Steven Pollack v. DOJ ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                               In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    No. 08-3857
    S TEVEN B. P OLLACK AND B LUE E CO L EGAL C OUNCIL,
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    v.
    U NITED S TATES D EPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
    No. 08-CV-00320—Ronald A. Guzmán, Judge.
    A RGUED M AY 8, 2009—D ECIDED A UGUST 13, 2009
    Before C UDAHY, M ANION, and T INDER, Circuit Judges.
    M ANION, Circuit Judge. The United States govern-
    ment operates a gun range on the shores of Lake Michi-
    gan. The plaintiffs brought suit against several govern-
    mental agencies, alleging that the discharge of bullets
    into the lake violates various environmental laws. The
    district court dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction
    after concluding the plaintiffs lacked constitutional stand-
    ing. The plaintiffs appeal, and we affirm.
    2                                                  No. 08-3857
    I.
    In 1918, the United States Navy and Marine Corps
    began operating a gun range in North Chicago, Illinois.
    Over the years, many discharged lead bullets from the
    range landed in an area of Lake Michigan covering 2,975
    acres. The military used the site until 1976 when the
    Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) leased the range.
    The FBI bought the site in 1987. At some point the
    range was improved by adding an earthen berm
    backstop to prevent bullets from landing in the lake.
    Despite the berm, some bullets escaped into Lake
    Michigan and nearby Foss Park.1
    In addition to this gun range, the government also
    operated a shotgun range on the site. Pellets from the
    shotguns landed in Lake Michigan. However, the gov-
    ernment no longer operates a shotgun range there. Addi-
    tionally, in 2006 the United States Coast Guard con-
    ducted live-fire exercises from boats on Lake Michigan
    using lead bullets and bullets from those exercises
    landed in the water. Lead is a toxic substance and, if
    ingested in sufficient quantities, poses a threat to human
    health.
    Plaintiff Steven Pollack is an attorney who lives in
    Highland Park, Illinois, thirteen miles south of the range.
    1
    After the FBI learned of bullets entering Foss Park, it closed
    the range in April 2008. The FBI improved the range and
    undertook further studies to prevent bullets from entering the
    park. According to a May 11, 2009, letter sent to the court, the
    FBI intends to reopen the range at the earliest possible date.
    No. 08-3857                                               3
    He is the executive director of plaintiff Blue Eco Legal
    Council (“Blue Eco”), an environmental group “with an
    interest in the environmental safety of the Great Lakes
    watershed,” that, among other things, sues private and
    governmental polluters to enforce environmental laws.
    Pollack and Blue Eco brought this suit against the United
    States Department of Justice, the United States
    Coast Guard, the United States Department of the Navy,
    the United States Marine Corps, and the United States
    Department of Defense. The plaintiffs alleged that the
    deterioration of the lead bullets in the water harmed the
    environment, in violation of the Clean Water Act, the
    Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Compre-
    hensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
    Liability Act, and state nuisance law. Pollack and Blue Eco
    sought $55.2 million in damages: $35.2 million to pay a
    private company to remove bullets from the lake bottom
    and $20 million in tort damages for public nuisance to
    fund a “supplemental environmental project” to be ad-
    ministered by environmental groups chosen by the court.
    To establish standing, the plaintiffs relied on affidavits
    submitted by Pollack and another Blue Eco member,
    Darren Miller, who is also a resident of Highland Park.
    Pollack’s affidavit stated that he enjoyed watching birds
    in the Great Lakes watershed, visited public parks along
    the Lake Michigan shoreline, drank water from Lake
    Michigan at his home in Highland Park, and ate fresh-
    water and ocean fish. Miller’s affidavit was nearly
    identical to Pollack’s.
    The defendants moved for dismissal under Federal Rule
    of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the court lacked
    4                                                  No. 08-3857
    subject-matter jurisdiction because Pollack and Blue Eco
    did not possess constitutional standing to assert their
    claims. The district court granted the motion, concluding
    first that Pollack and Miller’s concern over drinking
    water did not provide standing because the drinking
    water in Highland Park was below the environmental
    limit on lead pollution allowed by the city government,
    thereby negating any claim of harm by Pollack and Miller.
