DOCSLIB.ORG

In the Supreme Court of the United States ______

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In the Supreme Court of the United States ______ No. 99-1178 In the Supreme Court of the United States __________ SOLID WASTE AGENCY OF NORTHERN COOK COUNTY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, ET AL., Respondents. __________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit __________ REPLY BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER __________ TIMOTHY S. BISHOP SHARON SWINGLE Mayer, Brown & Platt Counsel of Record 1909 K Street, N.W. KASPAR J. STOFFELMAYR Washington, D.C. 20006 Mayer, Brown & Platt (202) 263-3000 190 South LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 782-0600 GEORGE J. MANNINA, JR. O’Connor & Hannan, L.L.P. 1666 K Street, N.W. Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 887-1400 Counsel for Petitioner 1 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................ ii ARGUMENT .................................... 1 CONCLUSION ................................. 20 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases: Andrus v. Allard, 444 U.S. 51(1979) .................. 4 Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Greater Oregon, 515 U.S. 687 (1995) ......... 10 Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983) ...................................... 15 Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (1962) .......................... 6, 7 Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936) ....... 4, 5 Central Bank v. First Interstate Bank, 511 U.S. 164 (1994) ........................... 16 Consumer Prods. Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102 (1980) ........... 13 Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243 (1913) ........ 11 Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568 (1988) ............................ 1 FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 120 S. Ct. 1291 (2000) ......................... 15 First Iowa Hydro-Elec. Coop. v. FPC, 328 U.S. 152 (1946) ........................... 11 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page Gromer v. Standard Dredging Co., 224 U.S. 362 (1912) ................................... 11 Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass’n, Inc., 452 U.S. 264 (1981) ........ 8 Jones v. United States, 120 S. Ct. 1904 (2000) .... 1, 17, 19 Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46 (1907) ............. 4, 5 Loggerhead Turtle v. County Council, 148 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1081 (1999) ................ 10 Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U.S. 183 (1968) ............ 7, 10 Midlantic Nat’l Bank v. New Jersey, 474 U.S. 494 (1986) ........................... 11 Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) ........... 2, 4 New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) ......... 5 North Dakota v. United States, 460 U.S. 300 (1983) ... 2, 4 North Shore Boom Co. v. Nicomen Boom Co., 212 U.S. 406 (1909) ........................... 11 NRDC v. Callaway, 392 F. Supp. 685 (D.D.C. 1975) .... 18 Perry v. Haines, 191 U.S. 17 (1903) ................. 11 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994) .......... 12 Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U.S. 293 (1988) ........................... 16 SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, 375 U.S. 180 (1963) ........................... 12 Summit Health, Ltd. v. Pinhas, 500 U.S. 322 (1991) .... 10 TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978) ................... 20 United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941) .......... 17 United States v. Five Gambling Devices, 346 U.S. 441 (1953) ............................ 1 United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) ....... passim United States v. Morrison, 120 S. Ct. 1740 (2000) .. passim United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121 (1985) ........................... 11 United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass’n, 322 U.S. 533 (1944) ........................... 10 United States v. Underwood, 344 F. Supp. 486 (M.D. Fla. 1971) .............................. 13 Utah v. United States, 403 U.S. 9 (1971) ............. 13 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) .......... 7, 8, 9 Constitution, Statutes, and Regulations: U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8 ........................ passim 15 U.S.C. § 2605 ................................ 19 16 U.S.C. § 797 ................................. 10 16 U.S.C. § 817 ................................. 10 33 U.S.C. § 1251 ............................. 11, 18 33 U.S.C. § 1253 ................................. 4 33 U.S.C. § 1344 ............................ passim 33 U.S.C. § 1362 ............................ passim 42 U.S.C. § 6903 ................................ 19 42 U.S.C. § 6945 ................................ 19 River and Harbors Act, § 10, 30 Stat. 1121 (1899) ...... 11 415 ILCS 5/12 .................................. 19 415 ILCS 25/1 .................................. 19 33 C.F.R. § 320.4 ................................ 18 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page 40 Fed. Reg. 31,319 (July 25, 1975) ................. 