## Facts

- Residents living near two adjacent Dallas sites—an 85-acre “Deepwood” lot and an adjoining 40-acre “South Loop 12” lot—filed consolidated RCRA citizen suits seeking injunctive relief.
- Both properties were zoned residential but had been used for decades for sand and gravel mining and illegal dumping.
- The sites contained substantial uncovered solid waste, including household refuse, tires, demolition debris, containers labeled sulfuric and nitric acid, drums, syringes, and abandoned vehicles.
- The dumps bordered residential neighborhoods and a tributary to the Trinity River and were partially within the Trinity River flood plain, raising exposure and migration risks during flooding.
- Residents described health and safety impacts, including increased rats and snakes and easy child access to the dumping areas.
- Texas and the City had long been aware of open dumping at the sites.
- The City did not directly operate the dumps but contracted with haulers who illegally disposed of City-generated waste at Deepwood, continued using those contractors despite knowledge of illegal dumping, and issued/maintained permits allowing continued operations at Deepwood.
- Plaintiffs also sued the TNRCC Executive Director, alleging failure to classify and regulate the sites as open dumps and to require closure/corrective measures.

## Issues

1. Whether the City “contributed to” the handling, transportation, or disposal of solid waste that may present an imminent and substantial endangerment, making it liable under RCRA § 7002(a)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B).
2. Whether the TNRCC Executive Director violated enforceable RCRA duties or standards such that injunctive relief was available against him under § 6972(a)(1)(A) or § 6972(a)(1)(B).

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment after bench trial.
- The court held the City was a “person” under RCRA and “contributed to” disposal at an open dump through contracting practices, knowledge, continued engagement of violative haulers, and permitting/inactivity, supporting injunctive relief under § 6972(a)(1)(B).
- The court upheld findings that the dumps presented an imminent and substantial endangerment based on waste types, proximity to residences and waterways, flood-plain location, and evidence of exposure risks.
- The court affirmed judgment for the state official, concluding plaintiffs did not show a violation of a specific RCRA provision or regulation or an authorized basis for injunctive relief against him.

## Legal Principles

- “Solid waste” under RCRA is defined broadly and is not limited to traditional household trash.
- “Contributed to” in § 6972(a)(1)(B) is not confined to physically dumping waste; it can include causative or enabling conduct, such as knowingly continuing to use unsupervised contractors who illegally dump municipal waste and maintaining permitting practices that allow illegal dumping to persist.
- “Imminent” endangerment does not require an immediate emergency; a present, non-speculative risk to health or the environment satisfies the standard.
- RCRA citizen-suit injunctions may compel equitable abatement measures when a defendant’s contribution to waste disposal creates an imminent and substantial endangerment.
- Claims against state environmental officials require proof of violation of a specific, enforceable requirement; general programmatic responsibilities under RCRA do not automatically create site-specific, judicially enforceable duties.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit upheld an injunction requiring Dallas to abate hazardous open-dump conditions because the City contributed to illegal disposal through knowing contracting and permitting practices, while rejecting relief against the state regulator for lack of a shown violation of a specific, enforceable RCRA duty.


Cox v. City of Dallas, 256 F.3d 281 (5th Cir. 2001)