Weekly Update Volume 32, Issue 23
Note: The cases listed are available from the ELR Document Service.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court decision holding the United States liable for 100% of the remedial costs incurred and to be incurred cleaning up a site where, during World War II, a rubber manufacturing company operated a war production plant and discharged pollutants into the soil at the government’s direction and control. The government argued that because the company actually disposed of the pollutants and exercised discretion in how it should do so, the company should be liable for some of the cleanup costs. But the government owned the site, the pits, the plant, and all materials including the wastes, knew just what the company was doing, had unfettered control over it, approved of it, had an agency relationship with the company that would ordinarily require it to indemnify the company for what it did, and had made an express written promise to hold the company harmless for whatever it did. On these facts, there was no inequity in allocating 100% of the costs to the government. The government also argued that the district court abused its discretion by deciding to give no weight to the benefits the company received from its operation of the plant. This argument, however, is speculative, and the government's benefits outweigh any benefits enjoyed by the company. Further, the district court did not err in any of its factual findings regarding the government's knowledge and control. In addition, although the government is correct that the district court lacks jurisdiction to enforce the indemnity agreement between the government and the company, the district court only considered the indemnity agreement as an equitable factor in its allocation of costs. Cadillac Fairview/California, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Co., No. 99-56641 (9th Cir. Aug. 6, 2002) (19 pp.).
The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded in part a district court decision holding that a local ordinance that permits a city to investigate and remediate hazardous waste contamination of its soil and groundwater is not preempted by CERCLA or California’s Hazardous Substance Account Act (HSAA). Insurers involved in an underlying suit concerning tetrachloroethylene contamination in the city's groundwater filed suit to prevent the city from enforcing the local ordinance, named the Comprehensive Municipal Environmental Response and Liability Ordinance (MERLO). The insurers alleged that MERLO is preempted by the two statutes on which it is modeled, namely, CERCLA and the HSAA. A district court found in favor of the city, and the insurers appealed. The district court erred in abstaining from deciding whether MERLO is preempted by state law. Nevertheless, CERCLA and HSAA do not preempt the field of hazardous waste remediation, either explicitly or by implication. CERCLA permits both states and their political subdivisions to enact hazardous waste regulations and pursue additional remedies as long as those remedies do not conflict or interfere with the accomplishment and execution of CERCLA’s full purpose and objective. In addition, MERLO is not preempted by the state-law doctrine of preemption by duplication. However, two provisions of MERLO--one regarding PRPs' burden of proof for establishing a defense to liability and one allowing the city to require abatement procedures more stringent than the NCP--are preempted under the doctrine of conflict preemption. In addition, the section of MERLO allowing direct actions against the insurers is preempted by California insurance law. The sections of MERLO allowing the city to impose joint and several liability on other PRPs and to recover attorneys’ fees may be preempted under the doctrine of conflict preemption if the district court finds that the city is a PRP in the underlying suit. Similarly, to the extent that MERLO protects the city from contribution claims by other PRPs, MERLO is preempted if the district court finds that the city is a PRP. Because the invalid provisions are easily severable from the remainder of the ordinance, however, the balance of MERLO--including its provisions regarding natural resource damages, provisions that allow abatement procedures less stringent than the NCP, and provisions that concern information-gathering--remain viable and are not preempted by either state or federal law, regardless of whether the district court finds that the city is a PRP. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. City of Lodi, Nos. 99-15614, -15802 (9th Cir. Aug. 6, 2002) (47 pp.).
The Tenth Circuit held that a district court failed to grant the former owner of a contaminated site a presumption of compliance with the NCP. The owner filed suit against a supply company seeking monetary damages under CERCLA to cover its investigation and cleanup expenses related to the site and a declaratory judgment that the supply company would be liable for future cleanup costs. The district court dismissed the owner's CERCLA §107 claim. As for the owner's CERCLA §113 claim, the district court held that the owner met its burden of proving all the prima facie elements of liability except for compliance with the NCP. The district court did not err in dismissing the owner's CERCLA §107(a) claim against the supply company because the owner is a PRP. The owner may only proceed with an action for contribution under CERCLA §113(f). The district court, however, erred in holding that the owner failed to meet its burden of establishing consistency with the NCP. The district court determined that the owner failed to meet this burden because of the owner's inability to call expert witnesses to establish consistency with the NCP. However, where a private party is cleaning up a site under an administrative order issued by EPA or under a consent decree with EPA, there is an irrebuttable presumption that the private party's actions were consistent with the NCP. Although the owner's actions were conducted pursuant to a consent order with the state environmental agency rather than with EPA, the site was being cleaned up under a state deferral pilot program that EPA had determined was being handled in a manner consistent with the NCP. Because the owner should have been granted a rebuttable presumption of compliance, the case was reversed and remanded. Morrison Enterprises v. McShares, Inc., Nos. 98-3219, -3229 (10th Cir. Aug. 1, 2002) (10 pp.).