16 40 Fed. Reg. 41,292 (Sept. 5, 1975) ................. 14 42 Fed. Reg. 37,122 (July 19, 1977) ................. 16 51 Fed. Reg. 41,206 (Nov. 13, 1986) ................ 6, 7 58 Fed. Reg. 45, 008 (Aug. 25, 1993) ................. 8 Miscellaneous: Adler, The Green Aspects of Printz: The Revival of Federalism and its Implications for Environmental Law, 6 GEO. MASON L. REV. 573 (1998) ............ 3 Ass’n of State Wetland Mgrs., State Wetland Regulation: Status of Programs and Emerging Trends (1995) ................................. 3 S. DEGLER, FEDERAL POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMS (1971) ............................. 13 EPA, GUIDANCE FOR CORPS AND EPA FIELD OFFICES REGARDING CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 404 JURISDICTION OVER ISOLATED WATERS IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES V. JAMES J. WILSON (May 29, 1998) ..................................... 6 M. FARRAND, THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787 (1966) ..................... 5 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page Grunwald, An Agency of Unchecked Clout, WASH. POST A1 (Sept. 10, 2000) .................. 3 Grunwald, Reluctant Regulator on Alaska’s North Slope, WASH. POST A1 (Sept. 13, 2000) ........ 3 Grunwald, Working to Please Hill Commanders, WASH. POST A1 (Sept. 11, 2000) .................. 3 H.R. 3199, 95th Cong. § 16 (1977) ............ 14, 15, 16 H.R. 11896, 92d Cong. § 502 (1972) ................. 12 H.R. REP. NO. 93-1396 (1974) ...................... 13 Legislative History of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Committee Print compiled for the Committee on Environment and Public Works by the Library of Congress), Ser. No. 95-14 (1978) ......... 12, 14, 15 Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Committee Print compiled for the Committee on Public Works by the Library of Congress), Ser. No. 93-1 (1973) ... 12, 13 Nelson & Pushaw, Rethinking the Commerce Clause, 85 IOWA L. REV. 1 (2000) ........................ 5 Oversight Hearings on Section 404 of the Clean Water Act before Senate Comm. on Env’tl Pollution of Comm. on Env’t and Publ. Works, 99th Cong. (1985) .................... 16, 17 ix TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page J. RAKOVE, ORIGINAL MEANINGS: POLITICS AND IDEAS IN THE MAKING OF THE CONSTITUTION (1996) ....................................... 5 Revesz, Rehabilitating Interstate Competition: Rethinking the “Race-to-the-Bottom” Rationale for Federal Environmental Regulation, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1210 (1992) .................... 3 S. 2770, 92d Cong. § 502 (1972) .................... 12 L. TRIBE, AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (3d ed. 2000) .................................. 4 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, CLEAN WATER ACT JURISDICTION OVER ISOLATED WATERS (1987) ... 6 123 Cong. Rec. (1977) ............................ 14 By claiming to have jurisdiction over isolated, mainly seasonal ponds on SWANCC’s land because migratory birds use them, the Corps obliterates the distinction between what is national and what is local. If federal authority reaches all water and wetlands used by Canada geese, mallard ducks, and other migratory birds (AR 15578), there is nothing to prevent the federal government from regulating every tree in which migratory birds roost and every lawn on which they feed. If migratory bird use supplies a sufficient connection to interstate commerce because duck hunters and bird watchers travel and spend money, then as amici California et al. concede (at 1), the federal government may regulate the eating of hamburgers because that adversely affects rainforests. On the Corps’ theory of the commerce power, no non-commercial activity is beyond federal authority, for nothing is so far removed from interstate commerce that it cannot be linked to it in some fashion. Pet. Br. 43-44 & n.18. Its approach leaves the commerce power “without effective bounds” that are “essential to the mainte- nance of our constitutional system” of enumerated federal powers. Morrison, 120 S. Ct. at 1748; Lopez, 514 U.S. at 555. Whether or not it is unconstitutional for an agency to seize on non-commercial migratory bird use as an excuse for impos- ing federal regulation under the Commerce Clause, at minimum it gives rise to “grave and doubtful constitutional questions.” Jones, 120 S. Ct. at 1911. The Clean Water Act provides for jurisdiction over “navigable waters,” defined as “waters of the United States.” Nothing in that language, other provisions of the CWA, or legislative history shows a “clea[r] indication” or “unmistakable intention” to reach isolated ponds that are neither navigable nor connected to navigable waters, just because they are used by migratory birds. DeBartolo, 485 U.S. at 575; Five Gambling Devices, 346 U.S. at 450; see infra, pages 10-19. Migratory birds are among the beneficiaries
Load more

Recommended publications
  • New “Waters of the United States” Definition Released
