FWS established a nonessential experimental population of the grizzly bear within the U.S. portion of the North Cascades Ecosystem (NCE) in the state of Washington under §10(j) of the ESA in order to support the reintroduction, recovery, and conservation of the species within the NCE.
United States v. Sunoco Pipeline, L.P., No. 1:24-cv-00238-SJD (S.D. Ohio Apr. 29, 2024). Under a proposed consent decree, a settling CWA defendant must pay a civil penalty of $550,000 in addition to $1,250,000 to compensate for harm to natural resources in connection with crude oil escaping from a ruptured pipeline, contaminating waters of the United States, and causing damage to natural resources.
United States v. Dow Silicones Corp., No. 19-11880 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 24, 2024). A proposed consent decree modification extends a deadline for a settling CWA defendant’s implementation of a stormwater capacity and pollutant evaluation from January 24, 2023, to January 24, 2026, and also includes requirements to mitigate any environmental harm associated with the extension of the deadline.
EPA revised the water quality standards (WQS) regulation under the CWA to add requirements for states establishing WQS in waters where tribes hold and assert rights to CWA-protected aquatic and aquatic-dependent resources reserved through treaties, statutes, or executive orders.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) enforcement program has long been the backbone of environmental enforcement in the United States. That program may now be bound for dramatic change. This Article analyzes the threats posed to the Agency’s program by the U.S. Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, in which three constitutional questions presented cut to the core of administrative enforcement.
Supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) have received a growing amount of attention in recent years, from the Donald Trump Administration banning their use in settlements, to regulation and guidance from the Joseph Biden Administration reversing the ban, to legislative proposals prohibiting them altogether. This Article examines SEPs’ legality under existing law, focusing on claims that they violate the Miscellaneous Receipts Act and the Antideficiency Act. It begins with a brief history of SEPs’ policy evolution and the limitations on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s and U.S.
EPA entered into a proposed settlement agreement under the CAA in Nevada Cement Co., LLC v. EPA, Nos. 23-682 and 23-1098 (9th Cir.), that would establish a process and deadlines by which plaintiff would apply to EPA for a case-by-case emissions limit request for its Fernley, Nevada, facility, in exchange for agreeing to lift a judicial stay.
SIP Approval: New Hampshire (revisions to establish nitrogen oxide reasonably available control technology requirements for coal-fired cyclone boilers).
SIP Proposal: California (revisions to San Diego County Air Pollution Control portion of plan to expand existing provision that exempts tub grinders and trommel screens that process green material from permit requirements to include horizontal grinders and processing of mixtures of green material and food material).