The Ninth Circuit upheld a district court decision holding that mussel shells and other biological materials emitted from mussels grown on harvesting rafts, and thereby entering the Puget Sound, do not constitute the discharge of pollutants from a point source without a permit in violation of the CWA. A nonprofit group sought civil penalties and an order enjoining a mussel harvesting company from discharging pollutants from its facility until it obtained an NPDES permit. The district court granted summary judgment to the company, holding that its facility did not discharge a pollutant and that the mussels and mussel rafts were not point sources. On appeal, the company argued that the court lacked jurisdiction. The group, however, satisfied the CWA's citizen suit notice requirements. The fact that the state environmental agency told the company that it does not need an NPDES permit does not divest the court of its jurisdiction. In addition, the company cannot rely on an Eleventh Circuit decision in which a citizen suit alleging unpermitted discharges was dismissed because an NPDES permit was not obtainable. In that case, compliance with the zero discharge standard was impossible. Here, the company can abate the discharge of the mussel shells and byproducts by halting its operations. Further, the state environmental agency is not a necessary party under the CWA or Rule 19(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Nevertheless, mussel shells and other byproducts released from the company's harvesting rafts do not fall under the CWA's definition of "pollutant." Although the statute is ambiguous as to the meaning of “biological materials,” Congress plainly and explicitly listed the “protection and propagation of . . . shellfish” as one of the goals of reduced pollution and cleaner water. It would be anomalous to conclude that the living shellfish sought to be protected under the CWA are, at the same time, “pollutants.” Further, the mussel shells and byproduct come from the natural growth and development of the mussels and not from a transformative human process. In addition, the company's mussel facility is not a point source. Concentrated aquatic animal production facilities (CAAPFs) are point sources subject to the NPDES program. The company's facility, however, is excluded from the CAAPF classification because the company does not add any feed to its rafts or to the surrounding water. Association to Protect Hammersley, Eld, and Totten Inlets v. Taylor Resources, Inc., No. 00-35667 (9th Cir. Aug. 6, 2002) (21 pp.).
The Second Circuit denied a petition for review seeking reversal of the EPA Administrator's decision not to object to a state agency's determination that the heightened permitting requirements of the PSD program do not apply to a proposed solid waste management facility. A company sought a CAA Title V permit to construct and operate a facility that promises to convert municipal waste and sewage sludge into fuel-grade ethanol and carbon dioxide. The state environmental agency concluded that the facility would not be subject to the PSD program because the primary purpose of the facility was municipal solid waste processing, and the emissions from the facility's gasifier and package boiler were not attributable to the chemical processing activities of the facility. EPA ultimately agreed with the state agency's position and individuals petitioned for review, arguing that the EPA Administrator abused her discretion in not objecting to the issuance of the Title V permit. The individuals also brought an Article 78 proceeding against the state agency in state court. That proceeding included a claim that the permit issued by the state agency violated the CAA because it did not apply the PSD program requirements to the facility as a “chemical process plant.” The state court rejected this claim and no appeal was taken. In light of the previous Article 78 proceeding, the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars review. The arguments advanced by the individuals in state court are the same as those they present now as reasons for finding that the Administrator abused her discretion in not objecting to the issuance of the Title V permit. That the Administrator was not a party to the proceeding is irrelevant to the question of whether the individuals were previously afforded a “full and fair opportunity” to litigate the issues presented here. Because they had their day in court on the issue of the applicability of the PSD requirements to the facility, they cannot now gain a further opportunity to litigate this same issue. Regardless of whether collateral estoppel is invoked, however, the court denied the petition for review on the merits. The court could find no reversible error in either the Administrator’s determination that the facility's primary activity is waste processing rather than chemical processing, or in its conclusion that the gasifier’s emissions should be allocated to that primary activity rather than the embedded chemical process plant. Nor did the Administrator fail to consider other factors that were important to the proper classification of the facility. LaFleur v. Whitman, No. 01-4126 (2d Cir. July 31, 2002) (33 pp.).
