Manning v. Pa. Dep’t of Envtl. Protection, No. 2013-67 (Pa. Envtl. Hearing Bd. May 29, 2013). Petitioners appealed the PADEP determination that drilling activities near their property were not the cause of methane contamination in their private water supply. They argued that PADEP’s determination provided insufficient information about the sampling data and methodology to support the conclusion.

Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, No. 13-CV-1749 (N.D. Cal., filed Apr. 18, 2013). Plaintiffs asserted a NEPA challenge to BLM’s sale of oil and gas leases for almost 18,000 acres of federal land in California. Plaintiffs alleged that in asserting that only one well would be drilled on each acre, BLM failed to address the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on water and air quality and other resources.

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Cal. Dep't of Conservation, No. RG13664534 (Cal. Super. Ct., filed Jan. 24, 2013). The Center for Biological Diversity commenced this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in connection with the permitting practices of the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) of the California Department of Conservation. Plaintiff alleged that DOGGR issues permits for oil and gas operations in violation of California’s underground injection control program and in violation of DOGGR’s mandate under the California Public Resources Code to approve and supervise all oil and gas extraction so as to prevent, as far as possible, damage to life, health, property, and natural resources.

S. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. BLM, No. 13-cv-00047 (D. Utah, filed Jan. 18, 2013). Plaintiffs challenged the federal defendants’ approvals of the Gasco Energy Inc. Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Project in Utah. Plaintiffs alleged that BLM violated NEPA in approving the project. Less than a month later, plaintiffs filed a notice of dismissal.