Environmental cases in California often evolve quickly as laws, regulations, and enforcement priorities change. Recent developments involving federal chemical restrictions and state environmental review reforms may affect compliance obligations and litigation exposure for businesses operating in California.
Gallagher Huie + Blum represents clients facing complex environmental claims in California. Here is a survey of the most pressing developments.
The EPA’s TCE and PCE Bans: What Businesses Face Now
Recent EPA actions have increased restrictions and compliance pressure around TCE, PCE, and other chemicals historically used in industrial operations.
These chemicals have been associated in the scientific literature with serious health concerns, which may contribute to litigation and remediation risk. Industries with historical use of these substances should assess their potential exposure with environmental and legal counsel.
For businesses that own or previously owned properties where TCE or PCE was used, the litigation exposure is multifaceted: regulatory enforcement actions under CERCLA or RCRA, civil suits from workers or neighboring property owners claiming exposure-related illness, and contribution claims from other responsible parties. Early engagement with environmental counsel to assess historical site conditions is a sound litigation risk management step that should not be deferred.
CEQA Reform: Streamlined Approvals, Narrowed Litigation
California has recently adopted CEQA-related changes that may affect project approvals, timelines, and litigation strategy. The changes may represent a significant shift in how certain projects are reviewed and challenged, though the precise scope of any particular provision should be confirmed against the enacted text before being relied upon.
Reported key developments include expanded exemptions for qualifying infill housing, health care facilities, childcare centers, broadband infrastructure, and clean water projects; shortened agency review timelines; capped public comment periods; and limits on administrative record scope in litigation. Some proposals also include a statewide VMT mitigation bank to simplify transportation impact compliance. The precise scope, effective dates, and applicability of each provision should be confirmed against the enacted legislative text before being relied upon in any project approval or litigation context.
The practical effect may be to narrow some disputes and alter how CEQA challenges are litigated, though the full impact will depend on how courts interpret and apply the new provisions.
Wildfire Liability: A Growing Category of Environmental Dispute
California’s 2025 wildfire season, and the devastating LA-area fires in early 2025, have intensified focus on the legal liability framework surrounding wildfire-related environmental harm. Claims arising from wildfires increasingly involve a mix of regulatory compliance allegations, toxic tort exposure claims (smoke, ash, and contaminated water), CERCLA-adjacent cleanup cost disputes, and property and business interruption losses.
Wildfire-related building standards continue to evolve, and they may become an important reference point in future construction and negligence claims.
Defense Strategy in Environmental Litigation
Environmental cases present unique challenges for defendants: complex causation questions, multi-party disputes, overlapping regulatory and civil liability, and evidentiary records that can span decades. Effective defense requires not just legal expertise but a working understanding of the underlying science, regulatory history, and industry practices.
Our firm has defended businesses facing environmental liability claims across California, including soil and groundwater contamination disputes, regulatory enforcement defense, and toxic exposure litigation involving industrial chemicals and construction-site hazards.
This article is provided for general informational purposes only and reflects information available as of the publication date. Laws, regulations, agency guidance, and court decisions may change after publication, and those changes may affect the accuracy or completeness of this discussion. This article does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Gallagher Huie + Blum defends businesses, insurance companies, and public-sector clients in complex litigation matters. To discuss your case, contact us at 628-218-6960 or visit www.teamghb.com