Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Environmental Law (7)
- Energy and Utilities Law (6)
- Natural Resources Law (4)
- Administrative Law (3)
- Land Use Law (3)
-
- Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law (3)
- Agency (1)
- Earth Sciences (1)
- Environmental Health and Protection (1)
- Environmental Sciences (1)
- Geology (1)
- Health Law and Policy (1)
- Labor and Employment Law (1)
- Law and Economics (1)
- Legal Studies (1)
- Mineral Physics (1)
- Natural Resource Economics (1)
- Nonprofit Organizations Law (1)
- Oil, Gas, and Energy (1)
- Physical Sciences and Mathematics (1)
- Science and Technology Law (1)
- Social Welfare Law (1)
- Social and Behavioral Sciences (1)
- State and Local Government Law (1)
- Water Law (1)
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
Wyoming V. Environmental Protection Agency, Ayden D. Auer
Wyoming V. Environmental Protection Agency, Ayden D. Auer
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Wyoming v. EPA consolidated two petitions for review of a portion of Wyoming’s plans to reduce visibility impacts from two powerplants, Wyodak and Naughton. First, the Tenth Circuit held EPA was incorrect to disapprove Wyoming’s best available retrofit technology determination for Wyodak because EPA based its disapproval on noncompliance with guidelines that are optional to determine the best available retrofit technology for Wyodak. These same guidelines are nonbinding on Naughton as well, and the court held the petitioners failed to persuade the court that EPA’s approval of Naughton was arbitrary and capricious because the petitioners did not establish why Wyoming’s …
Sierra Club V. Virginia Electric & Power Company, Thomas C. Mooney-Myers
Sierra Club V. Virginia Electric & Power Company, Thomas C. Mooney-Myers
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Sierra Club alleged Dominion violated the Clean Water Act by allowing arsenic to leak from coal ash storage pits into state waters. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found for the polluter, using a narrow definition of point source. Additionally, the Fourth Circuit deferred to agency interpretation of the polluter’s permit to find no violation occurred.
Montana Environmental Information Center V. U.S. Office Of Surface Mining, Lowell J. Chandler
Montana Environmental Information Center V. U.S. Office Of Surface Mining, Lowell J. Chandler
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In MEIC v. U.S. Office of Surface Mining, the cost of coal mining’s climate impacts and the agency’s NEPA review obligations are at issue. The United States District Court for the District of Montana found that the Office of Surface Mining and Enforcement failed to adequately consider the need for an EIS and to take a hard look at the indirect, cumulative, and foreseeable impacts of a proposed coal mine expansion in central Montana. In its NEPA analysis, the court concluded that if the benefits of a carbon-intensive project are quantified, then the costs to the climate should be …
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.
United States V. Ohio, Hannah R. Seifert
United States V. Ohio, Hannah R. Seifert
Public Land & Resources Law Review
United States v. Ohio is a concise example of the judiciary’s decisive role in ascertaining the intention of parties to an agreement. Relying primarily on the original documents memorializing a cost-sharing agreement to discern intent, the court invalidated two subsurface mining leases entered into between Ohio and Buckingham Coal Company for lack of prior federal approval. The court determined that requiring pre-approval for any lease involving Project lands was consistent with the foundational and foremost purpose of the Project to control flooding.
Wildearth Guardians V. United States Office Of Surface Mining, Reclamation And Enforcement, Erick A. Valencia
Wildearth Guardians V. United States Office Of Surface Mining, Reclamation And Enforcement, Erick A. Valencia
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Colorado District Court in WildEarth Guardians v. United States Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement ordered the United States Office of Surface Mining to reevaluate the environmental impact of an approved mining modification plan for the Colowyo Mine after the Office failed to involve the public in the approval process and did not take a “hard look” at the modification’s effects on the environment as required by NEPA. Even though the Office of Surface Mining also approved the Trapper Mine’s modification plan without fulfilling NEPA’s requirements, WildEarth Guardians was left without a remedy regarding that mine because the …
High Country Conservation Advocates V. United States Forest Service, 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (D. Colo. 2014), Kathryn S. Ore
High Country Conservation Advocates V. United States Forest Service, 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (D. Colo. 2014), Kathryn S. Ore
Public Land & Resources Law Review
High Country Conservation Advocates v. United States Forest Service concerns the United States Forest Service’s and the Bureau of Land Management’s authorizations of on-the-ground mining exploration activities in the Sunset Roadless Area of western Colorado. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado’s holding has far-reaching consequences for federal agencies’ analysis and disclosure of impacts on the climate under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). In addition to bolstering the Plaintiffs’ recent successes at establishing legal standing to challenge federal agencies’ disclosures and analyses of impacts on the climate under NEPA, High Country is the first case to …
Alaska County Action On Toxics V. Aurora Energy Services, Llc, Lindsey M. West
Alaska County Action On Toxics V. Aurora Energy Services, Llc, Lindsey M. West
Public Land & Resources Law Review
On September 3, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a district court decision that exempted non-stormwater discharges of coal into Alaska’s Resurrection Bay from Clean Water Act liability. The Court of Appeals reasoned that defendants, Aurora Energy Services, LLC and Alaska Railroad Corp., were not shielded from liability under the Clean Water Act because National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System general permits unambiguously prohibit non-stormwater discharges of coal. The general permit lists eleven categories of authorized non-stormwater discharges, none of which include non-stormwater discharges of coal. Thus, the court concluded that the general permit plainly disallowed defendant’s …