The Fifth Circuit dismissed a company's petition for review of a Department of Labor Administration Review Board (ARB) order remanding for further factfinding and consideration an employee's claim that the company violated the CAA's and TSCA's whistleblower provisions. An administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that the employee failed to establish that the company had retaliated against him for engaging in protected activities under the CAA and TSCA and dismissed his claim. On appeal, the ARB vacated the ALJ's decision on the merits and remanded the case. The company then appealed the remand order in federal court. The court, however, lacks jurisdiction because the ARB's remand order was not a final agency action. The action was not the consummation of the Department of Labor's decisionmaking process because the ARB has not issued a decision definitively resolving the merits of the company's case. Moreover, the ARB's remand order does not have a substantial effect on the company's rights such that they cannot be altered by subsequent action by the ARB. Nor does the court have jursidiction under the exception set forth in Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U.S. 184 (1958). The focus of the Kyne exception is whether "an agency exceeds the scope of its delegated authority or violates a clear statutory mandate." In enacting the CAA and TSCA, Congress delegated the authority to the Secretary to remand cases to the ALJ for further consideration. Here, the ARB, instead of the Secretary of Labor, issued the remand order. Thus, the agency itself has not exceeded the scope of its congressionally delegated authority or its clear statutory mandate. And even if the Kyne exception applies to internal agency delegations of authority, the company's claim lacks merit because the ARB clearly acted within the scope of its authority. Exxon Chemicals America v. Chao, No. 00-60569 (5th Cir. July 30, 2002) (6 pp.).
The Fourth Circuit held that DOE complied with NEPA in connection with its transfer of surplus plutonium from Colorado to South Carolina. DOE argued that the governor of South Carolina, who filed suit against DOE, lacked standing because he had not suffered an injury-in-fact as a result of DOE's actions. The governor's asserted proprietary interests in the land, streams, and drinking water of South Carolina, however, are sufficiently concrete to qualify as the bases for a recognized procedural right. Nevertheless, the governor's claims are without merit. DOE took the requisite hard look at the risks of long-term plutonium storage at the South Carolina site, and examined the 50-year impacts of storage in general, and storage at the site, in particular. Similarly, because it was apparent that a proposed change--from storage at the site pending disposition to storage at the site without regard to disposition--did not create a new environmental picture from that previously studied, DOE reasonably decided that no further NEPA documentation was necessary. Hodges v. Abraham, No. 02-1639 (4th Cir. Aug. 6, 2002) (33 pp.).
A district court dismissed environmental groups' claims that the Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) violated NEPA and DOT Act §4(f) in approving the construction of a new 4.6-mile section, dual-lane highway in West Virginia. Two of the groups lacked standing to pursue their claims because they failed to allege concrete and particularized harm, and the remaining groups' claims were dismissed on the merits. The FHwA's EIS for the project considered two-lane upgrade alternatives, including the improvements suggested by the groups, and determined that they would not meet the project's purposes and needs. Similarly, the FHwA adequately considered the secondary and cumulative impacts of the project as required by NEPA. Moreover, there was no new information before the agency requiring a supplemental EIS. The FHwA also complied with DOT Act §4(f). The FHwA acted within the scope of its authority and reasonably believed that there were no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of sites protected by §4(f). Further, it followed the procedural requirements of §4(f) and its ultimate decision was not arbitrary or capricious. Route 9 Opposition Legal Fund v. Mineta, No. 3:02-CV-20 (N.D. W. Va. Aug. 2, 2002) (Broadwater, J.) (11 pp.).
