To: puborectalis who wrote (1224061 ) 4/24/2020 5:28:09 PM From: Sdgla 1 RecommendationRecommended By
Read Replies (1) | Respond to This had nothing to do with Trump. It was the county of Maui vs Hawaii wildlife fund.Email Edith Bio & Post Archive » County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund , the court held 6-3 that a Clean Water Act permit is required for either a direct discharge of pollutants into navigable waters or its functional equivalent. Lisa Heinzerling analyzes the opinion for this blog . At Bloomberg Law , Ellen Gilmer and Amena Saiyid report that “[t]he decision narrows an environmentalist-favored standard an appellate court adopted in 2018, but rejects the industry-preferred approach that would have exempted all indirect pollution from Clean Water Act permitting requirements.” Adam Liptak reports for The New York Times that “the decision was on balance a victory for environmental groups, as it allowed at least some lawsuits over groundwater discharges.” At Foley Hoag’s Law & the Environment blog, Seth Jaffe writes that the court found “a workable middle ground that avoids eviscerating the statute without subjecting untold number of groundwater discharges to CWA jurisdiction.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondents in this case.]Opinion analysis: The justices’ purpose-full reading of the Clean Water Act By Lisa Heinzerling on Apr 23, 2020 at 7:09 pmContinue reading » County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund , Featured , Merits Cases
