Law Commons^™

Opening The Gates Of Cow Palace: Regulating Runoff Manure As A Hazardous Waste Under Rcra, Reed J. Mccalib

Michigan Law Review

In 2015, a federal court held for the first time that the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) may regulate runoff manure as a “solid waste” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”). The holding of Community Ass’n for Restoration of the Environment, Inc. v. Cow Palace, LLC opened the gates to regulation of farms under the nation’s primary toxic waste statute. This Comment argues that, once classified as a “solid waste,” runoff manure fits RCRA’s definition of “hazardous waste” as well. This reclassification would expand EPA’s authority to monitor and respond to the nation’s tragically common groundwater-contamination emergencies.

Clean Air Council V. Pruitt, Oliver Wood

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia granted a motion for summary vacatur against the Environmental Protection Agency after environmental groups challenged the agency’s reconsideration of the Obama-era methane rule under the Clean Air Act. The court held that the EPA unlawfully issued a stay after it reconsidered the rule without proper authorization. The court vacated the EPA’s stay, one example of the Trump Administration unsuccessfully repealing Obama-era rulemaking.

Energy-Water Nexus, The Clean Power Plan, And Integration Of Water Resource Concerns Into Energy Decision-Making, Sarah Ladin

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

Energy regulation in the United States is now at a crossroads. The EPA has begun the process to officially repeal the Clean Power Plan and currently has no plan to replace it with new rulemaking to regulate carbon emissions from the U.S. energy sector. Even though the Clean Power Plan is more or less at its end, its regulatory structure stands as a model of the way decision-makers in the United States regulate the energy sector and the environment. Since the beginning of the modern environmental legal system, decision-makers have chosen to silo the system. Statutes and agencies focus on …

Technology-Based? Cost Factoring In U.S. Environmental Standards, Jamison E. Colburn

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

Environmental controls in the United States are often said to be “technology-based” because the polluter’s duties are determined by the available technology for controlling that pollution rather than by the social costs and benefits of doing so. Indeed, this is much of what distinguishes U.S. environmental law post-1970 from that which preceded it. But technology-based standards have in fact weighed the costs of controlling pollution in unique, often obscure ways, yielding an analysis that defies standardization and basic notions of transparency. Often lumped under an umbrella heading called “feasibility” analysis and justified on the grounds that it avoids many of …

Murray Energy Corporation V. Administrator Of Environmental Protection Agency, Peter B. Taylor

Public Land & Resources Law Review

Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1977 because of public concern that enforcement of the Clean Air Act would have adverse effects on employment. Section 321(a) tasks the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency with a continuous duty to evaluate the potential employment impact of the administration and enforcement of the Clean Air Act. In Murray Energy Corporation v. Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled on whether the federal court’s authority to review and enforce non-discretionary Clean Air Act duties extended to the EPA’s Section 321(a) duty to continuously …

Fracturing Misconceptions: A History Of Effective State Regulation, Groundwater Protection, And The Ill-Conceived Frac Act, Wes Deweese

Oklahoma Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.

Pain In The Ash? Epa's Proposed Regulation Of Fly Ash And The Impending Economic Threat To Sustainable Concrete, Briana Novian

Oklahoma Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.

Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition V. Fola Coal Company, Llc, Emily A. Slike

Public Land & Resources Law Review

Disregarding CWA regulations, WVDEP allowed for a state coal mining company, Fola, to discharge pollutants into the Stillhouse Branch without regard for water quality violations. Fola claimed that because it held a WV/NPDES permit, it was shielded from any liability so long as the company followed the permit’s provisions, even if its discharge violated CWA water quality standards.

Whose Standards Control? Maine V. Mccanhy And The Federal, State, And Tribal Battle Over Water Quality Regulation, Joseph Paul Mortelliti

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

This Note considers the longstanding clash between the United States government and state governments over the management of intrastate waters through the lens of Maine v. McCarthy, an ongoing federal lawsuit. McCarthy confronts whether the United States Environmental Protection Agency can require state water quality standards to specifically safeguard the health and cultural practices of Maine’s Indian tribes, particularly sustenance fishing. A panoply of legal and political factors gave rise to and shaped the course of the litigation, ranging from tribal sovereignty to agency discretion and political gamesmanship. After evaluating the litigants’ arguments and examining previous regulatory collisions between …

Murray Energy Corporation V. Mccarthy, Sarah M. Danno

Public Land & Resources Law Review

Holding that the widespread effects of environmental regulation on the coal industry constituted sufficient importance, the Northern District of West Virginia ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct analysis on employment loss and plant reduction resulting from regulatory effects. In admonishing the EPA’s inaction, the court ruled that the Agency had a non-discretionary duty to evaluate employment and plant reduction. Furthermore, the court held that the EPA’s attempt to put forth general reports in place of required evaluations was an invalid attempt to circumvent its statutory duty.

Conference Of Soviet And American Jurists On The Law Of The Sea And The Protection Of The Marine Environment, Milton Katz, Richard R. Baxter, O. V. Bogdanov, William E. Butler, Thomas M. Franck, Richard Frank, P. P. Gureev, John L. Hargrove, L. A. Ivanaschenko, Y. Kasmin, V. A. Kiselev, B. M. Klimenko, H. G. Knight, O. S. Kolbasov, A. L. Kolodkin, V. M. Koretsky, F. N. Kovalev, V. N. Kudrjavtsev, B. A. Kuvshinnikov, M. I. Lazarev, A. L. Makovsky, Charles W. Maynes, P. A. Moiseev, John N. Moore, A. P. Movchan, T. M. Starzhina, Robert E. Stein, Grigory I. Tunkin, E. T. Usenko, A. F. Vysotsky, A. K. Zhudro

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

Included in the papers for the Conference of Soviet and American Jurists on the Law of the Sea and the Protection of the Marine Environment:

Introduction by Milton Katz and Richard R. Baxter, p. 1

Freedom of Scientific Research in the World Ocean by A.F. Vysotsky, p. 7

The International Law of Scientific Research in the Oceans by Richard R. Baxter, p. 27

Responsibility and Liability for Harm to the Marine Environment by Robert E. Stein, p. 41

Liability for Marine Environment Pollution Damage in Contemporary International Sea Law by A. L. Makovsky, p. 59

Protection of the Marine Environment …

Helping Hand Tools V. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Emily A. Slike

Public Land & Resources Law Review

When the EPA decided to treat biomass fuel sources differently within the BACT analysis, the Ninth Circuit continued Chevron’s legacy and granted the agency deference. The Bioenergy BACT may develop as science continues to evolve, but because the EPA took a “hard look” during a thorough permit review, the court held that agency issuance of new BACT guidelines was reasonable.