The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded a district court decision finding that a railroad established the requisite "public and necessary purpose" under Louisiana law to expropriate a strip of private property to build a rail spur to a chemical storage facility on the Mississippi River. The undisputed evidence shows that the spur will be open to the public and that the dozens of companies that use the facility will have access to the spur as a means of shipping their products through the region. Summary judgment was therefore proper on the issue of public purpose. The district court, however, erred in finding that the railroad established a necessary purpose for the rail spur. There are at least two components to the necessary purpose inquiry under Louisiana law. First, the private expropriator must show that there is a public necessity for the expropriation; i.e., that there is a public demand for the expropriation. Second, the expropriator must show that the expropriation is expedient; i.e., the amount of land and the nature of the acreage taken must be reasonably necessary for the purpose of the expropriation. The district court focused only on the expediency aspect of the inquiry. Because there is a genuine factual dispute over whether there is a public necessity for the proposed spur and summary judgment on the necessary purpose issue was improper, the district court's judgment was reversed and remanded. Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Mayeux, No. 01-30880 (5th Cir. Aug. 1, 2002) (20 pp.).
The Tenth Circuit held that limiting permits for eagle feathers only to members of federally recognized tribes is the least restrictive means of advancing the government's interests in preserving eagle populations and protecting Native American culture. The case arose after an individual who is a member of a non-federally recognized Native American tribe was charged for possessing eagle feathers without a permit. The charges were dropped, but the individual filed suit against the government claiming that the permit regulations governing the Bald and Golden Eagles Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act violated the RFRA. A district court found in favor of the individual, and the government appealed. The government's interests in protecting eagles, preserving Native American culture and religion, and pursuing its trust obligations to Native American tribes are compelling. This does not, however, relieve the government of its burden to prove that the statutes and regulations constitute the least restrictive means of achieving its goals. Here, the government failed to demonstrate how the current regulations serve each of its asserted interests. The record is devoid of hard evidence indicating that the current regulations are narrowly tailored to advance the government's interests, and it does not address the possibility of other, less restrictive means of achieving those interests. The district court's decision was therefore affirmed. In addition, the court remanded RFRA cases brought by two individuals who also were not members of a federally recognized tribe for a determination of whether the regulations represent the least restrictive means of advancing the government's interests. The individuals' RFRA claims were dismissed below, thus, the parties did not have an opportunity to develop a record. United States v. Hardman, Nos. 99-4210 et al. (10th Cir. Aug. 5, 2002) (21 pp.).
Copyright© 2002, Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC All rights reserved
Note: Citations below are to the Federal Register.
EPA finalized nonconformance penalties for the 2004 and later model year non-methane hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide standard for heavy-duty diesel engines and vehicles. 67 FR 51464 (8/8/02).
EPA proposed to amend its procedural regulations regarding SIPs under the CAA to clarify that such plans, when approved by EPA, are fully enforceable and binding on all entities affected by the plans, and that any interpretations of relevant law or application of law to specific facts contained in EPA's rulemaking action on such plans shall have full force and effect of law as precedent for any future EPA rulemaking action on similar plans. 67 FR 51525 (8/8/02).
EPA proposed to update the current Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program fees regulation under which fees are collected for certification and compliance activities related to light-duty vehicles and trucks, heavy-duty highway vehicles and engines, and highway motorcycles. 67 FR 51401 (8/7/02).
- EPA promulgated two minor revisions to the transportation conformity rule. 67 FR 50808 (8/6/02).
- EPA changed the boundaries of the Searles Valley, California, moderate particulate matter nonattainment area by dividing the area into three new, separate moderate nonattainment areas: Coso Junction, Indian Wells Valley, and Trona. 67 FR 50805 (8/6/02).
- EPA announced the availability for review of a SDWA variance for certain non-transient non-community water systems in Michigan. 67 FR 50880 (8/6/02).
HAZARDOUS & SOLID WASTE:
- EPA approved revisions to Rhode Island's hazardous waste program under RCRA. 67 FR 51765 (8/9/02).
- EPA approved revisions to Delaware's hazardous waste program under RCRA. 67 FR 51478 (8/8/02).
- The U.S. Forest Service determined that there is substantial overriding public interest in extending National Forest System timber sales contracts in Alaska for 3 years, subject to a maximum total contract length of 10 years. 67 FR 51165 (8/7/02).
- EPA announced the availability of the tolerance reassessment decision document for trichlorfon. 67 FR 51278 (8/7/02).
