Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, presently before the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, raises a fundamental issue of administrative law: whether the federal courts have jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to review inaction by a federal agency when that inaction violates a nondiscretionary statutory mandate imposed by the U.S. Congress.

Introduction

This Article analyzes data and information on the use of environmental management systems (EMS) in federal enforcement settlements. An EMS is an approach to management and system improvements which includes policies, practices, procedures, processes, and resources for developing, implementing, achieving, and reviewing the organization's environmental policy and goals.

I. Introduction and Methodology

A. Mandate

The Storm Continues

An industry coalition filed suit in March 2004, against the state of New Jersey opposing highly criticized tactics, including the state's use of a New Orleans-based firm known for representing plaintiffs in toxic tort and related litigation, to recover money damages for natural resource claims. The action seeks to end the state's plan to rely upon contingent fee attorney Allan Kanner to sue more than 80 companies for alleged damages to natural resources.

"A person has a better chance of being tried and judged for killing one human being than for killing 100,000." --Former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

I. Introduction

I. Introduction

The tensions over the waters of the [Tigris-Euphrates] basin have reached internationally acknowledged levels, and a lack of cooperation among the riparians confronts the world with a new potential conflict area. This situation threatens the delicate political stability in the Middle East, and further polarization in [sic] region continues . . . . The basin is one of the most unstable political areas in the region and water plays and [sic] important role. This is a classic case of [sic] water quantity issue, and use of the available water in the basin.

The Clean Air Act's (CAA's) new source review (NSR) program has not been effective. Some of the worst emitters of air pollutants today were among the worst polluters when control of new source emissions by the CAA began in 1970. Moreover, the program as applied to existing sources, despite its marginal successes, is characterized by uncertainty, complexity, vagueness concerning its requirements, and the potential high costs associated with unpredictable enforcement.

In Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly upheld orders issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to §§113(a)(5) and 167 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), prohibiting construction of a new power generator unit at a mine in Northwest Alaska.

Imagine buying a piece of property that is subject to a governmental land use regulation such as a zoning ordinance that restricts development or some other use of the property. Under these circumstances, can a claim be brought against the government for reimbursement of the market value of the land?