    County Action Needed New “Waters of the United States” Definition Released Counties are strongly encouraged to submit written comments on potential impacts of the proposed regulation to the Federal Register On April 21, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jointly released a new proposed rule – Definition of Waters of the U.S. Under the Clean Water Act – that would amend the definition of “waters of the U.S.” and expand the range of waters that fall under federal jurisdiction. The proposed rule, published in the Federal Register, is open for public comment until November 14, 2014. The proposed rule uses U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) draft report on Connectivity of Stream and Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence, which is currently undergoing review by EPA’s Science Advisory Board, as a scientific basis for the new definition. The report focuses on over 1,000 scientific reports that demonstrate the interconnectedness of tributaries, wetlands, and other waters to downstream waters and the impact these connections have on the biological, chemical and physical relationship to downstream waters. Why “Waters of the U.S.” Regulation Matters to Counties The proposed “waters of the U.S.” regulation from EPA and the Corps could have a significant impact on counties across the country, in the following ways: Seeks to define waters under federal jurisdiction: The proposed rule would modify existing regulations, which have been in place for over 25 years, regarding which waters fall under federal jurisdiction through the Clean Water Act (CWA).
    [Show full text]
  • History of Federal Clean Water Regulations
    History of Federal Clean Water Regulations Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 was the first major U.S. law to address water pollution. It authorized the Surgeon General to prepare comprehensive programs for eliminating or reducing the pollution of interstate waters and tributaries; and for improving the sanitary conditions of surface and underground waters. This statute also authorized the Federal Works Administrator to assist states, municipalities and interstate agencies in constructing treatment plants to prevent discharges of inadequately treated sewerage into other waters and tributaries. Since 1948, the original law has been repeatedly amended to authorize additional water quality programs, to impose standards and procedures governing allowable discharges and to provide funding for specific goals contained within the statute. Clean Water Act of 1972 November 3, 1952 Cuyahoga River fire (photo credit James Thomas, from Cleveland Press Collection, Cleveland State University Library) It seemed impossible, as a nation, we had allowed our waterways to become so polluted that they caught on fire. The Cuyahoga River in Ohio erupted in fire several times beginning as early as 1868. On June 22, 1969, a Cuyahoga River fire caught the attention of Time Magazine. Time Magazine focused the nation's attention on the pollution of the Cuyahoga River: “Some river! Chocolate-brown, oily, bubbling with subsurface gases, it oozes rather than flows. ‘Anyone who falls into the Cuyahoga does not drown,’ Cleveland's citizens joke grimly. ‘He decays.’” This seminal event spurred an avalanche of pollution control activities ultimately resulting in the Clean Water Act and the creation of the federal and state Environmental Protection Agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting America's Wetlands Under Rapanos: Defining "The Waters of the United States"
    Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development Volume 23 Issue 1 Volume 23, Spring 2008, Issue 1 Article 8 Protecting America's Wetlands Under Rapanos: Defining "the Waters of the United States" Adam Redder Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/jcred This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PROTECTING AMERICA'S WETLANDS UNDER RAPANOS: DEFINING "THE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES" ADAM REDDER* INTRODUCTION When can a landowner dredge and fill wetlands on his or her property without fear of intervention by the federal government? If one wants to build a structure on his or her property, should he or she be concerned about the small stream or wetland in the backyard? Does the size of the stream or wetland matter? Does it matter if the stream flows continuously throughout the year? What if there is a lake nearby? What if one receives a nod from state authorities to go forward with a development project-can one initiate such a project without authorization from the federal government? The answer to these questions is unclear even in light of a recent United States Supreme Court case specifically addressing the matter.1 The scope of federal jurisdiction over wetlands and other land features exhibiting saturated soil conditions in the United States is defined by the Clean Water Act (hereinafter CWA).2 The Supreme Court has attempted to appropriately define the * J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Superfund Laws
