Chevron USA V Natural Resources Defense Council Case Summary

Circuit Judge Mikva then gives the dissenting opinion for this case. He states that the EPA’s redefined variation for the term “solid waste” is perfectly reasonable because it tackles the “ever changing problem of hazardous waste disposal”. Mikva thinks that if the EPA deems recycled material as solid waste; then their rule is reasonable and should be regulated under the RCRA.

The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) is a pipeline that will carry crude oil from Stanley, North Dakota to Patoka, Illinois crossing under the Mississippi river and Lake Oahe. Who has been disputing against whom, why, and other information about the building of the pipeline and the location of it have been on the news recently. This paper will examine the legality of building the pipeline, it crossing under major water sources, and taking into account tribal opinion/public opinion when constructing something that could harm their land/resources.

Fish and Wildlife Director, Department of Interior, Secretary Bruce Babbitt 's interpretation of the ESA and his characterization of the word “harm”.

Legislation to Authorize the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to Accept, as Part of a Settlement, Diesel Emission Reduction Supplemental Environmental Projects : Report (to Accompany S. 2146)." (2008): 1-4. UWSP Library Forward. Web. 01 Jan. 2012.

An Analysis of State of Wyoming, et al. v. United States Dept. of the Interior

According to Clean Air Act Amend of 1977, there are various requirements set on States that were yet to maintain the national air quality standards that were established by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The requirements were in line with the earlier legislation among the requirements of “nonattainment States” to establish permit program that was regulating the new and modified major source of air pollution. However, the permit was not to be issues for such sources unless stringent rules were set (Chevron USA Inc V. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc, et el, 1984).

Because it is a California-based company, this suit included non-compliance under California’s Unfair Competition Law. The case was originally dismissed by the federal court as they believed the trial should be heard in Peru. However, the plaintiffs were able to successfully appeal this decision to the Ninth Circuit, and a trial was held in the U.S. court system (Earth Rights Org). The plaintiffs included Achuar community members that were directly impacted by Occidental Petroleum. In addition to Earth Rights, the plaintiffs were represented by Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris and Hofman, a firm in Southern California, as well as Natalie Bridgeman Fields, an attorney from Northern California (Earth Rights Org). This case became the first case in which a company from the U.S. has been sued in a U.S. court for pollution caused in another country (Guardian).

Wild Fish Conservancy v. United States Environmental Protection Agency is it a citizen suit brought against the Agency in which the Plaintiff believes, regulations passed by the EPA and the National Marine Fisheries Service that make salmon farms in Puget Sound not liable to general sediment-management standards breaches on the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. Because the Plaintiff argues that both the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act were violated, there are a couple of Act provisions relevant to the case. Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA is required to review state water quality standards. In regards to the violation of the Clean Water Act, The plaintiff points out that the standards imposed by the 1995 amendments to the regulations on marine sediment proposed by WA Department of Ecology and passed by the EPA (1991) adversely affected wild salmon populations (which as a result violates the Endangered Species Act.) The Plaintiff argues that both the EPA and the Fisheries Service failed to take into account “the best scientific and commercial data” in their informal interagency consultation of the regulations--specifically mentioning the EPA and Fisheries Service’s decision to ignore facts that verify the negative effects that sea lice have on wild salmon. The EPA and Fisheries Service claim that they did in fact

This specific court case revolves around the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), specifically regarding particulate matter in the ozone layer. Within the CAA, it states that the Environmental Protection Agency must set a standard on the quality of ambient air so that public health is protected. This section 109 (b) (1) of the act was challenged in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and declared it unconstitutional to delegate Congress to the EPA so that they can officially set a quality of air standard. They stated that it violated the Constitution in Article 1 Section 1 due to it delegating congressional actions to the EPA, which it cannot do under law.

It was not until the Clean Act of 1970 that enforcement at the federal level being in more a serious way. To quote the EPA website directly “The enactment of the Clean Air Act of 1970 (1970 CAA) resulted in a major shift in the federal government's role in air pollution control. This legislation authorized the development of comprehensive federal and state regulations to limit emissions from both stationary (industrial) sources and mobile sources. Four major regulatory programs affecting stationary sources were initiated: the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS, pronounced "knacks"), State Implementation Plans (SIPs), New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). Furthermore,

With Republican President, Donald Trump, and the Republican Party holding the majority of both chambers of the 115th Congress, passing environmental protection legislation doesn’t seem to be a priority (or even a thought). Not only are Congress and the President ignoring environmental protection, but they have also worked together to reverse current environmental protection regulations. Normally, repealing any form of legislation is a lengthy and challenging task. However, during the spring of 2017, the Legislative and Executive branches were able to quickly and easily get rid of two environmental protection rules. This ease of change definitively had do with the legislation being bureaucratic agency rules and laws. Though, not only were

The Clean Air Act was the first major environmental law in the United States to include a provision for citizen suits. Numerous state and local governments have enacted similar legislation, either implementing federal programs or filling in locally important gaps in federal

The Law firm won the case in the end with the verdict that Pacific Gas & Energy had to compensate the plaintiffs in the amount of $333 million for damages (cornell.edu web site).

The second action my organization is to sue the offending company under the clean air act. The federal law controls air pollution often making sure that all necessary

1. Environmental Protection Agency and Food and Drug Administration: While I’m not asthmatic, I do follow continual government regulation. However, I’ve quite interested in how government regulations affect healthcare and the cost thereof for consumers. The new regulation is actually a planned amplification of previous regulations regarding clorofluorocarbon (CFC) use in metered-dose inhalers (MDI), where, as of 14 April 2010, seven more metered-dose inhalers will be phased out and replaced with hydrofloroalkanes (HFA) inhalers.