Environmental Policy : The State Of Michigan And The Environmental Protection Agency

It seems as if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been avoiding encounters with people who are fighting for environmental justice. However, there may be an underlying reason why the EPA is not putting effort into these environmental problems. Over the years, the EPA has experienced budget cuts, this has resulted in the loss of jobs and programs. When money is not readily available, the amount of money that is available is usually conserved and only used when necessary. It does not look as if they are the reason why majority of the issues are not be taken care of. Based on my understanding of the article, it seems as if the EPA is working at the will of the government. The people working in the agency are responsible for doing their

With the well-being of future generations in mind, environmental concerns have begun to establish a permanent residence atop the priority ladder for a vast array of Americans. Consequently, writers and political pundits alike are seizing this opportunity to capitalize on advocating their stance on the issue. Information, representing all positions, pours in at an unrelenting and unfathomable rate. For the average American it can be an arduous process sifting through all the rhetoric in attempt to find the real truth regarding our impact as humans on the environment; one such example is Susan Brown’s article The EPA’s Mercury Problem. In this article Brown attempts to expose hypocrisy among progressives by paralleling the Environmental Protection

Due to the fact that South Coast’s standards are more stringent than federal standards, the “association” would find that the Supreme Court is more likely to uphold the decisions of the lower courts; at that time, it is then set at the highest level court and future court cases will have to look at that precedent as the standard. If the South Coast standard were set at a lower level than the federal standard established by the EPA, then this is a situation where the Supremacy clause of the Constitution would come into play in order to mandate compliance with federal law.

1.The term "Three Fires" refers to the dominant tribes in Michigan during the early 1600s. The three tribes were:

In Jan. 2011, the EPA decided to veto the dumping of waste from the Spruce No. 1 Mine. But the agency’s efforts have so far been rebuffed by the courts as an overreach: Under the weird legal regime that governs mining, it’s the Army Corps of Engineers, not the EPA, which has the ultimate say-so over those permits. In 2012, the D.C. district court ruled that EPA lacked authority to veto the permit after the Corps had issued it. However, in fact EPA's decision is based on evidence from scientific research on serious environmental harm from mining. In May 2013, a coalition of Appalachian and environmental groups petitioned the EPA to set a numeric water quality standard under the Clean Water Act to protect streams from pollution caused by mountaintop removal mining . They claimed that “State politics and industry pressure have so far failed to end this pollution without such a standard and more and more streams and communities who rely on those waters are left vulnerable. We need EPA to act now.” The EPA’s authority over the Clean Water Act in respect to Spruce Mine No. 1 was finally affirmed by the Supreme Court in March 2014.

The Michigan legislature has been considering an iGaming bill that may result in Michigan being the next US state to implement iGaming. While iGaming would be a new step for Michigan, the state already has some experience with forms of gaming on the internet. Michigan was one of the first states to implement an iLottery, and it proved to be a popular venture. Over 276,000 residents of Michigan have opened iLottery accounts and hundreds of thousands of tickets are sold per day through the iLottery. So might Michigan be fertile ground for full iGaming? And might it be another step toward the US industry getting to the critical mass it needs in order to keep growing?

The national or federal environmental administration asks their states to help maintain a safe and clean environment for all of its’ people to enjoy. The National Environmental Policy Act or also known as NEPA was established in 1969 to aid federal agencies to help convey the message for the need to protect the environment. “Federal agencies are required to systematically assess the environmental impacts of their proposed actions and consider alternative ways of accomplishing their missions, which are less damaging to and protective of the environment” (U.S. General Services Administration). Even though the National Environmental Policy Act “requires” federal agencies to ensure states to follow through, Texas has not fully committed to the requirement. “Texas contains an abundance of natural resources, but efforts to impost environmental regulations have faced roadblocks for many decades” (The Texas Tribune). Texas has neglected to keep the environment’s safety in mind and thought of only the business boom. The natural resources found on the land of Texas represents a magnet that attracts people. Texas desires to continue the attraction of people into the state as it is allowing the state to flourish in economic matters. During the past few decades, “From 1970 and 1980, as oil prices spiraled upward and people flocked to Texas,” (Petersen and Assanie) there has been little attempt made in conserving