    Moreover, the district court held that their concerns
    over birds, fish, and wildlife were too general and did not
    allege any particular or specific harm that had been
    caused by the bullets. The district court concluded that
    because Pollack and Miller did not possess standing, Blue
    Eco did not possess standing on their behalf. Accordingly,
    the district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject-
    matter jurisdiction. The plaintiffs appeal.
    II.
    At issue in this case is Pollack’s and Blue Eco’s con-
    stitutional standing to bring this lawsuit. Under Article III
    of the Constitution, federal courts are limited to hearing
    “Cases” and “Controversies.” This provision limits the
    judicial power “to the traditional role of Anglo-American
    courts, which is to redress or prevent actual or imminently
    threatened injury to persons caused by private or official
    violation of law.” Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 
    129 S. Ct. 1142
    , 1148 (2009). This restriction on the power of the
    courts “ ‘is founded on concern about the proper—and
    properly limited—role of the courts in a democratic soci-
    ety.’ ” 
    Id. (quoting Warth
    v. Seldin, 
    422 U.S. 490
    , 498 (1975)).
    No. 08-3857                                                 5
    Permitting a court to decide a case where the plaintiff
    does not have standing would “allow[] courts to oversee
    legislative and executive action” and thus “significantly
    alter the allocation of power . . . away from a democratic
    form of government.” 
    Id. at 1149
    (quotation omitted).
    In order to show standing,
    a plaintiff must show that he is under threat of suffer-
    ing “injury in fact” that is concrete and particularized;
    the threat must be actual and imminent, not con-
    jectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to
    the challenged action of the defendant; and it must
    be likely that a favorable judicial decision will
    prevent or redress the injury.
    Id.; accord Sierra Club v. Franklin County Power of Ill., LLC,
    
    546 F.3d 918
    , 925 (7th Cir. 2008). An organization has
    standing when any of its members has standing, the
    lawsuit involves interests “germane to the organization’s
    purpose,” and neither the claim asserted nor the relief
    requested requires an individual to participate in the
    lawsuit. Sierra 
    Club, 546 F.3d at 924
    . At issue here is (a)
    whether Pollack has standing; and (b) whether Blue
    Eco has standing through Pollack or Miller. The plain-
    tiffs bear the burden of proving standing. Wisconsin
    Right to Life, Inc. v. Schober, 
    366 F.3d 485
    , 489 (7th Cir.
    2004). We review a district court’s decision on standing
    de novo. 
    Id. Several Supreme
    Court decisions guide our analysis. In
    Summers, several environmental organizations challenged
    a decision of the United States Forest Service to permit
    a salvage sale of 238 acres of timber in Sequoia National
    6                                                  No. 08-3857
    Forest that had been damaged in a fire, without pro-
    viding notice, a period for public comment, or an appeal
    
    process. 129 S. Ct. at 1147-48
    . The Forest Service acted
    according to its own regulations, which permit it to
    exempt from these requirements salvage sales of timber
    located on less than 250 acres. 
    Id. at 1147.
    The environ-
    mental organizations filed suit to challenge the regula-
    tions. 
    Id. at 1149
    . The organizations contended they
    possessed standing based on their members’ “recreational
    interest in the National Forests.” 
    Id. at 1149
    . The gov-
    ernment conceded that one member of the organizations
    had standing to challenge the sale of the 238 acres and
    the parties settled the claim relating to that particular
    salvage sale. 
    Id. The organizations
    still asserted the facial
    challenge to the regulations themselves. The organiza-
    tions submitted an affidavit of Jim Bensman, who
    asserted “that he has visited many National Forests and
    plans to visit several unnamed National Forests in the
    future.” 
    Id. at 1150.
    Summers held that this affidavit was
    insufficient to provide standing, stating that it failed “to
    allege that any particular timber sale or other project
    claimed to be unlawfully subject to the regulations will
    impede a specific and concrete plan of Bensman’s to
    enjoy the National Forests.” 
    Id. Although Bensman’s
    affidavit did reference particular sales in the Allegheny
    National Forest, there was no “firm intention” to visit that
    area. 
    Id. Summers stated
    that “[t]his vague desire to
    return is insufficient to satisfy the requirement of
    imminent injury.” 
    Id. at 1150-51.
