Can environmental groups successfully challenge oil and gas injection well approvals? Living Rivers v. Department of Natural Resources Explained

In Living Rivers v. Department of Natural Resources, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the challenging standard environmental groups face when seeking to overturn administrative approvals of oil and gas operations. The case provides important insights into the substantial evidence standard and the strategic considerations for challenging agency decisions.

Background and Facts

The Board of Oil, Gas, and Mining approved a Class II water injection well under Utah Code Ann. § 40-6-5(5), which grants the Board exclusive jurisdiction over such wells. Living Rivers sought judicial review of this approval but presented no evidence of its own at the administrative hearing. Instead, the environmental group limited its participation to cross-examining witnesses and arguing about evidence submitted by others. Essentially all evidence before the Board supported the injection well petition, including expert testimony and numerous exhibits.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two primary issues: first, whether the Board properly approved the injection well given the evidence and findings of fact; and second, whether the Board erred by not considering a university professor’s report submitted as a supplement to Living Rivers’ motion for reconsideration.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied the substantial evidence standard, noting that a party alleging substantial prejudice from agency action is entitled to relief only if the agency action is not supported by substantial evidence. Because Living Rivers failed to marshal evidence attacking specific factual findings and the findings were consistent with the evidence received, the court found no error of law or abuse of discretion in the Board’s approval.

Regarding the professor’s report, the court declined to disturb the Board’s decision even assuming the report was timely and properly submitted, because it failed to address why the evidence could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence prior to the hearing.

Practice Implications

This decision underscores the difficulty environmental groups face in challenging agency approvals when they fail to present affirmative evidence. The case demonstrates the importance of thorough preparation and the limitations of a strategy based solely on challenging the applicant’s evidence through cross-examination.