Tangible Injury Requirement for Standing in Environmental Declaratory Actions

Introduction

Protect Our Water Jackson Hole (POWJH), a Wyoming nonprofit dedicated to preserving Fish Creek’s water quality, challenged the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) issuance of a septic‐system permit to Basecamp Teton WY SPV LLC, a “glamping” operator on state land in Teton County. POWJH sought a declaratory judgment that DEQ exceeded its authority by issuing the permit—alleging that DEQ had delegated permitting authority for small wastewater systems within Teton County to the County—and an injunction halting the permit’s operation pending resolution of the case. DEQ and Basecamp moved to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that POWJH lacked standing. The district court granted the motions, and the Wyoming Supreme Court (2025 WY 36) affirmed, holding that POWJH failed to plead a “tangible interest which has been harmed” sufficient to meet the first element of the four‐part standing test under Brimmer v. Thomson.

Summary of the Judgment

Chief Justice Fox, writing for a unanimous court, affirmed the district court’s dismissal under W.R.C.P. 12(b)(6). The opinion focused on the foundational requirement that a plaintiff in a declaratory judgment action be an “interested person” within Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-37-103—i.e., possess an existing and genuine, as opposed to theoretical, right or interest. Applying the four‐part Brimmer test, the Court concluded that POWJH did not satisfy the threshold element of demonstrating a tangible interest harmed by DEQ’s permit issuance:

POWJH was not itself regulated by the challenged permit, but instead alleged only that its prior expenditures on water‐quality monitoring, stakeholder involvement and a county water‐quality master plan would be undermined by potential discharges from Basecamp’s septic system.
Those allegations were deemed conclusory and insufficiently connected to any actual injury or increased cost of POWJH’s activities. POWJH did not own property at Fish Creek, nor did it identify members or specific programs directly affected by the permit.
Because POWJH failed to plead a redressable, particularized harm—distinguishable from that of any member of the public—the Court affirmed dismissal for lack of standing.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court’s analysis relied on both Wyoming and federal standing precedents:

Brimmer v. Thomson (1974): Established the four‐part test for justiciable controversies in declaratory actions, beginning with the requirement of an existing, genuine interest.
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992): Held that when a plaintiff challenges government regulation of a third party, it must plead more than a generalized grievance—specifically, a concrete injury and its redressability. The Wyoming Court adopted Lujan’s distinction between regulated parties (who easily show injury) and third‐party challengers.
Allred v. Bebout (2018): Reinforced that plaintiffs must allege a “tangible interest which has been harmed,” rejecting conclusory assertions of generalized liberty interests.
The Tavern, LLC v. Town of Alpine (2017) and Northern Laramie Range Foundation (2012): Demonstrated that landowners directly regulated by or adjacent to a project can establish standing through property interests and a causal connection to the challenged action, whereas nonprofits without property ties must show organizational injury through their members or concrete plans.

Legal Reasoning

The Court began with the first element of the Brimmer test—whether POWJH had a “genuine” interest—because it is the gateway to any declaratory relief. POWJH’s pleaded interest consisted of prior expenditures on water‐quality monitoring in Fish Creek, stakeholder outreach and contributions to a county water‐quality master plan. The Court observed that:

None of these expenditures guaranteed measurable water‐quality improvements; they remained abstract “investments” rather than identifiable benefits actually impaired by the septic permit.
POWJH did not allege ownership of property along Fish Creek or formal membership of individuals whose recreational or aesthetic use of the Creek would be directly harmed.
The complaint lacked specificity on how the permit’s authorized discharges would increase POWJH’s costs or frustrate its programmatic efforts—i.e., there was no clear causation or redressability.

Under these circumstances, accepting all pleaded facts as true, the Court concluded that POWJH’s asserted injury was indistinguishable from that of any concerned citizen of Teton County. Without a distinct, concrete harm, POWJH could not demonstrate the “tangible interest” required for standing. Having failed this threshold, the Court did not consider the remaining three Brimmer elements or other dispositive arguments raised by DEQ and Basecamp.

Impact

This decision reaffirms and clarifies Wyoming’s robust standing requirements for declaratory‐judgment actions, particularly in the environmental context. Key takeaways include:

Nonprofit organizations challenging permits for third parties must show more than prior programmatic expenditures—they must plead a concrete, particularized injury to their own interests or those of identified members.
Claims of generalized harm to water quality or reliance on public‐interest missions will not substitute for proof of a tangible, redressable injury.
Future environmental litigants should carefully document how specific regulatory decisions will separately harm their monitoring programs, property rights or membership interests—and how a favorable judgment would remedy that harm.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Declaratory Judgment (Wyo. Stat. § 1-37-103): A court determination of the rights or status of parties under a contract, statute, or other legal instrument before any coercive relief is sought.
Standing: A plaintiff’s legal right to bring a lawsuit, grounded in a personal stake or injury that the court can redress. Wyoming follows a four‐part test from Brimmer.
First Brimmer Element (“Genuine Interest”): Requires a concrete, existing right or interest; abstract policy concerns or generalized grievances are insufficient.
Redressability: A plaintiff must show that a favorable judgment will remedy the alleged injury.

Conclusion

Protect Our Water Jackson Hole v. DEQ underscores that Wyoming courts will enforce a strict standard for standing in declaratory judgments, especially when a plaintiff seeks to challenge agency action taken in favor of a third party. Organizations must move beyond broad statements of purpose and document a distinct, tangible harm to their own legal interests or those of identifiable members. By affirming dismissal for lack of standing, the Supreme Court preserved the integrity of justiciable controversy doctrine and signaled that environmental advocacy must be grounded in precise allegations of injury and redress.