Source: https://jeremygreenhouse.com/tag/environmental-law/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-01-16 02:00:26
Document Index: 232529

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 131', 'art 131', '§ 103', 'art. 4', '§ 66', '§ 116']

environmental law | Fire on the River!
Posts tagged “environmental law”
On August 25, 2015, the EPA issued a memorandum setting forth its revised Superfund comfort/status letter policy, as well as three updated model Superfund comfort/status letters for parties interested in acquiring contaminated, potentially contaminated, and formerly contaminated properties for reuse and redevelopment. Comfort/status letters are one means EPA uses to address concerns regarding properties that may present CERCLA cleanup and liability issues. The letters are purely informational; they do not provide any EPA assurance against enforcement action. However, by summarizing information contained in the EPA’s files regarding contamination and cleanup at the property, the letters can help interested parties make informed decisions regarding potential CERCLA liability. In addition, EPA’s policy indicates that the agency’s comfort/status letters may suggest property-specific reasonable steps a party may…
On June 24, 2015, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota endorsed the “NEPA Exception” in holding that a two-county diversion board did not need to post a bond for a preliminary injunction. Richland/Wilkin Joint Powers Authority v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 13-2262 (D. Minn., June 24, 2015). The diversion board brought an action including a claim under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that challenged a plan by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a local government sponsor to build a diversion structure to protect the Fargo-Moorhead metro area from floodwaters.Many courts ruling on cases asserting claims under NEPA have not required plaintiffs seeking preliminary injunctions to post a bond. These courts have cited the important…
EPA Makes First Revisions in 30 Years to National Water Quality Standards Rule
On August 5, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule revising the requirements and procedures for developing, reviewing, revising, and approving state water quality standards pursuant to section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). EPA, Final Rule Updating the National Water Quality Standards, 80 Fed. Reg. 51020.
Beautiful Warm Lake in the Boise National Forest (Source: http://www.fs.usda.gov)
Under the CWA, states determine the appropriate water quality standards for bodies of water within their borders. State water quality standards set forth the designated uses of a body of water, the water quality criteria necessary to support the designated uses, and antidegradation requirements. These standards then become the basis for water-quality-based effluent limitations in NPDES permits under the CWA. State water quality standards must be approved by EPA. EPA’s rules governing the federal approval process are set forth in 40 CFR part 131.
EPA’s revisions to part 131 are the first amendments to the rule since 1983. EPA’s stated goals of the rulemaking were to improve the regulation’s effectiveness, increase transparency, and enhance opportunities for meaningful public engagement at the state, tribal and local levels. The revisions address six key program areas: (1) EPA’s determinations of whether new or revised state water quality standards are necessary; (2) designated uses for water bodies; (3) triennial reviews of state and tribal water quality standards; (4) antidegradation requirements; (5) variances to water quality standards; and (6) provisions authorizing the use of schedules of compliance for water quality-based effluent limits in NPDES permits.
Categories: Bench & Bar, Environmental Policy, Water
Tagged: California environmental law, Clean Water Act, environment, environmental law, environmental policy, epa, epa rulemaking, Minnesota environmental law, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota water quality standards, water quality
Minnesota Court of Appeals Interprets New Trout Stream Setback Statute in Silica Sand Case
In Erickson v. Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources, No. A14–1732 (Minn. Ct. App. July 20, 2015), the Minnesota Court of Appeals interpreted a 2013 statute requiring that within the boundaries of the Paleozoic plateau ecological section, no silica sand mining may occur within one mile of a designated trout stream unless the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has first issued a silica sand mining trout stream setback permit. Minn. Stat. § 103G.217. The permit requirement applies only to “new silica sand mining projects and projects for which environmental review documents have been noticed for public comments after April 30, 2013.” 2013 Minn. Laws ch. 114, art. 4, § 66, at 1732. At issue was a Houston County silica sand mine that since 1992 had…
Categories: Bench & Bar, Environmental Policy, Environmental Review, Fracking, Water
Tagged: Clean Water Act, environment, environmental law, environmental policy, environmental review, frac sand, Fracking, MEPA, minnesota court of appeals, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota environmental law, Silica sand
Minnesota Supreme Court Concludes Seasonal Animal Lot Not a CAFO
On July 29, 2015, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a farm using fields as cropland in the summer and as an animal feeding site during the winter need not obtain a National Pollution Disposal Elimination System (NPDES) permit but must nonetheless obtain a state disposal system (SDS) permit. In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP, A13-1461, (Minn. July 29, 2015). The Pope County, Minnesota, farm at issue uses a portion of its cropland as a winter feeding facility for cattle. Following the fall harvest, the farm places cattle on the lot, which consumes crop residues through the winter. In the spring, the farm moves the cattle off the lot and plants new crops for the growing season. The Clean Water Act and EPA…
Categories: Environmental Policy, Supreme Court, Water
Tagged: CAFO, Clean Water Act, environment, environmental law, environmental policy, epa, Minnesota agrigultural law, Minnesota environmental law, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota water quality standards, MPCA, NPDES, water quality
Minnesota Court of Appeals Addresses Matter of First Impression under State Environmental Rights Act
On August 10, 2015, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of a Minnesota Environmental Rights Acts (MERA) claim because the city ordinance alleged to be violated did not constitute an environmental quality standard, limitation, or rule under MERA. State ex rel. Afremov v. Remes, A14-2037 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2015). The case involved a dispute between neighbors over an alleged violation of the Wayzata City Code‘s prohibition against the granting of private easements for lakeshore access. To maintain an action under MERA, a plaintiff must make “a prima facia showing that the conduct of the defendant has, or is likely to cause the pollution, impairment, or destruction” of natural resources. Minn. Stat. § 116B.04. “Pollution, impairment, or destruction” is…
Categories: Bench & Bar, Environmental Policy
Tagged: environment, environmental law, environmental policy, MERA, minnesota court of appeals, Minnesota environmental law, Minnesota Environmental Rights Act