This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Air emissions : Any gas emitted into the atmosphere from industrial or commercial activity. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) : A group of inert chemical used in many industrial and everyday processes such as our refrigerators that are not broken down at lower atmospheric levels and rise to the upper levels, destroying ozone.
In August 2017, NYSDEC conditionally denied the developer’s joint application for state law stream disturbance and freshwater wetlands permits, as well as for a water quality certificate pursuant to Section 401 of the CleanWaterAct, asserting that a recent D.C. Army Corps of Engineers had violated the CleanWaterAct.
Four regional environmental organizations and the State of California filed lawsuits in federal district court for the Northern District of California challenging the EPA’s determination that the Redwood City Salt Ponds were not within the jurisdiction of the CleanWaterAct. Democracy Forward Foundation v. 1:19-cv-02751 (D.D.C.,
Supreme Court reinstates Trump administration CleanWaterAct regulation. Diplomats fail to reach agreement in international biodiversity talks. This latest report looks at mitigation — or what the world can do to stop pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Executive Branch. International. Halting at 1.5
The court said that having remanded to the Corps for consultation under the Endangered Species Act, it was not necessary to determine whether the Corps “made a fully informed and well-considered decision” under NEPA and the CleanWaterAct. s decision not to participate in the ParisAgreement.
The court stated: “Plaintiffs’ claims for public nuisance, though pled as state-law claims, depend on a global complex of geophysical cause and effect involving all nations of the planet (and the oceans and atmosphere). It necessarily involves the relationships between the United States and all other nations.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated NEPA, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the CleanWaterAct, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Instead, they sought an order that the Plan must be more ambitions in order to be aligned with the objectives of the ParisAgreement.
On May 26, 2021, the federal government and the oil and gas company developing the Willow Master Development Plan Project in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska filed briefs opposing the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment on claims that project approvals violated the CleanWaterAct, NEPA, and the Endangered Species Act.
Trump, the fact that each month is warmer than the same month the previous year has nothing to do with the adverse consequences associated with spewing obscene amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. into the atmosphere each year, with no end in sight. manufacturing non-competitive.”
Army Corps of Engineers’ motion to hold in abeyance a case challenging the Trump administration’s rules defining “waters of the United States” under the CleanWaterAct. The plaintiffs asserted that the Corps’ approval of modifications to the project violated the Rivers and Harbors Act and the CleanWaterAct.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 12,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content