Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Environmental Law (8)
- Administrative Law (7)
- Water Law (7)
- Natural Resources Law (6)
- Energy and Utilities Law (5)
-
- Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law (3)
- Agriculture Law (2)
- Land Use Law (2)
- Science and Technology Law (2)
- State and Local Government Law (2)
- Architecture (1)
- Arts and Humanities (1)
- Civil Engineering (1)
- Civil Procedure (1)
- Civil and Environmental Engineering (1)
- Courts (1)
- Cultural Heritage Law (1)
- Engineering (1)
- Environmental Health (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Historic Preservation and Conservation (1)
- History (1)
- Law of the Sea (1)
- Life Sciences (1)
- Litigation (1)
- Pharmacology, Toxicology and Environmental Health (1)
- Supreme Court of the United States (1)
- Transportation Engineering (1)
- United States History (1)
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
County Of Maui, Hawaii V. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, Rachel L. Wagner
County Of Maui, Hawaii V. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, Rachel L. Wagner
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Supreme Court of the United States was recently asked to decide whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit for the discharge of pollutants that originate from a point source but are conveyed to navigable waters by a nonpoint source. Vacating the Ninth Circuit’s “fairly traceable” test, the Court held the Clean Water Act requires a permit when there is a direct discharge of pollutants from a point source into navigable waters or when there is the “functional equivalent of a direct discharge.”
National Wildlife Federation V. Secretary Of The United States Department Of Transportation, Holly A. Seymour
National Wildlife Federation V. Secretary Of The United States Department Of Transportation, Holly A. Seymour
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of the Department of Transportation in considering whether the district court erred in holding that an agency took a discretionary action when it approved oil spill response plans to a pipeline under the Clean Water Act. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. It held the Department of Transportation does not need to consider the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act requirements in their response plans as long as the Clean Water Act criteria for such plans are met.
Save Our Sound Obx, Inc. V. North Carolina Department Of Transportation, Mitch L. Werbell V
Save Our Sound Obx, Inc. V. North Carolina Department Of Transportation, Mitch L. Werbell V
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of several governmental agencies seeking to construct a new bridge in the Pamlico Sound adjacent to North Carolina’s Outer Banks. For years, state and federal agencies have put forth a massive coordinated effort to address the constant weather damage and erosion which occurs to a section of North Carolina Highway 12. The court found the agencies properly cleared NEPA’s environmental review requirements for the bridge’s construction. Additionally, the opponent-litigants’ efforts to add claims challenging the project, based on new information about a shipwreck in the bridge’s path, were futile.
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.
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition V. Fola Coal Company, Llc, Emily A. Slike
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition V. Fola Coal Company, Llc, Emily A. Slike
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Disregarding CWA regulations, WVDEP allowed for a state coal mining company, Fola, to discharge pollutants into the Stillhouse Branch without regard for water quality violations. Fola claimed that because it held a WV/NPDES permit, it was shielded from any liability so long as the company followed the permit’s provisions, even if its discharge violated CWA water quality standards.
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.
United States Army Corps Of Engineers V. Hawkes Co., Jonah Brown
United States Army Corps Of Engineers V. Hawkes Co., Jonah Brown
Public Land & Resources Law Review
When landowners seek to determine if a permit is required from the Army Corps of Engineers to discharge dredged or fill material into waters within their property boundaries, they may first obtain a jurisdictional determination specifying whether “waters of the United States” are present. In an 8-0 judgment, Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes was a victory for landowners, concluding that an approved jurisdictional determination is a final agency action reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Environmental Integrity Project V. Mccarthy, Lindsay Ward
Environmental Integrity Project V. Mccarthy, Lindsay Ward
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In addition to stocking grocery stores and restaurants with beef, chicken and milk, CAFOs generate another product—manure. The EPA’s decision to withdraw a proposed rule compelling CAFOs to provide information to aid the agency in regulating their discharge of pollutants into the waters of the United States was upheld by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The court concluded that the EPA’s decision was “adequately explained” and “coherent,” supported by the administrative record, and did not conflict with existing law.
Sierra Club V. United States Army Corps Of Engineers, 803 F.3d 31 (D.C. Cir. 2015), Ariel E. Overstreet-Adkins
Sierra Club V. United States Army Corps Of Engineers, 803 F.3d 31 (D.C. Cir. 2015), Ariel E. Overstreet-Adkins
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Despite the majority’s “needlessly circuitous” route, as described by concurring Judge Brown, Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stands as a limit of the application of NEPA to a private pipeline constructed largely on private land. While the main issue identified by the District of Columbia Circuit Court was the scope of environmental review required under NEPA, the court also addressed issues dealing with the ESA and the CWA relating to the construction and operation of a pipeline in the Midwest. The court held that under these circumstances, NEPA review was mandated only for those small stretches where …