Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Environmental Law

Application of Jurisdictional Doctrine of Mootness to Environmental Cases

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Lake Bistineau Preservation Society, Inc. v. Seales, 922 So.2d 768 (La. Ct. App. 2006), the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed plaintiffs' appeal and remanded the case back to the district court. Plaintiffs sued the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and three state officials based on their plan to lower the water level of Lake Bistineau and spray it with herbicides. The instant court held that plaintiffs' appeal was moot because the spraying operations were complete. Additionally, plaintiffs failed to show imminent harm to the environment from spraying.

Background

In 2004, the Lake Bistineau Preservation Society and a property owner sought a preliminary injunction to stop the initial drawdown of Lake Bistineau and to prevent the spraying of herbicides intended to kill excessive aquatic vegetation. Id. at 770. The drawdowns and sprayings were part of the three-year Lake Bistineau Habitat Management Plan by the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries of the State of Louisiana (DWF). Id. at 769-70. The trial court denied plaintiffs' preliminary injunction request, and the instant court affirmed. Id. at 770. Despite this early setback, in 2005, the plaintiffs again sought a preliminary injunction, alleging that the Plan violated portions of the Louisiana Environmental Quality Act (LEQA) and the Louisiana Water Control Law (LWCL). Id. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that permits, water quality certifications, and water quality exemptions were required prior to the application of aquatic herbicides. Id. On July 12, 2005, the trial court again denied plaintiffs' preliminary injunction request, holding that no spraying permit was needed. Id. at 772. Plaintiffs immediately filed for supervisory review with the instant court. Id.

Arguments

Plaintiffs claimed that the implementation of the plan constituted knowing, deliberate, intentional, and ongoing violations of the LEQA, the LWCL, and their implementing regulations. Id. at 771.

Defendants stipulated that that the Plan had been completed and, therefore, plaintiffs' claims were moot. Id. at 772.

Analysis and Holdings

Plaintiffs' petition sought to enjoin the aggressive spraying of herbicides to kill the aquatic vegetation of Lake Bistineau. Id. at 773. Although the DWF's original plan covered a three-year period, the agency informed the court that year three activities would not occur. Id. For this reason, plaintiffs' allegations claim for preliminary injunctive relief was rendered moot. Id. at 773-74. Additionally, as an integral part of the preliminary injunction analysis, plaintiffs failed to show imminent harm to the environment from spraying. Id. at 774.

The case was decided on February 10, 2006.