      Conversely, the Supreme Court found standing to sue
    in Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services,
    No. 08-3857                                                7
    
    528 U.S. 167
    (2000). In Laidlaw, a wastewater treatment
    plant obtained a state permit to discharge treated water
    containing known pollutants into a river. 
    Id. at 175-76.
    Three environmental organizations sued, basing their
    standing on members affected by the pollution. For
    example, one member stated that she lived two miles from
    the river and that she had picnicked, walked, watched
    birds, and waded in the river before the pollution and
    because of the pollution had since ceased those activities.
    
    Id. at 182.
    Laidlaw held that this and similar statements
    “adequately documented injury in fact.” 
    Id. at 183.
    Laidlaw
    explained that “environmental plaintiffs adequately allege
    injury in fact when they aver that they use the affected area
    and are persons for whom the aesthetic and recreational
    values of the area will be lessened by the challenged
    activity.” 
    Id. On the
    other hand, the Supreme Court held that en-
    vironmental plaintiffs did not have standing in Lujan v.
    National Wildlife Federation, 
    497 U.S. 871
    (1990). In Lujan,
    an environmental organization challenged a govern-
    mental action that allegedly opened public lands for
    mining. 
    Id. at 879.
    The affidavit of one member stated:
    My recreational use and aesthetic enjoyment of federal
    lands, particularly those in the vicinity of South
    Pass-Green Mountain, Wyoming have been and
    continue to be adversely affected in fact by the un-
    lawful actions of the Bureau and the Department. In
    particular, the South Pass-Green Mountain area of
    Wyoming has been opened to the staking of mining
    claims and oil and gas leasing, an action which threat-
    8                                              No. 08-3857
    ens the aesthetic beauty and wildlife habitat poten-
    tial of these lands.
    
    Id. at 886
    (emphasis added). Lujan held that standing was
    not established by “averments which state only that one
    of respondent’s members uses unspecified portions of
    an immense tract of territory, on some portions of
    which mining activity has occurred or probably will
    occur by virtue of the governmental action.” 
    Id. at 889.
      In addition to these Supreme Court cases, Pollack
    directs our attention to our recent decision in Sierra Club
    v. Franklin County Power of Ill., in which we held that
    an environmental organization possessed standing to
    seek an injunction against a power company that had
    obtained a state permit to build a coal power plant in
    southern 
    Illinois. 546 F.3d at 923
    . The environmental
    organization claimed standing based on a member who
    had vacationed every two years since 1987 on a lake
    three miles from the proposed site. 
    Id. at 925.
    The
    member stated that she fished, kayaked, camped, and
    enjoyed the beauty of the lake, and that she would cease
    her trips if the power plant was built. 
    Id. Franklin County
    held that the member had established injury-in-fact
    based on her “likely exposure” to pollutants from the
    coal power plant and the cessation of her vacation trips.
    
    Id. at 925-26.
    Moreover, the claimed injury was fairly
    traceable to the proposed power plant. Although the
    extent of pollution was unclear, we stated:
    We agree that no one knows the ultimate magnitude of
    McKasson’s injury—for example, we don’t know if
    the particulate matter from the plant will blot out the
    No. 08-3857                                                 9
    sky or merely create a thin haze that’s not visible to
    the naked eye, or if the airborne mercury will
    actually spread 45 miles to poison fish that McKasson
    currently consumes from a pond near her home
    (which is another harm she claims she will suffer). We
    do know, however, that the plant will release some
    pollutants and that McKasson believes these
    pollutants will ruin her ability to enjoy Rend Lake
    and taint the surrounding area.
    
    Id. at 927.
    Accordingly, we held that the member and thus
    the plaintiff organization had standing to challenge the
    building of the power plant.
    Pollack also relies heavily on Friends of the Earth, Inc. v.
    Gaston Copper Recycling Corp., 
    204 F.3d 149
    (4th Cir. 2000),
    in which the Fourth Circuit held that two individuals
    had standing to sue a smelting plant that was dumping
    pollutants upstream from them. One individual owned
    a home on the affected water where he fished, swam,
    and boated. 
    Id. at 152-53.
    Another individual operated a
    canoeing company on the polluted river. 
    Id. at 153.
