EPA’s Clean Power Plan is the Obama Administration’s most important effort to address the challenge of climate change. But it also raises significant legal issues of first impression ranging from unsettled statutory language to EPA’s splintered approach under different subsections of CAA §111 to judicial skepticism about EPA’s expansive CAA approach using a very narrow statutory provision.
On May 20, 2014, the Federalist Society Environmental Law and Property Rights Practice Group convened at the National Press Club to discuss the form of the appropriate federalism model for regulating CO2 emissions under §111(d) of the Clean Air Act. The event featured Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, who discussed his recent paper, "The Oklahoma Attorney General’s Plan: The Clean Air Act Section 111(d) Framework That Preserves States’ Rights." Here, we present a transcript of the event, which has been edited for style, clarity, and space considerations.
This Article discusses the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s program to control fine particulate emissions 2.5 microns or smaller (PM2.5) in areas that fail to meet the national ambient air quality standards. The Article covers the sources and health effects of both direct emissions of particulate matter and secondary emissions that are transformed into PM2.5 in the atmosphere.
This Article provides a general introduction to what is commonly referred to as “big data,” and offers an outline of over 60 initiatives underway in the public and private sectors to use big data to forward environmental protection. This initial survey is not intended to provide a comprehensive list of all efforts currently underway, but instead to illustrate the range of initiatives and approaches used by government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and industry.
This Article, the second in a series of five, examines the meaning of “pollutant” under the Clean Water Act. Congress and EPA have defined “pollutant” to mean a list of specific substances and broad categories of materials and wastes discharged into water, e.g., “biological materials” and “chemical wastes.” The definition is broad enough to encompass virtually all substances associated with human activity that are discharged to water, regardless of whether the substances cause pollution or are produced through human endeavor. Therefore, “pollutant” is rarely a limiting element.
Despite repeated recommendations for improved ocean governance, little has happened legislatively to update federal ocean protection. But administratively, NOAA has advanced a number of rulemakings to expand the size of existing national marine sanctuaries, and has finalized a rulemaking to allow the consideration of new designations of national marine sanctuaries. This Article analyzes the legal underpinnings of the centerpiece of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act and compares it to other federal and state legal authorities that govern ocean ecosystems and resources.
In 1995, Professor of Law David Sive and Pace’s Law Faculty established this lectureship, in honor of Lloyd K. Garrison, to commemorate Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission. Known as the Storm King case, this ruling inaugurated what we today call environmental law. Two individuals above all others guided and framed the jurisprudential foundations for environmental law. We honor these founders today. Their lives were intertwined.
Since 1952, Cornell University Prof. Emeritus John W. Reps has taught, studied, and written about the planning of cities, suburbs, and farms. The American Planning Association has recognized him as a planning pioneer. He is perhaps the first scholar to recognize that the best way to understand planning’s future is to study planning’s past. In 1964, Professor Reps delivered the Pomeroy Memorial Lecture at the American Society of Planning Officials’ annual conference.
On October 1, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in a relatively obscure case, Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v.
In 2000, England enacted the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, which provides the public the right to roam on certain private lands without compensation to the landowners. There are many constitutional and cultural-historical issues pertinent to importing this right to roam into the United States, in particular the current constitutional barrier of the physical invasion rule in Fifth Amendment Takings Clause. However, significant doctrinal weaknesses persist regarding the “fundamental” right to exclude underpinning this rule.