Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 37

1 | a g e

Hcn Huucv`s
nvIvnnmcntuI Luw OutIInc
PvnI. CLuvcz ~ SpvIng 2o1o
apLer 1 LnvlronmenLal ollcy erspecLlves 1
apLer 2 LnvlronmenLal ommon Law 3
apLer 3 1e AdmlnlsLraLlve Law of Le LnvlronmenL 12
apLer 4 LnvlronmenLal lederallsm 16
apLer 3 nLA Le ower of lnformaLlon 18
apLer 6 ubllc Cuaslubllc 8esources 23
apLer 10 Alr olluLlon onLrol 29
apLer 11 WaLer olluLlon onLrol 32

Chapter 1 Lnv|ronmenta| o||cy erspect|ves
1) WaL ls LnvlronmenLal Law?
a) lnLro
l) LnvlronmenL pyslcal (waLer/alr/dlrL) blologlcal (planLs anlmals) soclal (economy eLc)
(1) LnvlronmenLal law regulaLes uman acLlvlLy w/ respecL Lo Le 1
Lwo buL Lls affecLs Le soclal
parL of our envlronmenL as well
b) 8lcard ! Lazarus 8esLorlng WaL's LnvlronmenLal AbouL LnvlronmenLal Law
l) ommon denomlnaLor for envlronmenLal law ls ecologlcal ln[ury
ll) unlque 8ecurrlng AspecLs of Lcologlcal ln[ury
(1) lrreverslble aLasLroplc onLlnulng ln[ury
(a) 1us errors ln declslon maklng can be cosLly buL by Le same Loken so can delays ln
declslon maklng
(b)LnvlronmenLal law musL address arm LaL lncreases over Llme
(2) yslcally ulsLanL ln[ury
(3) 1emporally ulsLanL ln[ury
(a) CfLen noL lmmlnenL Le ln[ury won'L be reallzed unLll some Llme ln Le dlsLanL fuLure
(4) uncerLalnLy 8lsk
(a) rlmary source of uncerLalnLy ls Le complexlLy of Le naLural envlronmenL and ow muc
ls sLlll unknown abouL lL
(b)We don'L ave Le ablllLy Lo know beforeand Le envlronmenLal lmpacL of cerLaln acLlons
(3) MulLlple auses
(a) LnvlronmenLal arms are more Lyplcally Le resulL of Le cumulaLlve resulL of mulLlple
acLlons ofLen spread ouL over slgnlflcanL Llme space 1ls sLems from Le sarlng
lnerenL ln any common naLural resource base
(6) noneconomlc nonuman aracLer
(a) Many of Le ecologlcal ln[urles are noL readlly suscepLlble Lo moneLary valuaLlon ave a
dlsLlncLlvely nonuman caracLer
2 | a g e

lll) noLes CuesLlons
(1) CLer aspecLs of envlronmenLal law
(a) CfLen as many vlcLlms
(b)lrequenLly lmpllcaLes dlfflculL Lradeoffs beLween confllcLlng deeply eld values
(2) 1e recauLlonary rlnclple
(a) 1e ldea ls someLlmes you ave Lo acL before all Le lnformaLlon ls ln
(b)Were Lere are LreaLs of serlous or lrreverslble damage lack of full sclenLlflc cerLalnLy
sall noL be used as a reason for posLponlng cosLeffecLlve measures Lo prevenL
envlronmenLal degradaLlon"
(c) 1ls slfLs Le burden from regulaLors Lo Le proponenLs of envlronmenLally rlsky acLlvlLles
(d)(noLes say LaL Lls rlsks leadlng Lo paralysls of acLlon LaL lL ls a ealLy recognlLlon of
our lgnorance deslgned Lo encourage addlLlonal lnqulry learnlng were Le value of
lnformaLlon ls very lg" l'm noL sure l agree based on Le above quoLe from Le LexL)
2) lnslgLs from Lcology
a) !udy L Meyer 1e uance of naLure new oncepLs ln Lcology
l) ln Le 1960s 1970s Lere was an equlllbrlum/balance of naLure concepL ln ecology buL lL ls no
longer followed ln ecology or law
ll) 1e conLemporary paradlgm recognlzes LaL ecosysLems are open and noL necessarlly ln
lll) We can'L we anLropocenLrlc cange Le same way as naLural cange because lL ls dlfferenL boL ln
quallLy and raLe lL ls ofLen of a Lype never before experlenced ln naLural ecosysLems
lv) noLes CuesLlons
(1) Lven Loug Le equlllbrlum concepL ls no longer followed Le prlnclple of lnLerconnecLedness
sLlll applles a complex web of lnLerconnecLedness" Wlle noL everyLlng ls connecLed Lere
are enoug Lo creaLe a sorL of web
(2) omplexlLy ecosysLems are compllcaLed poorly undersLood wlc makes lL dlfflculL Lo
make predlcLlons abouL effecLs of perLurbaLlons"
(3) Scale Le same evenL can be dlfferenL dependlng on lLs scale a small flre mlgL elp purge
wlle a large flre mlgL upseL Le wole ecosysLem
(4) A common quesLlon LaL we face ls waL our role as manklnd ls ln all of Lls
3) lnslgLs from Lconomlcs
a) AllocaLlng Scarce 8esources Lfflclency MarkeLs
l) LnvlronmenLal problems are problems of compeLlLlon among confllcLlng demands for scarce
resources 1us we musL make colces abouL ow we allocaLe Lem
ll) An efflclenL allocaLlon maxlmlzes lndlvldual preference saLlsfacLlon aggregaLed across socleLy 1e
mosL efflclenL allocaLlon ls known as areto eff|c|ency wlc occurs wen any cange ln allocaLlon
would reduce aL leasL one person's preference saLlsfacLlon (le ls aL mosL efflclenL sLaLe)
lll) 1ere are some prerequlslLes/requlremenLs for aclevlng efflclency
(1) 8uyers sellers musL ave full lnformaLlon abouL Le goods/servlces excanged
(2) 1ere musL be a large number of players so LaL Lere ls no monopoly or oLer colluslve
(3) 1ere musL be well deflned and enforceable properLy rlgLs
(4) 1e LransacLlon cosLs musL be low enoug Lo faclllLaLe beneflclal LransacLlons
lv) 8ellance on Le markeL ls crlLlclzed on Le basls LaL lL doesn'L necessarlly reac efflclency ln
allocaLlon and even so efflclency ls noL Le only (or aL leasL noL necessarlly Le mosL lmporLanL)
3 | a g e

b) MarkeL lallure MarkeL orrecLlon
l) CarreLL Pardln 1e 1ragedy of Le ommons
(1) lf everyone ls able Lo exLernallze Lelr cosLs and lnLernallze Lelr beneflLs overconsumpLlon wlll
(2) Lxamples of Le oceans naLlonal parks
(3) 1e Lragedy of Le commons as a food baskeL can be averLed by prlvaLe properLy buL Le
Lragedy of Le commons as a cesspool musL be prevenLed anoLer way elLer vla coerclve"
laws or LaxaLlon
(4) noLes
(a) ldea of co||ect|ve goods suc as naLlonal defense or clean alr wlc generally enLall
Lragedy of Le commons lssues
(l) 8ecause Le supply of goods cannoL be llmlLed Lo Lose wo pay Le markeL sysLem
breaks down no one consumer wlll pay Le full prlce of Le good because no one
consumer can reallze Le full beneflL 1ls leads also leads Lo free rldlng Le ldea LaL
some people wlll raLlonally declde noL Lo pay buL expecL Lo en[oy Le beneflLs
(ll) ln sorL collecLlve goods are Lerefore overconsumed undersupplled ln Le markeL
(lll)8ecause Le soluLlon ls one of markeL fallure Le soluLlon ls socleLal lnLervenLlon ln
some form Lo correcL Le fallure
(b)C ls ow Lo lnLervene wen Le markeL falls Lls way can regulaLe prlvaLlze or creaLe
economlc lncenLlves (Laxes flnes subsldles)
(l) ommand onLrol (regulaLlng)
1 1ls ls Le predomlnanL sLraLegy ln our currenL sysLem
(ll) rlvaLlzlng Le ommons
1 1e problem wlL Lls from Le envlronmenLal perspecLlve ls LaL prlvaLe owners
would sLlll be llkely Lo explolL Le resource Ley'd [usL do lL ln Le mosL efflclenL
way Cov'L does noL ave Le same lncenLlve (presumably)
2 1ere's Le ldea of permlLs as a means of prlvaLlzaLlon 1ls ls baslcally Le ldea of
cap Lrade
3 lear secure Lradable properLy rlgLs allow a prlvaLe markeL wlL Le beneflLs of
decenLrallzed declslonmaklng Lo flourls"
(lll)Lconomlc lncenLlves
1 an be negaLlve suc as Laxes or flnes or can be poslLlve suc as Lroug subsldles
2 1axes ave Le drawback of noL assurlng a speclflc level of conLrol lL can be
dlfflculL Lo deLermlne ow muc Lax ls necessary Lo lnfluence beavlor
c) osL 8eneflL Analysls
l) Lfflclency under cosLbeneflL analysls ls less sLrlngenL Lan areLo efflclency
ll) 1e ka|dorn|cks eff|c|ency looks Lo weLer Le aggregaLe galns ln preference saLlsfacLlon exceed
Le aggregaLe losses A cange LaL lmposes eavy losses on a small number of people wlll
noneLeless be efflclenL lf lL provldes a very small beneflL Lo a large number of people
lll) osLbeneflL analysls LesLs for kaldorPlcks efflclency by comparlng Le LoLal socleLal cosLs of a
pollcy wlL Le LoLal socleLal beneflLs ln Lerms of dollars and dlscounLlng fuLure amounLs Lo
presenL values 1e dlscounLlng can be conLroverslal because small canges ln Le dlscounL raLe
can lead Lo large dlscrepancles ln Le resulLs and some Llngs suc as Le beneflL of a Loxlnfree
rlver are ard Lo quanLlfy moneLarlly
(1) MeLods of valulng
(a) onLlngenL valuaLlon surveys people and asks waL Ley would pay
4 | a g e

(l) rlLlclzed b/c people wo ave never LougL abouL Le lssue are llkely Lo plck a flgure
aL random people may noL be wllllng/able Lo express Lelr envlronmenLal values ln
Lerms of money and people may oversLaLe Lelr wllllngness Lo pay b/c Ley don'L
acLually ave Lo pay
(b)Pedonlc rlclng aLLempLs Lo compare Lo slmllar properLy
(l) ompares Lwo properLles LaL are Le same ln all buL one respecL Lo deLermlne Le
value of Le dlfferenL caracLerlsLlc
(ll) roblem w/ Lls ls LaL lL cannoL reflecL exlsLence values Le exLenL Lo wlc people
care abouL aspecLs of Le envlronmenL LaL Ley do noL expecL ever Lo use
lv) rlLlcs of cosLbeneflL analysls say envlronmenLal concerns sould noL be moneLlzed LaL
valuaLlon ls a sub[ecLlve arL"
d) 1e lnLerface of Lconomlcs Lcology LcosysLem Servlces
l) naLure supplles us wlL a number of servlces suc as wasLe decomposlLlon deLoxlflcaLlon alr
waLer purlflcaLlon crop polllnaLlon pesL conLrol flood conLrol 1ese are collecLlve goods
ll) noLes CuesLlons
(1) Some envlronmenLal laws forbld conslderaLlon of cosLs ln seLLlng envlronmenLal sLandards ls
LaL reallsLlc?
(2) Slnce 1981 federal agencles ave been requlred by execuLlve order Lo prepare cosLbeneflL
analyses of ma[or regulaLlons lf a sLaLuLe forblds conslderaLlon of cosLs Le agency musL
prepare Le cosLbeneflL analysls buL lL cannoL base lLs regulaLory declslon on Le analysls
wlc begs Le quesLlon waL's Le polnL of Le analysls Len?
(3) 8us ll slgned an execuLlve order requlrlng agencles Lo ldenLlfy Le markeL fallure (exLernallLles
markeL power lack of lnformaLlon eLc) LaL new agency acLlon ls belng Laken Lo address
before Le acLlon could be Laken
4) 1e 8ole of values
a) Aldo Leopold A Sand ounLy Almanac wlL oLer Lssays on onservaLlon from 8ound 8lver
l) roenvlronmenL baslcally calls for a golden rule" Lype approac noLes fallures of economlc
based sysLem
b) Wllllam l 8axLer eople or engulns 1e ase for CpLlmal olluLlon
l) robuslness re[ecLs ldea LaL Lere ls a morally rlgL" or wrong" approac Lo Le envlronmenL
aLLempLs Lo equaLe uman acLlon w/ naLural desLrucLlon (eg volcanoes) ldea ls LaL Lere ls no
normaLlve deflnlLlon of Le naLural sLaLe" (no normaLlve deflnlLlon of clean waLer alr eLc) oLer
Lan wlL respecL Lo Le needs of manklnd
c) Mark Sagoff We Pave MeL Le Lnemy Pe ls us or onfllcL onLradlcLlon ln LnvlronmenLal Law
l) Makes some lnLeresLlng polnLs Asked ls class wo would vlslL a cerLaln wllderness slLe almosL
everyone gave an excuse wy noL Wen asked lf Ley would go see a Leme park Lere Le
lnLeresL lncreased dramaLlcally neverLeless Le class as a wole LougL Le Leme park ldea
was loaLsome desplcable"
ll) 1us one problem w/ Le economlc Lecnlques of 'cosLbeneflL analysls' owever ls LaL Ley
may fall Lo reglsLer ldeologlcal or eLlcal convlcLlons clLlzens enLerLaln abouL Le very Llngs LaL
lnLeresL Lem as consumers"
lll) 1e Llngs we cerls admlre or respecL are noL always Le Llngs we are wllllng Lo pay for
lndeed Ley may be ceapened by belng assoclaLed wlL money lL ls falr Lo say LaL Le worL of
Le Llngs we love ls beLLer measured by our unwllllngness Lo pay for Lem" Pe Len goes on Lo
glve Le example of love so crlLlcally lmporLanL LaL we'd do almosL anyLlng for lL excepL pay for
S | a g e

d) uan 1arlock LnvlronmenLal Law LLlcs or Sclence?
l) Argues LaL envlronmenLal pollcy law eLc sould derlve from sclence noL eLlcs
e) noLes CuesLlons
l) CbllgaLlons Lo fuLure generaLlons Le posslblllLy of subsLlLuLlon lf oll or scenlc vlsLas run sorL
people wlll flnd someLlng else Lo saLlsfy Lelr deslres for energy esLeLlc pleasure vlewed ln
Lls llgL lnLergeneraLlonal equlLy requlres only LaL Le currenL generaLlon provlde Le fuLure wlL
a robusL sLock of aggregaLe caplLal lL does noL maLLer ow muc of LaL caplLal ls naLural
LcologlsLs are far less llkely Lo see naLural caplLal as replaceable by means of uman lngenulLy
1ey Lerefore belleve LaL lnLergeneraLlonal equlLy requlres Le proLecLlon of naLural caplLal for
fuLure generaLlons
ll) LnvlronmenLal 8aclsm 1ls arose ln Le 1980s wen a serles of sLudles revealed LaL raclal
mlnorlLles ln Le uS are dlsproporLlonaLely llkely Lo llve near azardous wasLe faclllLles 1e LA
as acLually developed a deflnlLlon of envlronmenLal [usLlce" LaL seeks Lo proLecL everyone from
envlronmenLal azards equally

Chapter 2 Lnv|ronmenta| Common Law
1) lnLro
a) ommon law remalns relevanL because unllke sLaLuLory law lL provldes Le flexlblllLy Lo address new
Lecnologles newly recognlzed arms
b) ommon law also provldes for compensaLory damages wlc are generally noL avallable vla sLaLuLory
2) ommon Law LnvlronmenLal uocLrlnes
a) nulsance proLecLs use en[oyment
l) rlvaLe nulsance
(1) ls an unreasonable lnLerference wlL Le use en[oymenL of land
(2) 82d calls for llablllLy for acLs LaL are elLer (1) lnLenLlonal unreasonable or (2) unlnLenLlonal
and oLer wlse acLlonable under Le rules conLrolllng llablllLy for negllgenL or reckless conducL
or for abnormally dangerous condlLlons or acLlvlLles
(a) AcLs are consldered lnLenLlonal lf Le are subsLanLlally cerLaln Lo produce arm weLer or
noL Le acLor deslres Le arm
(b)An lnvaslon ls unreasonable lf Le gravlLy of Le arm ouLwelgs Le uLlllLy of Le conducL
or Le arm ls serlous Le economlc burden of compensaLlon would noL make Le
conducL lnfeaslble
(c) lacLors ln deLermlnlng Le gravlLy of Le arm Le uLlllLy of Le conducL lnclude
(l) 1e exLenL caracLer of Le arm
(ll) 1e soclal value of Le plalnLlff's use of land defendanL's conducL
(lll)1e sulLablllLy of eac Lo Le caracLer of Le locallLy and
(lv)1e burden on Le plalnLlff defendanL respecLlvely of avoldlng Le arm
(3) 1ls ba|anc|ng of ut|||t|es ru|e wlc ls followed ln mosL Amerlcan [urlsdlcLlons ls baslcally a
modlflcaLlon of Le 19
cenLury common law rule of uslng your own properLy so as noL Lo
ln[ure LaL of anoLer
(4) lamous quoLe from !usLlce SuLerland ln Luclld merely a rlgL Llng ln Le wrong place llke a
plg ln Le parlor lnsLead of Le barnyard"
ll) ubllc nulsance
(1) ls an unreasonable lnLerference wlL Le lnLeresL of Le communlLy or Le rlgLs of Le general
6 | a g e

