The court holds that a county's sewage treatment plant violated Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) §301(a) by discharging heat into a stream located near environmental group members' homes. The court first holds that according to the plant's monitoring reports, the plant's effluent exceede...
The court holds that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction under the Migratory Bird Rule to require a consortium of municipalities to obtain a Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) §404 permit before filling ponds and lakes on a proposed landfill site. The court first holds that t...
The court holds that a state land use board erred when it failed to affirm a county's preliminary approval of a residential subdivision in an area containing wetlands and designated as a wildlife habitat. The board rejected the county's argument that the wetlands at issue were not subject to the cou...
The court holds that developers' sidecasting of dredged spoil in a jurisdictional wetland constitutes the discharge of a pollutant under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The court first holds that the deposit of dredged or excavated material from a wetland back into the same wetland constitutes the discha...
The court holds that a railroad's motion to dismiss a power company's Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) cost recovery action against it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be denied. The court first holds that the power company's allegation as co...
The court upholds a district court dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of recreational groups' claims that the U.S. Forest Service violated the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when it designated certain areas of the Shawnee National Forest as Research Natur...
Above my desk at work, I keep a button that reads "Save the Ugly Animals Too." It is a reminder that more than just the charismatic megafauna, such as wolves and bald eagles and grizzly bears and whales, are worth conserving. From the standpoint of protecting the web of life, including the ecosystems that benefit us all by providing services such as water purification, flood control, nurseries for our fish and shellfish, and opportunities for outdoor recreation, it is often as important to conserve the lesser known species, the cogs and wheels that drive those ecosystems.
In a recent essay, Katrina Wyman suggests four substantial reforms aimed at improving implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and furthering species recovery: (1) decoupling listing decisions from permanent species protection;3 (2) requiring the Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) to implement cost-effective species protection measures;5 (3) prioritizing funding for biological hotspots;6 and (4) establishing additional protected areas.
Katrina Wyman has penned a bold, provocative, and innovative critique of the capability of the Endangered Species Act (ESA or Act) to meet the challenges of an increasingly human-dominated world. Bold because the ESA, perhaps more than any other environmental law, has impassioned champions who disfavor dissent. It is no easy task to critique a law with the truly noble mission to preserve life other than our own, particularly when the law's basic premise is that the mission's success is critically dependent on abundant and altruistic actions by us.
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.