    Based
    on these individuals’ standing, Gaston Copper held that
    their organizations had standing to challenge the release
    of the pollutants. 
    Id. at 160.
      As noted above, in this case Blue Eco bases its standing
    on nearly identical affidavits from two of its members,
    Pollack and Miller. Pollack essentially claims four
    injuries: (1) that he drinks water drawn from Lake Michi-
    gan for Highland Park and “other local municipalities” and
    the shooting of lead bullets pollutes this water; (2) that
    he enjoys “watching wildlife in the Great Lakes water-
    10                                              No. 08-3857
    shed” and that he “is concerned” about the effect on birds
    from the shooting; (3) that he enjoys “the public areas
    along the Illinois portion of Lake Michigan” and he is
    concerned that people in Foss Park and the adjoining
    beach will be hurt, thereby making it “less likely that [he]
    will visit” that park; and (4) that he enjoys “eating fresh-
    water and ocean fish” and he is concerned that bullets fired
    into the water will “enter[] the water column and bio-
    accumulat[e] in the tissues and organs of fish,” thereby
    lessening his desire to eat fish.
    Pollack’s intention to drink water and his fear that his
    water has been contaminated by lead from bullets does not
    give rise to standing. He relies on Franklin County and
    Gaston Copper to argue that his drinking water taken from
    Lake Michigan gives him standing. However, this case
    is materially distinguishable from those because Pollack
    is not downstream from the alleged pollutants and it is
    unclear whether their presence affects him. In Gaston
    Copper, the individuals were downstream from the entry
    point for the pollutants. Here, the ricocheting bullets
    from the Foss Park site and the shotgun range enter Lake
    Michigan at North Chicago, Illinois. Highland Park is
    approximately thirteen miles from North Chicago and
    draws its water from a different section of Lake Michigan
    than North Chicago. It is unclear if any pollution from
    bullets discharged into Lake Michigan will travel the
    thirteen miles from Foss Park to Highland Park. To clarify
    this point, Pollack alleges that sediment in the region
    travels in a counter-clockwise direction, from Foss Park
    to Highland Park, and cites a report of the Environ-
    mental Protection Agency. However, that report does not
    No. 08-3857                                                11
    suggest that such a pattern of movement exists. See U.S.
    Envtl. Prot. Agency & Gov’t of Canada, The Great Lakes:
    An Environmental Atlas and Resource Book, ch. 2, § 4
    (3d ed. 1995), available at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/atlas/
    index.html. Hence, Pollack has not satisfied his burden
    of showing that decaying bullets near North Chicago
    will affect his water supply in Highland Park. Pollack’s
    belief that the bullets affect him is also unlike the air
    pollution at issue in Franklin County, because it is com-
    monly understood that air pollution can travel three
    miles through the air and different wind conditions
    could easily blow the pollution onto land at that distance.
    In contrast, it is not readily apparent that Pollack would
    be affected by the shooting at issue here.
    Taken to its extreme, Pollack’s argument would permit
    any person living on or near Lake Michigan to assert that
    he has been harmed by the bullets, because the lead
    could potentially have been carried to every part of the
    lake. However, Lujan makes clear that when a vast en-
    vironmental area is involved and the pollution affects
    one discrete area while a plaintiff intends to visit a differ-
    ent discrete area, that plaintiff does not have standing.
    Similarly, Pollack drinks treated water from one discrete
    area while the defendants’ activities affect a different
    discrete area. Without some support for the assertion
    that he will be affected by the drift of polluted sediment
    or water, Pollack has not shown that he has standing to
    pursue this lawsuit. Thus, because it is not readily ap-
    parent that Pollack would be affected by the discharge
    of bullets, he does not have standing based on Highland
    Park’s drinking water taken from Lake Michigan.
    12                                              No. 08-3857
    Similarly, Pollack has failed to connect his desire to eat
    fish with the bullets in the water. For one, his desire to
    eat ocean fish is not implicated because Lake Michigan
    is not the ocean. Moreover, Pollack never avers that he
    will eat fish from Lake Michigan itself; instead, he refers
    generally to “freshwater fish.” Hence, Pollack has not
    even claimed that he will eat fish from the affected
    region. This statement is unlike Laidlaw and Franklin
    County, where the individuals actually used the areas
    affected by pollution. Indeed, Pollack’s averment that he
    eats freshwater fish from some unnamed source is less
    suggestive of standing than the statements in Lujan and
    Summers, where the individuals at least visited the
    general region affected by pollution. Accordingly,
    Pollack’s intention to eat freshwater fish from an unspeci-
    fied source does not provide a basis for standing to sue.
