Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Tribe (3)
- Army Corps of Engineers (2)
- Clean Water Act (2)
- EPA (2)
- Permit (2)
-
- Permitting (2)
- Supreme Court (2)
- WOTUS (2)
- Abrogation (1)
- Adjudicatory jurisdiction (1)
- Administrative Law (1)
- Alaska (1)
- Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (1)
- And welfare of a tribe (1)
- Annual fee (1)
- Appalachian Trail (1)
- Atlantic Coast Pipeline (1)
- BLM (1)
- Bennett v. Spear (1)
- Bureau of Land Management (1)
- CERCLA (1)
- CWA (1)
- California (1)
- Canons of construction (1)
- Catastrophic (1)
- Clean-up permit (1)
- Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liabilities Act (1)
- Consent (1)
- Consent decree (1)
- Containment program (1)
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
U.S. Forest Service V. Cowpasture River Preservation Ass'n., Taylor A. Simpson
U.S. Forest Service V. Cowpasture River Preservation Ass'n., Taylor A. Simpson
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States Forest Service and Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, a company who planned to construct a natural gas pipeline under a section of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail within the George Washington National Forest. The legal battle sought to clarify whether the United States Forest Service had the authority to grant the pipeline builder a right-of-way across the Appalachian Trail. The Court ruled that the National Park Service holds an easement for administering the Appalachian Trail, but the land over which the trail crosses remains under the jurisdiction of the …
Fmc Corp. V. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Seth T. Bonilla
Fmc Corp. V. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Seth T. Bonilla
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In 1998, FMC Corporation agreed to submit to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ permitting processes, including the payment of fees, for clean-up work required as part of consent decree negotiations with the Environmental Protection Agency. Then, in 2002, FMC refused to pay the Tribes under a permitting agreement entered into by both parties, even though the company continued to store hazardous waste on land within the Shoshone-Bannock Fort Hall Reservation in Idaho. FMC challenged the Tribes’ authority to enforce the $1.5 million permitting fees first in tribal court and later challenged the Tribes’ authority to exercise civil regulatory and adjudicatory jurisdiction over …
Sturgeon V. Frost, Layne L. Ryerson
Sturgeon V. Frost, Layne L. Ryerson
Public Land & Resources Law Review
After two trips to the United States Supreme Court, an Alaskan moose hunter secured motorized access to his hunting ground while establishing Alaska as the exception, rather than the rule, regarding federal land management. In a much-anticipated holding, the Court determined that the surface waters of the Nation River within the Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve qualify as “private” land and therefore fall beyond the control of the National Park Service. The decision stripped the Park Service of normal regulatory authority over navigable waters within Alaska’s national parks, prompting a concurrence urging Congress to clarify resulting ambiguities.
Herrera V. Wyoming, Dylan M. Jaicks
Herrera V. Wyoming, Dylan M. Jaicks
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Stemming from the conviction of a Crow tribal member for illegal hunting, Herrera v. Wyoming reignited long-running questions concerning treaty abrogation and precedent. In an effort to clarify conflicting case law, the Supreme Court upheld the Crow Tribe’s reserved hunting rights and rejected the argument that statehood extinguished such rights.
National Association Of Manufacturers V. Department Of Defense, Summer L. Carmack
National Association Of Manufacturers V. Department Of Defense, Summer L. Carmack
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In an attempt to provide consistency to the interpretation and application of the statutory phrase “waters of the United States,” as used in the Clean Water Act, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers together passed the WOTUS Rule. Unfortunately, the Rule has created more confusion than clarity, resulting in a number of lawsuits challenging substantive portions of the Rule’s language. National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense did not address those substantive challenges, but instead determined whether those claims challenging the Rule must be filed in federal district courts or federal courts of appeals. In its decision, the …
Lewis V. Clarke, Summer L. Carmack
Lewis V. Clarke, Summer L. Carmack
Public Land & Resources Law Review
One manner in which Indian tribes exercise their inherent sovereignty is by asserting sovereign immunity. In Lewis v. Clarke, the Court decided that the sovereign immunity extended to instrumentalities of tribes did not further extend to tribal employees acting within the scope of their employment. The Court acknowledged the concerns of the lower court, namely, the possibility of setting a precedent allowing future plaintiffs to sidestep a tribe’s sovereign immunity by suing a tribal employee in his individual capacity. However, the Supreme Court ultimately felt that the immunity of tribal employees should not exceed the immunity extended to state …
Hawkes Co. V. United States Army Corps Of Engineers, Sarah M. Danno
Hawkes Co. V. United States Army Corps Of Engineers, Sarah M. Danno
Public Land & Resources Law Review
A peat mining company will not be required to obtain a permit under the Clean Water Act to discharge dredged and fill material into wetlands. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota held that the United States Army Corps of Engineers fell short in its attempts to establish jurisdiction over the wetlands by twice failing to show a significant nexus existed between the wetlands and navigable waters. Further, the district court enjoined the Corps from asserting jurisdiction a third time because it would force the mining company through a “never ending loop” of administrative law.
Pit River Tribe V. Bureau Of Land Management, 793 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2015), Kathryn S. Ore
Pit River Tribe V. Bureau Of Land Management, 793 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2015), Kathryn S. Ore
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Pit River Tribe v. Bureau of Land Management, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained the correct application of the zone of interests test and further solidified the importance of proper NEPA and NHPA analysis in geothermal leasing. The court reaffirmed that the BLM and the Forest Service must conduct additional cultural and environmental analysis when granting lease extensions under the Geothermal Steam Act. Furthermore, it rejected the BLM’s decision to grant forty-year lease continuations to unproven geothermal leases by treating them as a unit rather than individually.