Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Virginia Uranium, Inc. V. Warren, Nyles G. Greer
Virginia Uranium, Inc. V. Warren, Nyles G. Greer
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Supreme Court of the United States recently ruled that the Atomic Energy Act did not preempt a Virginia law prohibiting uranium mining in the Commonwealth. The Court held that although the Act delegated substantial power over the nuclear life cycle to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it offered no indication that Congress sought to strip states of their traditional power to regulate mining on private lands within their borders.
Hoopa Valley Tribe V. Ferc, Fredrick Aaron Rains
Hoopa Valley Tribe V. Ferc, Fredrick Aaron Rains
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Hoopa Valley Tribe v. FERC, the Hoopa Valley Tribe challenged the intentional and continual delay of state water quality certification review of water discharged from a series of dams on the Klamath River in California and Oregon. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the states of Oregon and California, and PacifiCorp, a hydroelectric operator, were implementing an administrative scheme designed to circumvent a one-year temporal requirement for review imposed on states by the Clean Water Act. This scheme allowed PacifiCorp to operate the series of dams for over a decade without proper state water quality certification. The United States …
Friends Of Animals V. United States Fish & Wildlife Service, Bradley E. Tinker
Friends Of Animals V. United States Fish & Wildlife Service, Bradley E. Tinker
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Friends of Animals v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service, the Ninth Circuit held that the plain language of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act allows for the removal of one species of bird to benefit another species. Friends of Animals argued that the Service’s experiment permitting the taking of one species––the barred owl––to advance the conservation of a different species––the northern spotted owl––violated the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The court, however, found that the Act delegates broad implementing discretion to the Secretary of the Interior, and neither the Act nor the underlying international conventions limit the taking of …
California Sea Urchin Commission V. Bean, Thomas C. Mooney-Myers
California Sea Urchin Commission V. Bean, Thomas C. Mooney-Myers
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In California Sea Urchin Commission v. Bean, the Ninth Circuit upheld the Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision to end an experimental sea otter colony and translocation program. Commercial fishing groups sought reversal of the decision due to their interest in maintaining the translocation program which reduced otter predation on commercially valuable shellfish. While the Ninth Circuit held the group had standing, it then applied the Chevron test and determined the agency’s actions were reasonable.
United States V. Barthelmess Ranch Corp., Jonah P. Brown
United States V. Barthelmess Ranch Corp., Jonah P. Brown
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Application of water to a beneficial use is the decisive element of a perfected water right in Montana. The BLM claimed rights to five reservoirs and one natural pothole under Montana law. The agency did not own livestock, but instead made the water available to grazing permittees. In United States v. Barthelmess Ranch Corp., the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the Montana Water Court’s holding that the BLM’s practice of making water available to others constituted a beneficial use and a perfected water right.
Oregon Natural Desert Association V. Jewell, Jody D. Lowenstein
Oregon Natural Desert Association V. Jewell, Jody D. Lowenstein
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Oregon Natural Desert Association v. Jewell, the Ninth Circuit invalidated the BLM’s environmental review, finding that the agency based its approval of a wind-energy development on inaccurate scientific analysis. In negating the BLM’s action, the court held that flawed data and indefensible reasoning were discordant with NEPA’s central tenets. Furthermore, the court did not hold the BLM responsible for addressing a distinct environmental issue that was not brought to its attention during the public comment period.