In denying a petition for review, the Tenth Circuit held that the NRC did not violate the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) or NEPA when it issued a license to a company to conduct in situ leach mining for uranium on four sites in northwest New Mexico. In issuing the license, NRC interpreted its regulations t...
Environmental regulation of pollution in the United States is often maligned as costly and ineffective. Pollution continues to plague and degrade the natural resources in the United States, and U.S. waters in particular. Nonpoint source pollution is currently the most significant source of water pollution, but it is also the most unregulated. While other discharges into U.S. waters have been dramatically reduced since the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) was enacted, nonpoint source pollution—caused most by runoff from agricultural operations—has increased.
Editors' Summary: Until recently, the regulation of chemical carcinogens and the regulation of radiological carcinogens developed independently. Different governmental agencies operating under different statutory directives were responsible for addressing the dangers from these carcinogens. As a result, different policies and practices were developed. This Article explores these differences and the record on resolving them. It first examines the history of federal regulation of chemical and radiological carcinogens and summarizes EPA's approach to risk assessments for them.
Few commentators doubt the value of clean, unadulterated waters teeming with varied and colorful aquatic life. The debate centers instead on more pragmatic concerns, that is, how to best accomplish the accepted imperative. Some maintain that the primary responsibility should fall on the federal government because of its insularity from regional economic and political pressures. Others suggest that states should take the lead because of their familiarity with and ability to respond to local environmental concerns. Both sides have valid points.
Editors' Summary: On February 28, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated and remanded portions of EPA's concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) rule. The ruling was not a win for either side of the debate, as it requires permitting authorities to review and incorporate nutrient management plans into their permits, but prevents EPA from requiring CAFOs to apply for permits based solely on their potential to discharge pollutants to U.S. waters.
The court holds that a district court erred in ruling that Florida is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity in a limitation of liability proceeding, but it correctly dismissed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) and Florida Pollution Discharge Prevention Act claims brought against the owners of th...
The court holds that an environmental group is not entitled to a preliminary injunction suspending a proposed retail development's construction permit and ordering the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) addressing the development's impact on flooding. The...
The court upholds as reasonable and fair a settlement agreement in a citizen suit challenging the federal government's failure to perform Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) duties concerning mountaintop mining in West Virginia. The agreement purported to settle environmental groups' claims ...
The court holds a landowner liable under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) for discharging polluted stormwater without a permit into a stream on his property that flows into ponds on his neighbors' property. The discharges occurred when the landowner was harvesting timber and developin...
The court holds that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) violated Safe Drinking Water Act §1412(b)(3)(A)'s statutory mandate to use the best available evidence when it implemented the chloroform maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG). During rulemaking for the chloroform MCLG, EPA ostensi...