## Facts

- Sierra Club sued several oil-and-gas operators under RCRA’s citizen-suit provision, alleging that deep-well injection of oil-and-gas wastewater caused or contributed to increased earthquakes in Oklahoma and southern Kansas.
- The complaint alleged that increased wastewater disposal volumes correlated with increased seismicity and created an “imminent and substantial endangerment” to health and the environment.
- Sierra Club sought injunctive relief requiring reduced wastewater injection, reinforcement of vulnerable structures, and creation of an independent earthquake monitoring and prediction center.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Oklahoma’s regulator, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC), was already addressing induced seismicity through a comprehensive regulatory program and that federal adjudication would improperly interfere.
- The OCC’s actions included well-monitoring requirements, a “traffic light” management approach, and directives reducing disposal volumes and limiting injection activity in areas associated with seismic events.
- Claims against one defendant were stayed because of bankruptcy proceedings; the dismissal ruling addressed the remaining defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether the court should decline to exercise jurisdiction under Burford abstention because Oklahoma’s OCC was administering a comprehensive and evolving regulatory regime addressing induced seismicity from wastewater injection.
2. Whether, alternatively, the court should defer under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction because the dispute depended on technical questions within the OCC’s special competence.

## Decision

- The court dismissed the action without prejudice as to Chesapeake Operating, Devon Energy Production, and New Dominion.
- The court applied Burford abstention, concluding that the OCC’s comprehensive regulatory framework and ongoing response to induced seismicity would likely be disrupted by federal injunctive relief.
- In the alternative, the court concluded that primary jurisdiction supported dismissal because the case involved technical questions of geology, seismology, and wastewater-injection operations better addressed through the OCC’s administrative processes.
- The court did not reach the merits of Sierra Club’s RCRA “imminent and substantial endangerment” allegations or causation theories.
- The action against SandRidge was stayed due to bankruptcy, not dismissed on abstention grounds.

## Legal Principles

- Burford abstention may warrant dismissal when federal adjudication would interfere with a state’s coherent policy administered through a complex administrative system addressing matters of substantial local concern.
- Abstention is supported where state administrative action is active and responsive, the federal relief sought substantially overlaps with state regulatory measures, and state-court review of agency action is available.
- Under primary jurisdiction, courts may defer when resolution depends on technical and policy-laden determinations committed to an agency with specialized competence and an ongoing regulatory role.
- A dismissal grounded in abstention or primary jurisdiction can be without prejudice and does not resolve statutory merits questions such as endangerment, causation, or the appropriateness of injunctive relief.

## Conclusion

The court declined to proceed with a RCRA citizen suit challenging wastewater injection allegedly linked to earthquakes, holding that Oklahoma’s OCC was already managing the technical and regulatory issues through an extensive, ongoing program and that federal court intervention risked inconsistent mandates and disruption of state policy.


Sierra Club v. Chesapeake Operating, L.L.C., 248 F. Supp. 3d 1194 (W.D. Okla. 2017)