Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Citizen Conservation Easement Lawsuit (“Declaratory Judgment Action”) Against Lower Saucon Township and the Bethlehem Landfill Company
1. What is the central issue of the lawsuit? The core of the lawsuit revolves around Lower Saucon Township’s decision in August 2023 to rescind conservation and woodland easements on over 200 acres of land now owned by Bethlehem Landfill Company (BLC) without obtaining court approval. The plaintiffs and intervenors argue that this action unlawfully removes protections on the land and could facilitate the expansion of the Bethlehem Landfill, impacting the environment, public health, and scenic views.
2. Who are the primary parties involved in this legal action? The plaintiffs are a group of residents living near the landfill. The defendants are Lower Saucon Township, Bethlehem Landfill Company, and IESI PA Bethlehem Landfill Corporation. Intervenors in the case include St. Luke’s Hospital – Anderson Campus, Bethlehem Township, and the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor, Inc. (D&L).
3. What were the original purposes of the conservation and woodland easements? The easements, recorded in 1994, were established by the City of Bethlehem (BLC’s predecessor) to protect the land’s natural and scenic values, ensure it served as a buffer to landfill activities in perpetuity, and specifically to maintain the Delaware and Lehigh Canal National Heritage Corridor and State Heritage Park. They restricted activities like landfill expansion and mining to preserve the land’s original character and scenic nature.
4. What was Bethlehem Landfill Company’s (BLC) main argument in trying to dismiss the lawsuit? BLC filed preliminary objections, attempting to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. It argued that: the plaintiffs and intervenors lacked legal standing (the right to sue) and/or capacity to bring the claims; that the court lacked jurisdiction over certain aspects of the complaint; and that the Amended Complaint was legally and factually insufficient.
5. How did the Court rule on BLC’s attempt to dismiss the lawsuit, and what were the key reasons for this decision? Judge Kassis of the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas rejected BLC’s attempt to dismiss the lawsuit, allowing the case to move forward. The Court found that the local residents and the intervenors (St. Luke’s Hospital, Bethlehem Township, and D&L) had legal standing based on several factors:
- Aggrieved Parties: Nearby residents showed a clear, direct, and immediate impact from the landfill, including increased odors, scavenger birds, and reduced enjoyment of their properties.
- Taxpayer Standing: Both residents and St. Luke’s Hospital, as taxpayers in Lower Saucon Township, were entitled to challenge government decisions about the easements.
- Third-Party Beneficiaries: The Court found it reasonable to view St. Luke’s, Bethlehem Township, and D&L as third-party beneficiaries of the easements under both the Conservation
- and Preservation Easements Act (CPEA) and contract law, since the easements specifically referenced D&L and were meant to benefit it.
- Political Subdivision Standing: Bethlehem Township, as a political subdivision, has standing to protect the environment and quality of life within its borders on behalf of its residents.
- Public Use and Trust: The Court acknowledged arguments that the easements had been dedicated for public use, requiring court approval for abandonment under the Donated and Dedicated Property Act (DDPA) and the Environmental Rights Amendment of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which protects public natural resources.
6. What specific concerns did the Intervenors (St. Luke’s Hospital and D&L) raise that contributed to the Court’s decision on standing? St. Luke’s Hospital expressed concerns about the potential impact of landfill expansion on its $750 million health care campus, patient health (odors) and safety (increased large landfill scavenger birds interfering with medical helicopter flights). The D&L highlighted the potential compromise to the trail’s scenic quality and ecological integrity, which attracts over a million visitors annually, and its financial interest in maintaining the trail’s integrity.
7. What is the significance of the Court referencing the Conservation and Preservation Easements Act (CPEA) and the Environmental Rights Amendment of the Pennsylvania Constitution in its ruling? The Court’s reference to the CPEA reinforces the legal standing of non-profit entities like St. Luke’s and D&L to enforce conservation easements as third-party beneficiaries. The mention of the Environmental Rights Amendment underscores the public interest in preserving natural, scenic, and esthetic values and the Commonwealth’s (and by extension, local government’s) role as trustee of these resources, suggesting that the unilateral rescission of the easements could be a breach of this public trust.
8. What is the current status of the lawsuit, and what does this ruling mean for the future of the conservation easements? As of the April 16, 2025 Court order, BLC’s attempt to dismiss the lawsuit was unsuccessful. Judge Kassis’s ruling allows the lawsuit to proceed, meaning the Court will further consider the merits of the plaintiffs’ and intervenors’ claims regarding the legality of the easement termination and the potential landfill expansion. This ruling is a significant victory for those seeking to preserve the conservation easements and suggests that the easements should remain in place and prevent landfill expansion on that land. However, the final outcome will depend on further legal proceedings.