This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Army Corps of Engineers have released long-awaited guidance addressing jurisdictional determinations under the Clean Water Act (CWA) in the wake of Rapanos v. 2208 (2006). 2208 (2006). Army Corps of Engineers, Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. United States , 126 S. United States , and Carabell v.
On March 25, 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) jointly released a proposed rule purporting to clarify the scope of the “waters of the United States” protected under the Clean Water Act. The agencies claim that, as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Rapanos v.
In the landmark oilfield remediation case Corbello v. Tackling this problem, the Louisiana Legislature in 2006 enacted La. The lure of that financial “delta”—the cost difference between attaining government standards and some standard in excess of that—was an engine that has shaped legacy litigation in the ensuing years.
Army Corp of Engineers (“USACE”) and a Louisiana landowner over the agency’s Clean Water Act (“CWA”) jurisdiction over the subject property. United States , Case No. That rule has been enjoined in Louisiana and thus the most recent amended rule could not be applied to this case. In Lewis v. water[s] of the United States, (i.e.,
In the landmark oilfield remediation case Corbello v. Tackling this problem, the Louisiana Legislature in 2006 enacted La. The lure of that financial “delta”—the cost difference between attaining government standards and some standard in excess of that—was an engine that has shaped legacy litigation in the ensuing years.
715 (2006), which was issued 17 years ago but was not uniformly applied due to Justice Kennedy’s use of the “significant nexus” test in his concurrence. Brief Overview of “Waters of the United States” The Supreme Court previously considered the scope of “waters of the United States” under the CWA in 2006 in Rapanos. 715, 739 (2006). [3]
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content