Timothy D. Terrell "Last week, federal Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a directive
aimed at reducing “sue-and-settle” lawsuits. For those who like voters to have input in the creation
of environmental regulation, this is a great move.
"For decades, environmental advocacy groups have exerted outsized influence—and profited
financially—from “friendly” lawsuits against the EPA. These lawsuits have been a conduit for
activists inside and outside the EPA to get new regulations in place over the protests of state
governments, businesses, and consumers that must bear the costs.
" Starting about 1970, Congress began writing clauses into certain environmental statutes allowing
“any person” to file suit alleging that the EPA had insufficiently enforced the law, whether or not the
plaintiff was personally harmed by the violation. These “citizen suit” provisions in environmental
legislation opened the courtroom door to environmental organizations, which quickly discovered the
money-making potential of these lawsuits.
" Some settlements involve a “mitigation project” that often benefits environmental groups, and in
addition, the groups often received above-cost reimbursements of attorneys’ fees and litigation
expenses. The revenues became so substantial that environmental law attorney Michael Greve
referred to citizen suits as “an off-budget entitlement program for the environmental movement.”
Environmental organizations also discovered that citizen suit-based “sue-and-settle” tactics could be
used to obtain regulatory changes without legislative action.
"Green groups could accomplish their
goals without Congress and without much worry much about objections raised during the “public
comment” period following a consent decree or agreement. By the time public comments are made,
it’s pretty much a done deal." . . .