(2) Pas been used Lo proLecL Le publlc ealL safeLy convenlence and even morals
(prosLlLuLlon/gambllng/drug use)
(3) 1radlLlonally could only be brougL by publlc auLorlLles or by a prlvaLe clLlzen wo ad
suffered ln[ury dlfferenL ln klnd from LaL suffered by Le general publlc Powever Le 82d of
1orLs allows prlvaLe clLlzens Lo sue as a represenLaLlve of Le general publlc as a clLlzen ln a
clLlzen's acLlon or as a member of a class ln a class acLlon wlLouL avlng Lo ave speclal ln[ury
buL can only abaLe Le nulsance noL recover damages
b) 1respass protects r|ght to exc|us|ve possess|on
l) ls knowlng pyslcal lnvaslon of land w/o Le possessor's permlsslon (requlres knowlng/lnLenLlonal
(1) Llable for acLual ls enLlLle Lo nomlnal damages lf Lere ls no arm
(2) May overlap wlL nulsance
ll) !urlsdlcLlons wlc allow Lrespass clalms for polluLlon Lyplcally requlre LaL Le plalnLlff
demonsLraLe subsLanLlal damage oLers requlre Langlble pyslcal lnvaslon
c) negllgence
l) 1ls fllls Le gap LaL Lrespass doesn'L cover acLs LaL aren'L knowlng or lnLenLlonal
ll) AlLoug LradlLlonally nulsance was an lnLenLlonal LorL lL as been expanded ln mosL [urlsdlcLlons
Lo lnclude acLlons for wlc llablllLy can approprlaLely be lmposed under negllgence or sLrlcL
lll) LlemenLs duLy breac causaLlon damages
d) SLrlcL LlablllLy
l) Cenerally
(1) MosL [urlsdlcLlons recognlze llablllLy for damages caused Lo persons or properLy by abnormally
dangerous acLlvlLles w/o requlrlng any sowlng of faulL
(2) 8esLaLemenL facLors
(a) WeLer Le acLlvlLy poses a lg degree of rlsk (of arm Lo people land or personal
(b)1e llkellood of grave arm
(c) WeLer Le rlsk can be ellmlnaLed by Le exerclse of reasonable care
(d)WeLer Le acLlvlLy ls common or noL
(e) WeLer lL ls approprlaLe Lo Le place were lL ls carrled on and
(f) 1e exLenL Lo wlc lLs value Lo Le communlLy ls ouLwelged by Le danger lL poses
(3) !usLlflcaLlons
(a) lorces acLor Lo lnLernallze cosLs of Le acLlvlLy
(b)Avolds unfalrness
(c) ueLerrlng lgly dangerous acLlvlLles
(d)8educlng cosLs lnerenL ln provlng negllgence
(4) 1e courL decldes as a maLLer of law weLer an acLlvlLy ls abnormally dangerous or noL
ll) lndiono norbor 8e/t kk co v 4mericon cyonomid co (7
lr 1990) p 41
(1) ou know Lls case from 1orLs roperLy Amerlcan yanamld manufacLured acrylonlLrlle ln
Loulslana and was slpplng vla rall Lo new !ersey 1e rouLe Look lL Lroug lcago were Le
Lanker car oldlng Le cemlcal leaked ln a small swlLclng yard owned by Le lndlana Parbor
8elL 8allroad ompany because Le lld on Le car was broken osL $981k Lo clean up 88
alleged abnormally dangerous acLlvlLy won aL summary [udgmenL ln dlsLrlcL courL
(2) uses Le Cullle oL alr balloon ln n case Lo lllusLraLe ow Le resLaLemenL facLors (see above)
are applled rlsk of arm weLer approprlaLe Lo Le area eLc osner goes Lroug Le
7 | a g e

raLlonales belnd sLrlcL llablllLy noLlng LaL lL covers areas LaL negllgence could noL because
addlLlonal care wlll noL prevenL Le arm and Lerefore someLlng oLer Lan addlLlonal care ls
necessary Lo mlLlgaLe Le arm
(3) Powever ere Le splll was caused by Le faulLy lld wlc could ave been prevenLed wlL due
care suggesLlng negllgence 1e negllgence reglme would be sufflclenL Lo
prevenL/dlscourage/remedy Lls arm
(4) osner also addresses Le locaLlon lssue noLlng LaL lL would be an undue burden Lo rerouLe
Le 88 around Le clLy 88s are ub and spoke" sysLems ln wlc Le ubs are generally ln
ma[or meLropollLan areas
(a) lL ls no more reallsLlc Lo propose Lo rerouLe Le slpmenL of all azardous maLerlals around
lcago Lan lL ls Lo propose Le relocaLlon of omes ad[acenL Lo Le 8lue lsland swlLclng
yard Lo more dlsLanL suburbs lL may be less reallsLlc 8ruLal as Loug lL may seem Lo say
lL Le lnapproprlaLe use Lo wlc land ls belng puL ln Le 8lue lsland yard and nelgborood
may be noL Le LransporLaLlon of azardous cemlcals buL resldenLlal llvlng"
lll) eof kiver lorest Products lnc v lerquson (Mlss 1993) p43

lckasaway 8lver

ascagoula 8lver

lerguson roperLy

Leaf 8lver

123 mlles

(1) aper mlll began operaLlng ln Mlsslsslppl ln 1984 uloxln was dlscovered ln Le Leaf 8lver
wlc resulLed ln Le sLaLe closlng Le Leaf and ascagoula rlvers for a few monLs A
consumpLlon advlsory was also lssued buL lL was llfLed for Le ascagoula sorLly LereafLer
alLoug lL remalned ln place for Le Leaf 8lver 1e lergusons sued on negllgence sLrlcL
llablllLy nulsance and Lrespass alleglng LaL Ley ad suffered emoLlonal dlsLress and sougL
$360 mllllon ln acLual punlLlve damages
(2) LAln1lllS s ad some lssues 1ey refused Lo LesL Lemselves or Lelr properLy 1e
usband dld noL Lake Le medlclne LaL ls psycologlsL prescrlbed and e ad been sub[ecLed
Lo asbesLos exposure LaL mlgL ave conLrlbuLed Lo ls fear 1e wlfe LesLlfled Lo a fear of
cancer from all Le caLfls LaL se ad eaLen from Le rlver buL Le fear dld noL paralyze er
or keep er from funcLlonlng" !ury awarded $31 mllllon on Le nulsance emoLlonal dlsLress
(3) LxL81S
(a) lergusons' experLs lncluded a pyslclan wo sald dloxln ls a super Loxln" LaL causes
cancer and recommended LaL Ley geL LesLed noLlng LaL Lere fear was reasonable
8 | a g e

syclaLrlsL sald LaL Le fear was reasonable as well Appralser says Lelr properLy ad
decreased ln value by $63k and LaL Ley sould geL Le properLy LesLed
(b)1e Mlll's experLs lncluded Le former LA admlnlsLraLor wo sald LaL Le Leaf 8lver was
noL Le worsL ln Le counLry for dloxln polluLlon an ecology prof wo sald LaL Lere was no
dlfference beLween downsLream upsLream LaL more Lan 100 mlles downsLream ls
Loo far Lo ave an lmpacL an appralser wo sald Lere was no decrease ln value a psyc
prof wo sald LaL Le oLer doc sould noL ave examlned Lem LogeLer and LaL Lelr
fears were unreasonable b/c Ley ad noL been LesLed and a docLor wo sald LaL dloxln
was noL llnked Lo cancer and LaL Ley would ave Lo be LesLed anyway Lo see lf Ley ad
even been exposed
(4) 1LS1lnC 1e lergusons relled on LesLs ln Le LLAl 8lver (noL Le ascagoula) as dld Le Mlll
none of Le LesLs Look place ln Le vlclnlLy of Le lergusons' properLy
(3) 1e courL says LaL you cannoL ave an emoLlonal dlsLress clalm based on a fear of conLracLlng
a dlsease 8evlews SuLes case buL noLes LaL Le lergusons' rellance on lL lsn'L on all fours b/c
ln LaL case Le planL was lmmedlaLely ad[acenL Lo Le properLy and Lere was pyslcal
evldence (dylng vegeLaLlon waLerlng eyes runny noses) of Le damage
(6) ourL says LaL Lere was lnsufflclenL proof of damages and LaL Le evldence was lnsufflclenL
Lo esLablls lnLerference w/ Lelr use en[oymenL of Le properLy
lv) Jo/sh v 1own of 5toninqton Joter Po//ution contro/ 4uthority (onn 1999) p 31 nulsance sulL
over sewage planL
(1) 8AkC8Cunu AuMlnlS18A1lvL PlS1C8 rlvaLe nulsance acLlon for arm caused by odors
from sewage LreaLmenL planL 1e planL ad applled Lo Le sLaLe for renewal of lLs dlscarge
permlL Le commlssloner appolnLed a earlng offlcer wo conducLed a publlc earlng aL wlc
several clLlzens ob[ecLed one of Le clLlzens flled a peLlLlon for lnLervenLlon ln accordance w/
Le procedure provlded for by sLaLuLe Le peLlLlon was granLed and Le earlng offlcer found
LaL Le odors dld noL consLlLuLe unreasonable polluLlon LaL Lere was no reasonable
alLernaLlve 1e commlssloner owever parLlally re[ecLed Le earlng offlcer's flndlngs
deLermlnlng LaL Le polluLlon was unreasonable buL e neverLeless relssued Le permlL b/c
e deLermlned LaL Lere was no reasonable alLernaLlve !ury awarded s $673k aL Lrlal
(2) 1PL ln!u8 1e planL emlLLed several odors sewage roLLen egg dlesel sweeL odor and
clorlne 1ey caused couglng vomlLlng eadaces and a burnlng sensaLlon Lo Le llps
(3) u ls argulng LaL Le Lrlal courL falled Lo lnsLrucL Le [ury on Le balanclng LesL Lo deLermlne Le
reasonableness/unreasonableness of Le conducL buL Le courL dlsagrees b/c Le lnsLrucLlon
Lold Le [ury Lo conslder Le locaLlon of Le condlLlon and all of Le clrcumsLances"
(4) 1PL 8LASCnA8LLnLSS LLLMLn1 ourL says Lls ls welglng process lnvolvlng a comparaLlve
evaluaLlon of confllcLlng lnLeresLs
(a) u relles on yr case argulng LaL Le uLlllLy ouLwelgs Le arm 1e ourL says LaL Lls ls
lnconslsLenL w/ Le 82d of 1orLs wlc says LaL Le reasonableness cannoL be welged ln
Le absLracL Le LesL musL also facLor ln waL ls belng done Lo Lry Lo amelloraLe Le arm
lf lL was uLlllLy alone Len lL would become an allornoLlng LesL and s would ave no
(3) noLes CuesLlons
(a) LCnCMlS 1ere ls an lnLeresLlng dlscusslon abouL Le cosL Lo amelloraLe ow wo
pays lL as an effecL on weLer acLlon wlll be Laken 1e example as 23 omes eac
lowered ln value by $20k ($300k LoLal) lf Lere ls an opLlon Lo conLrol Le odors LaL cosLs
9 | a g e

$430k Len Lls ls Le mosL efflclenL soluLlon lf Le planL as Lo acL Len lL sould coose
Lo conLrol Le odors because lL $30k ceaper Lan compensaLlng Le omeowners ln
Leory Le omeowners would make Le same colce because lL would be a neL beneflL Lo
eac of Lem of $2k Powever Le LransacLlon cosLs and problems w/ freerlders are
probably Loo subsLanLlal for Le omeowners Lo bear Moreover lL's probably easler for
Lem Lo [usL bear a $2k loss
(b)lLuL8AL CMMCn LAW Cl nulSAnL SC1uS recognlzed a federal common law
nulsance acLlon ln Mlssourl v llllnols (1906) wlc sLaLes could lnvoke agalnsL lnLersLaLe
polluLlon 1e followlng year Le ourL granLed Ceorgla an ln[uncLlon agalnsL Lwo
1ennessee copper smelLers ln Ceorgla v 1ennessee opper o (1907)
(l) Powever sLaLuLory law suc as Le lean WaLer AcL llmlLs Le reac of Le federal
common law of nulsance ln essence Le AcL preempLs /c ongress as occupled Le
fleld Mllwaukee v llllnols (1981) Mlddlesex ounLy Sewerage AuLorlLy v naLlonal Sea
lammers Ass'n (1981)
(ll) SLaLe nulsance clalms are noL on Le same fooLlng b/c Le ourL presumes LaL sLaLe
law ls noL preempLed unless LaL was Le clear manlfesL purpose of ongress ln facL
Le lean WaLer AcL as a savlngs clause" LaL says lL does noL resLrlcL any rlgL LaL
any person mlgL ave under Le common law and mosL federal envlronmenLal
sLaLuLes lnclude slmllar provlslons
(lll)lnLersLaLe nulsance cases are governed by Le law of Le source sLaLe raLer Lan LaL of
Le recelvlng sLaLe!!!
(lv)vlolaLlon of federal polluLlon laws can be a basls for negllgence per se (ln addlLlon Lo
waLever penalLles are provlded for by sLaLuLe) ompllance owever ls noL a bar Lo
sulL alLoug lL can be evldence of reasonableness of Le expecLed sLandard of care
(c) 8LMLulLS PlsLorlcally Le remedy for nulsance was ln[uncLlve rellef Powever posL
lndusLrlal revoluLlon Le courLs became wary of en[olnlng economlcally valuable polluLlng
acLlvlLles 1e 8oomer v ALlanLlc emenL (1970 from roperLy law class) ls a good
example of Lls were Le courL allowed Le planL Lo pay compensaLory damages 1oday
courLs balance Le equlLles" Lo deLermlne weLer ln[uncLlve rellef ls [usLlfled ln a nulsance
(l) ln[uncLlve rellef moneLary damages are noL muLually excluslve Loug!
(ll) MoneLary damages can someLlmes pose some problems suc as wen Lere ls a
repuLaLlonal arm noL connecLed Lo acLual conLamlnaLlon especlally lf cooses Lo sLay
on Le properLy uamage prevenLlng recreaLlonal use may be dlfflculL Lo value
(lll)nulsance clalms generally are noL avallable for buslnesses LaL depend on Le naLural
resource (eg resLauranLs LaL depend on fls from a polluLed lake or a sLore LaL renLs
[eL skls for use on Le lake) because Le damage Ley suffer ls noL Lo Le use of Le real
properLy 1ls ls someLlng Le courLs ave sLruggled wlL generally dlsLlngulslng
beLween dlrecL" arm Lo lnLeresLs suc as commerclal flslng from noncompensable
lndlrecL" arm Lo processors resLauraLeurs and oLers (we dlscussed Lls ln 1orLs)
(lv)unlLlve damages may be awarded ln polluLlon cases lf u's conducL ls sufflclenLly
(v) noLe LaL rellef can also be sougL vla pollLlcal processes/acLlon and Le markeL
3) 1oxlc 1orLs
a) Cenerally
10 | a g e

