Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Water Law
Fish Don't Litter In Your House: Is International Law The Solution To The Plastic Pollution Problem?, Taylor G. Keselica
Fish Don't Litter In Your House: Is International Law The Solution To The Plastic Pollution Problem?, Taylor G. Keselica
Pace International Law Review
This article addresses the complex issue of plastic pollution—focusing on ocean plastics. Specifically, this article examines the ocean plastics problem, critiques current binding and non-binding international environmental law surrounding ocean plastics, hazardous wastes, and pollution, and proposes a more effective solution to the ocean plastics problem. Section I provides a basic history of the creation of plastics and discusses plastics as they are used today. Section II considers the concerns surrounding ocean plastics, focusing on impacts of plastic on marine ecosystems as well as human health effects. Section III, IV, and V discuss the ongoing attempts to address the ocean …
Asarco Llc V. Atlantic Richfield Co., Llc, Taylor A. Simpson
Asarco Llc V. Atlantic Richfield Co., Llc, Taylor A. Simpson
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In 2009, Asarco reached a settlement agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency for the arsenic-contaminated East Helena lead smelting facility. As part of the settlement, Asarco was responsible for $111.4 million in cleanup and remediation expenses. Following this payment, Asarco brought a contribution claim under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act against Atlantic Richfield. Finally, in 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Asarco’s remediation expenses of $111.4 million were not eligible for contribution because the costs were not fully incurred. The Ninth Circuit stated that only incurred or concrete, non-speculative future costs can be eligible …
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 …