Many of these activities  may be subject to legal challenge. According to the stakeholders we interviewed, a  number of factors—particularly presidential administration, the passage of  new regulations or amendments to laws, or EPA’s failure to meet  statutory deadlines—affect the number of environmental litigation cases  each year and the type of plaintiffs who bring them. As shown in figure 2, most cases against EPA were brought under the  Clean Air Act, which represented about 59 percent of the approximately  2,500 cases that were filed during the 16-year period of our review. On Average, Justice Spent at Least $3.3 Million a Year Defending EPA against Environmental Litigation in Fiscal Year 1998 through Fiscal Year 2010

Our analysis of data from Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources  Division found that from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2010, Justice  spent at least $3.3 million on average annually to defend EPA against  environmental litigation, for a total of $43 million. Justice maintains separate, decentralized databases containing  environmental case information and does not have a standard approach  for collecting and entering data on these cases. Without a standard  approach, it is it difficult to identify and summarize the full set of  environmental litigation cases and costs managed by the department  agencywide. As a result, it is  impossible to gather complete data on all environmental litigation cases  and costs from these databases. By employing an iterative electronic and manual process to standardize  the court numbers associated with all cases and matching cases from the  two systems by these numbers, we were ultimately able to merge the two  sets of data on environmental litigation cases managed by Justice’s  Environment and Natural Resources Division and the U.S. Attorneys’  Offices for purposes of this report. Justice officials said, however, that  they do not plan to change their approach to managing the data because  they use the data in each system to manage individual cases, not to  identify and summarize agencywide data on cases or trends. On Average, Treasury Paid Successful Plaintiffs $1.8 Million Annually from the Judgment Fund over the Last 8 Years, and EPA Paid about $280,000 a Year over the Last 5 Years

In addition to Justice’s costs of defending EPA, costs of litigation include  payment of attorney fees and court costs to plaintiffs who prevail in  lawsuits against EPA. For most of the claims under the 10 environmental statutes in  this report, payments to successful plaintiffs were made from Treasury’s  Judgment Fund. Treasury paid a total of about $14.2 million out of its Judgment Fund to  prevailing plaintiffs for attorney fees and costs related to these cases (see  fig. 4). Officials said that through this  process of negotiation, the department pays plaintiffs, in the majority of  cases, an amount that is much lower than requested. EPA did not provide comments, and Justice and  Treasury had technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report describes (1) trends, if any, in environmental lawsuits against  the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from fiscal year 1995 through  fiscal year 2010, as well as stakeholders’ views of factors affecting any  trends, and (2) Justice’s recent costs for representing EPA in defensive  environmental lawsuits and the federal government’s recent payments to  plaintiffs. We obtained and analyzed data from  these databases for lawsuits:  filed in federal court from fiscal year 1995 through fiscal year 2010  (Oct. 1, 1994, through Sept. 30, 2010); in which EPA was the lead defendant, excluding cases in which EPA  was a defendant but the lead defendant identified by Justice was  another agency, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;   brought under 10 major environmental statutes implemented by or  applying to EPA, including the Clean Air Act; Clean Water Act; Safe  Drinking Water Act; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act;  Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and  Liability Act (Superfund); Emergency Planning and Community Right- to-Know Act; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act;  Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; Toxic Substances Control Act;  and the Endangered Species Act as it applies to EPA. Appendix III: Department of the Treasury and Environmental Protection Agency Payments

This appendix provides data on payments for attorney fees and court  costs made by the Department of the Treasury for fiscal year 2003  through fiscal year 2010 and by the Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA) for fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2010. Table 6 shows  payments from the Judgment Fund.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) faces numerous legal challenges as it implements the nation's environmental laws. Several statutes, such as the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, allow citizens to file suit against EPA to challenge certain agency actions. Where EPA is named as a defendant, the Department of Justice provides EPA's legal defense. If successful, plaintiffs may be paid for certain attorney fees and costs. Payments are made from the Department of the Treasury's Judgment Fund--a permanent fund available to pay judgments against the government, as well as settlements resulting from lawsuits--or EPA's appropriations. For this review, GAO was asked to examine (1) the trends in and factors affecting environmental litigation for fiscal years 1995 through 2010 and (2) Justice's recent costs and recent plaintiff payments from the Judgment Fund and EPA. To conduct this review, GAO obtained and analyzed data from two Justice databases on cases filed under 10 key environmental statutes. To gain stakeholder views on any trends and factors that might affect them, GAO interviewed representatives of environmental and industry groups, state attorneys general, and other experts. GAO estimated the costs of litigation handled by Justice attorneys and payments made for attorney fees and court costs from the Judgment Fund and EPA funds.

What GAO Found

No trend was discernible in the number of environmental cases brought against EPA from fiscal year 1995 through fiscal year 2010, as the number of cases filed in federal court varied over time. Justice staff defended EPA on an average of about 155 such cases each year, or a total of about 2,500 cases between fiscal years 1995 and 2010. Most cases were filed under the Clean Air Act (59 percent of cases) and the Clean Water Act (20 percent of cases). According to stakeholders GAO interviewed, a number of factors--particularly a change in presidential administration, new regulations or amendments to laws, or EPA's not meeting statutorily required deadlines--affect environmental litigation. The costs borne by Justice, EPA, and Treasury also varied without a discernible trend from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2010. Justice spent at least $43 million, or $3.3 million annually, to defend EPA in court during this time. In addition, owing to statutory requirements to pay certain successful plaintiffs for attorney fees and costs, Treasury paid about $14.2 million from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2010--about $1.8 million per fiscal year--to plaintiffs in environmental cases. EPA paid approximately $1.4 million from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2010--about $280,000 per fiscal year--to plaintiffs for environmental litigation claims under relevant statutes. (All amounts are given in constant 2010 dollars.) Justice officials said that they negotiate payments with the successful plaintiffs, who generally receive less than originally requested. Complicating efforts to analyze trends in cases and costs is that Justice maintains data on environmental cases in two separate data systems and does not have a standard approach for maintaining the data. As a result, it is difficult to identify and summarize the full set of cases and costs managed by Justice. Nonetheless, using an iterative electronic and manual process, GAO was able to merge the two sets of data for its purposes. Justice officials said that they do not need to change their approach to managing the data, however, because they do not use it to summarize case data agencywide. Moreover, the officials said they lack resources to adapt their aging systems to accept additional data.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making no recommendations in this report. GAO provided a draft of this report to the agencies for comment. Justice and Treasury had technical comments, which were incorporated, while EPA had no comments.