    Chapter VIII SUPERFUND LAWS In the aftermath of Love Canal and other revelations of the improper disposal of hazardous substances, the federal and state governments enacted the “Superfund” laws to address these problems. Generally these laws address remediation of spills and dumps, rather than regulation of current conduct, and hold parties liable to cleanup contamination resulting from activities that may have been legal. They have resulted in extensive litigation, widespread concerns about environmental liabilities, and expensive cleanups. A. CERCLA The federal Superfund law is entitled the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. §9601, et seq. It was extensively amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (“SARA”), and further amendments were made in 2002 by the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act. 1. Basic Scheme CERCLA provides a framework for the cleanup of the “release” or threatened release” of hazardous substances into the environment. EPA can take action to clean up hazardous substances using funds from the multi-billion dollar “Superfund” (raised by excise taxes on certain chemical feedstocks and crude oil), and then seek reimbursement from “responsible parties.” Alternatively, it can require responsible parties to clean up a site. “Hazardous substances” are defined to include hazardous wastes under RCRA, hazardous substances and toxic pollutants under Clean Water Act §§311(b)(2)(A) and 307(a), 33 U.S.C. 23 §§1321(b)(2)(A) and 1317(a), hazardous air pollutants under Clean Air Act §112, 42 U.S.C. §7412(a), any “imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture” designated under Toxic Substances Control Act §7, 15 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality and (In)Equality: the Continuing Struggle to Protect Penobscot Sustenance Fishing Rights in Maine
    University of Connecticut OpenCommons@UConn Connecticut Law Review School of Law 2019 Water Quality and (In)Equality: The Continuing Struggle to Protect Penobscot Sustenance Fishing Rights in Maine Allison M. Dussias Follow this and additional works at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_review Recommended Citation Dussias, Allison M., "Water Quality and (In)Equality: The Continuing Struggle to Protect Penobscot Sustenance Fishing Rights in Maine" (2019). Connecticut Law Review. 424. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_review/424 CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW VOLUME 51 AUGUST 2019 NUMBER 4 Article Water Quality and (In)Equality: The Continuing Struggle to Protect Penobscot Sustenance Fishing Rights in Maine ALLISON M. DUSSIAS Since 2015, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), the State of Maine, and the Penobscot Nation of Maine have been engaged in litigation over Maine’s proposed Water Quality Standards (“WQS”) to be issued pursuant to the Clean Water Act. The EPA rejected some of the State’s proposed WQS because they were not adequate to protect the right of members of the Penobscot Nation to fish for sustenance. The EPA took the position that waters where tribes exercise fishing rights must have WQS that are sufficient to ensure that tribal members can harvest fish for sustenance without endangering their health through exposure to dangerous levels of mercury and other toxins. Moreover, in determining permissible pollutant levels, fish consumption rates should not be determined on the basis of current consumption rates, which are suppressed due to health concerns, but rather on the basis of unsuppressed fish consumption rates. The EPA’s decision was bolstered by the importance of fishing to cultural preservation and the federal government’s trust responsibility toward the Penobscot Nation.
    [Show full text]
  • Effluent Guidelines/Clean Water Act: U.S
    Effluent Guidelines/Clean Water Act: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Notices Availability/Program Plan 14 10/29/2019 The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) published an October 24th Federal Register Notice referencing the availability of Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 14 (“Plan 14”). See 84 Fed. Reg. 57019. Section 304(m) of the Clean Water Act requires that EPA biennially publish a plan for new and revised Walter Wright, Jr. effluent limitations guidelines, after public review and comment. [email protected] Plan 14 is described as identifying: (501) 688.8839 . any new or existing industrial categories selected for effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards and provides a schedule for their development. By way of background, Section 301(b) of the Clean Water Act authorizes EPA to promulgate national categorical standards or limits to restrict discharges of specific pollutants on an industry-by-industry basis. These effluent limits are incorporated into a point source discharger’s National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System permit as a baseline minimum requirement. Clean Water Act effluent limits are derived from research regarding pollution control technology used in the industry. The analysis will include the degree of reduction of the pollutant that can be achieved through the use of various levels of technology. The applicable standard is dictated by the kind of pollutant discharged (i.e., toxic, conventional, or non-conventional) and whether a new or existing point source is involved. Industrial categories are often further divided into subcategories. The effluent limits/conditions for the subcategories will be tailored to the performance capabilities of the wastewater treatment or control technologies used by the subcategory.
