Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
County Of Maui, Hawaii V. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, Rachel L. Wagner
County Of Maui, Hawaii V. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, Rachel L. Wagner
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Supreme Court of the United States was recently asked to decide whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit for the discharge of pollutants that originate from a point source but are conveyed to navigable waters by a nonpoint source. Vacating the Ninth Circuit’s “fairly traceable” test, the Court held the Clean Water Act requires a permit when there is a direct discharge of pollutants from a point source into navigable waters or when there is the “functional equivalent of a direct discharge.”
National Wildlife Federation V. Secretary Of The United States Department Of Transportation, Holly A. Seymour
National Wildlife Federation V. Secretary Of The United States Department Of Transportation, Holly A. Seymour
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of the Department of Transportation in considering whether the district court erred in holding that an agency took a discretionary action when it approved oil spill response plans to a pipeline under the Clean Water Act. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. It held the Department of Transportation does not need to consider the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act requirements in their response plans as long as the Clean Water Act criteria for such plans are met.
Montana Environmental Information Center V. Department Of Environmental Quality, Anthony P. Reed
Montana Environmental Information Center V. Department Of Environmental Quality, Anthony P. Reed
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The DEQ renewed a 1999 MPDES Permit on September 14, 2012 that allowed Western Energy Company to discharge pollutants from the Rosebud Mine into streams. Environmental groups MEIC and the Sierra Club sued, arguing this violated both the Montana Water Quality Act and federal Clean Water Act because the DEQ’s interpretation of its own regulations that exempted waters with ephemeral characteristics from water quality standards was arbitrary and capricious. The district court agreed, but the Montana Supreme Court reversed. It held the DEQ’s interpretation was lawful and remanded for further fact finding to assess how the DEQ applied the interpretation …