Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- BLM (2)
- NEPA (2)
- Wyoming (2)
- Alaska (1)
- Amendment (1)
-
- Antelope Coal Mine (1)
- Clean Air Act (1)
- Clean Water Act (1)
- Climate Change (1)
- Coal (1)
- Coal Leasing (1)
- Coal Mining (1)
- ESA (1)
- Environmental Impact Statement (1)
- Fifth Amendment (1)
- Forest plan (1)
- Good Neighbor Provision (1)
- Government induced flooding (1)
- Injunction (1)
- Injunction standard (1)
- Lnyx (1)
- NPDES (1)
- Powder River Basin Resource Council (1)
- Pryor Mountain (1)
- Reasonableness (1)
- Resurrection Bay (1)
- TRAC factors (1)
- Taking (1)
- Temporary taking (1)
- Transport Rule (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Law
Cts Corp. V. Waldburger, Lindsay M. Thane
Cts Corp. V. Waldburger, Lindsay M. Thane
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Supreme Court determined that a North Carolina statute of repose barred plaintiffs from bringing suit against CTS Corporation for contamination that occurred on land CTS owned 24 years earlier. The Court found that CERCLA preempts state statutes of limitations in order to allow plaintiffs’ claims to accrue when the injury is caused by contamination that has a long latency period. However, the Court also decided that CERLCA does not preempt state statutes of repose because Congress did not specifically preempt them as they did with statutes of limitations, thus; enforcing statutes of repose was not found to frustrate the …
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 …
Friends Of The Wild Swan V. Ashe, Hannah S. Cail
Friends Of The Wild Swan V. Ashe, Hannah S. Cail
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Friends of the Wild Swan v. Ashe, the District Court of Montana reviews the reasonableness of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s delayed preparation of the Canada lynx recovery plan. Environmental organizations brought the action for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the ESA and the APA. In applying the “TRAC factors” and the “rule of reason,” the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana held that the Service’s twelve-year delay was unreasonable. The court ordered the Service propose a schedule, which the court will set as firm after review.
Alliance For The Wild Rockies And Native Ecosystems Council V. Krueger, Nicholas R. Vandenbos
Alliance For The Wild Rockies And Native Ecosystems Council V. Krueger, Nicholas R. Vandenbos
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Environmental plaintiffs demanded injunctions following U.S. Forest Service approval of two fuel reduction projects in the Gallatin National Forest, alleging, inter alia, ESA and NEPA violations. Although both projects had already been challenged in Salix v. United States Forest Serv., Plaintiffs in Alliance for the Wild Rockies alleged specific harms, allowing the court to create a new injunction standard for cases involving procedural, programmatic violation of the ESA. The new test harmonizes two conflicting lines of Ninth Circuit precedent.
Environmental Protection Agency V. Eme Homer City Generation L.P., Lindsey M. West
Environmental Protection Agency V. Eme Homer City Generation L.P., Lindsey M. West
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The U.S. Supreme Court determined the Environmental Protection Agency properly interpreted the “Good Neighbor Provision” of the Clean Air Act in adopting the Transport Rule. The Court found, contrary to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision to vacate the rule entirely, the EPA did not act arbitrarily and capriciously by integrating a cost-effective allocation of emission reductions or by disallowing states a second opportunity to file a State Implementation Plan before promulgating a Federal Implementation Plan.
Powder River Basin Resource Council V. Wyoming Oil And Gas Conservation Commission, Lindsay M. Thane
Powder River Basin Resource Council V. Wyoming Oil And Gas Conservation Commission, Lindsay M. Thane
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed and remanded the district court’s decision that chemicals used in fracking are confidential “trade secrets” that do not need to be publicly disclosed. The Court ordered the district court to apply the WPRA, not the APA, as the standard of review, and to use the FOIA definition of “trade secrets.” The Court’s chosen definition will make it more difficult for companies to demonstrate that the chemicals they use should not be disclosed.
Wildearth Guardians V. Jewell, 738 F.3d 298 (D.C. Cir. 2013), Ross Keogh
Wildearth Guardians V. Jewell, 738 F.3d 298 (D.C. Cir. 2013), Ross Keogh
Public Land & Resources Law Review
As part of a comprehensive strategy to keep coal “in the ground,” environmental plaintiffs challenged the BLM’s leasing of federally owned coal tracts in the Powder River Basin in 2010 on climate change grounds. WildEarth Guardians was the first suit to reach a federal circuit court, where the District of Columbia Circuit Court affirmed that the BLM’s environmental analysis of the climate change impacts of the leased coal was adequate under NEPA. Notably, in reversing the district court, the circuit court found that the plaintiffs had procedural standing.
Wilderness Management In National Parks And Wildlife Refuges, Sandra B. Zellmer
Wilderness Management In National Parks And Wildlife Refuges, Sandra B. Zellmer
Faculty Law Review Articles
This Article provides a wilderness scorecard of sorts for the two "dominant use" land management agencies-the National Park Service (NPS) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Given that both agencies operate under a similar conservation oriented mandate, one night assume that the imposition of a wilderness mandate would be closely aligned with their organic missions. However, NPS and FWS have both, at times, been surprisingly hostile toward wilderness within their systems. In NPS's case, this is likely because of a concern that wilderness might disrupt visitor use and rein in its management discretion over park activities and …
Arkansas Game & Fish Commission V. U.S., Katelyn J. Hepburn
Arkansas Game & Fish Commission V. U.S., Katelyn J. Hepburn
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, on remand from the Supreme Court, reconsidered whether temporary increased dam-releases resulting in downstream flooding, constituted a physical taking under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Applying the Supreme Court’s more complex balancing test, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Court of Federal Claims’ decision holding that temporary government-induced flooding can qualify as a Fifth Amendment taking. The court upheld an award of damages in excess of $5.7 million.
Cloud Foundation, Inc. V. Salazar, Maxwell Kirchhoff
Cloud Foundation, Inc. V. Salazar, Maxwell Kirchhoff
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia found that the BLM and Forest Service did not act arbitrarily and capriciously when they maintained and extended a boundary fence and decided not to expand a wild horse and burro range. The court also held the BLM used reasoned decision making when it determined a target horse and burro population in a herd management plan. Additionally, a National Environmental Policy Act claim was defeated under the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine.
For The Birds: Wind Energy, Dead Eagles, And Unwelcome Surprises, Sam Panarella
For The Birds: Wind Energy, Dead Eagles, And Unwelcome Surprises, Sam Panarella
Faculty Law Review Articles
Wind turbines kill birds. A lot of birds. You would be hard pressed to find someone who is happy with that fact, including anyone in the wind energy development community. But until and unless there are technological advances in wind turbine design that eliminate their deadly impact on birds, it is something we must accept. Of course, acceptance does not and should not mean issuing a blank check to wind energy developers to wantonly injure birds. To do so would violate both the spirit and letter of a host of environmental laws that have at their core a stubborn insistence …