The court holds that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts failure to warn claims brought by the purchasers of a container of chlorine tablets, but that FIFRA does not preempt their defective packaging and product design claims. The court first holds that the purch...
The court holds that the U.S. Forest Service's consideration of a fire's effects on a proposed timber sale in the Colville National Forest in Washington was not arbitrary and capricious. After a fire burned 10,000 acres, including 133 acres of the proposed timber harvest area, the Forest Service pre...
The court holds that environmental groups have no standing under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to challenge the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's) failure to halt actions adversely affecting the environment during the completion of an environmental impact statement (EIS) of a regional...
The timing of environmental analysis and judicial review presents critical issues of interpretation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Courts must be able to review an agency's compliance with NEPA before the agency makes major decisions, and before it invests significant resources that can compromise environmental review. Agencies must not be allowed to delay environmental review just because necessary data and research are difficult to obtain, or environmental impacts are uncertain. This Article discusses how the courts have handled these timing problems.
A recent headline on the front page of the Wall Street Journal hailed the opening of the nation's first "butterfly bank." The "deposits" in this unusual bank are conservation credits earned by preserving an important area of habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly, an endangered species restricted to California. The bank's intended customers are other landowners who hope to develop other sites where the butterfly occurs. In order to do so, they can buy credits from the private entrepreneur who established the butterfly bank.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Clean Air Act (CAA) represent federal regulatory regimes for protecting the environment. Although each statute initially places administrative responsibility in the hands of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), each encourages states, to varying degrees, to take primary responsibility for implementing the statutory regime.
In Environmental Federalism Part 1: The History of Overfiling Under RCRA, the CWA, and the CAA Prior to Harmon, Smithfield, and CLEAN, the history of judicial and administrative decisions relating to overfiling under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Clean Air Act (CAA) was analyzed. The history showed that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with limited exceptions, generally was understood to have overfiling authority under RCRA, the CWA, and the CAA. The limited exceptions focused on two situations.
Editors' Summary
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 Federal Mining Act of 1872 preempts a local zoning ordinance that bans surface metal mining within the Spearfish Canyon area of South Dakota. The court first holds that miners' preemption claim against the county ordinance is ripe. The miners have shown a realistic danger of...