l) 1oxlc LorLs are personal ln[ury acLlons based on exposure Lo subsLances LaL presenL an unusually
lg rlsk Lo uman ealL or Le envlronmenL
ll) ausaLlon ls ofLen an lssue s musL sow
(1) 1aL Ley were exposed Lo cemlcals released by us
(2) 1aL Lose cemlcals can cause Le Lypes of arm LaL Ley suffered and
(3) 1aL Le cemlcals dld ln facL cause Lelr arm
lll) 1ese elemenLs may requlre experL LesLlmony and LesLlng maklng Loxlc LorL cases cosLly Llme
consumlng Lo llLlgaLe
b) ln re "4qent Oronqe" Product iobi/ity itiqotion {uNY 1985) p 63 proof of causaLlon problems
l) 8AkC8Cunu 13000 agenL orange class acLlon plalnLlffs seLLled a sulL on bealf of 24 mllllon
veLerans seLLled for $180 mllllon glvlng $12700 Lo eac plalnLlff Several undred plalnLlffs ad
opLed ouL wlc ls waL Lls sulL was abouL
ll) 1e mosL serlous deflclency ln plalnLlffs' case ls Lelr fallure Lo presenL credlble evldence of a
causal llnk beLween Le exposure Lo AgenL Crange and Le varlous dlseases from wlc Ley are
allegedly sufferlng"
(1) Lpldemlologlcal SLudles use sLaLlsLlcal meLods Lo deLecL abnormally lg lncldences of dlsease
ln a sLudy populaLlon Lo assoclaLe Lem w/ unseal exposure Lo suspecL envlronmenLal facLors
1e general sLudles clLed by Le s [usL esLablls LaL Lere ls a connecLlon beLween dloxln and
dlsease and are noL sufflclenL Lo esLablls LaL AgenL Crange caused any speclflc plalnLlff's
speclflc dlsease
(2) uocLor's LxperL 1esLlmony LssenLlally says LaL lf AgenL Crange ls a cause and Lere are no
oLer causes Len AgenL Crange musL be Le cause 1e problem ls LaL Lere are oLer
posslble causes
(3) enLral Lo Le lnadequacy of s' case ls Lelr lnablllLy Lo exclude oLer posslble causes of s'
lllnessesLose arlslng ouL of Lelr servlce ln vleLnam as well as Lose LaL all of us face ln
mlllLary clvlllan llfe"
lll) 8olls down Lo Lwo causaLlon lssues (1) LaL Lelr speclflc dlseases were caused by AgenL Crange
and (2) LaL any parLlcular u (Lere were 7 companles belng sued) produced Le AgenL Crange Lo
wlc parLlcular s were exposed Lo
lv) noLes CuesLlons
(1) rovlng causaLlon ls ofLen exceedlngly dlfflculL ln Loxlc LorL cases b/c of Le long laLency perlod
of lllness caused by carclnogens oLer Loxlc cemlcals and Le facL LaL Le general
populaLlon suffers Le same dlseases requlres s Lo prove LaL oLer lnLervenlng exposures or
forces acLually caused Le ln[ury
(2) s musL prove genera| causat|on LaL Le subsLance Lo wlc Ley were exposed can cause Le
ln[ury and spec|f|c causat|on LaL Le subsLance caused Lelr speclflc ln[ury
(3) onLrolled LesLs of Le effecLs of dellberaLe exposure are for obvlous reasons rarely avallable
wlc means LaL s ave Lo rely on oLer evldence (1) experL LesLlmony (2) experlmenLal
sLudles w/ anlmal Llssue (|n v|tro" stud|es) (3) experlmenLal sLudles w/ llve anlmals ("|n v|vo"
stud|es) and (4) epldemlologlcal sLudles of uman dlsease
(a) lL ls dlfflculL Lo exLrapolaLe from anlmal LoxlclLy LesLs wlc are ofLen performed uslng lg
does and anlmal sLralns known Lo be especlally suscepLlble Lo dlsease Lo low dose exposure
of uman belngs
(b)Lpldemlologlcal sLudles ofLen carry Le greaLesL welgL w/ Le courL because Ley dlrecLly
relaLe uman exposure Lo dlsease buL Lelr resulLs can be dlfflculL Lo lnLerpreL ave Lelr
own problems lncludlng cosL and Llme llmlLaLlons
11 | a g e

(c) Crdlnary LorL prlnclpals lead Lo over or under compensaLlon Say Lere are on average 10
ouL of 10000 cases of a dlsease buL 21 ouL of 10000 of Le exposed group geL Le dlsease
es 11 of Lem are llkely caused by Le exposure buL wlc ones? lf we compensaLe all
Len some geL a wlndfall lf we compensaLe none Len some are lefL w/o a remedy ln
addlLlon Le smaller Le dlfference (eg say only 16 ouL of 10000 ln Le exposed group)
Le less llkely LaL causaLlon wlll even be esLabllsed
(4) AnoLer lssue ls weLer Le sLaLlsLlcal margln or error sould be accounLed for and lf so
(3) 1nL SU8S1AN1IAL IAC1Ck 1LS1 Some courLs ave loosened Le causaLlon requlremenLs for
Loxlc LorL plalnLlffs by allowlng Lem Lo prevall on a sowlng LaL Le u's acLlon was a
subsLanLlal facLor ln Le ln[ury wlLouL avlng Lo prove LaL Le ln[ury would noL ave occurred
absenL u's acLlon 1e Loxlc subsLance musL ave ad more Lan negllglble or LeoreLlcal
conLrlbuLlon Lo Le ln[ury
(a) rlLlclsm ls LaL rlsk does noL equaLe wlL causaLlon
(b)Cne professor suggesLs LaL Lese cases dlscourage us Lo avold dlscloslng lnformaLlon abouL
poLenLlal ealL rlsks and LaL Le llablllLy reglme sould be based lnsLead on fallure Lo
provlde Le publlc wlL lnformaLlon abouL Le rlsks of a subsLance
(6) lederal clvll procedure as gone Lroug evolvlng sLandards of evaluaLlng experL LesLlmony
from Le 1923 ltye case LaL looked Lo weLer Le Lecnlque employed was generally
accepLed ln Le sclenLlflc communlLy Lo Le 1993 uoobett case developed a facLor LesL LaL
many belleve as led Lo closer scruLlny more frequenL excluslon of experL LesLlmony SLaLe
courLs ave spllL on uauberL
(7) 1nL DISCCVLk kULL vlrLually all [urlsdlcLlons now Loll Le SCL Lo Le Llme aL wlc Le
knew or sould ave known abouL Le ln[ury
(a) Lven Lls rule as problems because ofLen Le vlcLlm Llnks LaL Le sympLoms come from
someLlng else glven LaL Ley occur so long afLer Le lnlLlal exposure
(8) ourLs generally wlll noL allow recovery for mere lncreased rlsk of developlng dlsease
Powever many courLs allow clalms for negllgenL lnfllcLlon of emoLlonal dlsLress buL many also
requlre proof of some presenL pyslcal lmpacL or ln[ury oLer Lan mere exposure alone
(a) ln addlLlon fear of fuLure dlsease musL be reasonable Lo supporL recovery
(b)1e allfornla Supreme ourL requlres s Lo sow a more llkely Lan noL" probablllLy of
geLLlng Le dlsease Lo prevall on nLLu clalms
(c) Some buL noL all courLs ave allowed recovery of Le cosLs of medlcal monlLorlng followlng
Loxlc exposure
4) ommon Law v ubllc Law
a) SLeven Savell LlablllLy for Parm v 8egulaLlon of SafeLy
l) Argues for a blend of regulaLlon common law 1e facLors of dlfferenLlal knowledge and
admlnlsLraLlve cosLs favor a common law sysLem wlle Le lncapaclLy Lo pay for arm done
llkellood of escaplng sulL favor regulaLlon
b) 8oger Melners 8ruce andle ommon Law Le oncelL of Modern LnvlronmenLal Law ollcy
l) rlLlclzes regulaLlon as a soluLlon ls concerned abouL Le lnefflclency of governmenL acLlon Also
noLes Le role of properLy rlgLs flndlng efflclenL flexlble soluLlons suc as allowlng Le
polluLer Lo pay Le cosL of Le damage lf ls lL worL dolng so Lo conLlnue lLs acLlons
ll) lLes Le uyaoga 8lver burnlng as an example of a bad resulL from lneffecLlve regulaLlon
lll) noLes Le cosL ($200 bllllon per year for Le LA) of admlnlsLraLlon and Le addlLlonal cosL were
regulaLlon as curLalled common law remedles
12 | a g e

lv) Says LaL sLaLuLory law ls Loo lax on polluLers Ley are never suL down ([usL flned) as Ley mlgL
be en[olned under a common law acLlon
c) lrank 8 ross ommon Law oncelLs A ommenL of Melners andle
l) rlLlclzes prevlous arLlcle's falL ln Le common law Says LaL Le common law as generally noL
been preempLed because Le sLaLuLes almosL all ave savlngs clauses LaL say Ley do noL
ll) 1e oLer beneflL of sLaLuLory law ls LaL lL can make LorL clalms easler by allowlng for negllgence
per se Makes proof of breac of duLy easler ln negllgence cases CuoLes survey sowlng lncrease
ln nulsance clalms slnce Le passage of envlronmenLal leglslaLlon noLes LaL envlronmenLal
problems were aL Lelr peak durlng Le common law era buL mosL ma[or problems ave been
allevlaLed ln Le age of sLaLuLes
d) Ldward 8runeL uebunklng Wolesale rlvaLe LnforcemenL of LnvlronmenLal 8lgLs
l) noLes problems w/ LorL soluLlons Plg LransacLlon cosLs can prevenL mlnor ln[urles from belng
remedled 8ecovery ofLen requlres cooperaLlon of Le adversary u ln addlLlon a large amounL of
Le recovery goes Lo pay Le legal fees
e) noLes CuesLlons
l) lree markeL envlronmenLallsLs belleve Le governmenL's prlmary role ln envlronmenLal proLecLlon
sould be Le creaLlon enforcemenL of clear properLy rlgLs ln naLural resources raLer Lan
command conLrol regulaLlon
ll) 1ere are speclflc areas ln wlc federal envlronmenLal law does preempL sLaLe LorL law and ln
dolng so may well ave lncreased Le accepLable level of exposure Lo envlronmenLal arms suc as
by relylng on lnformaLlon from Le manufacLurers LaL are belng regulaLed wlc ls noL nearly as
proLecLlve Lo people wo are exposed as sLaLe LorL law would be
3) ectlcot v Ametlco lecttlc let mpoy lc 382 l3d 309 (2d lr 2009) posLed on 1WLn
a) reempLlon/ulsplacemenL
l) ulsplacemenL federal sLaLuLe dlsplaces federal common law
ll) reempLlon federal sLaLuLes preempLs sLaLe common law
b) 8esLaLemenL 821b
l) LlemenLs
(1) unreasonable lnLerference
(a) ubllc ealL/safeLy/comforL
(b)onducL proscrlbed by sLaLuLe
(c) onLlnulng or permanenL/longlasLlng naLure
(2) 8lgL common Lo Le general publlc
c) us argumenLs general feel of Lls ls LaL Ley're flgLlng Lls clalm on every posslble angle
l) Cnly applles Lo slmple" nulsances
ll) Cnly applles Lo ouL of sLaLe sources
lll) MusL be noxlous/polsonous maLerlal
lv) MusL be an lmmedlaLe ln[ury
v) MusL be locallzed
d) uld us go Loo far ls Lelr poslLlon sancLlonable (lack of auLorlLy for argumenLs Laklng language ouL
of conLexL eLc)?

Chapter 3 1he Adm|n|strat|ve Law of the Lnv|ronment
1) 1e AdmlnlsLraLlve ueclslon Maklng rocess
13 | a g e

a) lnLroducLlon
l) AL Le federal level agencles suc as Le LA (creaLed ln 1970) lmplemenL Le general pollcles seL
by ongress AdmlnlsLraLlve agencles can affecL Le envlronmenL ln Lree prlnclpal ways
(1) underLaklng acLlons LaL ave envlronmenLal effecLs
(2) Llcenslng or permlLLlng acLlvlLles by oLers LaL ave envlronmenLal effecLs
(3) AdopLlng regulaLlons or oLer pollcles LaL lmpacL envlronmenLal quallLy
ll) nLA lmposes an obllgaLlon on federal agencles Lo lncorporaLe envlronmenLal concerns lnLo Lelr
declslon maklng processes
lll) AdmlnlsLraLlve rocedure AcL (1946) sougL Lo address concerns abouL Le growlng power of Le
admlnlsLraLlve agencles by prescrlblng agency procedures dellneaLlng Le role of Le courLs ln
revlewlng agency acLlons
b) Agency ollcymaklng AlLernaLlves
l) lnLro
(1) 1wo ways agencles make pollcy 1) rulemaklng and 2) ad[udlcaLlon
(2) ongress may speclfy ln a parLlcular sLaLuLe wlc meLod an agency musL follow buL
oLerwlse Le agency musL follow Le AA
ll) ku|emak|ng
(1) lnLro
(a) AA deflnlLlon of a rule Le wole or a parL of an agency sLaLemenL of general or parLlcular
appllcablllLy and fuLure effecL deslgned Lo lmplemenL lnLerpreL or prescrlbe law or pollcy"
(b)1roug a rule an agency can announce a coerenL compreenslve pollcy response ln an
area under lLs auLorlLy on a case by case basls (Lls ls Le ldea of a slngle rule lnsLead of
1000 lndlvldual deLermlnaLlons)
(c) 1wo baslc Lypes formal lnformal
(2) ltmol / Ntlce mmet kolemokl
(a) AA 333 Le AA requlres noLlce of proposed regulaLlons Lo be publlsed ln Le federal
reglsLer (wlL some excepLlons suc as for lnLerpreLlve procedural rules) afLer wlc
lnLeresLed persons" can submlL daLa vlews or argumenLs
(l) AfLer conslderlng Le commenLs Le agency musL publls Le flnal rule along wlL a
conclse general sLaLemenL of lLs basls purpose" ln Le lederal 8eglsLer
(b)lnformal rulemaklng refers Lo rulemaklng under AA 333 ls Le mosL common and
slgnlflcanL form of rulemaklng
(c) 1e AA lmposes only mlnlmal requlremenLs for lnformal rulemaklng
(d)SC1uS vermonL ankee declslon Le courLs cannoL lmpose addlLlonal procedures on Lop
of Lose lmposed by Le AA or sLaLuLe
(e) lnformal rulemaklng ls ofLen dlfflculL expenslve and Llmeconsumlng Agencles ofLen
provlde deLalled explanaLlons responses Lo publlc commenLs Lo elp wlLsLand llkely
courL callenges
(3) ltmol kolemokl
(a) lormal rulemaklng occurs wen an agency's auLorlzlng sLaLuLe requlres LaL rules be made
on Le record" followlng a earlng
(b)1e process ls slmllar buL before lssulng Le flnal rule Le agency musL conducL a LrlalLype
earlng and provlde lnLeresLed persons an opporLunlLy Lo LesLlfy submlL evldence and
crossexamlne adverse wlLnesses
(4) xempt kolemokl
14 | a g e

(a) 1ese lnclude (a) lnLerpreLlve rules (b) general pollcy sLaLemenLs (c) procedural rules and
(d) wen lL ls lmpracLlcal unnecessary eLc
(b)1e dlfference ls LaL Le noLlce commenL process ls bypassed
(3) NetloteJ kolemokl
(a) 1ls ls covered under Le negoLlaLed 8ulemaklng AcL of 1990 lederal agencles can conducL
negoLlaLlons among lnLeresLed parLles Lo develop regulaLory proposals
(b)1ls allows lnLeresL groups Lo ave greaLer conLrol of rule conLenL glves agencles a more
accuraLe plcLure of Le cosLs and beneflLs of pollcy alLernaLlves lL also reduces Le
llkellood of Le ma[or players callenglng Le rule
(c) AfLer agreemenL Le appllcable noLlce commenL process (or formal rulemaklng process lf
appllcable) sLlll musL be followed Loo
lll) Ad[ud|cat|on
(1) lnLro
(a) An agency also ad[udlcaLes lndlvldual cases decldes weLer a person's conducL complles
wlL Le laws and rules LaL Le agency admlnlsLers and lmposes sancLlons for vlolaLlons
(2) ltmol AJjoJlcotl
(a) AA 334(a) Le sLandards for formal ad[udlcaLlon apply wen ad[udlcaLlon ls requlred
by sLaLuLe Lo be deLermlned on Le record afLer opporLunlLy for an agency earlng"
(b)1us lL requlres noLlce opporLunlLy for Le submlsslon conslderaLlon of facLs ln
addlLlon Lo a LrlalLype earlng declslon
(3) ltmol AJjoJlcotl
(a) MosL agency declslons affecLlng Le envlronmenL are made by lnformal ad[udlcaLlon
(b)1ese do noL need Lo be on Le record"
(c) 1e AA does noL expllclLly cover Lese Lypes of declslons buL Le agencles ave developed
Lelr own procedures and Le courLs ave lmposed mlnlmum sLandards of due process
requlrlng an admlnlsLraLlve record and an explanaLlon for eac declslon
(4) Ad[udlcaLlon aL LA (uas|[ud|c|a|" sLrucLure)
(a) LA sLrucLure
(l) 8eglns wlL Adm|n|strat|ve Law Iudges (ALIs) wlc acL as Lrlal [udges maklng flndlngs
of facL drawlng concluslons of law and lssulng [udgmenLs ln Le form of declslons
1 Cne lmporLanL role for AL!s ls Lo rule ln enforcemenL acLlons on LA requesLs for
clvll penalLles agalnsL polluLers under varlous envlronmenLal sLaLuLes
(ll) 1en appeals can be made Lo Le Lnv|ronmenta| Appea|s 8oard (LA8) wlc conducLs
de novo revlew
(lll)lurLer appeal Lo Le federal courLs depends on Le sLaLuLe lnvolved
c) Agency ower lLs LlmlLs
l) 1e nondelegaLlon uocLrlne
(1) ongress can delegaLe as long as Le leglslaLlon prescrlbes baslc pollcy and conLalns crlLerla LaL
are sufflclenLly clear Lo enable ongress Le courLs and Le publlc Lo ascerLaln weLer Le
agency as conformed wlL Lose sLandards
(2) ongress AnnC1 excesslvely delegaLe dlscreLlonary auLorlLy Lo agencles Loug
(3) 1e docLrlne was mosL promlnenL [usL before Le new ueal was used Lo lnvalldaLe a number
of new ueal sLaLuLes buL Len was baslcally dormanL unLll a 1980 8enqulsL declslon buL Len
Le broad vlew of delegaLlon was reafflrmed ln a 2001 Scalla oplnlon
ll) ongresslonal Supervlslon of AdmlnlsLraLlve Agencles
1S | a g e

