The Fourth Circuit affirmed an award of attorney fees in a citizen suit brought under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act with respect to the preliminary injunction phase of the litigation, but reversed fees awarded for the supplemental claims phase. The supplemental phase included plaint...
The D.C. Circuit upheld the U.S. Department of the Interior's (DOI's) interpretation of "valid existing rights" in a 1999 rule to foreclose surface mining operations in sensitive areas. A mining association argued that Congress inserted "valid existing rights" in the Surface Mining Control and Recla...
The Tenth Circuit held that the Federal Mineral Leasing Act (FMLA) does not provide political subdivisions of a state an implied cause of action to challenge the state's allocation of federal mineral royalties received under the Act. FMLA §191 directs the federal government to return 50% of fed...
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...
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.
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.
In Environmental Federalism Part 1: The History of Overfiling Under RCRA, the CWA, and the CAA Prior to Harmon, Smithfield, and CLEAN, the history of judicial and administrative decisions relating to overfiling under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Clean Air Act (CAA) was analyzed. The history showed that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with limited exceptions, generally was understood to have overfiling authority under RCRA, the CWA, and the CAA. The limited exceptions focused on two situations.
One of the more daunting tasks facing environmental practitioners over the past decade or two has been the recovery of cleanup costs and related relief at sites contaminated with petroleum substances. Parties seeking relief face significant hurdles under the federal environmental statutes. The key federal environmental cost-recovery statute, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) often provides little help because of its petroleum exclusion.
Conventional wisdom says that the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is an impediment to the reuse of brownfields. Examination of a decade of experience, however, reveals that properties "captured by the net" of RCRA jurisdiction have gone on to new, productive, and economically viable reuse. Contrary to conventional wisdom, there is also a great potential for many more RCRA properties to do so.
The court holds that the Federal Mining Act of 1872 preempts a local zoning ordinance that bans surface metal mining within the Spearfish Canyon area of South Dakota. The court first holds that miners' preemption claim against the county ordinance is ripe. The miners have shown a realistic danger of...