Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
State and Local Government Law Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Preemption (3)
- Mining (2)
- AEA (1)
- ARCO; restoration damages (1)
- Administrative Law (1)
-
- Army Corps of Engineers (1)
- Atomic Energy Act (1)
- Beneficial interest (1)
- CERCLA (1)
- CWA (1)
- City of Longmont Colorado v. Colorado Oil & Gas Association (1)
- Clean Water Act (1)
- Conflict preemption (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Corps (1)
- Dredged and Fill Material (1)
- EPA (1)
- Environmental (1)
- Environmental remediation (1)
- Fracking (1)
- Hawkes Co. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (1)
- Home-rule cities (1)
- Hydraulic Fracturing (1)
- Inc. v. Warren (1)
- Indian Law (1)
- Jurisdictional Determination (1)
- Law (1)
- Mineral (1)
- Mineral development (1)
- Mineral estate (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in State and Local Government 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.
Atlantic Richfield Company V. Montana Second Judicial District Court, Molly Kelly
Atlantic Richfield Company V. Montana Second Judicial District Court, Molly Kelly
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Landowners in Opportunity, Montana sought restoration damages from ARCO, Anaconda Copper Mining Company’s successor, to their property from over a century of processing ore at the Anaconda Smelter. ARCO argued that CERCLA preempted and barred any claim for restoration damages. The Montana Supreme Court held: landowners could bring their state common law claims seeking restoration damages; the state district court had subject matter jurisdiction; and landowners’ proposed restoration fund did not challenge EPA’s selected remedy under CERCLA.
United States V. Osage Wind, Llc, Summer Carmack
United States V. Osage Wind, Llc, Summer Carmack
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Osage Nation, as owner of the beneficial interest in its mineral estate, issues federally-approved leases to persons and entities who wish to conduct mineral development on its lands. After an energy-development company, Osage Wind, leased privately-owned surface lands within Tribal reservation boundaries and began to excavate minerals for purposes of constructing a wind farm, the United States brought suit on the Tribe’s behalf. In the ensuing litigation, the Osage Nation insisted that Osage Wind should have obtained a mineral lease from the Tribe before beginning its work. In its decision, the Tenth Circuit applied one of the Indian law …
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.
City Of Longmont Colorado V. Colorado Oil & Gas Association, Arie R. Mielkus
City Of Longmont Colorado V. Colorado Oil & Gas Association, Arie R. Mielkus
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Colorado, the oil and gas industry's use of hydraulic fracturing, and municipalities’ attempts to restrict where the practice can be done, are at odds. Those in favor of hydraulic fracturing laud the economic benefits and natural gas’s ability to burn cleaner than coal, while those in opposition warn of potential adverse environmental impacts including the strain on water resources in the arid west. The City of Longmont was sued following its enactment of an amendment outlawing hydraulic fracturing within city limits. The City’s amendment was found to be preempted by state law, and thus could not remain in force. …