Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In addition, the case held that a civil penalty could be enforced against an entity even though the interests protected were private. The court agreed with Congress in holding that civil penalties in the Clean Water Act cases "do more than promote immediate compliance by limiting the defendant's economic incentive to delay its attainment of ...
The first FWPCA was enacted in 1948, but took on its modern form when completely rewritten in 1972 in an act entitled the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. [ 4 ] [ 1 ] Major changes have subsequently been introduced via amendatory legislation including the Clean Water Act of 1977 [ 5 ] and the Water Quality Act (WQA) of 1987.
interpreting scope of activities covered by the Clean Water Act: Brigham City v. Stuart: 547 U.S. 398 (2006) reasonableness of officers' warrantless entry into a home to stop a fight under the "emergency aid exception" Garcetti v. Ceballos: 547 U.S. 410 (2006) extent of public employees' First Amendment right to free speech in the workplace Anza v.
Title 40 is a part of the United States Code of Federal Regulations.Title 40 arranges mainly environmental regulations that were promulgated by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), based on the provisions of United States laws (statutes of the U.S. Federal Code).
Therefore, a single family residence would pay much smaller fees and charges than a food processing plant. Some POTWs are eligible for low-interest loans to finance system improvements, from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. This program is administered by EPA and state agencies, using a combination of federal and state funds. [8]
The 1966 Clean Water Restoration Act authorized a study to determine the effects of pollution on wildlife, recreation, and water supplies. The Act also set forth guidelines for abatement of water that may flow into international territory and prohibited the dumping of oil into navigable waters of the United States. [16] The Water Quality ...
Civil penalties occupy a strange place in some legal systems - because they are not criminal penalties, the state need not meet a burden of proof that is "beyond a reasonable doubt"; but because the action is brought by the government, and some civil penalties can run into the millions of dollars, it would be uncomfortable to subject citizens ...
The Supreme Court held that Congress did not waive the federal government's sovereign immunity from liability for civil fines imposed by a state for past violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA) or RCRA. [35] Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc., 516 U.S. 479 (1996). The Supreme Court held that the RCRA does not authorize a citizen suit to recover past ...