Search

The article focuses on legal disputes involving environmental regulations and resource management. It discusses the challenges faced by San Francisco in contesting vague narrative permit conditions under the Clean Water Act, arguing they fail to specify compliance measures adequately. It examines the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation's litigation against the Bureau of Land Management over drilling permits near Lake Sakakawea.

Nearly ninety percent of New Mexico’s rivers and streams potentially have been removed from federal protection under the Clean Water Act following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA to substantially reduce what qualify as “waters of the United States.” Before this decision, many ephemeral streams, tributaries, and wetlands were protected by the Environmental Protection Agency. Permits are essential to protect not only the environment but landowners as well. The New Mexico Environment Department is in the process of developing its own surface water discharge permitting program, as the EPA’s jurisdiction contracted commensurately with the Supreme Court’s new definition of “waters of the United States.” The New Mexico Environment Department and water conservationists worry that without a permitting process, many bodies of water in New Mexico and the United States would be left unprotected, allowing unregulated discharge of harmful pollutants into waters on which the public relies for drinking water, agriculture, recreation, and ecological stability. But is requiring a permit enough to protect the waters of New Mexico? How would obtaining a permit through the state protect waters in New Mexico from those who, either intentionally or unintentionally, discharge pollutants into waters outside of New Mexico that flow into the state? Does the interpretation of “waters of the United States” in Sackett only apply to wetlands? This Note addresses the local problems created by the Sackett decision and offers possible solutions to the lack of protection for states like New Mexico with dry and arid climates. It proposes that it is not enough for the New Mexico Environment Department to create its own permitting process—to truly protect our most precious resource, Congress needs to correct the Court’s mistake and enact an improved definition of “waters of the United States” in the Clean Water Act itself. Congress cannot continue to ignore the reoccurring problem of the Court’s intrusion into environmental regulation. Leaving the interpretation of the Clean Water Act to the United States Supreme Court has proven to be a critical error. The time to act was decades ago, and the consequences of Congress’s inaction are at New Mexico’s doorstep. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Problems with clean water in coastal areas alongside an increase in population and community economic activities have diversified community activities. Coastal settlements bordering the high seas are characterized as arid areas with a lack of clean water. Here, the use of the range groundwater supply against seawater intrusion means that the water consumed by the community tastes salty and brackish. The availability of abundant seawater, processed through desalination technology, can be used to meet the daily clean water needs of coastal communities. Sustainable development goal (SDG) 6 Water and Sanitation is concerned with ensuring that everyone has access to clean water and sanitation. In this regard, desalination technology is considered viable to achieve the SDGs in the environmental sector. Some countries have focused on using desalination technology to achieve target 6.4 by 2030. This goal aims to improve the efficiency of water use to reduce the number of people experiencing clean water scarcity by ensuring a sustainable supply of fresh water. The objective of this study is to examine the application of seawater desalination technology for clean water in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Indonesia, and identify the implications of desalination policies in these countries. Comparative studies were conducted using secondary data and literature studies on transforming seawater into clean water with technology. KSA applies seawater desalination technology to meet water needs. However, in Indonesia, policymaking has not holistically examined the potential of using seawater desalination technology for clean water. Until now, unlike in the KSA, Indonesia has not addressed the importance of the use of desalination technology in state policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article argues on the role of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in the regulation of light pollution and preservation of the nation's waters by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Topics discussed include damage caused by artificial light at night (ALAN) to marine and wetland ecosystems, state and local regulation of light pollution, classification of ALAN as pollutant under the CWA, and regulatory overreach with respect to greenhouse gases in the case West Virginia v. EPA.

