The court pursuant to §505(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) affirms the award of litigation costs to plaintiffs for work reasonably related to the results obtained from their FWPCA citizen suit against a lead refinery. After the plaintiffs filed their FWPCA citizen suit, the U....
The court holds that a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' determination that landowners' property comprised jurisdictional wetlands, which resulted in the recision of a private contract for the sale of the property, did not constitute a compensable taking. The court first holds that the cancellation of t...
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 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 a recent article reviewing the U.S. Supreme Court's environmental decisions over the last 30 years (1969-1999), Professor Richard Lazarus argues that "the Justices have never fully appreciated environmental law as a distinct area of law."1
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 1999 National Nuclear Security Administration Act (NNSA Act) threatens to reverse 20 years of reforms and court decisions intended to bring the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) into compliance with environmental laws and regulations. The NNSA Act, enacted in the wake of allegations of spying at Los Alamos nuclear weapons laboratory in New Mexico, established a semi-autonomous agency within DOE—the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). The NNSA operates nine laboratories and facilities within the U.S. nuclear weapons complex.
Under the public welfare doctrine, certain regulatory crimes require no showing of the traditional mens rea, or "guilty mind," as a predicate to criminal liability. The doctrine has been used to relax intent requirements in criminal statutes when the public welfare is at stake and is predicated upon the fact that the defendant had notice that the dangerous activity is regulated. A majority of courts place the criminal provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) within the public welfare doctrine.