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
The Supreme Court is stepping once more into CleanWaterAct “waters of the United States,” more popularly known as WOTUS. If you’re a CleanWaterAct wonk, there may be a little voice in the back of your head yelling, “Theeeey’re baaack!” United States.
Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) released new proposed guidance on how the agencies will identify waters protected by the CleanWaterAct (CWA) in light of Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. 159 (2001) (SWANCC) and Rapanos v. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006).
Decades of steelmaking had produced enormous quantities of hazardous wastes, including metals and organics, which were disposed of in unlined ditches and ponds, or simply dumped on the ground. This resulted in contamination of soils, surface water and groundwater, and runoff into the Patapsco River.
EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) issued a direct final rule without public comment amending the definition of the “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) which governs the scope of federal jurisdiction under the CleanWaterAct (CWA). Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v.
EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) issued a direct final rule without public comment amending the definition of the “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) which governs the scope of federal jurisdiction under the CleanWaterAct (CWA). Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v.
Commercial Waste : Any waste material produced as a byproduct of commercial or industrial activity. Filtration : Removing solid waste and material from water in the process of wastewater treatment. Anything with this designation, of spilled in US waters, must be reported to the EPA. Sometimes called “ wastewater ”.
While the justices were not all in agreement with the new test set forth in the majority decision in Sackett , none supported the “significant nexus” test suggested by Kennedy in Rapanos as being authorized by the CleanWaterAct (CWA), and all concurred in the judgment. 159 (2001). Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S.
Senate Bill 334 / House Bill 76 establish that a person who meets the threshold standing requirements under the federal CleanWaterAct has an unconditional right and the authority to intervene in a civil action initiated by the State in State court to require compliance with certain water pollution control measures.
2023 was a rough year for cleanwater. The Supreme Court took a hammer to the CleanWaterAct with its decision in Sackett v. The Sackett decision was a tremendous loss for everyone who depends on cleanwater—that is, for all of us. In response, 27 states sued , and the rule was put on hold.
3277 ) to codify a Trump administration regulation that limited states’ ability to block fossil fuel projects under the CleanWaterAct. is top contributor to plastic waste, report shows – The Washington Post. EPA – Proposed Settlement Agreement, CleanWaterAct. Their plan might work. –
The bill also would establish a grant program under the Safe Drinking WaterAct for assistance to community water systems affected by PFAS to pay for capital costs associated with treatment technologies. These facilities released or otherwise managed more than 700,000 pounds of production-related PFAS waste during 2020.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 12,000+ 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