Michigan is the only state in the union composed to two separated peninsulas. At the closest point, the upper and lower peninsulas are a mere five miles apart. In the early twentieth century, the only way to make the trip across the five miles of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron was to take a boat ride from one side to the other. As businesses expanded and industry grew, the demand to cross the lakes for travel and commerce purposes grew. The only way to cross the lake was by means of a ferry service, which was unable to keep up with consumer demand. Michigan residents were unable to get convenient and frequent transport between the peninsulas. They needed a consistent, fast, and safe way to travel freely from the mainland to the

It does not come as a surprise to anyone that Michigan has a large number of water supplies surrounding it. We have most of the Great Lakes touching our territory and if it not touching Michigan than it is pretty darn close. Michigan also has more than 10,000 inland lakes and you can stretch out all of our rivers and streams and extend them up to thousands of miles. So how exactly did Michigan become the great lakes state?

In Chevron the Supreme Court gave deference to the agency, due to their expertise, along with being indirectly accountable to the people, unlike the courts. In an article, Kristin Hickman wrote, “Resolving statutory ambiguity necessarily implicates choosing among various policy alternatives; and it is the job of administering agencies, not courts to make these policy choices” (Hickman,

The public policy of the ESA had multiple issues in the case of Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter. There have been legislative issues between the ESA and Congress in regards to the inconsistency of authority (Jennings, 2010). In addition, the lack of communication between Congress and the FWA caused discrepancies on how to best protect the habitat (Jennings, 2010). The public policy also has issues on an economic standpoint due to the cost of resources on the basis to support the ESA or abolish the Act (Sahr, n.d.).

In today’s government, the state of Michigan has two representative in the Senate (Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters) and one in Congress (Debbie Dingell). Debbie Stabenow currently resides as the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Foresty, and the Senate Committee on Finance, along with serving on subcommittees on commodities, conservation, and rural development and energy. Gary Peters currently sits on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Homeland Security, and Armed Services, along with being apart of subcommittees on Fisheries, aviation, emerging threats, and strategic forces. Debbie Dinged currently resides on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, while being on

The clarity that SOPRA would provide has become increasingly needed as regulatory agencies have increased their authority over regulatory matters. Precedents set by Chevron USA Inc. v. NRDC and Auer v. Robins, had the courts defer to agencies in the interpretation of their own statutes and regulations. These decisions have led to agencies using ambiguous laws, to expand their authority as long as the interpretation is deemed reasonable by the courts. Although these decision

Accordingly, since Clendenin Bros., the policy language has been broadened—seemingly in response to Clendenin Bros. and similar cases—to include not only environmental pollution, but also, substances that are “harmful or toxic to persons [or] property.” The significance of this distinction was recognized in Clipper Mill Fed., LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112172 (D.Md. 2010), where a landlord/insured alleged that damages caused by “[t]oxic and dangerous airborne pollutants” attributable to a malfunctioning HVAC unit gave rise to a claim against the insured by a tenant. Id. at 3. In that case, although the pollution at issue was not “environmental,” the District of Maryland observed that:

Pollution exclusions are a frequently litigated topic, and “there exists not just a split of authority, but an absolute fragmentation of authority.” Porterfield v. Audubon Indem. Co., 856 So. 2d 789, 800 (Ala. 2000). Roughly speaking, most states fall “into one of two broad camps.” Apana v. TIG Ins. Co., 574 F.3d 679, 682 (9th Cir. 2009). The first camp consists of courts that “have concluded that the clause is intended to preclude coverage for environmental pollution, not for ‘all contact with substances that can be classified as pollutants.’” Keggi v. Northbrook Prop. & Cas. Co., 199 Ariz. 43, 13 P.3d 785, 790 (Ariz. 2000) (quoting Stoney Run Co. v. Prudential-LMI Comm. Ins. Co., 47 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1995)). The second camp consists of