    Pollack’s desire to view wildlife and to visit local parks
    may both be considered a claim that he will suffer
    aesthetic harm from the gun range. While the Supreme
    Court clearly recognizes that aesthetic harms may give
    rise to standing, 
    Summers, 129 S. Ct. at 1149
    , Lujan and
    Summers demonstrate that a plaintiff must show that he
    has actual aesthetic interest in the area affected by the
    pollution. When governmental action affects a discrete
    natural area, and a plaintiff merely states that he “uses
    unspecified portions of an immense tract of territory,” such
    averments are insufficient to establish standing. 
    Lujan, 497 U.S. at 889
    . Here, Pollack claims generally that he
    enjoys watching birds in the “Great Lakes watershed” and
    visiting public parks “along the Illinois portion of Lake
    Michigan.” However, he never claims that he visits Foss
    No. 08-3857                                                    13
    Park or watches birds in that area.2 Instead, Pollack claims
    that he visits parks and watches birds within a vast
    territory. This claim is similar to the statements in Lujan
    and Summers, where the individuals never claimed to
    have a specific interest in the actual area affected by
    pollution. 
    Summers, 129 S. Ct. at 1150
    ; 
    Lujan, 497 U.S. at 886
    .
    Pollack fails to demonstrate that his interest in bird-
    watching along an unspecified portion of the Great
    Lakes watershed—a region stretching from Minnesota to
    New York—will be affected by the shooting activities in
    a confined area of North Chicago. Similarly, the section
    of Lake Michigan bordering Illinois stretches for approxi-
    mately 70 miles, and Pollack never specifies where
    along that shoreline he visits. Accordingly, his gen-
    eralized statements that he visits the Illinois shoreline
    of Lake Michigan and watches birds in the Great Lakes
    watershed do not give rise to standing to challenge the
    shooting activities at issue here.
    In short, Pollack’s and Miller’s interests are too general-
    ized to give rise to standing. “At bottom [the plaintiffs]
    appear to seek the simple satisfaction of seeing the [envi-
    ronmental] laws enforced.” Jaramillo v. FCC, 
    162 F.3d 675
    ,
    2
    Although Pollack visited Foss Park after he commenced suit,
    a plaintiff must establish standing at the time suit is filed and
    cannot manufacture standing afterwards. 
    Laidlaw, 528 U.S. at 180
    (stating that the court considers whether a plaintiff had
    standing “at the outset of the litigation”); Perry v. Village of
    Arlington Heights, 
    186 F.3d 826
    , 830 (7th Cir. 1999) (stating that
    “[t]he requirements of standing must be satisfied from the
    outset”).
    14                                                No. 08-3857
    677 (D.C. Cir. 1998). However meritorious their case
    may be, the plaintiffs lacked a constitutional basis to
    bring this lawsuit.
    III.
    Because neither Pollack nor Miller has demonstrated
    that they were concretely affected by the shooting
    activities they challenge, neither individual has standing
    to pursue this case. Accordingly, neither Pollack nor
    Blue Eco has standing. The district court’s dismissal of
    this suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is A FFIRMED.
    C UDAHY, Circuit Judge, concurring. This is without
    question a close case. As the case law laid out by the
    majority suggests, “injury in fact” can be an elusive
    phenomenon. Although in the present case an injury is
    arguably traceable to the deposit of toxic substances in
    potable water, such phenomena appear and disappear
    from one case to the next depending on subtle twists in the
    allegations, turning between the real and the hypothetical.
    Compare generally Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 
    504 U.S. 555
    (1992) (Scalia, J.), and Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 
    129 S. Ct. 1142
    (2009) (Scalia, J.), with Friends of the Earth v.