This Article reviews the history of CWA Section 401 and finds that it supports affording EPA’s newest interpretive rule Chevron deference. The CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification Improvement Rule serves as an important case study of the doctrine which faces mounting criticisms and two cases challenging its legality in the Supreme Court at the time of this publication. Although its application delegates lawmaking authority to unelected officials who change policies with the tides of each election, this delegation has been necessary in many areas of the law due to Congress’s failure to act in recent years. Instead of simply surrendering the interpretation of ambiguous statutes to the judiciary, CWA Section 401 exemplifies the determination of deference owed to an agency’s interpretation through a close analysis of Congress’s intent, the agency’s previous actions, and the statutory language itself. Without addressing the merits of challenges to Chevron deference or predicting their outcomes, this Article reviews the legislative, rulemaking, and judicial history of CWA Section 401 and concludes that its history supports deference to the new rule when it is challenged in court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Essay introduces a framework of three different strategies for protecting American waterways--the conventional regulatory approach, an alternative property-based approach, and a newer human rights-based approach--and reviews how the dynamic among them will be impacted by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Sackett v. EPA, which curtailed the regulatory reach of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The rights of nature movement has emerged as a human rights-based approach to environmental protection, the public trust doctrine offers a public property-based approach, and the CWA epitomizes the more traditional regulatory approach. Last Term, however, the Court unwound nearly a half century of accepted regulatory practice when it substantially limited the reach of the CWA as a tool for protecting waterways. In Sackett, the majority held that CWA jurisdiction extends to only those waters with a continuous surface connection to a navigable waterway, rather than covering all wetlands, headwaters, and tributaries with a significant nexus to the navigable channel at the bottom of the watershed. The Court made this relatively hard break with fifty years of past interpretations of the "Waters of the United States" jurisdictional rule, in spite of Congress's clearly stated purpose in enacting the CWA to protect "the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters," and in contravention of the accepted science that had informed the agency's interpretation of this legislative policy. By invoking a new "clear statement" doctrine during an unusually intense period of legislative paralysis, the Court has unselfconsciously substituted its own judgment for that of the political branches on a scientific matter in which judicial capacity approaches its nadir. The Court's additional suggestion that wetlands regulation is really a matter for the states highlights the majority's apparent inclination that the only federal actor eligible to weigh in on the proper means of protecting the nation's waterways is the Supreme Court itself. The Court's self-aggrandizing move in Sackett will come at a cost for wise environmental governance under all three models reviewed here. By weakening the nation's principal regulatory strategy for protecting them, Sackett will not only harm waterways directly, it will also frustrate all stakeholders in the debate about how best to balance the competing demands we place on them. It will almost certainly inspire greater recourse to the human rights- and property-based alternatives to conventional regulation under the CWA, notwithstanding the opposition these strategies face from regulated parties who critique them as legally unsound and environmental advocates who worry about their ultimate legal trajectory. Sackett thus threatens a critical loss in the arsenal of environmental law to protect waterways and the ecosystems, economies, and communities that depend on them--unless Congress acts quickly to support the overturned rule. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article analyzes the Supreme Court's decision in Sackett v. EPA, emphasizing its departure from established legal principles and its potential impact on environmental regulation. It critiques the Court's interpretation of the Clean Water Act, arguing that it neglects statutory text, historical context, and previous legal precedents. It also discusses the consequences of the ruling on federal jurisdiction over water resources.

The article focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Sackett v. EPA and its implications for the interpretation of the Clean Water Act (CWA). It examines how the Court's interpretation of the term "adjacent" within the CWA has significant ramifications for the regulation of wetlands and water resources. It critiques the Court's tendency to interpret individual statutory words in isolation, advocating instead for a holistic approach that considers the entire statutory text.

The article navigates the conflict on the doctrine of primary jurisdiction in the climate adaptation lawsuit CLF v. Exxon Mobil, wherein Exxon received permit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to discharge stormwater, groundwater and other waters from its petroleum storage and distribution terminal into the Island End River under the Clean Water Act. It discusses the issue of appropriate authority and agency deference and the court's application of the Blackstone factors on review.

The article calls for the leadership of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to close the ocean fracking gap and regulate aging rigs and evolving risks offshore. Topics discussed include fracking moratorium under Environmental Defense Center v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement's role in energy development, Clean Water Act authority of EPA, and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits and procedures.

The article presents the discussion on modern version of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA or the Act). Topics include federal agencies charged with implementing the law have struggled to interpret its scope ever since its 1972 enactment; and resulted in a decades long debate about the range of water bodies subject to the permitting and other regulatory provisions of the Act.