    [Show full text]
  • Clean Water Act Section 401 Guidance for Federal Agencies, States and Authorized Tribes
    June 7, 2019 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 401 GUIDANCE FOR FEDERAL AGENCIES, STATES AND AUTHORIZED TRIBES Pursuant to Executive Order 13868, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing this updated guidance to clarify and provide recommendations concerning the implementation of Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401.1 I. Introduction and Section 401 Certification Overview Congress enacted Section 401 of the CWA to provide states and authorized tribes with an important tool to help protect water quality within their borders in collaboration with federal agencies. Under Section 401, a federal agency may not issue a permit or license to conduct any activity that may result in any discharge into waters of the United States unless a state or authorized tribe where the discharge would originate issues a Section 401 water quality certification verifying compliance with existing water quality requirements or waives the certification requirement. As described in greater detail below, Section 401 envisions a robust state and tribal role in the federal permitting or licensing process, but places limitations on how that role may be implemented to maintain an efficient process that is consistent with the overall cooperative federalism construct established by the CWA. The EPA, as the federal agency charged with administering the CWA,2 is responsible for developing regulations and guidance to ensure effective implementation of all CWA programs, including Section 401. The EPA also serves as the Section 401 certification authority in certain circumstances. Federal agencies that issue permits or licenses subject to a Section 401 certification (federal permitting agencies) also have an important role to play in the Section 401 certification process.
    [Show full text]
  • Compensatory Mitigation Is Required to Replace the Loss of Wetland and Aquatic Resource Functions in the Watershed
    United States Environmental Protection Agency The objective of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. Toward achievement of this goal, the CWA prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States unless a permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers or approved State under CWA Section 404 authorizes such a discharge. For every authorized discharge, the adverse impacts to wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources must be avoided and minimized to the extent practicable. For unavoidable impacts, compensatory mitigation is required to replace the loss of wetland and aquatic resource functions in the watershed. Compensatory mitigation refers to the restoration, establishment, enhancement, or in certain circumstances preservation of wetlands, streams or other aquatic resources for the purpose of offsetting unavoidable adverse impacts. The Mitigation Sequence Methods of Compensatory Mitigation: Compensatory mitigation is actually the third step in ven after avoiding and minimizing impacts, projects that will cause a sequence of actions that must be followed to offset impacts to aquatic resources. The 1990 Memorandum adverse impacts to wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental E typically require some type of compensatory mitigation. The Army Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Army Corps of Engineers (or approved state authority) is responsible for establishes a three-part process, known as the mitigation sequence to help guide mitigation determining the appropriate form and amount of compensatory mitigation decisions and determine the type and level of required. Methods of compensatory mitigation include restoration, mitigation required under Clean Water Act Section establishment, enhancement and preservation.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. PORT GAMBLE 5'KLALLAM TRIBE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR SURFACE WATERS Adopted 8/13/02 A. Standards not in Effect for the Purposes of the Clean Water Act 1. Section 1 Background 2. Section 4 Site Specific Criteria, Provision 4 3. Section 13 Implementation 4. Section 14 Enforcement 5. Section 17 Public Involvement 6. Section 19 Specific Water Quality Criteria for Use Classifications, (3) Recreational and Cultural Use, (a) E. coli criterion for marine waters B. Standards the Tribe has withdrawn Aquatic Life Criteria The Tribe withdrew criteria for both selenium chronic aquatic life criterion and mercury chronic aquatic life criterion. The Tribe will rely on the narrative criteria in Section 7(1) to address these substances. C. Items corrected by the Tribe under the errata sheet submitted to the EPA on 8/31/2005 Section 3- General Conditions A typographical error for marine water occurred in Section 3(4). Section 3(4) (b) should read: For waters in which the salinity is more than ten parts per thousand 95 percent or more of the time, the applicable criteria are the marine water criteria. Section 7- Toxic Substances Arsenic The aquatic life criteria for arsenic have a footnote (h) that states: "The aquatic life criteria refer to the trivalent form only.
