Search

The article focuses on the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Rapanos v. United States on the protection of water bodies and wetlands under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and wetland function.

The article focuses on the definition of waters of the U.S. being changed under the Clean Water Rule by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers. Topics discussed include dumping of dredged material into navigable waters being prohibited under the Clean Water Act, the definition of tributaries under the proposed rule, permits for dumping dredged material into waters being discussed in Rapanos v. United States and the Commerce Clause challenging the rule.

The article discusses involvement of the U.S. Justice Antonin Scalia rulings related to the Clean Water Act. It mentions issue over petitioner's wetland in the case Rapanos v. United States and the case Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc. in which Court held that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) permissibly relied on cost-benefit analysis in setting national performance standards.

The article offers information on the judicial decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Rapanos, in which the Court determined wetlands as the subject to jurisdiction under the U.S. Clean Water Act (CWA). It discusses the significance of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) environmental programs under the Sixth Circuit findings in the case of Summit Petroleum v. EPA.

The article explores the issues surrounding the navigability of the Los Angeles River in California and related matters entailing them. The issue, accordingly, was raised after the resolution of the Rapanos vs. U.S. was released. The landmark case was resolved by the court by stressing that the federal government does not have the control over protected streams, arroyos and wetlands and at the same time stopping many anti-pollution cases that exist during the time. Analysts and environmentalists criticize the ruling as it impedes the enforcement of the Clean Water Act of the land. They add that the ruling has further added confusion with regards to jurisdiction over ephemeral streams, arroyos and the like.

The article examines the environmental risk to U.S. streams and wetlands as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretations of the U.S. Clean Water Act's use of the term "navigable waters." A brief overview of the Supreme Court's interpretation of navigable waters is presented, including an overview of the court case "Rapanos v. United States (U.S.)." Topics include how a split decision in the "Rapanos v. U.S." is jeopardizing isolated wetlands as well as the remaining wetlands of the lower 48 states, which are no longer receiving federal protection, and the lack of power to enforce the Clean Water Act by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which are agencies responsible for its enforcement.

The article focuses on two U.S. Supreme Court cases in 2006 that will determine the fate of wetlands and set a precedent for future resource management issues. The issue in Rapanos v. United States is whether the government can use the Clean Water Act (CWA) to restrict development on isolated wetlands adjacent to tributaries of navigable waters to protect water quality. At issue in Carabell v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is whether the government can use the CWA to restrict development on wetlands by an earthen berm.

The article provides updates on cases involving the Clean Water Act (CWA) in the U.S. It mentions about the 4-1-4 Supreme Court ruling in the cases of Rapanos v. U.S. and Carabell v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. According to reports, the justices voted to remand the two cases back to the lower courts, calling for reconsideration on the Act's definition of navigable waters and whether CWA protects wetlands that are adjacent to, or separated by, manmade berms from small tributaries. The landowners argued that Congress never intended for the government to have authority over wetlands that are adjacent to navigable waters and that the Army Corps exceeded its authority.

The article looks at the U.S. Supreme Court Rapanos v. United States which hold that the Clean Water Act (CWA) authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to regulate waters and wetlands to the limit of the Commerce Clause. It mentions that the Corps and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed the regulation regarding the scope of the waters of the U.S.

The article examines the court case Rapanos v. United States on Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdictional spectrum of wetlands. It states that the U.S. Supreme Court established two endpoints of wetlands, the Riverside Bayview wetlands and the Solid Waste Agency wetlands. It indicates that the Supreme Court tried to provide guidance as to the circumstances under which wetlands are jurisdictional.

The article discusses the meaning of "significant nexus" after the Rapanos v. U.S. case. The author claims that significant nexus means an impact to a water which is used, or was used, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. There are two competing standards for a Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdictional threshold are found in Rapanos, Justice Kennedy's significant nexus test and the plurality's two-part test.

The author reflects on the recent developments in the U.S. Supreme Court's cases involving actions under the Affordable Care Act. He informs about decisions in several cases including Gibbons v. Ogden, Rapanos v. United States, and Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, wherein issues regarding environmental and natural resource law, the Commerce Clause to the U.S. constitution, and the Endangered Species Act, were discussed. He depicts initiatives in tribal management of forest and wildlife resources.

The article discusses the case of John Rapanos v. United States involving the matter over the Clean Water Act and wetlands in the country. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision regarding the case is significant to all developers of residential or commercial property, industrial sites or any other real estate. In connection with the decision, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers have released a guidance document concerning wetlands jurisdiction.

The article reports on legislation on wetlands regulations which are proposed by members of U.S. Congress in response to a 2006 U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States Army Corps of Engineers. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar and Democratic Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold have introduced identical bills in the House and Senate that supporters say would clarify the original intent of the section of the Clean Water Act, which defines waters of the U.S.

The article presents views of U.S. Representative Bob Gibbs on need for a jurisdiction rule that brings clarity to U.S Clean Water Act. It informs that U.S. Representatives Bill Shuster and Gibbs have been working on the waters of the U.S. rule, presents views of William Sapp of Southern Environmental Law on the issue, and highlights the decision held by the U.S. Supreme Court on the court case Rapanos v. United States.

The article focuses on the impact of the Rapanos decision on the Clean Water Act enforcement scheme of the Environmental Protection Agency in the U.S. According to the internal memo of EPA, the decision of the Supreme Court on the case of Rapanos v. the U.S. and Carabell v. the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has created uncertainty regarding their ability to maintain the water enforcement program.

The article focuses on the two cases under review by the U.S. Supreme Court, Rapanos v. U.S. and Carabell v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, wherein private developers in two areas in Michigan argued against the corps' decision to block development in suspected wetlands because of their proximity to ditches that eventually led to rivers. The Supreme Court said that the federal government can block building on wetlands if it can prove that a continuous waterway connection exists.