The court holds that a U.S. Forest Service proposal for a logging project and road extension in the Green Mountain National Forest in Vermont violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), but not the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). The court first holds that neither the district cour...
The court holds that environmental activists challenging the construction of a golf course in Lake Jackson, Texas, may not bring a Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) citizen suit action against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or bring Administrative Procedure Act (APA), National Environmen...
The court upholds the U.S. Forest Service's approval of four timber sales in the Ozark National Forest. A coalition of environmental groups sued the Forest Service to enjoin or set aside the timber sales. The court first holds that the district court did not abuse its discretion by limiting its revi...
The court holds that summary judgment cannot be granted on the issue of corporate officers' Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) liability, but a successor corporation may be held liable under CERCLA. After a U.S. Virgin Islands clothing manufacturer dissol...
The court holds that the U.S. Forest Service's consideration of a fire's effects on a proposed timber sale in the Colville National Forest in Washington was not arbitrary and capricious. After a fire burned 10,000 acres, including 133 acres of the proposed timber harvest area, the Forest Service pre...
The court holds that environmental groups have no standing under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to challenge the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's) failure to halt actions adversely affecting the environment during the completion of an environmental impact statement (EIS) of a regional...
The timing of environmental analysis and judicial review presents critical issues of interpretation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Courts must be able to review an agency's compliance with NEPA before the agency makes major decisions, and before it invests significant resources that can compromise environmental review. Agencies must not be allowed to delay environmental review just because necessary data and research are difficult to obtain, or environmental impacts are uncertain. This Article discusses how the courts have handled these timing problems.
In the past few years, owners of contaminated land, seeking to supplement possible causes of action under the Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and under state common law and state statutes, increasingly have looked to §7002(a)(1)(B) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to shift responsibility for remediation costs to former owners or operators.
A recent headline on the front page of the Wall Street Journal hailed the opening of the nation's first "butterfly bank." The "deposits" in this unusual bank are conservation credits earned by preserving an important area of habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly, an endangered species restricted to California. The bank's intended customers are other landowners who hope to develop other sites where the butterfly occurs. In order to do so, they can buy credits from the private entrepreneur who established the butterfly bank.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Clean Air Act (CAA) represent federal regulatory regimes for protecting the environment. Although each statute initially places administrative responsibility in the hands of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), each encourages states, to varying degrees, to take primary responsibility for implementing the statutory regime.