2006 Law Pollution Control 
Law Columbia
MARCH 29, 2024
Part Three, below, explores preemption questions in the context of other domestic frameworks: California’s climate-disclosure laws and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s GHG emissions reporting regime. Preemption of a state law arises under the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution. See, e.g. , Rice v.
PA Environment Daily
JANUARY 30, 2024
. -- Worked with the Environmental Integrity Project to clean up Brunner Island in the Susquehanna River. -- Advocated for many key regulatory and legislative initiatives to protect Pennsylvania’s waterways, including the reauthorization of the Abandoned Mine Lands Fund in 2006.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Union of Concerned Scientists
MARCH 1, 2023
The state of Minnesota uses EPA’s ethylene oxide emissions standards, which haven’t been updated since 2006. You can contact your legislator to support this important new law. And, as I’ll try to show, these two subjects have a lot in common. What is the situation in Minnesota? These standards no longer adequately protect the public.
Vermont Law
JULY 28, 2014
Deforestation, air and water pollution, and lack of sanitation systems have led to public health problems and resource scarcity. However, by internalizing the role of environmental law and grassroots efforts, there is a hope of success for Haiti’s continued reconstruction and long-term development. _. By Marie Hollister.
Ohio Environmental Law
MAY 8, 2020
The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants into “navigable waters” without a permit authorizing the discharge. Following the 2006 decision by the U.S. Does Ohio law protect wetlands and waters that are not federally protected? Ohio law also protects categories of waters that are not protected under the NWPR.
ESA
MAY 31, 2023
EPA creates a far narrower test than what has been used for more than half a century to determine when bogs and marshes fall under the scope of the 1972 law. The justices agreed that their specific wetlands should not be subject to Clean Water Act regulation, and that the court’s prior test, stemming from the 2006 case Rapanos v.
ESA
NOVEMBER 22, 2021
The backstory: The question of which streams and wetlands are federally regulated under the Clean Water Act has been in limbo for the past decade and a half, since the Supreme Court issued a muddled decision in the 2006 case Rapanos v. United States. The House also passed its NSF authorizing bill entitled NSF for the Future Act ( H.R.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
73 
Let's personalize your content