Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Army Corps of Engineers (2)
- Clean Water Act (2)
- EPA (2)
- Permit (2)
- Permitting (2)
-
- Supreme Court (2)
- WOTUS (2)
- Adjudicatory jurisdiction (1)
- Administrative Law (1)
- And welfare of a tribe (1)
- Annual fee (1)
- Appalachian Trail (1)
- Atlantic Coast Pipeline (1)
- CERCLA (1)
- CWA (1)
- Catastrophic (1)
- Clean-up permit (1)
- Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liabilities Act (1)
- Consent (1)
- Consent decree (1)
- Containment program (1)
- Corps (1)
- Declaratory judgement (1)
- Department of Defense (1)
- District court (1)
- Dolgencorp (1)
- Dollar General (1)
- Dredged and Fill Material (1)
- Due process (1)
- Economic security (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law
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 …
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 …
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.