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.
Under the Wetland Conservation subtitle of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, commonly known as "Swampbuster," wetlands may be used to grow crops provided they are not degraded by this practice. In the legislation, Congress has made an effort, by use of the "minimal effects" concept, to make precise just what farming practices are acceptable. If a farming practice has only a minimal effect on the wetland's function, then the farmer is not ineligible for participation in federal loan, commodity price and income support, and conservation programs.
The U.S. Supreme Court decision last term in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC), striking down the migratory bird rule for wetlands regulation, warrants some reading of the Court's environmental tea leaves. Some fine commentary in these pages still leaves murky whether the opinion seriously imperils other environmental laws and regulations. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's SWANCC opinion for a five-Justice majority had worrisome implications that the new restrictive view of the U.S.
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...
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.