The court reverses a district court decision and holds that the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) violated the National Environmental Policy Act when it implemented a vessel management plan (VMP) for the Glacier Bay National Park in Alaska without preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS). Th...
The court holds that the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) and Air National Guard's (ANG's) orders approving the Colorado Airspace Initiative (Initiative) and its underlying environmental impact analysis did not violate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal Aviation Act, ...
A district court dismissed two local water agencies' NEPA action against various federal and state regulatory agencies, water districts, and other interested parties involved in the development and environmental review of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, a yet-to-be consummated collaborative approac...
A district court held that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) failed to take a hard look at its decision to deregulate alfalfa genetically engineered to resist the herbicide glyphosate—the active ingredient in "RoundUp." Substantial questions exist as to whether the deregulatio...
A district court dismissed an environmental group's claim that the Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Transportation Act in approving an environmental impact statement (EIS) for a new transportation project designed to improve commuting betwe...
The court holds that the Federal Highway Administration and the West Virginia Department of Transportation's decision to support the building of a new, four-lane highway as part of the Appalachian Highway Development System complied with the National Environmental Policy Act and §4(f) of the Depart...
The court holds that the U.S. Forest Service failed to comply with National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements in determining whether to allow a timber sale in the Payette National Forest in Idaho. The court first holds that the Forest Service fail...
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.
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.