- EPA proposed to revise the criteria for the certification and recertification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's (WIPP's) compliance with disposal regulations, which are used to determine whether WIPP will comply with EPA's environmental radiation protection standards for the management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel, high-level, and transuranic radioactive wastes. 67 FR 51929 (8/9/02).
- DOT's Research and Special Programs Administration issued a final rule that defines areas of high consequence where the potential consequences of a gas pipeline accident may be significant or may do considerable harm to people and their property. 67 FR 50824 (8/6/02).
- FWS proposed to list the Gila chub as endangered under the ESA. 67 FR 51947 (8/9/02).
- FWS determined that the Carson wandering skipper is endangered under the ESA. 67 FR 51116 (8/7/02).
- The National Marine Fisheries Service announced the availability of the harbor porpoise bycatch estimates for January through December 2001. 67 FR 51234 (8/7/02).
- FWS and the U.S. Forest Service made seasonal adjustments to the Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska in order to protect sockeye salmon escapement in Afognak Lake and in the Copper River. 67 FR 50597 (8/5/02).
- FWS and the U.S. Forest Service proposed to establish regulations for hunting and trapping seasons, harvest limits, methods, and means related to the taking of wildlife for subsistence use during the 2003-2004 regulatory year. 67 FR 50619 (8/5/02).
WORKER SAFETY :
- DOJ proposed to amend its existing regulations implementing the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to reflect amendments made in the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2000. 67 FR 51440 (8/7/02).
- OSHA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on revisions to the construction noise standards to include a hearing conservation component for the construction industry that provides a similar level of protection to that afforded to workers in general industry. 67 FR 50610 (8/5/02).
DOJ NOTICES OF SETTLEMENTS:
- United States v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No. 4:02CV-146-M (W.D. Ky. July 26, 2002). Ten settling CERCLA defendants must finance and perform any remaining work for operable unit 1 at the Green River Landfill Superfund site in Maceo, Kentucky, must perform the remedial design/remedial action for operable unit 2, and must pay all future response costs; 6 settling defendants must pay monies to the settling performing parties for costs incurred and to be incurred at the site; the United States, on behalf of a settling federal agency, must pay $155,000 to the settling performing parties. 67 FR 51599 (8/8/02).
- United States v. Quaker State Corp., No. 93-0196W (N.D. Va. July 18, 2002). A settling defendant that failed to install control measures required by the CAA to prevent or reduce fugitive emissions under a consent decree for earlier RCRA claims must now implement the necessary safeguards and must pay a $23,250 penalty. 67 FR 51599 (8/8/02).
Copyright© 2002, Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC All rights reserved.
- S. 691 (land conveyance), which would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain land in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit in Nevada to the Secretary of the Interior in trust for the Washoe Indian Tribe of Nevada and California, was passed by the Senate. 148 Cong. Rec. S8013 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002).
- S. 1010 (hydroelectric power), which would extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in North Carolina, was passed by the Senate. 148 Cong. Rec. S8013 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002).
- S. 1227 (Niagara Falls National Heritage Area), which would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the suitability and feasibility of establishing the Niagara Falls National Heritage Area in New York, was passed by the Senate. 148 Cong. Rec. S8013 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002).
- S. 1240 (land exchange), which would provide for the acquisition of land and construction of an interagency administrative and visitor facility at the entrance to American Fork Canyon, Utah, was passed by the Senate. 148 Cong. Rec. S8013 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002).
- S. 1325 (land exchange), which would ratify an agreement between the Aleut Corporation and the United States to exchange land rights received under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act for certain land interests on Adak Island, was passed by the Senate. 148 Cong. Rec. S8013 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002).
- S. 1649 (Vancouver National Historic Reserve), which would amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to increase the authorization of appropriations for the Vancouver National Historic Reserve and for the preservation of Vancouver Barracks, was passed by the Senate. 148 Cong. Rec. S8013 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002).
- S. 1843 (hydroelectric power), which would extend hydroelectric licenses in Alaska, was passed by the Senate. 148 Cong. Rec. S8013 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002).
- S. 1852 (hydroelectric power), which would extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in Wyoming, was passed by the Senate. 148 Cong. Rec. S8013 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002).