Nonpoint source pollution, such as agricultural pollution, accounts for most of the pollution that currently impairs waterways in the United States. The Clean Water Act, however, largely leaves regulation of this type of pollution to state management and regulation. This leads to a patchwork of differing water quality standards and control methods throughout the country. This patchwork effect is detrimental when waterways flow downstream from one state into the next. Thus, an interstate problem requires an interstate solution. Although the Clean Water Act typically requires minimal collaboration between states for management of nonpoint source pollution, the Third Circuit's decision in American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA affirmed the use of total maximum daily loads ("TMDL") for watershed level pollution. The creation of the 2010 Chesapeake Bay TMDL was the first large-scale attempt at using multijurisdictional TMDLs to reduce water pollution in interstate waterways. The Chesapeake Bay TMDL, however, has seen disputes and challenges. This type of TMDL has yet to be recreated because of the unique legislative and political forces that aligned for its creation. As a solution, multijurisdictional TMDLs should be incorporated into interstate compacts to provide an enforcement mechanism to hold other states accountable for their pollution reduction. With nonpoint source pollution knowing no boundaries, there must be a more effective method to ensure neighboring states will implement appropriate water pollution reduction controls. Interstate compacts offer a way for states to enhance the strength of their TMDL agreements by incorporating enforcement and reducing unnecessary federal intrusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Article addresses some of the challenges in teaching environmental law after the administration of President Donald Trump. The Trump Administration mounted a relentless, aggressive, and largely deregulatory overhaul of the nation's major environmental regulatory efforts, particularly the efforts of the prior Obama Administration. Many of these efforts by the Trump Administration have been challenged in court, some successfully, while others have been reversed or are in the process of reversal by the administration of President Joseph Biden. For teachers of environmental law, these actions present opportunities to demonstrate how regulatory agencies (under the direction of presidents), rather than Congress, have become the driving force of change in environmental regulation and the limits of that approach to addressing the nation's environmental issues. The Article surveys recent administrative action under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Clean Air Act and how these matters were addressed in a basic environmental law survey course. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explains the need for the government of Colorado to evaluate Clean Water Act Section 404 program. It discusses barriers to State Section 404 program assumption including assumable waters, the Endangered Species Act, program administration funding and political will. Initiatives for the management of critical natural resources are highlighted such as integration of water quality and quantity, increased regulatory program stability and influence of cooperative federalism.

The article analyzes the varied circuit court interpretations of the term knowingly in the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Topics discussed include the criminal liability in environmental statutes and the common law provisions regarding the liability, legislative intent and language used in the environmental statutes, and the necessity for the Supreme Court to rule on the issue to address the varied circuit court interpretation of the term.

The article focuses on agricultural exceptionalism stifles innovation of technological developments that reduce water pollution hindering competition within the agriculture industry. It mentions shift toward placing limits on agricultural exceptionalism to more fairly apportion the industry's liability. It also mentions federal environmental regulation such as Clean Water Act (CWA), the Clean Air Act (CAA), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).

The article focuses on importance of land conservation overall, outlining the reasons for focusing conservation efforts on rural lands and what environmental (and other) benefits can be gained in these areas. It mentions federal government mandates conservation through laws like the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. It also mentions ideas of how federal conservation programs could work in conjunction with subnational and private programs to further land conservation goals.

The article informs about several court cases with emergent trends in environmental law and legal profession of Minnesota lawyer. Topics include court case New York State Dep't of Env't Conservation, et al. v. Fed. Energy Regul. Comm'n, which claims for determination on the Clean Water Act when reviewing Section 401 water quality for natural gas projects; and court case Minnesota v. Am. Petroleum Inst., which claims for the scientific consensus linking fossil fuel emissions to climate change.

The Clean Water Act is the principal federal law aimed at controlling pollution of the nation's water resources, yet it does not provide comprehensive oversight of pollutants entering groundwater, the subsurface water that often feeds into rivers, lakes, and oceans. This Note examines a recent Supreme Court decision, County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, which appeared to endorse a theory of federal regulation of groundwater discharges under the Clean Water Act. County of Maui established a "functional equivalent" standard, under which a discharge through groundwater is subject to the Clean Water Act's permitting requirements if it is the functional equivalent of a direct discharge into jurisdictional surface waters. While the Court outlined several factors for courts to consider in making a functional equivalent determination, the decision offers limited guidance for lower courts applying the test. Moreover, it leaves an important regulatory question unanswered. This Note aims to address some of the persisting uncertainties by proposing that Justice Kennedy's "significant nexus" standard from his Rapanos v. United States concurrence can be illuminating. This Note argues that overlaying the significant nexus standard on the functional equivalent test offers a practical strategy for lower courts applying the test in difficult cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The U.S. Supreme Court created an imprecise retrospective test for determining Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction when the Court fashioned a "functional equivalent of a direct discharge" test that emphasized time and distance that the pollutant traveled from a point source through a conduit to a navigable water body. The seven-factor hindsight test was established to address the circumstance where the pollutant travels through an intermediary (such as groundwater) to reach the navigable water. County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, 140 S. Ct. 1462 (2020). How do we achieve the national objective of the CWA "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters" without undermining the states' jurisdictional right to regulate groundwater? Preserving this balance (without creating serious CWA loopholes) was at the heart of Justice Breyer's 6-3 majority decision in Maui. This article explains the reasoning of the Court and the pragmatic difficulties in applying its "functional equivalent of a direct discharge" test, in addition to examining the state and federal role under the CWA. A hindsight test creates unnecessary costs and hurdles for determining CWA jurisdiction for citizen suit NGOs, businesses, and regulators. Businesses and municipalities need to know upfront whether their prospective discharges require CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permits. The 47 states with delegated NPDES authority also need more specific guidance. The test hinders the proactive CWA goal of preventing and promptly mitigating contamination of our nation's waterways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the ambiquities surrounding the meaning of functional equivalence and ways to interpret it in way that both conforms with the purpose and judicial and regulatory history of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in the U.S. Topics discussed include the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in County of Maui v. Hawai'i Wildlife Fund, the purpose of the CWA, the statutory history of the CWA, the common-law origins of the CWA, and the scope of the CWA permitting requirements.

