Includes bibliographical references.
|Other titles||Essays on the Supreme Court"s Clean Water Act jurisprudence as reflected in Rapanos v. United States., Vermont journal of environmental law.|
|Statement||edited with an introduction by L. Kinvin Wroth.|
|Contributions||Wroth, L. Kinvin., United States. Supreme Court., Vermont Law School. Land Use Institute.|
|LC Classifications||KF5624.A75 S86 2007|
|The Physical Object|
|Pagination||iii, 99 p. ;|
|Number of Pages||99|
delivered the opinion of the Court. The Clean Water Act forbids the “addition” of any pollu tant from a “point source” to “navigable waters” without the appropriate permit from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Federal Water Pollution Control Act, §§(a), (12)(A), as amended by the Federal Water Pol. By Allison A. Torrence On Ap , the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important decision on the reach of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). The Court’s decision in County of Maui, Hawaii v. WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Clean Water Act applies to some pollutants that reach the sea and other protected waters indirectly through groundwater. "The Supreme Court has rejected the Trump administration’s effort to blow a big hole in the Clean Water Act’s protections for rivers, lakes, and oceans.".
The Supreme Court sided largely with environmentalists in a case over the reach of the landmark Clean Water Act, ruling that a "loophole" in the law backed by the Trump administration was unlawful. How the Supreme Court’s and EPA’s New Clean Water Act Guidelines Affect Hunters and Anglers Sam Lungren Last week, the Supreme Court and the Environmental Protection Agency put out new and potentially conflicting guidelines regarding the interpretation and enforcement of the Clean Water Act. Politics PM EDT WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that sewage plants and other industries cannot avoid environmental requirements under landmark clean-water. The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected the Trump administration’s reading of a key part of the Clean Water Act as creating an “obvious loophole” in its enforcement.
Engineers ["Corps"] districts implementing the Supreme Court's decision in the consolidated cases Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States2 (herein referred to simply as "Rapanos") which address the jurisdiction over waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act. 3 The chart below summarizes the key points contained in. In April, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling clarifying the reach of the federal Clean Water Act. The Court decided that a discharge of pollutants from a point source to groundwater is subject to regulation under the act, if the discharge is the “functional equivalent” of a discharge to waters of the United States (which include rivers, streams, creeks, lakes, and. Posted Thu, April 23rd, pm by Lisa Heinzerling. Today the Supreme Court ruled, , that the Clean Water Act requires a permit when a point source of pollution adds pollutants to navigable waters through groundwater, if this addition of pollutants is “the functional equivalent of a direct discharge” from the source into navigable waters. Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling on the Clean Water Act will require permits and limits for polluters, but will ultimately still allow them to discharge pollution into streams that are connected to.