Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Administrative Law

Public Land & Resources Law Review

Clean Water Act

Articles 1 - 11 of 11

Full-Text Articles in Law

Preview— Montana And Wyoming V. Washington: The Commerce Clause And The Clean Water Act Collide Over Coal Exports, Rachel L. Wagner Apr 2021

Preview— Montana And Wyoming V. Washington: The Commerce Clause And The Clean Water Act Collide Over Coal Exports, Rachel L. Wagner

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The Supreme Court of the United States has not scheduled oral arguments for this matter. In October 2020, the Court asked for the federal government’s views on the case but has not yet decided whether it will exercise its jurisdiction over the challenge.


County Of Maui, Hawaii V. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, Rachel L. Wagner Sep 2020

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 Sep 2020

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 Jan 2020

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 …


Preview—County Of Maui, Hawaii V. Hawaii Wildlife Fund: Clean Water Act Regulation Of Point Source Pollution Conveyed Through Groundwater, Connlan W. Whyte Nov 2019

Preview—County Of Maui, Hawaii V. Hawaii Wildlife Fund: Clean Water Act Regulation Of Point Source Pollution Conveyed Through Groundwater, Connlan W. Whyte

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments in this matter on Wednesday, November 6, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. at the Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C. Elbert Lin will likely appear for the Petitioner. David Lane Henkin will likely appear for the Respondents. Solicitor General, Noel J. Francisco, will argue on behalf of the United States.


Save Our Sound Obx, Inc. V. North Carolina Department Of Transportation, Mitch L. Werbell V Apr 2019

Save Our Sound Obx, Inc. V. North Carolina Department Of Transportation, Mitch L. Werbell V

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of several governmental agencies seeking to construct a new bridge in the Pamlico Sound adjacent to North Carolina’s Outer Banks. For years, state and federal agencies have put forth a massive coordinated effort to address the constant weather damage and erosion which occurs to a section of North Carolina Highway 12. The court found the agencies properly cleared NEPA’s environmental review requirements for the bridge’s construction. Additionally, the opponent-litigants’ efforts to add claims challenging the project, based on new information about a shipwreck in the bridge’s path, were futile.


Sierra Club V. Virginia Electric & Power Company, Thomas C. Mooney-Myers Jan 2019

Sierra Club V. Virginia Electric & Power Company, Thomas C. Mooney-Myers

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The Sierra Club alleged Dominion violated the Clean Water Act by allowing arsenic to leak from coal ash storage pits into state waters. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found for the polluter, using a narrow definition of point source. Additionally, the Fourth Circuit deferred to agency interpretation of the polluter’s permit to find no violation occurred.


National Association Of Manufacturers V. Department Of Defense, Summer L. Carmack Mar 2018

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 …


Catskill Mountains Chapter Of Trout Unlimited, Inc. V. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Benjamin W. Almy Apr 2017

Catskill Mountains Chapter Of Trout Unlimited, Inc. V. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Benjamin W. Almy

Public Land & Resources Law Review

Trout Unlimited’s effort to overturn the EPA’s Water Transfers Rule was stifled by the Second Circuit. The court’s comprehensive Chevron analysis determined that while the NPDES Water Transfers Rule may be at odds with the Clean Water Act’s mission, it was based on a reasonable interpretation of the statute’s ambiguous language, and therefore it did not violate the Administrative Procedures Act.


Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition V. Fola Coal Company, Llc, Emily A. Slike Apr 2017

Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition V. Fola Coal Company, Llc, Emily A. Slike

Public Land & Resources Law Review

Disregarding CWA regulations, WVDEP allowed for a state coal mining company, Fola, to discharge pollutants into the Stillhouse Branch without regard for water quality violations. Fola claimed that because it held a WV/NPDES permit, it was shielded from any liability so long as the company followed the permit’s provisions, even if its discharge violated CWA water quality standards.


Hawkes Co. V. United States Army Corps Of Engineers, Sarah M. Danno Apr 2017

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.