The court reverses a trial court decision ordering the California Coastal Commission to set aside its denial of landowners' request for a coastal development permit to expand horse stables and boarding facilities on their property and to rehear the matter to determine whether the property included p...
The court holds that the environmental review of a water allocation agreement between the state department of water resources and 29 local water contractors violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). After the parties entered long-term contracts governing the supply of water under a s...
The court holds that a real estate developer, whose proposed subdivision plat for land in Santa Fe, New Mexico, met all enumerated requirements for plat approval, was not entitled to approval of its proposed plat as a matter of federal constitutional law. The case arose after the city council revers...
For the last several years, federal circuit courts have debated the exact jurisdictional scope of §404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which authorizes the Secretary of the U.S. Army (the Army), acting through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps), to issue permits "for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters at specified disposal sites." The circuit courts have based their debates on the assumption, well-supported by earlier CWA decisions, that Congress intended the term "navigable waters" within the CWA to extend to the limits of the U.S. Commerce Clause.
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...