Home > Austin Legal > Archives > Environmental cases category
Environmental cases
April 9, 2009
Jiffy Lubes owner admits putting oil down the drain
A company that owns 31 Jiffy Lube automotive shops in the Austin area pleaded guilty in a Travis County courtroom today to violations of the Texas Water Code and was ordered to pay a $300,000 fine.
The fine, which came as part of a plea agreement between prosecutors and Heartland Automotive Inc. of Omaha, Neb., is believed to be the largest ever for such violations in Travis County, according to a news release by Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg.
Employees at the Heartland-owned Jiffy Lube at 8509 Burnet Road illegally discharged oil and wastewater into the city’s sewer system “with the knowledge of regional and district managers,” according to the release.
“It was a nasty mixture that was discharged into the City of Austin sewer system and oil has a great potential to damage the environment. Here, we caught it early enough to avoid a more serious problem,” Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Sgt. Jonathan Gray said in a statement.
A anonymous tipster alerted authorities about the potential pollution and in September 2007 investigators executed a search warrant on the shop.
““Our natural resources are precious and this prosecution reflects our commitment to protect them. We will continue to aggressively prosecute violators who harm the environment and our quality of life,” Lehmberg said.
Heartland Automotive Services, Inc. is the country’s largest Jiffy Lube franchisee with about 400 of the oil-change shops in 15 major metropolitan areas, according to the corporation’s Web site.
As part of the plea agreement, the corporation took out an advertisement in today’s Austin American-Statesman apologizing. Patty Robertson, chief of the district attorney’s office white collar crime unit, said making defendants make a public apology is a method prosecutors use to deter others from committing similar crimes.
“Heartland Automotive Services, Inc. is very respectful of our environment and regrets any damage that may have arisen from the ill-advised actions of a few of our employees,” said a statement in the ad attributed to Mark Rowberry on behalf of Heartland.
Robertson said Rowberry is Heartland’s Austin-based regional manager.
“Individuals and businesses should be forewarned that there are extreme consequences for violating environmental laws in Texas,” Rowberry’s statement said.
The Texas Environmental Task Force, comprised of investigators from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the City of Austin Special Services division and the Travis County Attorney’s office investigated the case.
Through a lawyer, the corporation pleaded guilty to three counts of unauthorized discharge, all misdemeanors.
“These cases are complex and they are labor intensive and the investigations take a long time,” Robertson said. “So there’s a lot of hard work that went into this.”
“We want to get the word out that we are serious about prosecuting these cases.”
Permalink | Comments (66) | Post your comment Categories: Environmental cases
October 28, 2008
City of Austin prevails in lawsuit that pitted SOS ordinance and religious land-use laws
The City of Austin’s reliance on the Save Our Springs ordinance in denying a Southwest Austin church’s request to build a parking lot does not violate federal and state religious land use laws, a federal judge found in dismissing the church’s lawsuit against the city last week.
U.S District Judge Sam Sparks ruled that the ordinance does not “substantially burden” Hope in the City Church’s free exercise of religion by prohibiting the parking lot because church leaders have other potential ways to accommodate their growing congregation.
Officials at the non-denominational Christian Church on Monterrey Oaks Boulevard dismiss “many of the same solutions used by countless churches in Austin — such as shuttle buses, car-pooling, street parking, parking at schools, etc. — apparently with the idea that the more alternatives the church rejects, the larger the ‘burden’ on the church is,” Sparks wrote in an opinion.
The Save Our Springs Ordinance, passed in 1992, is designed to limit development in certain areas of the city to ensure that rainwater destined for Barton Creek, the Barton Springs portion of the Edwards Aquifer and ultimately the Barton Springs swimming hole, is filtered through the ground. City officials have said that the church property fronting Williamson Creek, a 12.4-acre tract with two buildings that was originally developed as a warehouse and offices, has exhausted its 15 percent maximum land cover allowed under the SOS ordinance.
After it was denied a permit to expand its 252-space parking lot in 2005 and 2006, the church sued the city in December 2007, charging that the city’s refusal of the parking lot expansion permit burdened the church in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and its state equivalent. The church’s lawsuit also made a grandfather claim against the city, arguing it should have been allowed to build its parking lot under older, less restrictive laws than the Save Our Springs ordinance. Finally, the church claimed it had been denied due process by the city.
Sparks dismissed all the claims in granting the city’s motion for summary judgment in a 20-page order filed October 20. Read the opinion by clicking here.
The federal religious land use law was passed by Congress in 2000 to give religious groups special protection from zoning and other land-use laws and has led to lawsuits by churches against municipalities across the country.
That law says that government may impose a substantial burden on the practice of religion only if it is to further a compelling government interest and then may only do so by the least restrictive means possible.
Because Sparks found that the ordinance did not substantially burden the church, he never considered whether the Save Our Springs ordinance furthers a compelling government interest or whether prohibiting the parking lot construction the least-restrictive way to achieve that interest.
City lawyers say the lawsuit was the first challenge to the Save Our Springs ordinance that cited the religious land use laws.
Permalink | Comments (3) | Post your comment Categories: Environmental cases
