In two major Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) opinions, United States v. Atlantic Research, Inc. and Burlington Northern & Santa Fe R.R. v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court provided long-sought guidance for parties litigating hazardous waste cleanup issues under CERCLA.
On May 4, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States. The decision is of major significance with respect to two areas of Superfund jurisprudence--"arranger" liability, and divisibility or apportionment of harm. This Article is concerned only with the latter issue and, moreover, only with one specific element of that issue.
This past May, the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time addressed two issues that the U.S. Congress left open in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). These issues are: (1) the scope of "generator" or "arranger" liability under the language of CERCLA §107(a)(3); and (2) the circumstances under which a liable party under §1073 may be held jointly and severally liable. Rejecting the position of the U.S.
Editor's Summary: The exact contours of wetlands jurisdiction has been in dispute ever since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Today, the Court has been given the chance to clarify this area of law as it faces two cases dealing with wetlands jurisdiction. In Rapanos v. United States, the Court must decide whether CWA jurisdiction extends to a series of wetlands that do not abut a navigable-in-fact water. And in Carabell v. U.S.
Editors' Summary: Environmental professionals continue to consider the implications of the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court landmark decision regarding CWA jurisdiction, Rapanos v. United States. In this Article, Matthew A. Axtell uses Justice William O. Douglas'travel description of Alaska's Last Lake as a hypothetical to test the potential impact of the 2001 SWANCC decision as well as Rapanos on the federal government's CWA authority in Alaska. He begins by analyzing the CWA regulatory regime that applied for many years to Alaskan tundra wetlands before SWANCC and Rapanos.
Editors' Summary
It has become manifest that the manner in which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) imposes, implements, and enforces environmental requirements is in serious need of reform. This was recently and eloquently expressed by former EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus in his speech at the Environmental Law Institute's 1995 Annual Dinner. Expressions of the need for change have come from many points on the political spectrum, including the White House and the Congress. Unfortunately, practical measures to accomplish reform must overcome formidable obstacles.
The court holds that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to consider adequately the environmental impact of a petroleum pipeline that crosses under a proposed reservoir before issuing a Federal Water Pollution Control Act §404 permit. In issuin...
The court holds that the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) preempts a citizens group's private state-law nuisance action against a contractor hired by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to remediate a Superfund site. The court first holds that...
The court holds that the federal government's reallocation of excess water to a Native American tribe did not constitute a taking of irrigation districts' water rights. A 1984 federal statute directed a permanent annual supply of water to a Native American tribe and apportioned the excess water to a...