Environmentalists are no strangers to disappointment in the U.S. Supreme Court, but the recent case of Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC) is particularly disappointing. First, it might be said that the impact of the opinion, in circumstances in which legislative amendment is virtually impossible, may be the most devastating judicial opinion affecting the environment ever.
Does the use by migratory birds of isolated, intrastate waters establish enough of a connection to "navigable waters" and interstate commerce to permit federal regulation under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the U.S. Commerce Clause? The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers thinks so, but courts and commentators have not been entirely sympathetic to the Corps' so-called migratory bird rule. The Fourth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thomas (in a dissent from denial of certiorari) have rejected such a broad jurisdictional reach in no uncertain terms.
On June 18, 2001, all eight governors of the Great Lakes states and the premiers of the two Canadian provinces bordering the Great Lakes basin gathered at the impressive Prospect Point in Niagara Falls to sign a sweeping joint declaration. Known as "Annex 2001," the document is a supplementary agreement to the Great Lakes Charter of 1985. But unlike the loose and informal charter, Annex 2001 commits this diverse and multipartisan group of political leaders to find a way to collectively manage the Great Lakes basin.
The court holds that zoning regulations of a state commission that limit the use of land in an environmentally sensitive area protected under federal law do not constitute an unconstitutional taking of private property. Congress established the Pinelands National Reserve in New Jersey under the Nati...
The court holds that the statistical methodologies used by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission in promulgating water quality standards for cadmium, lead, and silver in the North Fork of the South Platte River were not compatible with water quality data, and the standards are thus based on ...
The court rules that the final environmental impact report that resulted in issuance of a conditional use permit for the construction and operation of a hazardous waste incinerator at the Kettleman Hills site in Kings County, California, was inadequate as an informational document under the Californ...
The court, applying Pennsylvania law, holds that an insured cannot recover the costs of a state-mandated cleanup of hazardous waste under general liability insurance policies. The court first holds that Pennsylvania rather than New Jersey law applies. Pennsylvania was the place of contracting and pe...
The court holds that under Colorado law, the pollution exclusion clause in a comprehensive general liability insurance policy bars coverage for environmental response costs sought by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in connection with a wood product company's discharge of waste materia...
The court holds that the Department of Energy's (DOE's) storage of additional nuclear waste at an existing storage facility does not constitute construction or modification subject to permitting under Idaho's clean air regulations. Idaho's regulations under the Clean Air Act do not require DOE to ob...
The Court holds that an Alabama act that imposes a disposal fee on hazardous wastes generated outside the state, but not on hazardous wastes from sources within Alabama, violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The operator of a commercial hazardous waste landfill in Alabama, which is ...