- S. 1894 (Miami Circle Historic site), which would direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the national significance of the Miami Circle site in Florida as well as the suitability and feasibility of its inclusion in the National Park System as part of Biscayne National Park, was passed by the Senate. 148 Cong. Rec. S8013 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002).
- S. 1907 (land conveyance), which would direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land to the city of Haines, Oregon, was passed by the Senate. 148 Cong. Rec. S8013 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002).
- S. 1946 (national trails), which would amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Old Spanish Trail as a National Historic Trail, was passed by the Senate. 148 Cong. Rec. S8013 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002).
- H.R. 223 (land transfer), which would amend the Clear Creek County, Colorado, Public Lands Transfer Act of 1993 to provide additional time for Clear Creek County to dispose of certain lands transferred to the county under the Act, was passed by the Senate, clearing the measure for the President. 148 Cong. Rec. S8013 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002).
- H.R. 601 (Craters of the Moon National Monument), which would redesignate certain lands within the Craters of the Moon National Monument, was passed by the Senate, clearing the measure for the President. 148 Cong. Rec. S8013 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002).
- H.R. 640 (Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area), which would adjust the boundaries of Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, was passed by the Senate. 148 Cong. Rec. S8013 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002).
- H.R. 1384 (national trails), which would amend the National Trails System Act to designate the route in Arizona and New Mexico that the Navajo and Mescalero Apache Indian tribes were forced to walk in 1863 and 1864, for study for potential addition to the National Trails System, was passed by the Senate, clearing the measure for the President. 148 Cong. Rec. S8013 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002).
- H.R. 1456 (Booker T. Washington National Monument), which would expand the boundary of the Booker T. Washington National Monument, was passed by the Senate, clearing the measure for the President. 148 Cong. Rec. S8013 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002).
- H.R. 1576 (James Peak Wilderness and Protection Area), which would designate the James Peak Wilderness and Protection Area in the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests in Colorado, was passed by the Senate, clearing the measure for the President. 148 Cong. Rec. S8013 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002).
- H.R. 2234 (Tumacacori National Historical Park), which would revise the boundary of the Tumacacori National Historical Park in Arizona, was passed by the Senate, clearing the measure for the President. 148 Cong. Rec. S8013 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002).
- H.R. 2643 (land acquisition), which would authorize the acquisition of additional lands for inclusion in the Fort Clatsop National Memorial in Oregon, was passed by the Senate, clearing the measure for the President. 148 Cong. Rec. S8020 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002).
- H.R. 3343 (energy policy), which would amend title X of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, was passed by the Senate, clearing the measure for the President. 148 Cong. Rec. S8020 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002).
- H.R. 3380 (natural gas pipelines), which would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue right-of-way permits for natural gas pipelines within the boundary of Great Smoky Mountains National Park, was passed by the Senate, clearing the measure for the President. 148 Cong. Rec. S8013 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002).
- S. 1961 (water programs) was reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. S. Rep. No. 107-228, 148 Cong. Rec. S7469 (daily ed. July 29, 2002). The bill would improve the financial and environmental sustainability of the water programs of the United States.
