Vermont Law
MARCH 24, 2014
If proven, this would constitute violations of the federal Clean Water Act. _. A Washington Federal District Court Judge has cleared the way for a novel citizen suit to proceed to protect communities and waterways across the Pacific Northwest from dangerous coal pollution. By Kelly Nokes. appeared first on.
Vermont Law
FEBRUARY 8, 2015
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. :
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
PA Environment Daily
APRIL 18, 2023
The Ohio River has made tremendous progress through the processes of both The Safe Drinking Water Act and The Clean Water Act. There is more work to be done and vital federal resources are needed to sustain this work. To learn more, visit the Ohio River Basin Alliance webpage.
Greenbuilding Law
APRIL 25, 2021
Senate Bill 334 / House Bill 76 establish that a person who meets the threshold standing requirements under the federal Clean Water Act has an unconditional right and the authority to intervene in a civil action initiated by the State in State court to require compliance with certain water pollution control measures.
Circle of Blue
SEPTEMBER 28, 2022
The federal Clean Water Act includes specific provisions to limit pollution from such “point sources” of contamination. The Platte Lake case displayed the power of citizen lawsuits, MEPA, and the public trust doctrine to compel a polluter to halt damaging discharges. . Paul Stowe is its natural resources manager.
Ohio Environmental Law
MAY 8, 2020
On January 23, 2020, the Trump Administration released the final version of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR), which defines which waters and wetlands are protected under the Clean Water Act. The NWPR replaces the Obama Administration’s “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule.
Law Columbia
SEPTEMBER 10, 2021
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.).
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
40 
Let's personalize your content