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

Law Commons

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

Agriculture Law

Public Land & Resources Law Review

EPA

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Law

Sackett V. Environmental Protection Agency, Meridian Wappett Feb 2024

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 Dec 2020

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 …


Preview—Atlantic Richfield Company V. Christian: The Intersection Of Superfund And State-Law Restoration Claims, Emily M. Mcculloch Dec 2019

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.


Public Employees For Environmental Responsibility V. United States Epa, F. Aaron Rains Oct 2018

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 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 …