Environmentalists are no strangers to disappointment in the U.S. Supreme Court, but the recent case of Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC) is particularly disappointing. First, it might be said that the impact of the opinion, in circumstances in which legislative amendment is virtually impossible, may be the most devastating judicial opinion affecting the environment ever.
Does the use by migratory birds of isolated, intrastate waters establish enough of a connection to "navigable waters" and interstate commerce to permit federal regulation under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the U.S. Commerce Clause? The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers thinks so, but courts and commentators have not been entirely sympathetic to the Corps' so-called migratory bird rule. The Fourth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thomas (in a dissent from denial of certiorari) have rejected such a broad jurisdictional reach in no uncertain terms.
Through the post-World War II era the U.S. Congress, by an incremental process of experimentation and error, developed the knowledge and experience that led to the imposition of individual permits based on uniform technology-based effluent limitations to regulate industrial water pollution. The resulting permit system has gradually reduced the amount of industrial pollution that enters our national waterways.
Agricultural biotechnology has generated much debate about the environmental consequences of field trials and commercialization of transgenic crops. Thus far, the debate has focused on opponents' claims of alleged risks presented by transgenic crops and the proponents' responses to those asserted risks. To date, three issues have dominated the debate:
. the risk of gene flow;
. the risk of weediness; and
. the risk of insect-resistance.
In recent years, the western states have often struggled with the federal government over control and management of natural resources, particularly water. For its part, federal law defers to states in many matters of water resource allocation.
The court holds that the New York Air Pollution Mitigation Law is preempted by the Clean Air Act (CAA) and violates the U.S. Commerce Clause. Under Air Pollution Mitigation Law §66-k, an electric generator is assessed an offset penalty when it sells a sulfur dioxide (SO2) allowance to a generator i...
The court affirmed a lower court's grant of summary judgment in favor of a power company charged with modifying its power plants without first obtaining permits in violation of the Clean Air Act's (CAA's) prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) provisions. The company updated its coal-fired ge...
The court vacates the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's equipment replacement provision (ERP) rule, which expanded the routine maintenance, repair, and replacement exclusion from new source review (NSR) requirements by allowing sources to avoid NSR when replacing equipment that does not exceed ...
The D.C. Circuit granted in part environmental groups' petition for review of a final rule promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate "hot spot" analyses undertaken as part of the State Implementation Plan for National Ambient Air Quality Standards transportation proje...
The court dismisses a property owner's Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), and state common-law claims against prior owners of the property and a state agency for r...