The article discusses the implementation of Section 404 of the U.S. Clean Water Act (CWA) in Florida, particularly the permitting requirements for activities that discharge dredge and fill materials into the waters. The act requires an environmental resource permit (ERP) from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The act also allows the state and Native American tribes to assume permitting responsibilities.

The Supreme Court has long struggled to define the scope of federal jurisdiction over pollution control under the Clean Water Act (CWA). During the Court's last term, that igue returned to the forefront in County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund. The case involved pollution from a wastewater treatment facility that reached the Pacific Ocean and caused coral die-ojfs at a nearby beach park. However, the facility did not discharge pollutants directly into the Pacific, but rather through groundwater. The Court heard the case to answer the question of whether pollution that reached federally covered waters indirectly, such as through groundwater, required CWA permits. On the way to the Supreme Court clash, an unusual relationship between a local government and an industry-aligned law firm led the county to reframe the case from a factual disagreement to a clash over the jurisdictional scope of the CWA. The Supreme Court held that discharges that reach navigable waters after traveling through another medium require permits if they are the "functional equivalent" of a direct discharge based on a multi-factor test. This test extends far beyond the particular context of discharges through groundwater. Past disputes in both in the courts and over rulemakings in the CWA's implementing agencies focused on the definition of the statutory term "waters of the United States" (WOTUS) to set the reach of the CWA's federal jurisdiction. However, the Maui test shows that the real jurisdictional reach of the Act extends to discharges that eventually enter those waters. As a result, federal jurisdiction is broader than past cases indicated, not only for pollutants that travel through groundwater, but for any water pollution. This jurisdictional scope will cover not only point source pollution but also wetlands regulation. As a result, Maui will become the most important case on the federal reach over water pollution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nonpoint source pollution is the biggest threat to water quality in the United States today. This Article argues for stronger federal controls over nonpoint source pollution. It begins by examining the history of water quality regulation in the United States, including the passage and amendment of the Clean Water Act and the evolving definition of "navigable waters over time. The Article then discusses recent rulemaking and litigation developments, including the Clean Water Rule, the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, and the County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund case. It offers three recommendations. First. the Article calls for a congressional amendment to the Clean Water Act to require binding controls on nonpoint source pollution. Second, recognizing that an amendment to the Clean Water Act may not be politically viable, it offers an approach for controlling nonpoint source pollution through an amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act. Finally. it identifies tools that interested states, local governments, and citizens' groups can utilize to take action on nonpoint source pollution under existing law. This Article concludes that reductions in nonpoint source pollution will lead to signifcant improvements in the water quality of our nation's lakes, rivers, wetlands, and coastal areas, to the benefit of human and environmental health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines that Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v United States Army Corps of Engineers, a case in which Judge Diane Wood wrote the opinion for a unanimous Seventh Circuit panel, addressed important questions about both the Commerce Clause and the Clean Water Act (CWA). Topics include reports that the Supreme Court majority opinion side by side with Judge Wood is to see a contrast that does not, to put it mildly, make the Supreme Court look good.

The article discusses whether discharging pollutants indirectly into navigable waters via hydrologically connected ground water can be considered a liability under the Clean Water Act of 1977 (CWA) in the U.S. Other topics include the relationship between CWA and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence on the issue.