Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Water (3)
- Clean Air Act (2)
- Environmental Protection Agency (2)
- Groundwater (2)
- Montana (2)
-
- Prior appropriation (2)
- Species (2)
- 2016 MT 348 (1)
- 386 Mont. 121 (1)
- 386 P.3d 952. (1)
- APA (1)
- Administrative Law (1)
- Administrative Procedure Act (1)
- Agency (1)
- Agency's (1)
- Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (1)
- BLM (1)
- Baseflow (1)
- Bears (1)
- Biological (1)
- Building permits (1)
- Bull (1)
- CAA (1)
- CFC (1)
- Cabinet Mountains Wilderness area (1)
- Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy Owl (1)
- Carbon Dioxide (1)
- Clark Fork Coalition (1)
- Clean Air Council v. Pruitt (1)
- Clean Power Plan (1)
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
Herr V. U.S. Forest Service, Peter B. Taylor
Herr V. U.S. Forest Service, Peter B. Taylor
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Herr v. U. S. Forest Service, the Sixth Circuit ruled on whether the Forest Service could infringe on pre-existing private property rights held adjacent to a designated Wilderness Area. The Herrs purchased lakefront property adjacent to the Sylvania Wilderness in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan with the intention of using their littoral rights for recreational boating. The Sylvania Wilderness was created under the Michigan Wilderness Act in 1987, but the Act observed valid existing rights. The court found that the Herrs’ littoral rights were recognizable “valid existing rights.” Therefore, the Forest Service’s restriction of those rights was illegal.
Clean Air Council V. Pruitt, Oliver Wood
Clean Air Council V. Pruitt, Oliver Wood
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia granted a motion for summary vacatur against the Environmental Protection Agency after environmental groups challenged the agency’s reconsideration of the Obama-era methane rule under the Clean Air Act. The court held that the EPA unlawfully issued a stay after it reconsidered the rule without proper authorization. The court vacated the EPA’s stay, one example of the Trump Administration unsuccessfully repealing Obama-era rulemaking.
Agua Caliente Band Of Cahuilla Indians V. Coachella Valley Water Dist., Rebecca Newsom
Agua Caliente Band Of Cahuilla Indians V. Coachella Valley Water Dist., Rebecca Newsom
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Coachella Valley Water Dist., the Ninth Circuit upheld the Tribe’s federal reserved right to the groundwater underlying its reservation. This decision enforces that the courts will not defer to state water law when there is an established federal reserved water right. Further, the Ninth Circuit expressly extended this right to groundwater.
Center For Biological Diversity V. Jewell, Lowell J. Chandler
Center For Biological Diversity V. Jewell, Lowell J. Chandler
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The ESA protects threatened or endangered species, and species likely to become threatened or endangered within the foreseeable future, throughout all or a significant portion of their range. In Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona overturned a Fish and Wildlife Service policy defining the significant portion of range language in the ESA. The policy interpretation limited ESA protections to apply only when a species faced risk of extinction throughout its entire range. The court deemed this policy impermissible because it effectively rendered the significant portion of range language meaningless. …
Save Our Cabinets V. U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Jaclyn Van Natta
Save Our Cabinets V. U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Jaclyn Van Natta
Public Land & Resources Law Review
No abstract provided.
Whatcom County V. Hirst, Et Al, Stephanie A. George
Whatcom County V. Hirst, Et Al, Stephanie A. George
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Upending decades of common practice in water management and building in the state of Washington, the Washington Supreme Court found Whatcom County violated the state’s Growth Management Act. Whatcom County used the Department of Ecology’s Nooksack Rule in evaluating permits for buildings and subdivisions that rely on permit-exempt wells. This decision affects families across the state of Washington.
United States V. Barthelmess Ranch Corp., Jonah P. Brown
United States V. Barthelmess Ranch Corp., Jonah P. Brown
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Application of water to a beneficial use is the decisive element of a perfected water right in Montana. The BLM claimed rights to five reservoirs and one natural pothole under Montana law. The agency did not own livestock, but instead made the water available to grazing permittees. In United States v. Barthelmess Ranch Corp., the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the Montana Water Court’s holding that the BLM’s practice of making water available to others constituted a beneficial use and a perfected water right.
The Clark Fork Coalition V. Tubbs, Jonah P. Brown
The Clark Fork Coalition V. Tubbs, Jonah P. Brown
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Before landowners may appropriate groundwater in Montana, they must first apply for a DNRC permit pursuant to the Montana Water Use Act. Landowners may qualify for an exemption from the arduous permitting process if their appropriation meets certain criteria. However, the Act provides an exception to the exemption when a “combined appropriation” from the same source is in excess of ten acre-feet per year. The Clark Fork Coalition v. Tubbs affirmed the district court’s invalidation of the DNRC rule defining “combined appropriation” to only include physically connected groundwater wells.
Murray Energy Corporation V. Mccarthy, Sarah M. Danno
Murray Energy Corporation V. Mccarthy, Sarah M. Danno
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Holding that the widespread effects of environmental regulation on the coal industry constituted sufficient importance, the Northern District of West Virginia ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct analysis on employment loss and plant reduction resulting from regulatory effects. In admonishing the EPA’s inaction, the court ruled that the Agency had a non-discretionary duty to evaluate employment and plant reduction. Furthermore, the court held that the EPA’s attempt to put forth general reports in place of required evaluations was an invalid attempt to circumvent its statutory duty.