(1) ongress can revlew and dlsprove of agency rules before Ley Lake effecL ongress also as
oLer means suc as lLs power over an agency's budgeL
lll) LxecuLlve Supervlslon of AdmlnlsLraLlve Agencles
(1) resldenL can lnfluence agency pollcy Lroug Le appolnLmenL of offlcers rlnclpal offlcers
requlre advlce and consenL of Le SenaLe buL C1uS can usually remove Lem aL wlll
2) !udlclal 8evlew of Agency AcLlon
a) MusL demonsLraLe LaL Le courL as [urlsdlcLlon and LaL sLandlng and oLer [usLlclablllLy
requlremenLs are meL
b) 8evlewablllLy Scope of 8evlew
l) LxcerpLs from Le AdmlnlsLraLlve rocedure AcL
(1) 8aslcally Le AA provldes for [udlclal revlew of agency acLlon made revlewable by sLaLuLe and
flnal agency acLlon for wlc Lere ls no oLer adequaLe remedy ln courL
(2) !udlclal revlew ls unavallable wen (1) Le sLaLuLe precludes lL and/or (2) were agency acLlon ls
commlLLed Lo agency dlscreLlon by law
ll) lLlzens Lo reserve CverLon ark lnc v volpe (1971) p 98
(1) 1ls case ls really abouL [udlclal revlew of agency acLlon lnformal agency ad[udlcaLlon"
8aslcally Le sLandard ls abuse of dlscreLlon (arblLrary caprlclous)
(2) 1e ourL goes Lroug a 3sLep analysls (1) dld Le secreLary acL w/ln ls auLorlLy (2) was
Le colce arblLrary or caprlclous and (3) were Le procedural requlremenLs saLlsfled 1e
lssue ere was w/ Le procedural requlremenLs b/c Le secreLary ad noL made formal flndlngs
Powever Le ourL deLermlned LaL on remand Le admlnlsLraLlve record may provlde
supporL or Le SecreLary may be able Lo prepare formal flndlngs LaL provlde an adequaLe
explanaLlon for lLs acLlon and Lo Le exLenL LaL Ley wlll be posL oc" Ley wlll need Lo be
revlewed crlLlcally upon remand
lll) evron uSA lnc v naLural 8esources uefense ouncll (1984) p 107
(1) 1ls case seLs forL a 2pronged analysls for [udlclal revlew of agency lnLerpreLaLlons of law
(a) uld ongress speak Lo Le maLLer? lf Le lnLenL of ongress ls clear Len LaL ends Le
(b)lf ongress ls sllenL on Le maLLer Len ls Le agency's lnLerpreLaLlon based upon a
permlsslble consLrucLlon of Le sLaLuLe?
(2) rovldes for deference Lo agency b/c lL ls usually besL equlpped Lo deal w/ Lecnlcal maLLers
lv) noLes Cs
(1) uS v Mead provlded for several levels of deference wlL evron belng Le lgesL Lesser
deference ls someLlmes referred Lo as Skldmore respecL and ls used wen Le regulaLory
sceme ls lgly deLalled and Le agency can brlng Le beneflL of speclallzed experlence Lo bear
on Le subLle quesLlon
c) SLandlng
l) onsLlLuLlonal SLandlng
(1) Lu[an v uefenders of Wlldllfe (1992) p 113
(a) SLandlng requlres (1) ln[ury ln facL (2) causal connecLlon and (3) redressablllLy
(b)Pere Le s dld noL ave sLandlng b/c Ley only ad a generallzed grlevance abouL maybe
never belng able Lo see a LreaLened specles LaL one of Lem ad never even seen before
1ey ad no plans Lo go Lo Srl Lanka Lo see Le specles (Lls goes Lo Le ln[ury ln facL
16 | a g e

(c) 1e oplnlon conLlnues on ln a parL LaL ls noL Le oplnlon of Le ourL saylng LaL Le
blggesL lssue ls redressablllLy b/c Le agencles fundlng Le pro[ecLs were noL parLles Lo Le
(2) noLes Cs
(a) Croups can sue for arm Lo Le group 1ey can also sue on bealf of Lelr members lf Ley
meeL Le 3parL PunL" LesL (1) lLs members would oLerwlse ave sLandlng Lo sue ln Lelr
own rlgL (2) Le lnLeresLs lL seeks Lo proLecL are germane Lo Le organlzaLlon's purpose
and (3) nelLer Le clalm asserLed nor Le rellef requesLed requlres Le parLlclpaLlon of
lndlvldual members
(3) MassacuseLLs v LA (2007) p 127
(a) Several sLaLes and oLer enLlLles sued Le LA saylng LaL lL abdlcaLed lLs responslblllLy
under Le AA Lo regulaLe varlous greenouse gases suc as C2
(b)1e ourL deLermlned LaL lL was noL a pollLlcal quesLlon an advlsory oplnlon or mooL
1en lL clLes Le Lu[an case noLlng LaL ln[urles musL be (1) concreLe parLlcular (2)
acLual/lmmlnenL (3) falrly Lraceable (proxlmaLely caused) and (4) redressable 1e ourL
Len noLes LaL ongress can confer a procedural rlgL LaL loosens Le requlremenLs for
redressablllLy 1e ourL also dlsLlngulses Lu[an ln LaL ere Le s are sLaLes sulng ln Lelr
capaclLy as quaslsoverelgns lL also noLes LaL Le sLaLes cannoL enforce Lls on Lelr own
b/c Ley surrendered Le power wen Ley [olned Le unlon so Ley musL rely on Le LA
Lo do so
(c) 1e ourL goes Lroug Le analyslsln[ury causaLlon and remedy and lL concludes LaL
MassacuseLLs as sLandlng Lo callenge Le LA's denlal of Lelr rulemaklng peLlLlon
(d)8oberLs' dlssenL says LaL Le sLandlng requlremenL sould be Le same for all parLles
weLer sLaLes or noL Pe also goes Lroug Le oLer elemenLs and generally dlsagrees
wlL Le concluslons of Le ma[orlLy
ll) nononsLlLuLlonal / rudenLlal SLandlng
(1) Cenerally
(a) MusL fall w/ln Le zone of lnLeresLs" LaL Le sLaLuLe ls deslgned Lo proLecL buL cannoL sue
for generallzed grlevances and cannoL sue on bealf of a Llrd parLy
(2) 8enneLL v Spear (1997) p 138
(a) llnds clalm ls w/ln zone of lnLeresLs of sLaLuLes wen callenglng a crlLlcal ablLaL llsLlng as
vlolaLlng Le requlremenLs of Le LSA and AA
d) 8lpeness LxausLlon MooLness
l) 8lpeness
ll) LxausLlon of AdmlnlsLraLlve 8emedles
lll) MooLness

Chapter 4 Lnv|ronmenta| Iedera||sm
1) PlsLorlcal 1eoreLlcal 8ackground
a) Cenerally
l) Cooperat|ve Iedera||sm Le federal governmenL seLs Le sLandards buL allows Le sLaLes Lo
assume responslblllLy for lmplemenLlng Lem
b) 8lcard 8 SLewarL yramlds of Sacrlflce? roblems of lederallsm ln MandaLlng SLaLe lmplemenLaLlon
of naLlonal LnvlronmenLal ollcy
l) rocenLrallzaLlon of power Lragedy of Le commons economles of scale compeLlLlve
dlsadvanLage dlsparlLles ln represenLaLlon
17 | a g e

2) ooperaLlve lederallsm Le besL of boL worlds
a) 8oberL L llscman ooperaLlve lederallsm naLural 8esources Law
l) uual lederallsm sLaLes federal governmenL operaLe lndependenLly
ll) ooperaLlve lederallsm coordlnaLlon beLween sLaLe federal efforLs
b) Alaska ueparLmenL of LnvlronmenLal onservaLlon v uS LnvlronmenLal roLecLlon Agency (2004) p
l) lssue ls waL role Le LA as ln a sLaLe agency's deLermlnaLlon 1e sLaLe and LA are essenLlally
flgLlng over weLer Le LA can sLep ln and force compllance w/ Le WA 1e ourL olds LaL
Le LA can buL lL's a 34 declslon w/ Le Scalla/1omas slde dlssenLlng
3) Source of LlmlLs on lederal ower
a) Source of lederal ower
l) 1e ommerce lause new ueal Lopez Morrlson 8alc
(1) 8anco vle[o LL v norLon (u lr 2003) p 173
(a) allenge Lo LA as vlolaLlon of Le commerce clause (seems llke Lopez/Morrlson mlgL
ave sparked Lls callenge Llnklng LaL maybe Le ourL was golng Lo conLlnue Lo pull
back on lLs expanslve readlng of Le commerce clause)
(b)4 Lopez facLors
(l) WeLer Le regulaLed acLlvlLy as anyLlng Lo do w/ commerce or any sorL of economlc
(ll) WeLer Le sLaLuLe conLalns any express [urlsdlcLlonal elemenL
(lll)WeLer Lere are any express ongresslonal flndlngs
(lv)WeLer Le relaLlonslp beLween Le regulaLed acLlvlLy and lnLersLaLe commerce ls Loo
aLLenuaLed Lo be subsLanLlal
(c) 8uL Lere ls also a presumpLlon of consLlLuLlonallLy" for congresslonal leglslaLlon
(d)ourL ulLlmaLely dlsLlngulses Lopez Morrlson flnds LaL Le LSA ls consLlLuLlonal
(2) 8anco vle[o LL v norLon (u lr 2003 Lls was nowclef[usLlce 8oberLs' dlssenL from
denlal of reearlng en banc) p 181
(a) 1e panel's oplnlon ln effecL asks weLer Le callenged 8LCuLA1lCn subsLanLlally
affecLs lnLersLaLe commerce raLer Lan weLer Le A1lvl1 belng regulaLed does so"
(b)8oberLs noLes LaL under Lls loglc boL Lopez and Morrlson would ave come ouL Le
oLer way Moreover Le 3
lrculL agreed
(3) noLes Cs
(a) AggregaLlon uocLrlne
(b)Slnce 1997 4 clrculLs ave examlned Le consLlLuLlonallLy of Le LSA all ave upeld lL buL
for dlfferenL reasons
(c) MosL commenLaLors agree LaL weLlands proLecLlon ls Le oLer federal envlronmenLal
program mosL vulnerable under Le commerce clause
(d)1o daLe no federal courL as sLruck down any federal envlronmenLal law under Le
commerce clause
ll) CLer Sources of lederal ower
(1) 1e 1reaLy ower
(2) 1e roperLy ower
(3) 1e Spendlng ower
b) LlmlLs of lederal ower
l) new ork v unlLed SLaLes (1992) p 183
18 | a g e

(1) ou already know Lls case from on law Le federal governmenL can encourage buL noL
compel Le sLaLes Lo enforce federal laws
4) LlmlLs on SLaLe ower
a) 1e uormanL ommerce lause
l) A arbone lnc v 1own of larksLon new ork (1994) p 194
(1) unconsLlLuLlonal under Le dormanL commerce clause b/c ls local regulaLlon of lnLersLaLe
commerce (ordered Lown Lo dlspose of all wasLe ln Le new Lransfer sLaLlon Lo pay for Le cosL
of Le sLaLlon)
ll) unlLed Paulers Ass'n v CneldaPerklmer Solld WasLe ManagemenL AuLorlLy
(1) (dld noL ouLllne Le resL of Le capLer)
b) reempLlon
l) lean Alr MarkeLs Croup v aLakl
ll) Lnglne ManufacLurers Ass'n v SouL oasL Alr CuallLy ManagemenL ulsLrlcL

Chapter S NLA the ower of Informat|on
1) lnLroducLlon Lo Le nLA
a) LxcerpLs from nLA
l) urpose (1) declare a naLlonal pollcy and (2) esLablls ouncll on LnvlronmenLal CuallLy
ll) 8road language abouL uslng all pracLlcable means and measures" eac generaLlon belng a LrusLee
of Le envlronmenL eLc
lll) uL1AlLLu S1A1LMLn1 All federal agencles requlred Lo lnclude ln every recommendaLlon or
reporL on proposals for leglslaLlon and oLer ma[or federal acLlons slgnlflcanLly affecLlng Le quallLy
of Le uman envlronmenL a deLalled sLaLemenL" ouLllnlng (1) envlronmenLal lmpacL (2) adverse
envlronmenL lmpacLs LaL cannoL be avolded (3) alLernaLlves (4) sorLLerm v longLerm and (3)
any lrreverslble commlLmenLs of resources
lv) MusL confer w/ relevanL slsLer agencles
v) 42 uS 4332(2)() any ma[or federal acLlon slgnlflcanLly affecLlng Le quallLy of Le uman
envlronmenL" requlres an LlS
b) ulna 8ear ArLlcle
l) LC ouncll on LnvlronmenLal CuallLy 3 Members LaL (1) provlde an annual reporL (2) advlse
Le presldenL and (3) documenL envlronmenLal Lrends
ll) nlxon ordered LC Lo develop guldellnes for preparlng LlSs
lll) arLer upped Le anLe orderlng LC Lo esLablls blndlng LlS regulaLlons (no longer [usL guldellnes)
lv) Powever Le regs are generlc and eac agency musL prepare lLs own nLA procedures
v) A1LCC8lAL LxLuSlCnS acLs w/ln predeslgnaLed caLegorles LaL do noL ave a slgnlflcanL effecL
on envlronmenL requlre no documenLaLlon
vl) Lnvl8CnMLn1AL ASSLSSMLn1S baslcally Lese are [usL brlef prellmlnary reporLs Lo deLermlne
weLer a full LlS ls needed also as a few oLer purposes suc as aldlng an agency's compllance
w/ nLA wen no LlS ls needed 8esulLs ln elLer LlS or lCnSl LAs are publlc docs
vll)Lnvl8CnMLn1 lMA1 S1A1LMLn1S used by federal offlclals Lo plan acLlons and make declslons
(1) SLep 1 flle nCl ln federal reglsLer
(2) SLep 2 scoplng" process lnvolves lnLeresLed parLles and agencles and deLermlnes scope of
Le lssues relaLed Lo Le LlS
(3) SLep 3 lnlLlal drafL of LlS
19 | a g e

