Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Land Use Law (7)
- Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law (6)
- Agriculture Law (5)
- Cultural Heritage Law (5)
- Science and Technology Law (5)
-
- Animal Law (3)
- Civil Procedure (2)
- Common Law (2)
- Constitutional Law (2)
- Courts (2)
- Jurisdiction (2)
- Law and Race (2)
- Law and Society (2)
- Legal Writing and Research (2)
- President/Executive Department (2)
- Supreme Court of the United States (2)
- Agency (1)
- Business Organizations Law (1)
- Civil Law (1)
- Consumer Protection Law (1)
- Contracts (1)
- Government Contracts (1)
- Judges (1)
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Water Law
Sackett V. Environmental Protection Agency, Meridian Wappett
Sackett V. Environmental Protection Agency, Meridian Wappett
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In 2007, the Sacketts began developing a property a few hundred feet from Priest Lake in Northern Idaho by filling their lot with gravel. The EPA determined the lot constituted a federally protected wetland under the WOTUS definition because the lot was near a ditch that fed into a creek flowing into Priest Lake, a navigable intrastate lake. The EPA halted the construction. The Sacketts sued the EPA, arguing the CWA did not apply to their property. The Supreme Court held that the CWA did not apply to the Sacketts property because the CWA only covers wetlands and streams that …
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 …
Preview—Atlantic Richfield Company V. Christian: The Intersection Of Superfund And State-Law Restoration Claims, Emily M. Mcculloch
Preview—Atlantic Richfield Company V. Christian: The Intersection Of Superfund And State-Law Restoration Claims, Emily M. Mcculloch
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments in this matter on Tuesday, December 3, 2019, at 11:00 a.m. in the Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C. Lisa S. Blatt will likely appear for the Petitioner. Joseph R. Palmore will likely appear for the Respondents. Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco will likely argue on behalf of the United States.
Maralex Resources, Inc. V. Barnhardt, Bradley E. Tinker
Maralex Resources, Inc. V. Barnhardt, Bradley E. Tinker
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Maralex Resources v. Barnhardt, Maralex and property owners brought an action to protect private property from BLM inspections of oil and gas lease sites. The Tenth Circuit looked at the plain meaning of a congressional statute and held in favor of Maralex, finding that BLM lacked authority to require a private landowner to provide BLM with a key to inspect wells of their property. The Tenth Circuit held BLM has the authority to conduct inspections without prior notice on private property lease sites; however, it is required to contact the property owner for permission before entering the property.
Public Employees For Environmental Responsibility V. United States Epa, F. Aaron Rains
Public Employees For Environmental Responsibility V. United States Epa, F. Aaron Rains
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Prior to 2016, the EPA acknowledged that human activities significantly contribute to climate change. However, on March 9, 2017, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced that significant debate regarding the issue remained in the scientific community. In response to these statements, a nonprofit organization filed a FOIA request with the EPA seeking any documents or records Pruitt may have used when formulating his statements or substantiating his position. The EPA refused to comply with the request, citing undue burden and improper interrogation and this action followed. Upon review, the District Court for the District of Columbia found the plaintiff’s FOIA request …
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 …
Sierra Club V. United States Army Corps Of Engineers, 803 F.3d 31 (D.C. Cir. 2015), Ariel E. Overstreet-Adkins
Sierra Club V. United States Army Corps Of Engineers, 803 F.3d 31 (D.C. Cir. 2015), Ariel E. Overstreet-Adkins
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Despite the majority’s “needlessly circuitous” route, as described by concurring Judge Brown, Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stands as a limit of the application of NEPA to a private pipeline constructed largely on private land. While the main issue identified by the District of Columbia Circuit Court was the scope of environmental review required under NEPA, the court also addressed issues dealing with the ESA and the CWA relating to the construction and operation of a pipeline in the Midwest. The court held that under these circumstances, NEPA review was mandated only for those small stretches where …