Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Preview—Asarco Llc V. Atlantic Richfield Company: Allocation Of Remediation Costs Under Cercla, Nyles G. Greer
Preview—Asarco Llc V. Atlantic Richfield Company: Allocation Of Remediation Costs Under Cercla, Nyles G. Greer
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals originally scheduled oral arguments in this matter for Tuesday, March 31, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. in the William K. Nakamura Courthouse in Seattle, Washington. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ninth Circuit has postponed oral arguments in this matter. While still subject to change due to the pandemic, the court has rescheduled oral arguments for April 27, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2 of the William K. Nakamura Courthouse in Seattle, Washington. Shannon Wells Stevenson will likely appear on behalf of the Appellant. Gregory Evans will likely appear on behalf of the Appellee.
Preview—Atlantic Richfield Company V. Christian: The Intersection Of Superfund And State-Law Restoration Claims, Emily M. Mcculloch
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.
Wildearth Guardians V. Zinke, Emily M. Mcculloch
Wildearth Guardians V. Zinke, Emily M. Mcculloch
Public Land & Resources Law Review
WildEarth Guardians v. Zinke marks an important decision prompting the Bureau of Land Management to seriously consider greenhouse gas emissions when performing environmental assessments for oil and gas leasing. WildEarth Guardians and Physicians for Social Responsibility, two non-profit organizations, asserted BLM improperly failed to recognize greenhouse gas emissions and their impacts on climate change when issuing oil and gas leases in three western states. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia agreed, finding that by failing to take a hard look at environmental impacts from its leasing decisions, BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act’s requirements.
Hoopa Valley Tribe V. Ferc, Fredrick Aaron Rains
Hoopa Valley Tribe V. Ferc, Fredrick Aaron Rains
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Hoopa Valley Tribe v. FERC, the Hoopa Valley Tribe challenged the intentional and continual delay of state water quality certification review of water discharged from a series of dams on the Klamath River in California and Oregon. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the states of Oregon and California, and PacifiCorp, a hydroelectric operator, were implementing an administrative scheme designed to circumvent a one-year temporal requirement for review imposed on states by the Clean Water Act. This scheme allowed PacifiCorp to operate the series of dams for over a decade without proper state water quality certification. The United States …
Language Matters: Environmental Controversy And The Quest For Common Ground, Scott Slovic
Language Matters: Environmental Controversy And The Quest For Common Ground, Scott Slovic
Public Land & Resources Law Review
No abstract provided.
Hawkes Co. V. United States Army Corps Of Engineers, Sarah M. Danno
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.