(a) 1e LlS ls prepared elLer by Le lead agency or by a conLracLor buL Le lead agency
ALWAS as Le duLy Lo lndependenLly evaluaLe any lnformaLlon recelved from Le varlous
(b)urafL clrculaLes for 43 days relevanL agencles commenL Agency musL respond Lo Le
commenLs ln Le flnal drafL of Le LlS send a copy of Le flnal verslon Lo all parLles wo
(c) 1en comes a 3090 day walLlng perlod
(4) 1en a declslon ls made wlc requlres a 8LC8u Cl uLlSlCn ldenLlfylng wlc alLernaLlves
were consldered Le facLors consldered eLc
c) alverL llffs' oordlnaLlng ommlLLee lnc v uS ALomlc omm'n (u lr 1971) p 233
l) 1ls was Le 1
lmporLanL [udlclal lnLerpreLaLlon of nLA
ll) 8aslcally says LaL nLA ls flexlble w/ Le subsLanLlve resulLs LaL agencles reac so long as Le
sLrlcL procedural requlremenLs are followed
lll) nLA mandaLes 8ALAnlnC of envlronmenLal conslderaLlons w/ oLer conslderaLlons ln agency
declslon maklng processes
lv) !udlclal revlew ls llmlLed Lo arblLrary caprlclous agency musL noL ave consldered and balanced
Le envlronmenLal facLors ln good falL
d) SLryker's 8ay nelgborood ouncll lnc v karlen (1980) p 233
l) 1ls was Le case abouL Le low lncome ouslng pro[ecL ln ManaLLan a scool and nelgbors
were aLLempLlng Lo en[oln Puu's pro[ecL
ll) SC1uS baslcally reaces a very slmllar resulL as Le u lrculL ln Le above case says more or
less LaL Le courL can only overLurn a declslon lf lL ls based on arblLrary procedure Le courL does
noL revlew Le subsLanLlve aspecLs of Le declslon
e) noLes CuesLlons
l) 8ecause nLA does noL conLaln a [udlclal revlew provlslon revlew ls conducLed under Le AA
SC1uS as conslsLenLly refused Lo permlL subsLanLlve revlew of agency declslons under
ll) nLA merely prolblLs unlnformed LaL Lan unwlse agency acLlon
2) 1e uuLy Lo repare an LlS
a) 8ecommendaLlon or 8eporL on roposals"
l) LxcerpLs from ouncll on LnvlronmenLal CuallLy (LC) 8egulaLlons
(1) An agency sall commence preparaLlon of an LlS as close as posslble Lo Le Llme Le agency ls
developlng or ls presenLed wlL a proposal so LaL preparaLlon can be compleLed ln Llme for Le
flnal sLaLemenL Lo be lncluded ln any recommendaLlon or reporL on Le proposal"
(2) MusL be prepared early enoug Lo serve pracLlcally as an lmporLanL conLrlbuLlon Lo Le
declslonmaklng process and wlll noL be used Lo raLlonallze or [usLlfy declslons already made
(3) ltpol exlsLs aL LaL sLage ln Le developmenL of an acLlon wen an agency as a goal and
ls acLlvely preparlng Lo make a declslon on one or more alLernaLlve means of accompllslng
LaL goal and Le effecLs can be meanlngfully evaluaLed
ll) kleppe v Slerra lub (1976) p 239
(1) ourL of appeals ad creaLed a 4parL balanclng LesL for deLermlnlng wen an agency musL
begln preparaLlon of an LlS SC1uS says Le courL erred b/c nLA ls clear Le agency musL
ave a flnal sLaLemenL ready wen lL makes a recommendaLlon or reporL on a proposal for
federal acLlon
lll) MeLcalf v ualey (9
lr 2000) p 242
20 | a g e

(1) 1ls was Le Maka Lrlbe wallng case 1e lssue was LaL Le naLlonal Cceanlc and
ALmosperlc AdmlnlsLraLlon (nCAA) enLered lnLo an agreemenL wlL Le Lrlbe allowlng Le
Lrlbe Lo resume wallng before beglnnlng Le nLA process An envlronmenLal group sued
1e nCAA responded by lssulng an LA and lCnSl and enLerlng lnLo a new agreemenL wlL Le
Maka 1e ourL baslcally sald LaL Lls was Loo laLe and LaL Le LA was llkely slanLed ln Lls
lv) noLes CuesLlons
(1) 8emedy ln a nLA acLlon ls normally an ln[uncLlon pendlng preparaLlon of an adequaLe LA or
(2) LxempLlons from nLA
(a) SLaLuLory onfllcL (eg wen anoLer sLaLuLe lmposes a sLrlcL deadllne)
(b)SLaLuLory LxempLlons (mosL LA acLlons under Le AA WA are exempLed)
(c) luncLlonal Lqulvalence Lls really ls used [usL Lo allow Le LA Lo acL qulckly w/o glvlng
Le LA a blankeL exempLlon
(d)MlnlsLerlal AcLs nLA does noL apply wen Le federal agency as no dlscreLlon Lo Lake
envlronmenLal effecLs lnLo accounL
(e) aLegorlcal Lxcluslons an agency can go Lroug a formal procedure deLermlnlng LaL a
class of acLlons does noL ave a slgnlflcanL envlronmenLal effecL and no LA or LlS ls needed
for acLlons w/ln Lese classes
b) Ma[or lederal AcLlons"
l) LxcerpLs from ouncll on LnvlronmenLal CuallLy 8egulaLlons

40 l8 130823 Scope
cpe conslsLs of Le range of acLlons alLernaLlves and lmpacLs Lo be consldered ln an envlronmenLal lmpacL
sLaLemenL 1e scope of an lndlvldual sLaLemenL may depend on lLs relaLlonslps Lo oLer sLaLemenLs
(130220 and 130828) 1o deLermlne Le scope of envlronmenLal lmpacL sLaLemenLs agencles sall
conslder 3 Lypes of acLlons 3 Lypes of alLernaLlves and 3 Lypes of lmpacLs 1ey lnclude
(a) Act|ons (oLer Lan unconnecLed slngle acLlons) wlc may be
(1) onnecLed acLlons wlc means LaL Ley are closely relaLed and Lerefore sould be
dlscussed ln Le same lmpacL sLaLemenL AcLlons are connecLed lf Ley
(l) AuLomaLlcally Lrlgger oLer acLlons wlc may requlre envlronmenLal lmpacL
(ll) annoL or wlll noL proceed unless oLer acLlons are Laken prevlously or
(lll) Are lnLerdependenL parLs of a larger acLlon and depend on Le larger acLlon for Lelr
(2) umulaLlve acLlons wlc wen vlewed wlL oLer proposed acLlons ave cumulaLlvely
slgnlflcanL lmpacLs and sould Lerefore be dlscussed ln Le same lmpacL sLaLemenL
(3) Slmllar acLlons wlc wen vlewed wlL oLer reasonably foreseeable or proposed agency
acLlons ave slmllarlLles LaL provlde a basls for evaluaLlng Lelr envlronmenLal consequences
LogeLer suc as common Llmlng or geograpy An agency may wls Lo analyze Lese acLlons ln
Le same lmpacL sLaLemenL lL sould do so wen Le besL way Lo assess adequaLely Le
comblned lmpacLs of slmllar acLlons or reasonable alLernaLlves Lo suc acLlons ls Lo LreaL Lem
ln a slngle lmpacL sLaLemenL
(b) A|ternat|ves wlc lnclude
(1) no acLlon alLernaLlve
21 | a g e

(2) CLer reasonable courses of acLlons
(3) MlLlgaLlon measures (noL ln Le proposed acLlon)
(c) Impacts wlc may be (1) ulrecL (2) lndlrecL (3) cumulaLlve

ll) SouL arollna ex rel ampbell v C'Leary (4
lr 1993) p 234
(1) 1ls ls a scope case uS agreed Lo Lake uranlum from oLer counLrles Lo reduce llkellood of
belng used ln nuclear weapons lull amounL requlred consLrucLlon of a faclllLy LlS and uS
wanLed Lo brlng a small amounL over lmmedlaLely under [usL an LA wlc would be sLored ln
an exlsLlng faclllLy S sued Lo en[oln under nLA
(2) 1e ourL asks weLer Le smaller slpmenL fell w/ln one of Le 40 l8 130823(a) seLs of
acLlons LaL would requlre boL Le small slpmenL and Le large slpmenL Lo be consldered
LogeLer ourL goes Lroug eac one and flnds can be evaluaLed separaLely w/ [usL an LA
(a) onnecLed AcLlons? no b/c Le smaller slpmenL ls lndependenL separable" Cnly
preserves opLlon Lo accepL larger slpmenL
(b)umulaLlve AcLlons? no b/c Le larger slpmenL ls by lLself sufflclenL le lL doesn'L Lake
boL slpmenLs LogeLer Lo creaLe Le slgnlflcanL lmpacL
(c) Slmllar AcLlons? Cnly slmllarlLy ls LaL boL slpmenLs are of spenL nuclear fuel 1lmlng
source locaLlon eLc are all dlfferenL
(3) ulssenL Llnks Lls clrcumvenLs Le purpose of nLA
lll) ka Makanl 'C koala Cana lnc v ounLy of Pawal'l uep'L of WaLer Supply (9
lr 2002) p 238
(1) 1ls was a ma[or federal acLlon" case
(2) ongress allocaLed $300k for a Pawall waLer pro[ecL LaL would ave been exempL from nLA
1e pro[ecL was puL on old and Le money was Len slaLed Lo be used ln anoLer pro[ecL LaL
was noL exempL 1e courL found LaL Le swlLc dld noL Lrlgger Le need for an LlS b/c lL was
noL a ma[or federal acLlon Le LoLal cosL of Le lnlLlal pro[ecL was $80 mllllon and Le LoLal
amounL offered by Le federal governmenL was $13 mllllon only 2 of Le LoLal cosL ln
addlLlon alLoug an agency played an advlsory role lL was noL a declslonmaklng one 1us
Le federal fundlng conLrlbuLlon dld noL Lransform Le enLlre lnlLlal pro[ecL lnLo a ma[or federal
lv) noLes CuesLlons
(1) SegmenLaLlon Lls ls Le ldea of purposely spllLLlng a pro[ecL lnLo small parLs ln an aLLempL Lo
avold Lrlggerlng nLA
(2) Small Pandles Lls ls anoLer aspecL of segmenLaLlon klnd of llke Le Pawall case above lf
federal fundlng ls sougL for only a parL of a nonfederal pro[ecL sould Le nLA requlremenLs
swallow" Le enLlre pro[ecL?
(3) Plgway onsLrucLlon sLaLes generally are noL able Lo deLermlne lgway rouLes by bulldlng
nonfederal segmenLs before seeklng federal fundlng buL a porLlon of a larger pro[ecL can be
consldered ln lsolaLlon lf lL as lndependenL uLlllLy loglcal Lermlnl
(4) Cenerally nLA does noL apply ouLslde Le uS
c) SlgnlflcanLly AffecLlng Le CuallLy of Le Puman LnvlronmenL"
l) LxcerpLs from ouncll on LnvlronmenLal CuallLy 8egulaLlons
(1) 8aslcally says ave Lo conslder cumulaLlve lmpacL ave Lo conslder boL dlrecL and lndlrecL
effecLs and deflnes slgnlflcanLly" as conslderlng boL Le conLexL and lnLenslLy
ll) uep'L of 1ransporLaLlon v ubllc lLlzen (2004) p 264
(1) 1ls case ls abouL cause and effecL
22 | a g e

(2) noLes LaL sLandard of revlew for agency's declslon weLer Lo prepare an LlS ls arb|trary and
capr|c|ous Le noLes say LaL Lls seLLled a clrculL spllL on Le sLandard of revlew
(3) lederal MoLor arrler SafeLy AdmlnlsLraLlon (lMSA) prepared an LA prenAl1A found
lCnSl AfLer nAl1A 1uS llfLed a moraLorlum and Mexlcan Lrucks were allowed ln Le uS
wlc Le LA ad noL accounLed for 1e ourL baslcally ls saylng LaL Le lMSA ad no duLy
Lo prepare an LlS b/c lMSA ad no conLrol over weLer Le ban was lssued Le cause was
C1uS llfLlng Le moraLorlum noL lMSA's acLlon
lll) Slerra lub v Mars (1
lr 1983) p 270
(1) 1ls case ls abouL lndlrecL effecLs
(2) Malne wanLed Lo develop an lsland LaL ad some federal fundlng and requlred a permlL from
Le Army orps of Lnglneers 1ere was a loL of conLroversy and lssulng and revlslng of varlous
LAs buL ln Le end Lere was a flndlng of lCnSl and no LlS was prepared 1e courL ls saylng
LaL Le agencles needed Lo conslder Le lndlrecL effecL LaL Le developmenL pro[ecL would
ave ln almosL guaranLeelng Le developmenL of Le resL of Le lsland (wlc would requlre an
LlS) and Lerefore Le lCnSl was lnapproprlaLe and an LlS needed Lo be prepared
lv) noLes CuesLlons
(1) 1e Mexlcan Lrucks case follows an esLabllsed llne of cases LaL say LaL nLA does noL apply
Lo nondlscreLlonary federal declslons
(2) nLA does noL esLablls a prlvaLe rlgL of acLlon wlc means LaL sulLs musL be brougL
under Le AA 8/c C1uS ls noL an agency ls compllance cannoL be callenged dlrecLly
(3) 1e Mexlcan Lrucks case also lllusLraLes LaL Le agency's acLlon musL be Le 8CxlMA1L cause
of Le envlronmenLal lmpacLbuL for" causaLlon alone ls noL enoug lL musL be reasonable
Lo blame Le agency for Le lmpacL
3) onLenLs of Le LlS
a) LxcerpLs from ouncll on LnvlronmenLal CuallLy 8egulaLlons
l) 8aslcally Lls ls [usL saylng LaL Le LlS musL conslder al Le reasonable alLernaLlves (lncludlng no
acLlon aL all) and [usLlfy lLs declslon
ll) Also says LaL Le LlS musL descrlbe Le envlronmenL of Le areas LaL eac alLernaLlve wlll affecL
b) lLlzens AgalnsL 8urllngLon lnc v 8usey (u lr 1991) p 277 (lnLeresLlngly Lls was a larence
1omas u lr oplnlon)
l) 1ls case ls abouL Le deflnlLlon of alLernaLlves" ln LlS reporLs
ll) 8e careful because Le 7
lr more sLrlcLly lnLerpreLs Le nLA requlremenLs Lan Le u lr dld
lll) 8aslcally Le ourL sald LaL Le lAA dld noL ave Lo conslder Le alrporL's locaLlon opLlons as
alLernaLlves Le agency as Lo conslder reasonable alLernaLlves Lo |ts own acLlon noL Le
appllcanL/Llrd parLy's alLernaLlves
c) noLes CuesLlons
l) nLA's requlremenL LaL a federal agency conslder alLernaLlves Lo lLs proposed acLlons ls
somewaL broader Lan Le LlS requlremenL Pow far an agency as Lo go lsn'L easy Lo deflne
ll) ln Le case Le lAA ad found ln lLs LlS LaL approvlng an acLlon requlred less Lan lf lAA were
acLually orlglnaLlng an acLlon was noL a oldlng of Le courL buL seems llke lL mlgL be relevanL Lo
ow far an agency as Lo go ln conslderlng alLernaLlves
4) LvaluaLlng nLA
a) noLes CuesLlons
3) 8eyond nLA lnformaLlon Le MarkeL
a) 8radley karkkalnen ArLlcle
23 | a g e

l) 18l 1oxlc 8elease lnvenLory ls baslcally were cerLaln lndusLrlal faclllLles ave Lo reporL Loxlc
ll) 1e 18l program as ad an lmpacL buL good 18l numbers don'L mean LaL Le companles are
necessarlly acLlng ln an envlronmenLally frlendly manner b/c Le 18ls don'L cover everyLlng
b) llfford 8ecLscaffen ArLlcle
c) noLes CuesLlons