    Laidlaw, 
    528 U.S. 167
    (2000) (Ginsburg, J.). I write separately
    No. 08-3857                                                  15
    to make the point that the Supreme Court’s case law on
    this subject is both unclear in purpose and extra-
    ordinarily difficult to reconcile. Close cases like this one
    ought to make that point clearly. In particular, where a
    citizen-suit provision potentially sets the bar for
    proving the merits lower than the bar for proving
    standing, it is incumbent upon us to carefully examine
    why the plaintiff before us either has or has not estab-
    lished “injury in fact.” Perhaps more important, this
    plaintiff’s case has procedural flaws not addressed by
    the majority.
    The Clean Water Act includes a citizen-suit provision
    stating that “any citizen may commence a civil action on
    his own behalf against any person . . . who is alleged to
    be in violation of an effluent standard or limitation
    under this chapter.” 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1). An “effluent
    standard or limitation” is defined to include any term or
    condition of an approved permit. See 
    id., § 1365(f).
    Citizens
    are therefore authorized to bring suit against any NPDES
    permit holder who has allegedly violated its permit. See
    Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Gaston Copper Recycling Corp., 
    204 F.3d 149
    , 152 (4th Cir. 2000). The Act also includes a
    statutory standing requirement, which defines “citizen” as
    “a person or persons having an interest which is or may
    be adversely affected.” 33 U.S.C. § 1365(g). Congress has
    explained that this standing requirement confers
    standing to its constitutional limits. See Gaston 
    Copper, 204 F.3d at 152
    (citation omitted). Even so, the broad
    nature of the citizen-suit provision means that in many
    cases, like this one, the real test will be proof of standing,
    not of the merits.
    16                                                No. 08-3857
    To have standing under the “case or controversy”
    requirement of Article III of the Constitution, an
    individual must show an injury in fact that is both
    concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not
    conjectural or hypothetical; that the injury is traceable to
    the challenged action; and that it is redressable. Defenders
    of 
    Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 560
    –61; Sierra Club v. Franklin County
    Power of Illinois, LLC, 
    546 F.3d 918
    , 925 (7th Cir. 2008)
    (Franklin County Power). “Because these elements ‘are not
    mere pleading requirements but rather an indispensable
    part of the . . . case, each element must be supported . . .
    with the manner and degree of evidence required at the
    successive stages of the litigation.’ ” Franklin County
    
    Power, 546 F.3d at 925
    (quoting Defenders of 
    Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 561
    ).
    Though the test for showing injury in fact is easy enough
    to state, it is almost hopelessly confusing to apply. We are
    told that “environmental plaintiffs adequately allege
    injury in fact when they aver that they use the affected area
    and are persons ‘for whom the aesthetic and recreational
    values of the area will be lessened’ by the challenged
    activity.” 
    Laidlaw, 528 U.S. at 183
    (quoting Sierra Club v.
    Morton, 
    405 U.S. 727
    , 735 (1972)). “Of course, the desire
    to use or observe an animal species, even for purely
    esthetic purposes, is undeniably a cognizable interest
    for purposes of standing.” Defenders of 
    Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 562
    –63 (citing 
    Morton, 405 U.S. at 734
    ). But the injury
    in fact test requires more than an injury to a cognizable
    interest. It requires that the plaintiff be “among the in-
    jured.” 
    Id. Nevertheless, the
    “ ‘injury-in-fact necessary for
    standing need not be large, an identifiable trifle will
    No. 08-3857                                                  17
    suffice.’ ” Franklin County 
    Power, 546 F.3d at 925
    (quoting
    LaFleur v. Whitman, 
    300 F.3d 256
    , 270 (2d Cir. 2002))
    (further internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
    These statements raise more questions than they answer.
    What is the “affected area”? How do we determine
    whether someone’s aesthetic or recreational values will
    be “lessened” other than by their say-so? What counts as
    a “trifle” sufficient to place someone “among the injured”?
    This guidance is particularly difficult to follow where
    the plaintiff is on the bubble: Pollack does not live in
    North Chicago, where the drinking water is concededly
    drawn from the “affected area” of the lake, but he doesn’t
    live in East Chicago 1 either, or even as far as Evanston.2 Is
    Highland Park, thirteen miles away, close enough to be
    “among the injured”?
