Supplier of pesticides to a distributor and an owner of property which was a portion of a site contaminated by hazardous substances were not jointly and severally liable for remediation costs under CERCLA, since the suppl ...

Court of appeals erred when it found that permit Army Corps of Engineers issued to a mining company, which allowed the company to discharge a rock and water mixture into a ...

Appellate court erred setting aside regulations adopted by EPA under 33 U.S.C.S. § 1326(b) of CWA; EPA permissibly relied on cost-benefit analysis in setting national performance standard ...

Section 209(e)(2) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 7543(e)(2), preempted the Marine Vessel Rules and required California to obtain EPA authorization prior to enforcement because the Ru ...

A Biological Opinion issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service on the effect of the Central Valley Project and California State Water Project operations on salmonid species was remanded ...

An EPA rule allowing states to trade emission budgets, allowing them to emit more or less pollution than their caps would otherwise permit, violated 42 U.S.C.S. § 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)'s re ...

EPA violated the APA by failing to provide a sufficiently clear, cogent and reasoned explanation for its decision to promulgate a new broad definition of "navigable waters” under th ...

The Court granted defendants motion dismissing both causes of action: (1) public nuisance under federal common law; and, alternatively, (2) public nuisance under California Law, California Civ ...

State regulation of vehicle emissions was not preempted by Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) or foreign policy, since fuel economy standards under EPCA were required to consider both f ...

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, on petition of states, D.C., City of New York, and organizations, was required to set new standards because light truck corporate average f ...

District court properly dismissed potentially responsible party (PRP) corporation's 42 U.S.C.S. § 9613(f) contribution action against another corporation; PRP filed action more than three ...

Because mere adjacency provided a basis for Clean Water Act coverage only when the relevant waterbody was a wetland, and no other reason for CWA coverage of the pond was supported by evidence or was properly before the app ...

Construing the Clean Air Act's Prevention of Significant Deterioration regulations on "modification" as tracking the New Source Performance Standards definition implicitly invalidate ...

Vermont regulations establishing greenhouse gas emission standards for automobiles were not preempted by Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) because 49 U.S.C.S. § 32919(a) did not e ...

EPA erroneously declined to regulate motor vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases which allegedly contributed to global warming, since the Clean Air Act authorized EPA to regulate such gases an ...