Go to Home Page Communities
  
Let your voice be heard by joining the community today. Sign up.
Environmental Law & Climate Change Center
RSS Email Alert




Environmental Law - Product Update
10/27/2009 6:29:36 PM EST
LexisNexis Environmental Law Center Staff
October 2009 Updates to California Environmental Law & Land Use Practice
Highlights of the latest update to California Environmental Law & Land Use Practice include:
  •  A new “Special Alert” discussing the initiation of rule-making on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Amendments addressing greenhouse gas emissions. The Alert covers the recent initiation of the formal rule-making process by the California Natural Resources Agency to amend the state CEQA Guidelines to address how lead agencies should evaluate and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in documents prepared under CEQA.
  • Complete revision and update by two CEQA experts to Ch. 20, Background and Implementation of CEQA, and Ch. 21, Preliminary Review, Exemptions, and Negative Declarations.
  • Regulatory updating throughout the set, including coverage of recent amendments by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to “Zero Emission Vehicle” regulations and the recent addition of new regulations by CARB addressing mandatory greenhouse gas emissions reporting.  
  • Case updating throughout the publication, including recent environmental and land use decisions from the U.S. and California Supreme Courts.  Three such cases included in this latest update are:
    • Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States (2009) 173 L. Ed. 2d 812, where the U.S. Supreme Court addressed CERCLA liability and found that Superfund liability is not joint and several when a reasonable basis for apportionment exists.  
    • State of California v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2009) 45 Cal. 4th 1008, where the California Supreme Court addressed several issues regarding application of pollution exclusions in California 's comprehensive general liability policies.
    • Coeur Alaska Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (2009) 174 L. Ed. 2d 193, where the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Army Corps’ of Engineers had jurisdiction under § 404 of the federal Clean Water Act for the discharge of mining waste, called “slurry,” into a lake in Alaska, because slurry is included in the definition of “fill material” for purposes of § 404.

Create an account or login to post comments.

Martindale-Hubbell(R) Connected - Join Now

lexisOne Community

Community Questions








Your Resources

Your Toolbox

Our Communities

Other Links