Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Mining (3)
- APA (1)
- Administrative Law (1)
- Agency's (1)
- Army Corps of Engineers (1)
-
- Baseflow (1)
- Bears (1)
- Beneficial interest (1)
- Biological (1)
- Bull (1)
- CWA (1)
- Cabinet Mountains Wilderness area (1)
- Clean Air Act (1)
- Clean Water Act (1)
- Coal Industry (1)
- Conservation (1)
- Corps (1)
- Creek (1)
- Defenders of Wildlife (1)
- Degraded (1)
- Designated (1)
- Dredged and Fill Material (1)
- EPA (1)
- ESA (1)
- Earthworks (1)
- Effects (1)
- Environment and Natural Resources Divisions (1)
- Environmental (1)
- Environmental Protection Agency (1)
- Fish (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
United States V. Osage Wind, Llc, Summer Carmack
United States V. Osage Wind, Llc, Summer Carmack
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Osage Nation, as owner of the beneficial interest in its mineral estate, issues federally-approved leases to persons and entities who wish to conduct mineral development on its lands. After an energy-development company, Osage Wind, leased privately-owned surface lands within Tribal reservation boundaries and began to excavate minerals for purposes of constructing a wind farm, the United States brought suit on the Tribe’s behalf. In the ensuing litigation, the Osage Nation insisted that Osage Wind should have obtained a mineral lease from the Tribe before beginning its work. In its decision, the Tenth Circuit applied one of the Indian law …
Murray Energy Corporation V. Administrator Of Environmental Protection Agency, Peter B. Taylor
Murray Energy Corporation V. Administrator Of Environmental Protection Agency, Peter B. Taylor
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1977 because of public concern that enforcement of the Clean Air Act would have adverse effects on employment. Section 321(a) tasks the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency with a continuous duty to evaluate the potential employment impact of the administration and enforcement of the Clean Air Act. In Murray Energy Corporation v. Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled on whether the federal court’s authority to review and enforce non-discretionary Clean Air Act duties extended to the EPA’s Section 321(a) duty to continuously …
Save Our Cabinets V. U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Jaclyn Van Natta
Save Our Cabinets V. U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Jaclyn Van Natta
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.