    [Show full text]
  • NPDES Permit No. IL0075965 Notice No
    NPDES Permit No. IL0075965 Notice No. WH IL0075965-2020 Public Notice Beginning Date: October 5, 2020 Public Notice Ending Date: November 4, 2020 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program Draft Reissued NPDES Permit to Discharge into Waters of the State Public Notice/Fact Sheet Issued By: Illinois EPA Bureau of Water Division of Water Pollution Control Permit Section Facility Evaluation Unit 1021 North Grand Avenue East Post Office Box 19276 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 217/782-3362 Name and Address of Discharger: Name and Address of Facility: Valley View Industries, Inc. Valley View Shale Quarry II 8785 E. 2500 North Rd. 24750 N. 825 East Rd. Cornell, IL 61319 Cornell, IL 61319 (Livingston County) The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) has made a tentative determination to issue a NPDES Permit to discharge into the waters of the state and has prepared a draft Permit and associated fact sheet for the above named discharger. The Public Notice period will begin and end on the dates indicated in the heading of this Public Notice/Fact Sheet. The last day comments will be received will be on the Public Notice period ending date unless a commentor demonstrating the need for additional time requests an extension to this comment period and the request is granted by the IEPA. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the draft permit to the IEPA at the above address. Commentors shall provide his or her name and address and the nature of the issues proposed to be raised and the evidence proposed to be presented with regards to those issues.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ducks Stop Here? the Environmental Challenge to Federalism
    Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons Faculty Publications 2006 The Ducks Stop Here? The Environmental Challenge to Federalism Jonathan H. Adler Case Western University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Administrative Law Commons, and the Business Organizations Law Commons Repository Citation Adler, Jonathan H., "The Ducks Stop Here? The Environmental Challenge to Federalism" (2006). Faculty Publications. 281. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications/281 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. The Supreme Court Economic Review Volume 9 The Ducks Stop Here? The Environmental Challenge to Federalism Jonathan H. Adler ©2001 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. Reprinted for private circulation. The Ducks Stop Here? The Environmental Challenge to Federalism Jonathan H. In Solid Waste Association of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("SWANCC"L the Supre1ne Court considered whether federal regulatory authority reaches iso­ lated wetlands and ponds due to the potential presence of mi- gratory birds. In such an expansive view federal authority, the Court majority underlined its devotion to fed­ eralism, despite the dissent's c01nplaint that the decision would frustrate environmental protection. This paper argues that SWANNC is not an to en- vironnwntal protection. There is little reason to that interstate competition amongst states will produce a "race to the bottom" in environmental regulation today, if it ever did.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States
    No. 19-257 In the Supreme Court of the United States CALIFORNIA TROUT, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. HOOPA VALLEY TRIBE, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION IN OPPOSITION NOEL J. FRANCISCO JAMES P. DANLY Solicitor General General Counsel Counsel of Record ROBERT H. SOLOMON Department of Justice Solicitor Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 CAROL J. BANTA [email protected] Senior Attorney (202) 514-2217 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20426 QUESTION PRESENTED The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Com- mission) has authority to issue licenses for the construc- tion, operation, and maintenance of hydroelectric pro- jects on jurisdictional waters. See 16 U.S.C. 797(e). If a proposed hydroelectric license “may result in any dis- charge into the navigable waters” of the United States, the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., requires that the applicant provide the Commission with “a cer- tification from the State in which the discharge origi- nates.” 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1). The statute further states that “[i]f the State * * * fails or refuses to act on a re- quest for certification, within a reasonable period of time (which shall not exceed one year) after receipt of such request, the certification requirements of this sub- section shall be waived with respect to such Federal ap- plication.” Ibid. The question presented is: Whether the court of appeals correctly determined that California and Oregon waived water quality certi- fication under 33 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]