Chapter 6 ub||c uas|ub||c kesources
1) 8lodlverslLy roLecLlon
a) PlsLorlcal 8ackground
l) 1800s leglslaLlon 1e Lacey AcL made lL a federal crlme Lo LransporL wlldllfe across sLaLe llnes ln
vlolaLlon of sLaLe law
ll) 1913 MlgraLory 8lrd AcL lmposed federal resLrlcLlons on unLlng of mlgraLory blrds was
declared unconsLlLuLlonal buL Len Le uS enLered lnLo a mlgraLory blrd LreaLy and ongress re
passed Le acL and lL was upeld under Le 1reaLy ower
lll) 1973 Lndangered Specles AcL
lv) SLaLe law remalns lmporLanL lL ls Le prlmary source of unLlng flslng regs even on federal
lands Many sLaLes ave sLaLuLes proLecLlng specles recognlzed as endangered or LreaLened w/ln
Le sLaLe Lls ls lmporLanL especlally for planLs b/c Le LSA prolblLs Le Laklng of planLs ln
vlolaLlon of sLaLe law CLerwlse landowners can legally desLroy federally llsLed planLs on Lelr
properLy unless forbldden Lo do so by sLaLe law
b) !usLlflcaLlons for 8lodlverslLy roLecLlon
l) uoremus ArLlcle bases for preservlng blodlverslLy lnclude (1) uLlllLarlan (eg planLs provldlng
oxygen and weLlands prevenLlng floodlng) (2) esLeLlc and (3) eLlcal suggesLs LaL umans ave
a speclal responslblllLy b/c of our power and awareness
ll) recauLlonary rlnclple ldea ls beLLer safe Lan sorry" aLLempLs Lo lnsure LaL sclenLlflc
uncerLalnLy does noL unduly sLall proLecLlve efforLs
(1) Pas been lncorporaLed lnLo several lnLernaLlonal agreemenLs
(2) Were Lere are LreaLs of serlous or lrreverslble damage lack of full sclenLlflc cerLalnLy sall
noL be used as a reason for posLponlng cosLeffecLlve measures Lo prevenL envlronmenLal
c) 1e Lndangered Specles AcL 1e llagslp 8lodlverslLy SLaLuLe
l) Cvervlew
(1) 1e lWS (parL of Le uep'L of Le lnLerlor) malnLalns a llsL of specles deLermlned by regulaLlon
Lo be endangered or LreaLened lncludlng Le crlLlcal ablLaL" of eac llsLed specles
(2) LSA 7 lmposes duLy on federal agencles Lo carry ouL programs for Le conservaLlon of llsLed
specles requlres federal agencles Lo ensure LaL acLlons LaL Ley carry ouL auLorlze or fund
are noL llkely Lo [eopardlze any llsLed specles or arm lLs crlLlcal ablLaL
(a) 1reesLep process
(l) llrsL Le agency asks Le approprlaLe servlce weLer Lere are any endangered specles
ln Le pro[ecL area
(ll) 1en Le agency makes a blologlcal assessmenL" Lo deLermlne lf Le acLlon wlll affecL
any endangered specles and
(lll)lf so lL consulLs w/ Le servlce wlc lssues a blologlcal oplnlon" and lf Lere ls
[eopardy Le servlce musL suggesL reasonable alLernaLlves LaL would allow Le pro[ecL
Lo proceed w/o armlng Le specles
24 | a g e

(b)ln pracLlce 7 consulLaLlon rarely alLs pro[ecLs
(3) LSA 9 applles Lo everyone addresses Le Laklng" of planLs and anlmals
(a) LAn1S prolblLs desLrucLlon/removal on Le lg seas and ln vlolaLlon of sLaLe law
prolblLs slpmenL/recelpL ln lnLersLaLe commerce
(b)AnlMALS prolblLs Laklng" of endangered anlmals wlLln Le uS or on Le lg seas
(4) enalLles up Lo $30k per vlolaLlon and lmprlsonmenL for up Lo one year
(3) lLlzen sulLs are avallable and successful s can recover aLLorney's fees
ll) lederal AcLlvlLles
(1) LxcerpLs from Le LSA 7 duLles on agencles
(2) 1vA v Plll (1978) p 308
(a) 1ls case seems Lo be ere prlmarlly b/c lL was an early lnLerpreLaLlon of Le LSA
(b)1e 1elllco uam was already belng bullL wen Le LSA was passed 1e SecreLary of Le
lnLerlor llsLed Le snall darLer ln 1973 and llsLed Le 1elllco uam area as lLs crlLlcal ablLaL
1e argumenL was LaL (1) Le pro[ecL was already underway and (2) LaL ongress ad
essenLlally exempLed Le pro[ecL by allocaLlng fundlng for Le pro[ecL afLer passlng Le LSA
(c) 1e ourL dlsmlssed Le argumenL LaL Le pro[ecL was already underway by noLlng Le
prlorlLy LaL ongress ad placed on preservlng endangered specles wlc Le courL found
made cosL/beneflL analysls lrrelevanLLe LSA Lrumped
(d)1e ourL dlsmlssed Le fundlng argumenL by noLlng LaL lL lsLorlcally as noL favored
repeals by lmpllcaLlon"
(e) owell dlssenLed readlng Le LSA as applylng only Lo prospecLlve acLlons
(3) nAP8 v uefenders of Wlldllfe (2007) p 316
(a) 1ls modern AllLo oplnlon mlgL be ln ere Lo conLrasL Le 1vA case Le 1vA case reaced
an exLreme resulL and ere SC1uS ls pulllng back a blL
(b)lssue ls apparenL confllcL beLween WA LSA regardlng auLorlLy Lo lssue permlLs under
Le nuLS (naLlonal olluLlon ulscarge LllmlnaLlon SysLem) wlc under Le WA seems
Lo mandaLe Lransfer from Le LA Lo a sLaLe lf Le sLaLe meeLs nlne crlLerla buL wlc under
Le LSA seems Lo requlre an LA deLermlnaLlon LaL specles wlll noL be [eopardlzed lf
permlL auLorlLy ls Lransferred Lo Le sLaLe
(c) 1e agencles ave goLLen around Lls by noL applylng Le LSA provlslon LaL ls by
lnLerpreLlng Le LSA's no[eopardy" mandaLe Lo apply only wen an agency as dlscreLlon
Lo do so buL noL wen Le agency ls forbldden from conslderlng exLrasLaLuLory facLors as ls
Le case wlL Le WA's sall Lransfer" language wlL Le nuLS program
(d)SC1uS upolds Le agencles' lnLerpreLaLlon ln sorL we read 40203 Lo mean waL lL
says LaL 7a2's no[eopardy duLy covers only dlscreLlonary agency acLlons and does noL
aLLac Lo acLlons LaL an agency ls requlred by sLaLuLe Lo underLake "
(4) noLes Cs
(a) 1PL CCu SCuAu" ongress reacLed Lo Le 1vA declslon by creaLlng an excepLlon Lo Le
no[eopardy" provlslon of LSA 7 a commlLLee of seven members LaL can granL an
exempLlon lf lL flnds by a superma[orlLy LaL Lere are no reasonable alLernaLlves Lo Le
proposed acLlon
(l) Cf noLe Le Cod Squad refused Lo granL an exempLlon for Le 1elllco uam buL ongress
Len passed an approprlaLlons rlder exempLlng Le 1elllco uam from Le LSA 1e dam
was Len compleLed and Le snall darLer was found elsewere anyway
lll) 1e rolblLlon on 1ake
(1) LxcerpLs from Le LSA
2S | a g e

(a) LSA 3 Lake" means Lo arass arm pursue unL sooL wound klll Lrap capLure or
collecL C8 1C A11LM1 Lo engage ln any suc conducL
(2) LxcerpLs from Le lls Wlldllfe Servlce 8egs
(a) 30 l8 173 arm" under Le LSA means an acL LaL acLually kllls or ln[ures wlldllfe
wlc may lnclude slgnlflcanL ablLaL modlflcaLlon or degradaLlon were lL acLually kllls or
ln[ures wlldllfe by slgnlflcanLly lmpalrlng essenLlal beavloral paLLerns lncludlng breedlng
feedlng or selLerlng
(3) 8abblLL v SweeL Pome apLer of ommunlLles for a CreaL Cregon (1993) p 328
(a) 8aslcally a group of loggers Lrled Lo argue LaL Le lWS lnLerpreLaLlon of arm" Lo lnclude
ablLaL modlflcaLlon was Loo broad 1e ourL dlsagreed provldlng Lree reasons wy Le
lWS lnLerpreLaLlon ls reasonable (1) Le plaln meanlng of arm" seems Lo lnclude ablLaL
modlflcaLlon (2)Le purpose of Le LSA ls broad and (3) ongress auLorlzed Le SecreLary
Lo lssue permlLs for lncldenLal Laklngs wlc suggesLs LaL ongress undersLood Le LSA
provlslon Lo prolblL dlrecL as well as lndlrecL Laklngs
(b)LeglslaLlve lsLory also supporLs Lls readlng of Le LSA
(4) uefenders of Wlldllfe v 8ernal (9
lr 2000) p 334
(a) 1ls ls a case abouL weLer consLrucLlon of a scool wlll consLlLuLe a Laklng" of Le pygmy
owl under Le LSA
(b)1e courL noLes LaL ablLaL modlflcaLlon does noL consLlLuLe arm unless lL acLually kllls or
ln[ures wlldllfe quoLlng from Le 8abblLL SC1uS case above
(c) Muc of Le case glves deference Lo Le dlsLrlcL courL's oplnlon (flndlng LaL Lere was noL a
Laklng b/c lL lncluded speclflc measures suc as reLalnlng 1/3 of Le properLy as
undeveloped eLc) wlc Lls courL says was noL clearly erroneous and Lerefore Lere
was no Laklng
(3) noLes Cs
(a) 8lologlcal oplnlons under LSA 7 lnclude lncldenLal Lake sLaLemenLs" speclfylng Le
amounL of lncldenLal Laklng LaL wlll resulL from Le acLlon and llsLlng reasonable measures
LaL can be Laken Lo mlnlmlze Le lmpacL of Le Laklng AcLlons Laken ln accordance wlL an
lncldenLal Lake sLaLemenL do noL vlolaLe 9
lv) ermlLLlng 1ake PablLaL onservaLlon lans
(1) LxcerpLs from Le LSA
(a) rolblLs lncldenLal Laklngs buL allows for permlLs lf an appllcanL provldes a conservaLlon
plan LaL meeLs Le crlLerla of Le sLaLuLe
(2) 1ornLon ArLlcle
(a) 1ls wole arLlcle ls abouL ow Le LSA amendmenL auLorlzlng lncldenLal Lake" permlLs
came lnLo belng 8aslcally Lere was a model conservaLlon plan (nC nab|tat
Conservat|on |an) LaL lnvolved an endangered buLLerfly and Le San 8runo MounLaln
1e plan was even approved by envlronmenLal groups b/c made ad[usLmenLs for Le
buLLerfly buL Le lWS dld noL ave auLorlzaLlon Lo lssue Le permlL so lL peLlLloned
ongress and goL an amendmenL ln 1982 auLorlzlng Le permlLs
(b)1e slgnlflcanL elemenLs of Le plan (we wenL over Lese ln class!!!) lnclude Le followlng
(l) roLecLlon of Cpen Space (80 of mounLaln preserved all buL 27 ln lLs undlsLurbed
(ll) ulverslLy of PablLaL roLecLed
(lll)lundlng of lan AcLlvlLles (permanenLly fund vla land covenanLs)
(lv)Cngolng ManagemenL of ubllc rlvaLe PablLaL (provlded for ongolng manager)
26 | a g e

(v) Assurances Lo rlvaLe SecLor (LaL no furLer mlLlgaLlon wlll be requlred)
(3) naLlonal Wlldllfe lederaLlon v 8abblLL (Lu al 2000) p 344
(a) Pere Le courL upolds Le lWS's flndlngs ln lssulng a permlL for an lncldenLal plan buL lL
re[ecLs parL of Le plan LaL ls Le lLy's permlL
(b)1e courL noLes LaL Le LSA does noL requlre Lan Le plan lnclude preclse quanLlLaLlve
measures of Lake"
(c) 8aslcally Le lLy's parL of Le plan as some problems wlL a few of Le elemenLs llsLed ln
Le 1ornLon arLlcle abovelL falled Lo adequaLely provlde ongolng fundlng lL falled Lo
explaln ow lL would avold [eopardlzlng conLlnued survlval of Le LreaLened specles
(4) noLes Cs
(a) Ps were slow Lo Lake off buL Ley ave slnce done so wlL 337 avlng been approved by
uecember 2007
(b)Local governmenLs are ofLen Le permlL olders for large reglonal Ps
(c) 8eneflL of Lese plans ls LaL Ley are more llkely Lo produce large conLlguous reserves
wlc plecemeal lndlvldual pro[ecLs fall Lo do
(d)no Surprlses" 8ule permlLLees do noL ave Lo provlde addlLlonal fundlng for subsequenL
addlLlonal measures as long as Ley are ln compllance w/ Le plan
(e) ermlL 8evocaLlon" 8ule (Lls ls so poorly wrlLLen LaL l can'L qulLe make sense of lL
seems Lo be LaL Le permlL can'L be revoked for noncompllance unless conLlnuaLlon of Le
permlL wlll [eopardlze Le specles)
d) CLer 8lodlverslLy rovlslons
l) Subsldles Lo farmers wo manage Lelr lands for wlldllfe
ll) LlsL of oLer sLaLe and federal sLaLuLes LaL proLecL wlldllfe
lll) lnLernaLlonal agreemenLs
2) WeLlands roLecLlon
a) lnLroducLlon
l) 1934 uuck SLamp rogram (lmposed a Lax on mlgraLory blrd unLlng Lo supporL acqulslLlon of
waLerfowl ablLaL)
ll) 1972 WA 404 ls Le cenLerplece" of currenL federal weLlands pollcy
b) Scope of lederal WeLlands AuLorlLy
l) LxcerpLs from Le WA 404 ermlLs for uredged or llll MaLerlal
(1) 8aslcally auLorlzes Le Army orps of Lnglneers Lo lssue permlLs for dlscarglng dredged or flll
maLerlals lnLo navlgable waLers and requlres Le LA Lo develop guldellnes for Le appllcaLlon
(2) Any dlscarge deslgned Lo cange Le use of navlgable waLers requlres a permlL
ll) LxcerpLs from Le orps of Lnglneers 8egs glves a 88CAu deflnlLlon Lo waLers of Le unlLed
(1) WaLers of Le unlLed SLaLes" refers Le reader Lo Le WA capLer
(2) ldenLlfylng WeLlands Army orps of Lnglneers publlsed a WeLlands uellneaLlon Manual" ln
1987 LaL ls used Lo ldenLlfy weLlands
(3) 8egulaLed AcLlvlLles
(a) 3
lrculL as eld LaL pumplng waLer ouL of weLlands ls noL prolblLed under 404
(b)MosL dralnlng ls done by dredg|ng dra|nage d|tches (wlc produce lncldenLal fallback"
lnLo Le waLer) wlc may lnclude s|decast|ng (plllng removed soll alongslde Le dlLc)
(4) 8orden 8anc arLnerslp v orps of Lnglneers (9
lr 2001) p 360
27 | a g e

(a) lssue ls deep rlpplng" wlc rlps Lroug Le clay pan Lo allow Le deep rooL sysLems of
vlneyards and orcards Lo grow
(b)Already as gone back forL w/ LA orps generally noL geLLlng Le permlLs and
vlolaLlng Le ones e does geL
(c) Argues LaL Le dlrL lsn'L a polluLanL b/c lL was already Lere buL Le courL dlsagrees b/c
Lere ls precedenL on polnL LaL says redeposlLs of maLerlals can consLlLuLe an addlLlon of
a polluLanL" under Le WA
(d)Argues LaL Lere ls a farmlng excepLlon buL Le courL re[ecLs Lls argumenL b/c Le
farmlng excepLlon secLlon of Le WA as a recapLure provlslon" LaL speclflcally dlscusses
Le WA applylng Lo any dlscarge lnLended Lo cange Le navlgable waLers area lnLo a
dlfferenL use (see above)
(3) noLes Cs
(a) 1e orps LA ave long malnLalned LaL sldecasLlng ls regulaLed under 404 buL ave
waffled on lncldenLal fallback"
(l) 1986 rule exempLed de mlnlmls fallback durlng normal dredglng
(ll) 1993 1ulloc 8ule" reversed course and sald applles Lo any fallback buL exempLed
acLlvlLles LaL dld noL degrade or desLroy Le waLers
(lll)1998 u lrculL lnvalldaLed Le 1ulloc 8ule (baslcally b/c lL lsn'L an addlLlon" needs
Lo draw a llne somewere beLween lncldenLal fallback wlc cannoL be regulaLed and
regulable redeposlLs and Len would be enLlLled Lo deference)
(lv)2001 LA lssues new regulaLlon ln response
(v) 2007 u lrculL lnvalldaLes new regulaLlon as well
c) WeLlands ermlL ueclslons LA and orps sare $ 404 lmplemenLaLlon power buL Le LA as veLo
power over orps permlL lssulng
l) LxcerpLs from LA 8egs
(1) 8aslcally dlscusses wen permlLs can be lssuedmusL mlnlmlze negaLlve lmpacL eLc
ll) naLlonal Wlldllfe lederaLlon v WlsLler (8
lr 1994) p 370
(1) 1ls ls baslcally a callenge Lo Le orps lssulng a permlL Lo open an old rlver cannel Lo glve a
communlLy boaL access Lo a rlver Argues LaL Le orps sould ave consldered a boaL ramp
as an alLernaLlve 1e courL noLes LaL Lere ls a sLrong presumpLlon agalnsL lssulng permlLs
wen Lere are pracLlcable alLernaLlves buL Le orps dld conslder and re[ecL Le boaL dock as
lnadequaLe 8ecause Le sLandard of revlew ls abuse of dlscreLlon Le orps' declslon sLands
because lL was noL arblLrary or caprlclous
lll) 8ersanl v 8oblcaud (2
lr 1988) p 373
(1) 1ls ls a case ln wlc Le orps lssued a permlL and Le LA veLoed lL
(2) AL lssue ere ls Le facL LaL Lere was orlglnally a pracLlcable alLernaLlve (anoLer parcel) LaL
ad slnce been bougL up 1e dlspuLe Lurns on weLer Le slLe searc commenced before or
afLer Le alLernaLlve dlsappeared
(a) LA says markeL enLry" approac ls proper and afLer some argumenL over weLer Le
sLaLuLe was meanL Lo be read ln presenL or pasL Lense Le courL ends up agreelng w/ Le
(3) 1e courL refuses Lo deflne speclflcally wen markeL enLry occurs noLlng LaL lL wlll vary from
case Lo case buL ln Le presenL case Le LA was correcL and lL upolds Le LA's veLo (noLes
LaL Ley sLlll could ave aLLempLed Lo purcase Le properLy from Le new owner Loo)
28 | a g e

