The court holds that the modification of a protected species' habitat may constitute a taking under the New York State Endangered Species Act. Property owners discovered a timber rattlesnake den near their property line and informed the state environmental agency that they intended to build a fence ...
A court holds that under the Pennsylvania Hazardous Sites Clean-Up Act (HSCA), the owner of property once used for a landfill may not recover from previous owners the costs of testing the property for hazardous substances. The court first holds that the previous owners are responsible parties within...
The court reverses a trial court decision ordering the California Coastal Commission to set aside its denial of landowners' request for a coastal development permit to expand horse stables and boarding facilities on their property and to rehear the matter to determine whether the property included p...
The court holds that the environmental review of a water allocation agreement between the state department of water resources and 29 local water contractors violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). After the parties entered long-term contracts governing the supply of water under a s...
The court holds that a real estate developer, whose proposed subdivision plat for land in Santa Fe, New Mexico, met all enumerated requirements for plat approval, was not entitled to approval of its proposed plat as a matter of federal constitutional law. The case arose after the city council revers...
The quest by law abiding pesticide registrants for relief from illegally registered pesticides has taken a new turn. Tacitly acknowledging the futility of urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to initiate enforcement action against bad actors, registrants are now, in epidemic proportion, taking their case to EPA in the form of filing administrative petitions to revoke and/or cancel Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) registrations issued to competitors and alleged to be obtained illegally.
This Article considers the extent to which the United States has made progress in the management of chemicals and pesticides in light of the commitments it made in 1992 to promote sustainable development. While pesticides are types of chemicals, they are managed differently and this Article will employ the legal distinctions between the two. The term "chemicals" refers to substances that are manufactured, processed, or used in commerce, other than those marketed as pesticides, pharmaceuticals, or food additives.
Editors' Summary: When Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), many in the press announced that this law effectively repealed the Delaney Clause, which they claimed had banned all traces of cancer-causing pesticides in processed foods. This Article analyzes what the FQPA actually did. It begins by describing the history of the Delaney Clause. The clause appears in three statutes, most famously in the food-additive provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
On June 7, 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reached an agreement with the basic manufacturers of chlorpyrifos to reduce potential risks from exposure to residues from pesticide products containing chlorpyrifos. More commonly known by the trade names Dursban and Lorsban, chlorpyrifos is the most commonly used pesticide in and around homes in the United States.
Editors' Summary: CERCLA and the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) create causes of action for damages to natural resources—for damages "resulting from" a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance, in the case of CERCLA, and for damages that "result from" a discharge or threatened discharge of oil in the case of the OPA. Thus, natural resource damages actions under these acts require a causal link between the release or discharge and the natural resource damage at issue.