Posted
by

On April 10, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in a very important ruling, held that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Jurisdictional Determination (“JD”) that the property under review was a wetland that constitutes “waters of the United States” and thereby subject to the permitting and enforcement authority of the Corps, can be reviewed by the federal courts on an immediate basis. The case is Hawkes Co., Inc. v. US Army Corps of Engineers. The Court of Appeal’s approach was influenced by the Supreme Court’s approach in Sackett v. EPA, 132 S. Ct. 1367 (2012)., and the Eighth Circuit held that this JD was indeed a final agency action subject to judicial review, particularly when the choices confronting a property owner who wishes to develop his property are so unappealing.

The Court of Appealst reviewed a long list of federal administrative actions whose serious consequences triggered judicial review, and took issue with the Fifth Circuit’s recent in Belle Co., L.L.C., v. US Army Corps of Engineers, 761 F. 3d 383 (2014). There’s now a conflict in the circuits, and an appeal to the Supreme Court may be in the offing.

Posted
by

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has denied a request for a preliminary injunction to stop the U.S. Department of Transportation from granting necessary permits to begin the reconstruction and repair of the Virginia Avenue Tunnel, a tunnel which for 111 years has facilitated rail transportation through and under the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Washington, DC. The case is Committee of 100 on the Federal City v. Anthony Foxx, Secretary of the US Department of Transportation, and it was decided on April 7, 2015.
Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

Following two adverse rulings by the DC Circuit, issued in 2014 and reported at Sierra Club v. EPA, 755 F.3d 968 (D.C. Cir. 2014) and Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 755 F.3d 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2014), EPA has removed two exclusions from the list of regulatory exclusions located at 40 C.F.R. Section 261.4(a). This action was made effective on April 8, 2015.
Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

Federal district courts are often confronted with the issue of whether “Narrative Water Quality Standards” are incorporated into National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)permits and enforceable as permit conditions as they preside over citizen suits filed under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Two District Court’s recently weighed in on this issue.
Continue Reading ›

Posted
by and

Yesterday, we published our client alert titled House Small Business Bill Could Have a Large Impact on Small Businesses. The Alert discusses the House Small Business Committee’s recent approval of The Small Contractors Improve Competition Act of 2015 (H.R.1481) (“SCICA”). SCICA would amend the Small Business Act and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, and is intended to increase the number of awards made to small businesses by addressing several perceived obstacles that inhibit opportunities to increase small business participation in Federal contracting.

Posted
by

The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (FOIA), is a federal law that allow for the full or partial disclosure of previously unreleased information and documents controlled by the United States government. FOIA defines agency records that are subject to disclosure, outlines mandatory disclosure procedures and grants exemptions from disclosure. Many states similar laws governing the disclosure of previously unreleased information and documents controlled by the state and its agencies. The theory is that the government should be open and transparent unless the government has a good reason to withhold the information sought. On March 31, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a long opinion in Sea Shepherd Conservation Society v. Internal Revenue Service, regarding the IRS’s response to Sea Shepherd’s FOIA request seeking information from the IRS about its investigation of Sea Shepherd.
Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

The implementation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Highly Erodible Land Conservation and Wetland Conservation Compliance provisions (aka “Swampbuster”) program, designed to protect wetlands located on farming property, was the focus of a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On April 1, 2015, the Court of Appeals decided the case of Maple Drive Farms Limited Partnership, et al., v. Tom Vilsack, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed the District Court’s ruling and remanded the matter, holding that the proceedings conducted by the agencies of the Department, described by the District Court as a “bureaucratic labyrinth” were inconsistent with the Department’s own regulatory framework, and were arbitrary and capricious.
Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

A state Court of Appeals sitting in Houston, Texas, on March 26, 2015, ruled that environmental indemnities, which were a component of an exchange of Louisiana oil and gas properties in 1994, could be enforced today by and against the corporate successors to the original companies that negotiated these provisions. The case is ConocoPhillips Company v. Noble Energy, Inc., No. 14-13-00884-CV. The decision is significant because ConocoPhillips settled a claim for environmental damages associated with these swapped properties filed by the State of Louisiana and the Cameron Parish School Board for $63 million, and had made a demand for defense and indemnity that was denied.

Posted
by

Effective April 1, 2015, employers are required to comply with the California Department of Industrial Relations, Occupational Safety & Health Standards Board’s amended Personal Protective Devices and Safeguards regulations. Among other amendments, Subdivision (d) of Sections 1514 (Construction Safety Orders) and 3380 (General Industry Safety Orders) of Title 8, Division 1, Chapter 4 of the California Code of Regulations have been amended to state: “The employer shall assure that all required safety devices and safeguards, whether employer or employee provided, including personal protective equipment for the eyes, face, head, hand, foot, and extremities (limbs), protective clothing, respiratory protection, protective shields and barriers comply with the applicable Title 8 standards and are maintained in a safe, sanitary condition.”

Other Resources: Cal/OSHAB, Personal Protective Devices and Safeguards, Rulemaking Documents

Posted
by

On April 2, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided a complex Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) contribution cost recovery case in AmeriPride Services Inc. v. Texas Eastern Overseas Inc. (TEO), a dissolved Delaware corporation. The Ninth Circuit vacated this District Court’s rulings on several grounds.
Continue Reading ›