Search Results | Environmental Law Reporter®

Navigating Federalism: The Missing Statutory Analysis in Solid Waste Agency

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.

The Court, the Clean Water Act, and the Constitution: SWANCC and Beyond

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.

One for the Birds: The Corps of Engineers' "Migratory Bird Rule"

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.

El Pueblo Para el Aire y Agua Limpio v. Kings, County of

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...

Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.

The court holds that a tank truck company is not entitled to summary judgment on claims against its insurers for indemnification of costs resulting from a government action against it under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) with respect to soil and gr...

CPC Int'l, Inc. v. Aerojet-General Corp.

Applying Michigan law to an insurance dispute, the court adopts the doctrines of known-risk and loss-in-progress, and denies coverage because the insured's environmental director knew or reasonably should have known of a substantial probability of a loss caused by groundwater contamination at the si...

Clean Air Mkts. Group v. Pataki

The court holds that the New York Air Pollution Mitigation Law is preempted by the Clean Air Act (CAA) and violates the U.S. Commerce Clause. Under Air Pollution Mitigation Law §66-k, an electric generator is assessed an offset penalty when it sells a sulfur dioxide (SO2) allowance to a generator i...

HM Holdings, Inc. v. Rankin

The court holds that the presence of hazardous waste on industrial property that a company sold to an individual does not breach any express or implied warranties. The court first finds that the purchase and sale agreement contains no express warranties as to the condition of the property, and a rid...

Employers Ins. of Wausau v. United States

The court holds that the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) bars an insurer's claim that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials acted tortiously in ordering the insurer to clean up a site under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, ...

Chemical Weapons Working Group, Inc. v. Department of the Army

The court refuses to preliminarily enjoin the U.S. Department of the Army from beginning incineration tests of chemical warfare agents at its disposal facility in Tooele, Utah. The court first holds that the asserted risks of harm due to dioxin exposure and accidental agent releases are too speculat...