(4) ulssenL makes a greaL polnL lf developer A enLers aL x Llme wlL glven alLernaLlves and
developer 8 enLers laLer afLer Lose alLernaLlves ad dlsappeared Len 8 would be enLlLled Lo a
permlL for developlng Le same slLe LaL A could noL!
lv) noLes Cs
(1) 1e orps sLlll doesn'L use Le markeL enLry approac lnsLead evaluaLlng Le alLernaLlves
avallable aL Le Llme LaL Le permlL appllcaLlon ls processed
(2) 1e orps can lssue genera| perm|ts" for caLegorles of acLlvlLles buL lL musL provlde for noLlce
and commenL ad Le permlLs musL be relssued every 3 years
(3) enalLles for vlolaLlon lnclude $23k / day flnes as well as crlmlnal penalLles 1e crlmlnal
penalLles are conLroverslal and Le governmenL generally does noL lssue Lem unless Le
defendanLs ave been noLlfled of a vlolaLlon and perslsLed
(4) MounLalnLop 8emoval Mlnlng
(a) 2000 orps lssued a permlL under 404 auLorlzlng burylng of 63 mlles of sLreams
LnvlronmenLal group callenged argulng LaL Le permlL ad Lo come from WA 402
(nuLS) noL 404 1e dlsLrlcL courL eld LaL 404 precludes Le lssuance of permlLs for
Le purpose of wasLe dlsposal and Le 4
lrculL reversed oldlng LaL Le orps could
reasonably lnLerpreL 404 Lo govern Le dlsposal of mlnlng overburden ln sorL Le
mlners won
(3) 401 of Le WA allows sLaLes Lo veLo or lmpose condlLlons on federallypermlLLed acLlvlLles
lnvolvlng dlscarges Lo Le waLers of Le uS LaL are lnconslsLenL w/ sLaLe waLer quallLy
sLandards ln 21 sLaLes 401 ls Le only nonfederal mecanlsm for proLecLlng weLlands
CLers ave Lelr own sLaLe or local permlLLlng programs
d) MlLlgaLlon 404 only allows dlscarges of flll lf pracLlcable mlLlgaLlon sLeps ave been Laken buL Le
guldellnes are noL clear as Lo waL exLenL mlLlgaLlon can be used as a [usLlflcaLlon for approvlng a
permlL LaL would oLerwlse noL be granLed
l) LA/orps Memorandum 8egardlng MlLlgaLlon Le WA
(1) 1ree Lypes (1) avoldance (2) mlnlmlzaLlon and (3) compensaLory
(2) an use mlLlgaLlon banklng as an accepLable form of compensaLory mlLlgaLlon buL slmply
purcaslng or preservlng exlsLlng weLlands ls generally noL enoug (As of 2003 nearly 13 of
compensaLory weLlands mlLlgaLlon requlremenLs naLlonwlde were saLlsfled by preservaLlon
(3) MonlLorlng ls an lmporLanL aspecL of mlLlgaLlon
ll) LA/orps Culdellnes for MlLlgaLlon 8anks
(1) MlLlgaLlon banklng means Le resLoraLlon creaLlon enancemenL and ln excepLlonal
clrcumsLances preservaLlon of weLlands and/or oLer aquaLlc resources expressly for Le
purpose of provldlng compensaLory mlLlgaLlon ln advance of auLorlzed lmpacLs Lo slmllar
(2) MlLlgaLlon banks ave some beneflLs suc as consolldaLlng resources and flnanclng reduclng
permlL processlng Llmes and conLrlbuLlng Loward Le goal of no overall neL loss of Le naLlon's
lll) noLes Cs
(1) MlLlgaLlon banklng produces larger more blologlcally valuable mlLlgaLlon slLes and offers
economles of scale lncreaslng Le exLenL of pracLlcable mlLlgaLlon lL as also become a
proflLable buslness enLerprlse
(2) lndlvldual mlLlgaLlon ls sLlll Le mosL common meLod accounLlng for 60 of compensaLory
29 | a g e

Chapter 10 A|r o||ut|on Contro|
1) lnLroducLlon and Cvervlew
a) WA focuses prlmarlly on nuLS and permlLLlng AA focuses prlmarlly on aclevlng naLlonal alr
quallLy sLandards (nAACS)
b) PlsLorlcal 8ackground
c) Cvervlew of Le lean Alr AcL
l) 8aslcally Le LA lus polluLanLs and seLs sLandards for Lem nAACSs naLlonal AmblenL Alr
CuallLy SLandards
ll) SLaLes ave Le prlmary responslblllLy for lmplemenLlng Le AA
lll) allfornla ad lLs own moblle source (cars eLc) regulaLlons before AA was passed so sLaLes can
coose Lo follow Le federal program or allfornla's buL Ley cannoL come up wlL Lelr own
lv) SLaLlonary source regulaLlons only apply Lo new sources wlc encourages Le use of old planLs
pasL Lelr oLerwlse useful llfe
v) AA provldes for Le LA Lo creaLe Lecnologybased regulaLlons
vl) 1990 esLabllsed a sysLem of Lradeable permlLs for sulfur dloxlde (acld raln cause)
2) naLlonal AmblenL Alr CuallLy SLandards
a) SeLLlng naLlonal AmblenL Alr CuallLy SLandards
l) LxcerpLs from Le AA
(1) 1e LA musL esLablls and publls a llsL of crlLerla" polluLanLs WlLln a year of publlcaLlon lL
musL Len lssue alr quallLy sLandards (boL prlmary and secondary) for eac new polluLanL
(1ls llsL asn'L canged muc slnce lL was flrsL lssued ln 1971)
(a) rlmary necessary Lo proLecL Le publlc ealL Secondary necessary Lo proLecL agalnsL
known or anLlclpaLed adverse effecLs
(2) 1e LA appolnLs a commlLLee LaL revlews Lese sLandards every flve years
ll) WlLman v Amerlcan 1rucklng Ass'ns (2001) p 619 Scalla
(1) 1e polnL of Le case ls LaL Le AA precludes Le LA from conslderlng cosLs ln developlng
nAACSs ongress already consldered Le cosL wen lL passed Le AA plus Lere are some
excepLlons suc as a walver provlslon for exLreme clrcumsLances
(2) Cn remand Le u lrculL expressly re[ecLed Le noLlon LaL Le LA musL esLablls a
measure of Le rlsk of safeLy lL conslders adequaLe Lo proLecL publlc ealL every Llme lL
esLabllses a nAACS" Le ldea ere ls LaL Le LA doesn'L ave Lo walL Lo llsL a polluLanL
unLll lL as a compleLe undersLandlng of Le polluLanL's effecLs prlnclple of Le AA ls Lo err on
Le slde of cauLlon (wlL respecL Lo Le envlronmenL
(3) 1e u lrculL analyzed Le LA's canges and upeld Lem as reasonable
lll) noLes CuesLlons
(1) LA seLs nA1lCnAL sLandards
(2) Mass v LA case SC1uS ruled LaL C2 ls a polluLanL sub[ecL Lo AA regulaLlon
(3) LA sLlll as Lo prepare cosL beneflL analyses b/c nAACS are ma[or rules buL cannoL use Lem
ln creaLlng Le nAACS
b) lmplemenLlng Le nAACS SLaLe lmplemenLaLlon lans
l) Cenerally
(1) 1e AA dlrecLs sLaLes Lo lssue sLaLe lmplemenLaLlon plans" (Sls) Lo acleve nAACS w/ln Lelr
30 | a g e

(2) SLaLes musL geL Lelr Sls approved by Le LA and Ley are enforceable under boL sLaLe and
federal law
ll) LxcerpLs from Le AA 110
(1) SLaLes ave 3 years from lssuance of nAACS Lo creaLe Sl
(2) Sls ave Lo lnclude a number of Llngs suc as enforceable emlsslons llmlLaLlons and oLer
conLrol measures prolblLlng emlsslons LaL conLrlbuLe slgnlflcanLly Lo nonaLLalnmenL or
lnLerfere w/ oLer sLaLes' plans and provldlng fundlng eLc
(3) LA can sLep ln lf Le sLaLe plan ls noL compllanL
lll) !ames llne ArLlcle
lv) unlon LlecLrlc o v LA (1976) p 643
(1) 1ls case seems Lo really be ere [usL Lo lllusLraLe Le relaLlonslp beLween Le sLaLes
lmplemenLlng Sls and Le LA 1e maln role ls on Le sLaLes buL Ley ave sLrlcL compllance
requlremenLsas long as Lese 8 requlremenLs are saLlsfled Le sLaLuLe requlres LaL Le LA
sha|| approve Le plan and cannoL conslder any oLer facLors
(2) Pere Le power company aLLempLed Lo aLLack Le sLaLe plan by saylng LaL lL was Loo sLrlcL
(Lecnologlcally lnfeaslble) Powever Le courL sald LaL Le AA seLs a floor noL boL a floor
Anu a celllng beLween wlc Le sLaLe Sl musL fall ln oLer words Le sLaLes can lmpose
furLer requlremenLs lf Ley so coose
(3) 1e ourL speclflcally sald LaL lL agreed LaL ongress lnLended clalms of economlc and
Lecnologlcal lnfeaslblllLy Lo be wolly forelgn Lo Le LA's conslderaLlon of sLaLe Sls"
(4) 1e ourL also noLes LaL lL accords greaL deference Lo Le LA's consLrucLlon of Le AA
(3) ulLlmaLely upolds Le sLaLe Sl
v) noLes CuesLlons
(1) 1e sLaLe enforcemenL sLrucLure of Le AA ls very slmllar Lo Le WA seems Lo allow Lallorlng
Lo eac sLaLe's needs
(2) 1e LA musL approve sLaLe Sls LaL meeL Le requlremenLs of AA 110 1e unlon LlecLrlc
declslon precludes Le LA from revlewlng Le economlc or Lecnologlcal feaslblllLy of Sl
(3) Sls are creaLures of boL sLaLe and federal law 1e 9
lrculL as eld LaL once Ley are
approved Ley are federal law so Le sLaLe's lnLerpreLaLlon of Le Sl even lf blndlng as a
maLLer of sLaLe law ls noL dlrecLly dlsposlLlve of Le meanlng of Le Sl"
(4) keeplng Lrack of an Sl ls almosL lmposslble and almosL no one knows waL a sLaLe's enLlre Sl
c) 1e roblem of nonALLalnmenL
l) 1omas McCarlLy ArLlcle
(1) ongress keeps exLendlng Le compllance deadllnes for Le sLaLes (slnce 1977!) and Le new
deadllnes keep belng mlssed
(2) 1990 amendmenLs requlred Le LA Lo esLablls guldellnes Lo elp creaLe unlformlLy and gave
Le LA addlLlonal sancLlonlng power
(3) 8aslcally concludes LaL Le LA as noL Laken Le mllesLone program serlously
ll) 8A Appeal Croup v uS LA (3
lr 2003) p 660
(1) Sl ls belng callenged on boL sldesone slde says Loo sLrlcL oLer slde says noL sLrlcL enoug
lL used an LAapproved meLod Loug and LA ad consldered Le poLenLlal deflclencles aL
lssue and concluded LaL Le meLod was neverLeless sufflclenL
(2) 8evlew of Le LA declslon ls sub[ecL Lo an arblLrary caprlclous sLandard and Le LA's
lnLerpreLaLlon of Le AA musL be upeld lf lL ls reasonable
31 | a g e

(3) lacLors LaL Le LA conslders ln evaluaLlng Sls
(a) WeLer Le commlLmenL addresses a llmlLed porLlon of Le sLaLuLorllyrequlred
lmplemenLaLlon plan (?)
(b)WeLer Le sLaLe ls capable of fulfllllng lLs commlLmenL and
(c) WeLer Le commlLmenL ls for a reasonable and approprlaLe perlod of Llme
(4) LA applled Lese facLors and deLermlned LaL Le Sl was approprlaLe eLc Lerefore courL
elecLs Lo defer Lo LA
lll) noLes CuesLlons
(1) 1e aLLalnmenL sLaLus of an area ls lmporLanL b/c lL resulLs ln sLrlngenL Sl requlremenLs and
growL resLrlcLlons 1e courLs glve Le LA greaL deference ere and for an area Lo be re
classlfled Le sLaLe as Lo provlde a plan LaL demonsLraLes LaL Le area wlll remaln ln
aLLalnmenL for aL leasL 10 years
(2) 1ere ls a 3year deadllne for aLLalnmenL of nAACS ln nonaLLalnmenL areas buL Le LA ls
allowed Lo exLend Le daLe an addlLlonal 3 years 1e 1990 amendmenLs provlded a graduaLed
serles of compllance deadllnes
(a) 1e ozone program ls Le mosL deLalled and as flve dlfference deslgnaLlons for areas
Areas newly deslgnaLed as ozone nonaLLalnmenL are glven 3 Lo 20 years Lo reac Le
nAACS level dependlng on Le degree of nonaLLalnmenL
(3) nonaLLalnmenL Area Sl requlremenLs
(a) rovlslons for all reasonably avallable conLrol measures" lncludlng Le appllcaLlon of
reasonably avallable conLrol Lecnology" (8A1)
(l) LA provldes deLalled 8A1 guldellnes from wlc sLaLes can deparL only lf lL can be
(b)rovlslons LaL wlll ensure furLer reasonable progress
(c) Am expllclL quanLlLaLlve budgeL for Le emlsslons wlc wlll be permlLLed from new or
modlfled sLaLlonary sources and a permlL requlremenL for consLrucLlon and operaLlon of
suc sources
(4) Lven wlL Lallplpe conLrols may Sls musL slgnlflcanLly reduce velcle emlsslons ln order Lo
acleve Le nAACS and Le Sls may lnclude provlslons focused on reduclng emlsslons per
mlle Lraveled (eg malnLenance sLandards) and Lo reduce Le LoLal mlles Lraveled (eg Lolls
Laxes and lncenLlves for acLlvlLles suc as carpoollng)
(3) ln order Lo asslsL Le sLaLes ln conLrolllng velcle emlsslons Le AA prolblLs federal agencles
from supporLlng or approvlng any acLlvlLy LaL does noL conform Lo an approved Sl
(6) LA as Le power Lo lmpose sancLlons on sLaLes LaL ave deflclenL Sls or fall Lo correcL
deflclencles w/ln 18 monLs 1e LA can elLer (1) prolblL uC1 fundlng w/ln Le non
aLLalnmenL area (wlc makes sense b/c LaL would seem Lo go Lo Le Lallplpe emlsslons
cause) or (2) lncrease Le offseL raLlo for new sources Lo aL leasL 2 Lo 1 lf anoLer 6 monLs
pass and Le deflclency sLlll remalns Le LA musL lmpose boL Slnce 1990 Loug only Lwo
areas ave ad lgway sancLlons lmposed
3) AuLomoblle Lmlsslons 1ecnology lorclng
a) Cenerally
l) 1e AA deals w/ auLo emlsslons muc dlfferenLly Lan sLaLlonary sources as focused on Lallplpe
emlsslons aL assembly 1e federal regulaLlon ls Le mosL aggresslve example of an expllclLly
Lecnologyforclng sLraLegy and as been lncredlbly successful Powever people are drlvlng more
wlc offseLs Le galns from lower emlsslons per mlle 1e Lecnologyforclng sLraLegy ls a radlcal
32 | a g e

deparLure from Le convenLlonal approac of requlrlng Le use of feaslble" or avallable"
ll) A as lLs own sLrlcLer sLraLegy LaL as been allowed Lo conLlnue b/c lL predaLes Le federal
program (1939)
b) 1e PlsLory of lederal onLrols
c) naLural 8esources uefense ouncll v uS LA
(sLopped ere dld noL flnls capLer)
4) new Source 8evlew Le roblem of CrandfaLerlng
3) 1radeable Lmlsslon ermlLs uslng Le ower of Le MarkeL

