Colorado River V. Colorado Case Summary

The citizen suit provision of the Clean Water Act is an important tool to protect and improve rivers, creeks, streams, and wetlands especially as state agencies may not have the resources to conduct regular water quality monitoring on every water body. Citizen involvement in monitoring and reporting pollution problems is key to watershed protection; hereby helping the government enforce the laws.

The concept of social justice, and the environment have always been under great threat. However is it possible to mend the two, combine them together, in order to create an equal atmosphere and a sustainable society? The majority of the population have always wanted to prevent the minority in gaining their rights in fear of losing their power, and the nature conquerors have disregarded the wilderness’ needs in fear of losing their profit. Environmental activists and advocates have sought to bridge the gap between the complicated and divisive relationship between the natural world and the advancing technological world. Rebecca Solnit, Wendell Berry, and John Muir all recognize the explicit relationship between social justice and the respect for the natural world.

Growing up in Switzerland and Oregon, I learned that nature is greatly valued and it is necessary to respect the environment to prevent impending environmental collapse. Living in a society whose morals and ethics include

In Paul Taylor’s essay, “The Ethics for Respect for Nature,” he argues that… In this paper I will first describe Taylor’s concept of “respect for nature.” I will then explain the part this attitude plays in rationally grounding a biocentric outlook on environmental ethics. Lastly, I will present Rosalind Hursthouse’s criticism of Taylor’s view, and state how Taylor might respond to this criticism.

Procedural History: A wrongful death lawsuit was filed by Diane Geringer due to the drowning deaths of both William and Jared Geringer. The trial courts found that the defendants (Mr. Waters and Les Bretzke), were negligent in their duties while the family were vacationing at the Wildhorn Ranch.

Cole and Foster (2002) describes how many of the Native environmental justice struggles were focused around land and environmental exploitation (p. 26), both of which can be seen with the case of clear cutting in the Grassy Narrows community (Keewatin v Minister of Natural Resources, 2011), as well as with the issues surrounding the case of mercury pollution (Grassy Narrows and Islington Indian Bands Mercury Pollution Claims Settlement, 1986). This is an environmental justice issue because the Grassy Narrows people continually have to deal with environmental racism. Both of the examples mentioned above, along with the fact that they are still battling out in court their right to clean water and harvesting rights that sustains their livelihood (Keewatin v. Ontario Natural Resources, 2013) show how indigenous communities are still facing environmental racism in Canada.

Under Colorado case law, any covenant not to compete, which restricts the right of any person to receive compensation for performance of skilled or unskilled labor for any employer shall be void, unless the agreement fits into one of four statutory exceptions, such as the employee qualifying as executive and management personnel. If the agreement fits into one of the four exceptions it must be deemed reasonable in scope and duration, to be enforceable. Is the non-compete Mr. Marin signed, reasonable in scope and duration when he is not allowed to work for a period of two years in the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Wyoming, Utah, or Kansas in directly or indirectly entering into the employ of, or rendering any service to, any person, partnership, association, corporation, or other entity engaged in cultivating cannabis; processing, extracting, or manufacturing cannabis concentrates, edibles, or other products; or dispensing medical or recreational cannabis.

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

The judge in the Colorado shooting case has sentenced a woman to three weeks in jail for interrupting the lead prosecutor during closing arguments in the latest stage of the penalty phase.

In the year of 2003, the Imperial Irrigation District of Southern California decided to settle and sell their share of the Colorado River to the San Diego County Water Authority. This settlement became the nation’s largest ag-to-urban water conservation transfer agreement called the Quantification Settlement Agreement. This created many pacts between multiple water districts to help California with their 4.4 million acre-foot entitlement to the Colorado River water. There is some of this water being released to the Salton Sea to help mitigate some of the negative environmental impacts that are happening. This agreement though called for water flow to go to the Salton Sea still for the first fifteen years because of the negative effects,

In the movie A Civil Action, families of a town who lost their children due cancer caused by two companies that were dumping toxic waste into a water stream. They contacted a local attorney to try and bring these companies to justice. The companies were trying to pay the attorneys to just drop the case but they didn't give in. In the end of the movie they pretty much lost the case but the EPA found out about it and came in and put them in their place.

A Civil Action is based upon a true story that Jonathan Harr, a former staff writer of New England Monthly describes a case that in the legal system that is fascinating and compelling. The story of a impracticable quest by an idealistic young personal-Injury lawyer, whose aim was to prove that two conglomerates, Beatrice Foods and W.R Grace, allegedly polluted the water in Woburn ,Mass. a Boston suburb, with carcinogens. Jan had hoped that a victory would send a message to the boardrooms to America and felt that the culture of Leukemia in Woburn guaranteed his success. He never realized that he would be comforted with problems in the justice system.

The citizen suite in regards to environmental acts, regulations and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act is an essential tool in regulating impacts on the environment, public health, and the health of the wildlife. If used properly it can be an essential weapon for the public to keep companies, organizations, individuals, and even federal agencies in check. Citizen suits should not be taking lightly though, as it takes a great deal of time, research, and patience in trying to win a citizen suit case.

Michelle Maloney argues that the Earth’s natural resources are being depleted at a rate that is not sustainable. Consequently, she argues that the ‘overshoot’ of development and depletion of our natural resources will lead to a ‘collapse’ of our global system. She goes on to demonstrate that this theory is being shown through evidence of global warming, acidification of the oceans and deforestation. Maloney argues a solution to these issues through the adoption of Earth Jurisprudence theory, also known as wild law. She argues that the underpinning problem surrounding ecological destruction and unsustainability is linked back to the fundamental concept of anthropocentrism , whereby, we humans believe that we are above or separate from the natural world. Additionally, it follows that the natural world is ‘our property’ and it exists solely for our benefit. Maloney affectively argues that according to Earth Jurisprudence, this underpinning societal concept is incorrect and rather we should see the environment as being at an equal level, where we are not above or superior to the natural world. Maloney does address the barriers of living within our limits, however does draw the problems back to anthropocentrism and the belief of unlimited economic growth. Further, it is proposed that government systems are required to change in order to assist society in living within our ecological limits.

At both the international and domestic levels, defining the environmental issues as human rights violations in legal terms is a complex task. However, in the last decade, petitions and suit cases against climate change issue were gradually filed. In 2006, the first suit case against the Environmental Protection Agency was reached to the U.S Supreme Court (Aminzade, 2006). A petition claimed that climate change through emissions and air pollutants caused harm to public health and welfare. This case grabbed the attention of multiple environmental agencies; it also gained support from political and human rights activists figures (Aminzade, 2006). Another petition in 2004 by Inuit claimed that the U.S climate change policy violated the human rights to life, the right to health, and movement (Goldberg & Wagner, 2004). The Inuit petition describes how climate change is affecting the Arctic environment on which the Inuit depend. It argued that climate change violates the Inuit rights, including the right to life, health, and property. Based on the petition, the Inuit’s right to life is violated because critical food resources are threatened by climate change, and unpredicted weather events can cause loss of life (Knox, 2009). The Inuit community also argued that climate change interferes with their right to health by damaging fish on which they depend on for nutrients, and by diminishing the quality of their drinking water and increasing the spread of diseases (Knox, 2009).