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

Law Commons

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

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Law

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 …


California Department Of Toxic Substances Control V. Westside Delivery, Llc, Mitch L. Werbell V Sep 2018

California Department Of Toxic Substances Control V. Westside Delivery, Llc, Mitch L. Werbell V

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Westside Delivery, LLC reminds prospective purchasers of tax-defaulted property of their responsibility for due diligence.The case addressed the reach of the third-party defense to a CERCLA cost recovery action. The court determined that CERCLA’s third-party defense did not apply to a company which purchased a contaminated property at a tax auction because of its “contractual relationship” with the former owner-polluter and because the relevant contaminating acts occurred “in connection with” the prior polluter’s ownership of the site.


Asarco Llc V. Atlantic Richfield Company, Ryan L. Hickey Apr 2018

Asarco Llc V. Atlantic Richfield Company, Ryan L. Hickey

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabiltiy Act, commonly known as CERCLA, facilitates cleanup of hazardous waste sites and those contaminated by other harmful substances by empowering the Environmental Protection Agency to identify responsible parties and require them to undertake or fund remediation. Because pollution sometimes occurrs over long periods of time by multiple parties, CERCLA also enables polluters to seek financial contribution from other contaminators of a particular site. The Ninth Circuit clarified the particuar circumstances under which contribution actions may arise in Asarco LLC v. Atlantic Richfield Co., holding non-CERCLA settlements may give rise to CERCLA contribution …


Atlantic Richfield Company V. Montana Second Judicial District Court, Molly Kelly Apr 2018

Atlantic Richfield Company V. Montana Second Judicial District Court, Molly Kelly

Public Land & Resources Law Review

Landowners in Opportunity, Montana sought restoration damages from ARCO, Anaconda Copper Mining Company’s successor, to their property from over a century of processing ore at the Anaconda Smelter. ARCO argued that CERCLA preempted and barred any claim for restoration damages. The Montana Supreme Court held: landowners could bring their state common law claims seeking restoration damages; the state district court had subject matter jurisdiction; and landowners’ proposed restoration fund did not challenge EPA’s selected remedy under CERCLA.


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 …