- S. 2838 (Feinstein, D-Cal.) (land conveyance) would provide for the conveyance of Forest Service facilities and lands comprising the Five Mile Regional Learning Center in California to the Clovis Unified School District and would authorize a new special use permit regarding the continued use of unconveyed lands comprising the Center. 148 Cong. Rec. S7899 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002). The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- S. 2847 (Feingold, D-Wis.) (wildlife conservation) would assist in the conservation of cranes by supporting and providing, through projects of persons and organizations with expertise in crane conservation, financial resources for the conservation programs of countries the activities of which directly or indirectly affect cranes. 148 Cong. Rec. S7899 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002). The bill was referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- S. 2853 (Johnson, D-S.D.) (Missouri River) would direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish the Missouri River Monitoring and Research Program and would authorize the establishment of the Missouri River Basin Stakeholder Committee. 148 Cong. Rec. S7899 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002). The bill was referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- S. 2858 (Snowe, R-Me.) (navigation) would modify the project for navigation at Union River, Maine. 148 Cong. Rec. S7899 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002). The bill was referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- S. 2859 (Snowe, R-Me.) (navigation) would deauthorize the project for navigation, Northeast Harbor, Maine. 148 Cong. Rec. S7899 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002). The bill was referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- S. 2864 (Hutchinson, R-Tex.) (public lands) would modify the full payment amount available to states under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. 148 Cong. Rec. S7899 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002). The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- S. 2865 (Thurmond, R-S.C.) (Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie National Historical Park) would establish the Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie National Historical Park in South Carolina. 148 Cong. Rec. S7899 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002). The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- S. 2868 (Domenici, R-N.M.) (timber) would direct the Secretary of the Army to carry out a research and demonstration program concerning control of salt cedar and other nonnative phreatophytes. 148 Cong. Rec. S7899 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002). The bill was referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- S. 2871 (Torricelli, D-N.J.) (public lands; forestry) would amend the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 and related laws to strengthen the protection of native biodiversity and ban clearcutting on federal land, and to designate certain federal land as ancient forests, roadless areas, watershed protection areas, special areas, and federal boundary areas where logging and other intrusive activities are prohibited. 148 Cong. Rec. S7899 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002). The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- S. 2872 (Fitzgerlad, R-Ill.) (hydroelectric power) would reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in Illinois. 148 Cong. Rec. S7899 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002). The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- S. 2880 (Bingaman, D-N.M.) (Fort Bayard Historic District) would designate Fort Bayard Historic District in New Mexico as a National Historic Landmark. 148 Cong. Rec. S7899 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002). The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- S. 2888 (Boxer, D-Cal.) (land conveyance) would direct the Administrator of General Services to convey to Fresno County, California, the existing federal courthouse in that county. 148 Cong. Rec. S7899 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002). The bill was referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- S. 2893 (Domenici, R-N.M.) (Native American lands) would provide that certain BLM land shall be held in trust for the Pueblo of Santa Clara and the Pueblo of San Ildefonso in New Mexico. 148 Cong. Rec. S7899 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 2002). The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Copyright© 2002, Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC All rights reserved.
To see archived versions of State UPDATE, please go to the State UPDATE section of the UPDATE archive.
Copyright© 2002, Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC All rights reserved.
- The World Bank approved a $202 million loan to Mexico to fund sustainable development activities. And the Bank also announced that it will pay seven Russian companies a total of over $17 million as compensation for ending production of two classes of ozone-depleting chemicals.
- The International Seabed Authority met in Jamaica. See http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/sea1748.doc.htm
- U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's chief of staff, S. Iqbal Riza, was reported by Reuters to have sent out an internal memo urging that there no be conspicuous displays of consumption at the upcoming World Summit, in light of the fact that "this conference is taking place in the midst of a major food crisis in southern Africa, affecting 13 million people." See http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17169/story.htm
- India's cabinet approved ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. See http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow.asp?art_id=18292902
- Prices in the U.K. allowance market moved upward in July. See http://www.natsource.com
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change head Rajendra Pachauri said that recent flooding in Bihar, West Bengal and Assam states in India and drought in Punjab are likely due to global warming. "There are strong reasons to connect the current drought to larger climate change, since what we are witnessing is a peculiar and sudden variation in climate as predicted by experts studying global warming," said Pachauri.
Copyright© 2002, Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC All rights reserved.
Note: To order documents or request additional information, please call (800) 433-5120 or (202) 939-3844. Orders may also be sent by e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org or by fax to (202) 939-3817. Please specify the issue of UPDATE about which you are inquiring. In most instances, for the cost of copying and postage, ELR can supply copies of materials cited. Charges for ELR Subscribers are 25 cents/page, $10 minimum; all others, 50 cents/page, $20 minimum. Documents may also be available free or at a nominal charge from the applicable court or agency. Copyright© 2002, Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC All rights reserved.
J. William Futrell, Publisher
John H. Turner, Editor-in-Chief
Linda L. Johnson, Managing Editor
Rachel Jean-Baptiste, Associate Editor
Michael O'Grady, Associate Editor
Samantha Diesenhouse, Associate Editor
Carolyn Fischer, Editorial Associate
William J. Straub, Desktop Publisher
Jenny Kissinger, Customer Service
April King, Editorial Assistant