Monday, July 13, 2015

ASARCO v.Celanese Chemical Co.

<> ASARCO v.Celanese Chemical Co. - 7/10/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 12-16832. Affirming the district court's summary judgment, the panel held that a claim for contribution under § 113(f)(3)(B) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act was time-barred.

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation

<> Natural Resources Defense Council v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation - 7/9/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Case Nos. 14-1776 & 14-1777. Case involves the City of Chicago's stormwater holding plan known as the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan, sometimes called TARP and commonly known as Deep Tunnel.
      The Alliance [environmental organizations] challenges a consent decree approved by the district court, saying it  concedes that the system won't work. The Appeals Court ruled, "The consent decree that the district court has approved is reasonable in light of the current infrastructure, the costs of doing things differently (no one proposes to build a new sewer system or redo the Deep Tunnel project), and the limits of knowledge about what will happen when the system is completed. . ."

Building Association of the Bay Area v. Dept. of Commerce

<> Building Association of the Bay Area v. Dept. of Commerce - 7/7/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 13-15132. The panel affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the United States Department of Commerce and others in an action brought by property owners under the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, challenging the designation of critical habitat for a threatened species, the southern distinct population of green sturgeon, and the regulations implementing that designation.

Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc., et al. v. EPA

<> Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc., et al. v. EPA - 7/7/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Case No. 14-10987. An unpublished opinion involving a challenge by environmental groups over a court ordered modification of a consent decree with EPA regarding Florida's water regulations and standards under the Clean Water Act (CWA).
     In light of its approval of Florida's new CWA regulations, EPA asked the district court to modify the consent decree to relieve it of its obligation to regulate the waters covered by Florida's new CWA-compliant regulations. The Appeals Court ruled that the environmental groups were "wrong" in their challenge affirmed the district court's order modifying the consent decree.