court) — subsequent DEC/NY AG announcement notes an agreement framework to improve water quality; penalties/obligations forthcoming. |
| Overview | New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) filed a 19-page lawsuit against the Buffalo Sewer Authority (BSA), alleging years of permit violations tied to untreated and partially treated discharges affecting the Niagara River and other local waterways. The complaint cites an estimated 2.9 million gallons per year of untreated sewage and runoff, plus unauthorized dry-weather bypasses releasing 11–78 million gallons in past years. BSA says it is undertaking a 15-year, $1B “Queen City Clean Waters” program, including $250M in Bird Island plant upgrades and odor control. Related reporting references larger CSO volumes across 52 outfalls. |
| Why it matters | For expert witnesses, the case will hinge on characterizing CSO frequency/volume, compliance with SPDES limits, and the feasibility and sequencing of infrastructure fixes. Expect needs for wastewater process engineers (primary/secondary upgrades, high-rate treatment, odor control), hydrologists and modelers (Niagara/Buffalo River impacts), public-health experts (pathogens), and environmental economists (penalties, project cost–benefit). Evidence on alternative control technologies, verification monitoring, and schedule realism under a revised LTCP will be critical. Conflicting volume estimates (2.9M vs. ~1.4B–3B gallons for CSOs) underscore the importance of defensible metering, flow apportionment, and QA/QC. |
| Plaintiff Lawyers |
|
| Defendant Lawyers |
|
| Sources | WKBW, Spectrum News 1, NYS DEC press release (agreement context) |