    The majority recites the relevant case law without really
    engaging with it in a way that gives an answer to this
    question. The majority quotes Franklin County Power at
    length, for instance, including the court’s explanation
    that, although “we don’t know if the particulate matter
    from the plant will blot out the sky or merely create a
    thin haze that’s not visible to the naked eye, . . . . [w]e do
    know . . . that the plant will release some pollutants and
    that McKasson believes these pollutants will ruin her
    ability to enjoy Rend Lake and taint the surrounding area.”
    Franklin County 
    Power, 546 F.3d at 927
    . The same can be
    1
    East Chicago, Indiana is 60 miles south of the gun range by
    car.
    2
    Evanston, Illinois is 26 miles south of the gun range.
    18                                              No. 08-3857
    said here—we know that the gun range has discharged
    lead in the lake, and we know that Pollack believes that
    lead in the lake will ruin his ability to enjoy drinking his
    water, eating fish and watching waterfowl in the Great
    Lakes watershed. In fact, this case is arguably an easier
    case for standing than Franklin County Power. There, the
    power plant in question had yet to be built—the injury
    was, almost by definition, hypothetical. Here, not only
    has the firing range admitted to discharging lead into the
    lake, it has admitted to doing so without a permit over
    the course of decades. And whatever else can be said
    about Pollack’s injury, it is beyond cavil that lead is a
    toxic substance that even in very small amounts causes
    harm when ingested by the human body. The majority
    appears to depart from Franklin County Power’s capacious
    standard, and to settle on a narrower, more demanding
    requirement.
    This is particularly unfortunate here, where the plain-
    tiffs’ case is flawed for procedural reasons that may not
    require us to revisit Franklin County Power’s recent pro-
    nouncements on standing. The plaintiffs arguably failed to
    meet their burden of proof. Pollack correctly argues that he
    need not show environmental degradation to establish
    standing for a permit violation under the Clean Water Act.
    See Gaston 
    Copper, 204 F.3d at 159
    . “[T]he Supreme Court
    does not require such proof.” 
    Id. Gaston Copper
    explained
    that in Laidlaw, the Court found that “several citizen
    affidavits attesting to reduced use of a waterway out of
    reasonable fear and concern of pollution ‘adequately
    documented injury in fact.’ ” 
    Id. (quoting Laidlaw,
    528 U.S.
    No. 08-3857                                                   19
    at 183). “The Court required no evidence of actual harm to
    the waterway . . .” 
    Id. Nevertheless, because
    the defendants
    here have challenged the factual basis for the plaintiffs’
    standing to sue, Pollack was required to present some
    competent proof of his injuries, and his proof is subject to
    refutation by the defendants.
    On a factual challenge to a plaintiff’s standing, “ ‘the
    district court may properly look beyond the jurisdictional
    allegations of the complaint and view whatever evidence
    has been submitted on the issue to determine whether
    in fact subject matter jurisdiction exists.’ ” Apex Digital, Inc.
    v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 
    572 F.3d 440
    , at *3 (7th Cir. 2009)
    (quoting Evers v. Astrue, 
    536 F.3d 651
    , 656–57 (7th Cir.
    2008)) (further internal quotation marks and citations
    omitted). Indeed, “ ‘the trial court is free to weigh the
    evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of its power
    to hear the case.’ ” 
    Id. (quoting Mortenson
    v. First Fed. Sav.
    & Loan Ass’n, 
    549 F.2d 884
    , 891 (3d Cir. 1977)). Again, it is
    undisputed that the defendants regularly discharged
    lead bullets into Lake Michigan without a permit and
    that lead is a toxic chemical that can affect drinking water.
    The narrow question is whether Pollack had a “reasonable
    fear” that his drinking water was unsafe.
