Search Results
Use the filters on the left-hand side of this screen to refine the results further by topic or document type.

U.S. Supreme Court Review of <i>Rapanos v. United States</i> and <i>Carabell v. United States Army Corps of Engineers</i>: Implications for Wetlands and Interstate Commerce

Editor's Summary: The exact contours of wetlands jurisdiction has been in dispute ever since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Today, the Court has been given the chance to clarify this area of law as it faces two cases dealing with wetlands jurisdiction. In Rapanos v. United States, the Court must decide whether CWA jurisdiction extends to a series of wetlands that do not abut a navigable-in-fact water. And in Carabell v. U.S.

The Hidden Cost of Prosperity: Transboundary Mercury Pollution, the United States, and China

Editor's Summary: The largest portion of global mercury emissions comes from Asia, in particular China. Because mercury and its compounds are highly mobile and move with prevailing wind currents, China's failure to regulate mercury emissions provides ample reason for worry in the United States. In March 2005, the United States promulgated the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) to regulate mercury emissions from coal activities. Yet any reductions achieved under the CAMR program may be offset by China's economic plans and energy needs.

Last Lake Standing: Clean Water Act Jurisdiction in the Alaskan Frontier After <i>Rapanos v. United States</i>

Editors' Summary: Environmental professionals continue to consider the implications of the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court landmark decision regarding CWA jurisdiction, Rapanos v. United States. In this Article, Matthew A. Axtell uses Justice William O. Douglas'travel description of Alaska's Last Lake as a hypothetical to test the potential impact of the 2001 SWANCC decision as well as Rapanos on the federal government's CWA authority in Alaska. He begins by analyzing the CWA regulatory regime that applied for many years to Alaskan tundra wetlands before SWANCC and Rapanos.

A Practitioner's Guide to Protecting Wetlands in a Post-<i>Rapanos</i> World

Editors' Summary: The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rapanos v. United States failed to clarify the murky area of federal jurisdiction under the CWA. Justice Scalia's plurality opinion, requiring a restrictive approach, and Justice Kennedy's concurrence, setting forth a "significant nexus" standard, created two different routes of jurisdictional analysis. In this Article, Jim Farrell and Marie Quintin first discuss how to interpret a plurality opinion.

The Historic Navigability Test: How to Use It to One's Advantage in This Post-<I>Rapanos</I> World

Editors' Summary: Since the Supreme Court's decision in Rapanos v. United States, courts, practitioners, and scholars have continued to discuss the socalled Kennedy test and its significant nexus criterion. In this Article, authors William W. Sapp, Mina Makarious, and M. Allison Burdette explore the historic navigability test, one tool that can be used to establish a significant nexus to a traditional navigable water. The authors begin by providing a history of traditional navigable waters.

The Float a Boat Test: How to Use It to Advantage in This Post-<i>Rapanos</i> World

Editors' Summary: Since the Supreme Court's decision in Rapanos v. United States, courts, practitioners, and scholars have continued to discuss Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's significant nexus test. Under this test, to protect a wetland one must establish that there is a significant nexus between the wetland and a traditional navigable water. In this Article, authors William W. Sapp, Rebekah Robinson, and M. Allison Burdette suggest that the nearer a traditional navigable water is to the wetland, the better the chance of establishing that there is a significant nexus between the two.