65-3012.
Action to protect health or environment; judicial review procedures.
(a) Upon receipt of evidence that emissions from an air pollution source or combination of air pollution sources presents: (1) An imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare or to the environment; or (2) for an imminent or actual violation of this act, any rules and regulations adopted under this act, any orders issued under this act or any permit conditions required by this act, the secretary may issue a temporary order not to exceed seven days in duration, directing the owner or operator, or both, to take such steps as necessary to prevent the act or eliminate the practice.
(b) Upon issuance of the temporary order, the secretary may commence an action in the district court to enjoin acts or practices specified in subsection (a) or request the attorney general or appropriate county or district attorney to commence an action to enjoin those acts or practices.
(c) The secretary may bring suit in any court of competent jurisdiction to immediately restrain the acts or practices specified in subsection (a). An action for injunction under this subsection shall have precedence over other cases in respect to order of trial.
(d) The owner or operator, or both, aggrieved by an order of the secretary issued pursuant to this section shall be immediately entitled to judicial review of such agency action by filing a petition for judicial review in district court. The aggrieved party shall not be required to exhaust administrative remedies. A petition for review under this subsection shall have precedence over other cases in respect to order of trial.
History:
L. 1967, ch. 347, § 12; L. 1970, ch. 261, § 12; L. 1974, ch. 352, § 144; L. 1993, ch. 13, § 12; L. 2009, ch. 141, § 25; May 28.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2013–2023 · leading case:
Sierra Club v. Moser, 310 P.3d 360 (Kan. 2013).
Sierra Club v. Moser, 310 P.3d 360 (Kan. 2013).
· cites it 2× “Nevertheless, the Secretary declared carbon dioxide emissions an imminent and substantial hazard to public health and the environment and invoiced the Secretary’s then-existing power under K.S.A. 65-3012 to “take such action as may be necessary to protect the health of persons…”
United States v. Coffeyville Resources Refining (D. Kan. 2023).
· cites it 13× “Defendant Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC opposes the motion and argues that the proposed amendment is futile because the State is not entitled to injunctive relief under K.S.A. § 65-3012 in federal court. (See generally Doc.”
United States v. Coffeyville Resources Refining (D. Kan. 2023).
· cites it 13× “Defendant did not oppose amendment with one exception: the State’s request to add claims for injunctive relief under K.S.A. § 65-3012 in Counts 1, 2, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16 of the SASC.”
United States v. Coffeyville Resources Refining (D. Kan. 2022).
“Nothing in this subsection (c) or in any permit shall alter or affect: (1) The provisions of section 303 of the federal clean air act (emergency orders), including the authority of the administrator of the United States environmental protection agency under that section; (2) the…”
— K.S.A. § 65-3012(a) — 1 case
United States v. Coffeyville Resources Refining (D. Kan. 2023).
“Defendant did not oppose amendment with one exception: the State’s request to add claims for injunctive relief under K.S.A. § 65-3012 in Counts 1, 2, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16 of the SASC.”
— K.S.A. § 65-3012(c) — 2 cases
United States v. Coffeyville Resources Refining (D. Kan. 2023).
“Defendant did not oppose amendment with one exception: the State’s request to add claims for injunctive relief under K.S.A. § 65-3012 in Counts 1, 2, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16 of the SASC.”
United States v. Coffeyville Resources Refining (D. Kan. 2023).
“Defendant Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC opposes the motion and argues that the proposed amendment is futile because the State is not entitled to injunctive relief under K.S.A. § 65-3012 in federal court. (See generally Doc.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.