Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Physical Sciences and Mathematics Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Administrative Law (1)
- Agency (1)
- CAA (1)
- Carbon Dioxide (1)
- Causation analysis (1)
-
- Clean Air Act (1)
- Clean Power Plan (1)
- Clean Water Act (1)
- Coal (1)
- Conveyances (1)
- EPA (1)
- Effluent (1)
- Energy (1)
- Environment (1)
- Environmental Protection Agency (1)
- Fair notice (1)
- Fairly traceable (1)
- Greenhouse gas (1)
- Groundwater (1)
- Hydrological connection (1)
- Indirect discharges (1)
- Injection wells (1)
- Labor (1)
- Murray (1)
- NPDES (1)
- Navigable waters (1)
- Nonpoint source (1)
- Obama (1)
- Point source (1)
- Pollutants (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Physical Sciences and Mathematics
Hawai'i Wildlife Fund V. County Of Maui, Lowell J. Chandler
Hawai'i Wildlife Fund V. County Of Maui, Lowell J. Chandler
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Hawai’i Wildlife Fund v. County of Maui, the Ninth Circuit held that the plain language of the Clean Water Act provides jurisdiction over indirect discharges of pollutants from a point source into groundwater that is shown to be connected to navigable waters. The court found that studies confirmed pollutants entering the Pacific Ocean were fairly traceable to the County of Maui’s sewage disposal wells. In affirming the district court’s ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that Maui County violated the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants into a navigable water without the required permit. The court also concluded the …
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.