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

Law Commons

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

Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law

Public Land & Resources Law Review

Clean Water Act

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

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.


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 …


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 …


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.