Chapter 11 Water o||ut|on Contro|
1) lnLroducLlon Cvervlew
a) WA focuses prlmarlly on nuLS and permlLLlng AA focuses prlmarlly on aclevlng naLlonal alr
quallLy sLandards (nAACS)
b) 1e uevelopmenL of WaLer olluLlon Law
l) 1899 8lvers Parbors AcL
ll) lu8 veLoed 1930s blll
lll) 1948 AcL was lneffecLlve
lv) 1963 AmendmenLs Llngs began Lo slfL
v) 1972 lean WaLer AcL was veLoed by nlxon buL ongress overrode ls veLo
c) 1e Modern WaLer olluLlon roblem
l) Andreen ArLlcle
(1) ulscusses varlous Lypes of polluLanLs
(2) AgrlculLure ls a blg culprlL of modern waLer polluLlon lndusLrlal polluLlon as been
dramaLlcally curbed
ll) An Cvervlew of Le lean WaLer AcL
(1) Coal Lo resLore and malnLaln Le cemlcal pyslcal and blologlcal lnLegrlLy of Le naLlon's
(2) enLerplece of Le WA ls Le nuLS permlL sysLem (naLlonal polluLanL dlscarge ellmlnaLlon
(a) rolblLs Le dlscarge of any polluLanL from a polnL source Lo Le waLers of Le uS w/o a
(b)ermlLs are lssued by Le LA or by sLaLe agencles under delegaLed auLorlLy
(c) ermlLs musL be renewed every 3 years buL backlogs ave creaLed delaysas long as Le
appllcaLlon for renewal ls Llmely flled Le permlLs generally conLlnue under Le same Lerms
pendlng revlew
(3) onvenLlonal polluLanLs are sub[ecL Lo Le mosL relaxed sLandards Loxlc polluLanLs Lo Le mosL
(4) 1e WA dlrecLs sLaLes Lo develop waLer quallLy sLandards for all Le waLers w/ln Lelr borders
(3) SLaLes musL also lu lmpalred waLers" for wlc Ley musL develop 1MuLs (LoLal maxlmum
dally loads) ldenLlfylng Le amounL of polluLlon LaL Le waLers can LoleraLe wlle sLlll meeLlng
waLer quallLy sLandards and Len allocaLlng LaL load among conLrlbuLlng sources
(6) nonpolnL source polluLlon ls almosL enLlrely conLrolled by Le sLaLes and lL as remalned
largely unconLrolled
33 | a g e

(7) 1e WA conLalns speclal provlslons for C1Ws (publlcly owned LreaLmenL works) b/c Ley
presenL speclal problemslmproperly LreaLed wasLewaLer as been a ma[or conLrlbuLor Lo Le
naLlon's waLer problem slnce Le colonlal perlod Also Ley can'L be suL down w/o maklng
Le problem worse and Le money Lo upgrade Lem as Lo come from local voLers lf lL ls noL
provlded by Le federal governmenL
(8) WA 404 Le LA orps [olnLly lmplemenL a program of permlLs for Le dlscarge of
dredged or flll maLerlal Lo navlgable waLers
2) onLrol of olnLSource olluLlon 1e nuLS rogram
a) LxcerpLs from Le WA
l) 402 AdmlnlsLraLor can lssue permlLs for dlscarge of polluLanLs
ll) 302
(1) olluLanL dredged spoll solld wasLe lnclneraLor resldue sewage garbage sewage sludge
munlLlons cemlcal wasLes blologlcal maLerlals radloacLlve maLerlals ear wrecked or
dlscarded equlpmenL rock sand cellar dlrL and lndusLrlal munlclpal and agrlculLural wasLe
dlscarged lnLo waLer (uoes noL lnclude sewage dlscarged from vessels or maLerlal ln[ecLed
lnLo an oll or gas well lf sLaLeapproved)
(2) navlgable WaLers Le waLers of Le unlLed SLaLes lncludlng Le LerrlLorlal seas
(3) (Also deflnes dlscarge" and polnL source")
b) overed WaLers
l) uS v 8lverslde 8ayvlew Pomes (1983) p 742
(1) 8road deflnlLlon of navlgable waLers lncludes aL leasL some waLers LaL would noL be
deemed 'navlgable' under Le classlcal undersLandlng of LaL Lerm"
ll) Solld WasLe Agency v Army orps (2001) p 743
(1) 8aslcally ls [usL saylng LaL navlgable waLers" under Le WA musL aL leasL be ad[acenL Lo
acLual navlgable waLers
(2) ulscusses 8lverslde case above noLlng LaL Lere was a nexus" beLween Le navlgable waLers
and Le ad[acenL weLlands Lere
(3) 8efuses Lo exLend 8lverslde furLer for example Lo lsolaLed" ponds navlgable was aL
mlnlmum a reference Lo Le auLorlLy for Le sLaLuLe under Le commerce clause (dlscusses
Morrlson Lopez cases Le ommerce lause)
(4) noLe LaL SLevens 8reyer SouLer Clnsburg dlssenLed would ave exLended 8lverslde
lll) 8apanos v uS (2006) p 747 (SALlA Lls was [usL a plurallLy oplnlon LaL kennedy concurred
w/ so be careful)
(1) 1ls case relgns ln Le broad deflnlLlon of navlgable waLers a blL
(2) Scalla baslcally wanLs a more brlgL llne rule LaL lncludes Le Solld WasLe case's ad[acency
requlremenL buL also llmlLs lL Lo waLers LaL ave a conLlnuous surface connecLlon Lo acLual
waLers of Le uS ln oLer words e would exclude cannels conLalnlng merely lnLermlLLenL
or epemeral flow" and LranslLory puddles"
(3) kennedy would use Le nexus LesL wlc could be esLabllsed by ad[acency buL noL CnL by
ad[acency Pe Llnks Scalla ls readlng nonexlsLenL requlremenLs lnLo Le WA and Le dlssenL
ls readlng navlgable" ouL
(4) ulssenL ls baslcally Le same as Solld WasLe
(3) (uoes Marks v uS from rlm ro apply ere? Wen a fragmenLed ourL decldes a case and no
slngle raLlonale explalnlng Le resulL en[oys Le assenL of flve !usLlces Le oldlng of Le ourL
may be vlewed as LaL poslLlon Laken by Lose Members wo concurred ln Le [udgmenLs on
Le narrowesL grounds") (es Le noLes acLually speclflcally dlscuss Lls case 1ls means
34 | a g e

LaL Le nexus LesL may be Le besL readlng of Le ourL's oldlng 1e resulL as been a clrculL
lv) noLes Cs
c) overed AcLlvlLles
l) S llorlda WaLer ManagemenL v Mlccosukee 1rlbe (2004) p 737
(1) 1ls case ls abouL Le meanlng of dlscarge of a polluLanL" LssenLlally Le lssue ls LaL a
pump sLaLlon ls movlng waLer collecLed from runoff LaL conLalns polluLanLs lnLo anoLer area
1ere are Lree maln argumenLs
(a) 1e pump does noL orlglnaLe Le polluLanL and ls noL a polnL source 1e ourL re[ecLs Lls
b/c Le WA lncludes conveyances" w/ln Le deflnlLlon of polnL source
(b)unlLary WaLers ArgumenL baslcally argues LaL all Le navlgable waLers of Le uS are all
Le same LaL Le orlglnal dlscarge lnLo Le waLers ls Le dlscarge" w/ln Le meanlng of
Le WA and LaL all Ley are dolng ere ls movlng Le orlglnal dlscarge from one
navlgable waLer Lo anoLer 1e ourL doesn'L address Lls argumenL b/c lL was never
ralsed by Le respondenLs only Le amlcl
(c) racLlcal onsequences baslcally Lls ls [usL a pollcy argumenL saylng LaL lL would ralse
cosLs prolblLlvely
(l) (My personal oplnlon ls LaL Le ourL wanLed Le resulL for Lese reasons and [usL
came up w/ Le [usLlflcaLlon below Lo reac Lls resulL CLerwlse Le enLlre llorlda
levee/canal sysLem would ave Lo be reLougL)
(2) 1e ourL ends up golng wlL an odd sorL of local unlLary waLers argumenL LaL Le Lwo
bodles of waLer were orlglnally Le same and Lerefore Lere was no conveyance b/c Lese are
essenLlally Le same bodles
ll) noLes Cs
(1) WA focuses prlmarlly on nuLS and permlLLlng AA focuses prlmarlly on aclevlng naLlonal
alr quallLy sLandards (nAACS)
(2) nuLS permlL requlremenL applles Lo any addlLlon of any polluLanL Lo navlgable waLers from
any polnL source"
(3) olluLanL ls broadly deflned ln Le sLaLuLe and courLs ave eld LaL lL ls meanL Lo leave ouL
very llLLle"
(4) olnL Source ls generally also read broadly buL Le lssue as been frequenLly llLlgaLed
Cenerally lL bolls down Lo a manlnduced gaLerlng mecanlsm" ln oLer words uman
efforL as Lo be lnvolved
(a) nonpolnL source polluLlon ls generally runoff (and accounLs for more Lan alf of waLer
(b)olnL sources lnclude anlmal feedlng operaLlons and sLormwaLer dlscarges lncludlng from
consLrucLlon slLes
(3) 1e courLs are dlvlded on weLer Le WA applles Lo dlscarges lnLo groundwaLer
d) LffluenL SLandards for olnL Sources
l) LxcerpLs from Le WA
(1) 301 deflnes effluenL llmlLaLlons" for polnL sources baslcally ave Lo use 81 (besL
pracLlcable conLrol Lecnology)
(2) Also dlscusses Le AdmlnlsLraLor publlslng guldellnes eLc
ll) Cvervlew of olnL Source onLrols
(1) 1972 AcL deflned Lwo levels of polluLlon conLrol
(a) 81 8esL racLlcable onLrol 1ecnology (Lo be acleved by 1977)
3S | a g e

(b)8A1 8esL Avallable onLrol 1ecnology (Lo be acleved by 1983)
(2) 1977 AmendmenLs creaLed a more complex sceme
(a) 81 8esL onvenLlonal onLrol 1ecnology used for convenLlonal" polluLanLs (eg
blologlcal oxygen demand suspended sollds fecal collform pP)
(b)8A1 8esL Avallable onLrol 1ecnology used for Le followlng
(l) 1oxlc olluLanLs
(ll) nonconvenLlonal olluLanLs (eg ammonla clorldes nlLraLes lron and color)
(c) 8u1 8esL Avallable uemonsLraLed 1ecnology used for new sources requlres Le greaLesL
degree of reducLlon aclevable
(d)Speclal 8ules for C1Ws (publlcly owned LreaLmenL works)
(l) 8equlres Lwo sLeps
1 rlmary 1reaLmenL floaLlng maLerlals sklmmed off and eavy maLerlals seLLled ouL
2 Secondary 1reaLmenL adds blologlcal sLep ln wlc bacLerla consume organlc
maLerlals reduclng Le blologlcal oxygen demand ln Le wasLewaLer
(ll) 1erLlary LreaLmenL wlc can remove nuLrlenLs ls generally noL requlred (Lls would be
a flnal sLage and mlgL lnclude fllLraLlon lagoonlng nuLrlenL removal and/or nlLrogen
and posporus removal)
(lll)Also requlres 8A1equlvalenL preLreaLmenL before wasLewaLers can be released lnLo Le
publlc sewer sysLem
(3) WA effluenL sLandards Lyplcally esLablls Le maxlmum quanLlLy of polluLanLs LaL may be
dlscarged for eac unlL of producLlon lssue ere Loug ls LaL Lese could Lecnlcally be
complled w/ by slmply dlluLlng Le wasLewaLer
lll) LA LffluenL Culdellnes lan ow Le LA goes abouL rulemaklng
(1) ueflne Le lndusLry caLegory
(2) ueLermlne Le slze of Le caLegory can lL be broken down lnLo subcaLegorles eLc?
(3) CaLer daLe quesLlonnalres and waLer sampllng
(4) onsLrucL guldellnes and revlew Lem lnLernally
(3) ubllc commenL revlslon perlod
(6) reparaLlon of flnal rulemaklng package and Le rulemaklng record
lv) Amerlcan eLroleum lnsLlLuLe v LA (3
lr 1988) p 781
(1) 1ls ls a dlspuLe over waL Lecnology Le oll company as Lo use ln pllls" wlle drllllng lL
wanLs Lo use dlesel and Le LA ls requlrlng lL Lo use mlneral oll (or Lo use dlesel and dlspose of
lL on land) 1e courL defers Lo Le LA concludlng LaL lL ls noL necessary for a Lecnology Lo
be wldely used ln Le lndusLry for lL Lo be consldered as an approprlaLe subsLlLuLe lL [usL as Lo
be Lecnologlcally and economlcally aclevable" ln facL Le Lecnology doesn'L even ave Lo
be ln acLual use aL all b/c ongress was Lrylng Lo pus Lecnology forward
(2) 1e courL also noLed LaL Le WA applles regardless of weLer Lere ls a dlscernable lmpacL
v) noLes Cs
(1) ln seLLlng 81 and 81 sLandards Le LA musL conslder Le relaLlonslp beLween cosLs and
(2) 8A1 owever can be seL aL a level LaL requlres some planLs Lo close
3) nonpolnL Source olluLlon ma[or currenL conLrlbuLor and so far efforLs Lo address ave noL really worked
a) 8ellly ArLlcle
l) nonpolnL source polluLlon ls runoff from ralnwaLer and snow melL Lan plcks up soll anlmal
wasLes ferLlllzers pesLlcldes used oll Loxlc subsLances and sLreeL debrls along Le way
36 | a g e

ll) Addresslng lL ls golng Lo requlre canges ln our ablLs wlc may requlre land use plannlng
conLrols and Le cosL may be large
b) Pouck ArLlcle
c) noLes Cs
4) WaLer CuallLy SLandards
a) Cenerally
l) WA requlres sLaLes Lo seL WCS (waLer quallLy sLandards) for Lelr waLers and Lo lu waLers LaL are
noL meeLlng Lese sLandards and develop 1MuLs (LoLal maxlmum dally loads)
ll) 1e WA also allows sLaLes Lo veLo federal acLlvlLles LaL would lnLerfere w/ aclevemenL of Le
b) LxcerpLs from Le WA
l) 8aslcally requlres Le sLaLes Lo adopL WCS and allows Le LA Lo sLep ln wlL Le sLaLes fall Lo seL
enforce Lem
c) SeLLlng WaLer CuallLy SLandards
l) 8aslcally beglns w/ waLer zonlng" or seLLlng classlflcaLlons of use All exlsLlng uses musL be
lncluded and no waLers may be deslgnaLed for Le asslmllaLlon of wasLe or for wasLe LransporL
ll) 1en Le WCS are developed based on Le level requlred Lo proLecL Le deslgnaLed use
lll) lndlan Lrlbes are LreaLed as sLaLes under Le WA
d) 1e Slgnlflcance of WaLer CuallLy SLandards
l) MosL of Lls as already been covered buL noLe LaL appllcanLs for a federal llcense or permlL for
dlscarge musL also geL sLaLe approval
e) 1oLal Maxlmum ually Loads
l) Cenerally
(1) lmporLanL 1MuLs apply weLer Le source of polluLlon ls polnL source or nonpolnL source!!!
ll) ronsollno v nasLrl (9
lr 2002) p 797
(1) 1e courL upolds Le LA's readlng of Le WA as applylng 1MuLs Lo boL polnL and nonpolnL
lll) lrlends of lnLo reek v LA (9
lr 2007) p 801
(1) 1ls ls a new dlscarger case 8aslcally a new dlscarger wanLed Lo offseL lLs polluLlon by
cleanlng up polluLlon elsewere 1e courL deLermlned LaL Le language of Le WA placed a
sLrlcLer requlremenL on new dlscargers LougcannoL offseL new polluLlon by cleanlng up
old polluLlon elsewere
(2) 1ere ls an excepLlon were Le new dlscarger demonsLraLes 8LlC8L 1PL LCSL Cl 1PL
CMMLn1 L8lCu LaL lL as a sufflclenL plan ln place Lo ensure LaL Le waLers wlll be
brougL lnLo compllance arL of Lls lncludes Le esLabllsmenL of compllance scedules buL
no compllance scedules were ever creaLed ere so Le excepLlon does noL apply
lv) noLes Cs
(1) noLe LaL Le slze of Le mlxlng zone" affecLs Le polluLlon concenLraLlon 1e larger lL ls Le
more Loxlc Le dlscarge can be w/o vlolaLlng waLer quallLy sLandards

37 | a g e