The court holds a landowner liable under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) for discharging polluted stormwater without a permit into a stream on his property that flows into ponds on his neighbors' property. The discharges occurred when the landowner was harvesting timber and developin...
The court holds that the U.S. Forest Service complied with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when it issued a permit to a Colorado ski resort for the expansion of a ski area within the White River National Forest. The court first holds that ne...
The court holds that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) decision to implement the direct federal underground injection control (UIC) program on certain New Mexico lands based on their Native American or disputed jurisdictional status did not violate either the Safe Drinking Water Act...
The court holds that although the U.S. Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when it failed to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) necessary for certain timber sales in the Nez Perce National Forest in Idaho, the Forest Service's subsequent pre...
The government use of compulsory purchase and land use control powers appears to be increasing worldwide as competition for useable and livable space increases. The need for large and relatively undeveloped space for agriculture and conservation purposes often competes with the need for shelter and the commercial and industrial development accompanying such development for employment, product production and distribution, and other largely urban uses.
Editors' Summary: Property rights advocates implicitly complained in Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon that a Fish and Wildlife Service regulation that aimed to protect endangered and threatened species by defining "harm" to include habitat modification impinged on their rights as private landowners by asking them to share with the government responsibility for protecting such species. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the regulation as reasonable given the relevant language of the Endangered Species Act.
The bedrock notion that courts should, in the overwhelming majority of cases, defer to lawmakers is currently under attack in the nation's courts, commentary, and classrooms. Leading the way are several U.S. Supreme Court Justices who, in cases involving the U.S. Commerce Clause, Takings Clause, and §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, are much more willing than their immediate predecessors to second-guess the motives and tactics of elected and appointed officials at all levels of government.
Editors' Summary: Although most talk in terms of wildlife protection seems to focus on the operation of the ESA, there are a host of other federal and state laws designed to protect wildlife from the impacts of resource-development projects—before the species become threatened or endangered.
Keynote Presentation: Making the Partnership Work
Panel Discussion: Regulation of Nuclear Materials
Regulation of Air Quality
Regulation of Water Quality: Is EPA Meeting Its Oblilgations or Can the States Better Meet Water Quality Challenges?
Regulating Solid and Hazardous Wastes
The Seventh Circuit dismissed Michigan's petition for review of an EPA rule redesignating certain Native American lands to Class I status under the CAA's prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program. Michigan's challenge raises some important issues about the PSD program's regulatory struct...