Remove Clean Water Act Remove Natural Resources Remove Politics Remove Pollution Control
article thumbnail

Opposition to CAFOs Mounts Across the Nation

Circle of Blue

It’s now being raised as a political issue. Court of Appeals issued a ruling that lends legal muscle to a five-year old petition that Food & Water Watch and 36 allies filed to compel the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to update CAFO permitting regulations. Water worries. As a legal issue. As a legislative issue.”.

article thumbnail

Ohio River Basin Alliance Responds To Listing Of Ohio River As America's 2nd Most Endangered River In The Nation

PA Environment Daily

These threats include a legacy of toxic chemical discharges, bacteria impairment, nutrient pollution, mine waste, and other serious problems. The Ohio River has made tremendous progress through the processes of both The Safe Drinking Water Act and The Clean Water Act.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Policy News: November 22, 2021

ESA

It will likely be at least two weeks before the Senate takes up the legislation and the Senate will likely make major changes to the bill before passing the legislation for political and parliamentary reasons. He served as the USDA undersecretary for nature resources and the environment in the Obama administration. or WOTUS. “In

2021 105
article thumbnail

Blurred Lines: The Importance of Delineation Between Legislative and Non-legislative Rules Under the APA

Vermont Law

In March of 2014, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers issued an “interpretive rule” regarding section 404 of the Clean Water Act, circumventing a notice and comment period. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), “interpretive rules” are merely advisory and do not carry the force of law. Summary. :

article thumbnail

September 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

Law Columbia

Under the Endangered Species Act, the court vacated the FWS’s biological opinion because the incidental take statement lacked “the requisite specificity of mitigation measures for the polar bear” and because the take finding for the polar bear was arbitrary and capricious. Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Products Co. , 19-1818 (1st Cir.).

2021 40
article thumbnail

November 2017 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

Law Columbia

The court said the plaintiff had not alleged an injury connected to any particular action or law and that her allegations instead suggested disagreements with the defendants’ policy positions, which made her claims nonjusticiable political questions. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Republican National Committee , No.

2017 40