    Pollack presented evidence of the “dynamic nature” of
    the waters in Lake Michigan, suggesting that the lead in
    the water next to North Chicago can migrate thirteen
    miles south to Highland Park. The majority brushes this
    evidence aside, stating that the EPA report Pollack offered
    in support does not say what he said it says. The
    majority asserts that “it is commonly understood that air
    20                                                 No. 08-3857
    pollution can travel three miles through the air . . . . [but]
    it is not readily apparent that Pollack would be affected
    by the shooting at issue here.” Supra at 11. The majority
    goes outside the record and cites no authority for its
    assertion regarding what is commonly understood about
    air pollution. Even accepting this assertion, it is also
    commonly understood (at least among boaters in Lake
    Michigan) that the currents at the foot of the lake, as
    distinguished from the larger body of water generally, do
    travel counter-clockwise at least part of the year, and
    therefore the plaintiffs’ logic does not implicate the
    entire lake or every point on its shoreline. It also misses
    the mark to take Pollack’s argument “to its extreme” and
    to posit whether someone on the other side of Lake Michi-
    gan would have standing here—Pollack is the plaintiff
    before us, and the facts and circumstances of his case,
    namely his distance thirteen miles from the source of
    pollution, are what we must address. Setting all of that
    aside, the district court assumed that Pollack’s assertions
    regarding the lake’s currents were true. It is not for us
    to find otherwise.3
    More to the point is the fact that the defendants pre-
    sented their own evidence tending to rebut what little
    3
    The majority also focuses on the fact that the lead level in
    Highland Park’s water is not high enough to violate federal
    standards. This may be beside the point, given that Pollack
    was not required to show any environmental degradation to
    satisfy the requirements of standing. See Gaston 
    Copper, 204 F.3d at 160
    . Lead is toxic in any amount, and the administrative
    limit cited by the majority is a practical rather than an
    ideal ceiling.
    No. 08-3857                                             21
    evidence that Pollack did put forth. The defendants
    showed not only that Highland Park (unlike North Chi-
    cago) draws its drinking water from intakes outside
    the roughly 3,000-acre area presumably affected by the
    firing range, but also that Highland Park and North
    Chicago have attributed the small amount of lead in
    their drinking water to corrosive pipes, not to the firing
    range at issue here. In this respect, then, our case is
    unlike Gaston Copper, where there was competent evi-
    dence that the pollutants in question would travel more
    than 16 miles downstream, passing through the plain-
    tiff’s private lake on the way. Here, Pollack’s limited
    evidence that lead has traveled or will travel south to
    Highland Park and enter the plaintiff’s drinking water
    was outweighed in the view of the district court by the
    defendants’ evidence of an alternative cause for lead in
    the water—the corrosive pipes just mentioned. The
    district court properly exercised its fact-finding role and
    concluded that the defendants had rebutted Pollack’s
    evidence of standing. See Apex Digital, Inc., 
    572 F.3d 440
    ,
    at *3. This is what really seems to tip the balance in Pol-
    lack’s case.
    Perhaps what we can say here, then, is that the farther
    the plaintiff is from the “area of injury,” the more
    evidence he generally must put forth to prove that he is
    “among the injured.” Perhaps, however, this case
    resolves as it does merely because of the procedural
    turns it took. If the defendants had made a facial
    challenge rather than a factual challenge to Pollack’s
    standing, or if Pollack had put forth more evidence of
    lead’s likelihood of traveling thirteen miles south from
    North Chicago, then the complaint may have withstood
    22                                              No. 08-3857
    the motion to dismiss. The caselaw is so unclear, how-
    ever, that we cannot say more than that.
    Pollack’s claims regarding aesthetic and recreational
    injuries are less persuasive and the majority addresses
    them adequately. Pollack does not allege that he uses the
    affected area. See 
    Laidlaw, 528 U.S. at 183
    (quoting 
    Morton, 405 U.S. at 735
    ). Instead, he says he enjoys watching the
    wildlife “in the Great Lakes watershed,” and that he uses
    public areas “along the Illinois portion of Lake Michigan,”
    and that he enjoys “eating freshwater and ocean fish.”
    These interests are far broader than an interest in the area
    affected by the firing range, however that area might be
    defined. As the district court pointed out, and the
    majority reprises, the Illinois shoreline Pollack claims to
    use is 61 miles long, and the Great Lakes watershed
    encompasses all five of the Great Lakes and is 750 miles
    wide. Pollack never alleges that he used the beach at Foss
    Park, adjacent to the range, or any beach near there.
    Pollack’s averments are thus barely—but only barely—
    insufficient to establish injury in fact, and unfortunately
    may impair the salutary significance of Franklin County
    Power.
    For these reasons, with some reluctance, I concur.
    8-13-09