Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The final amount covered Clean Water Act penalties and environmental damages from the initial explosion, which killed 11 workers and spilled 134 million gallons of oil that spread across 43,000 miles.
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 ...
Summary of the Clean Water Act from the EPA "Clean Water Act Jurisdictional Handbook." Environmental Law Institute (2nd ed., 2012) NYT Investigation: Corporations Violated Clean Water Act Over 500,000 Times in Last Five Years (2009-09-14) - video report by Democracy Now! Works related to Clean Water Act at Wikisource; EPA programs
A federal judge, ruling on the Clean Water Act suit in September 2014, found that BP was primarily responsible for the oil spill as a result of its deliberate misconduct and gross negligence. The finding means that the company may be subject to $18 billion in penalties in addition to the $28 billion already paid out in claims and cleanup costs.
V, Clean Water Act, Administrative Procedure Act Environmental Protection Agency , 566 U.S. 120 (2012), also known as Sackett I (to distinguish it from the 2023 case ), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that orders issued by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act are subject to the ...
City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency is a pending United States Supreme Court case about whether the Clean Water Act allows the Environmental Protection Agency (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards without ...
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 law represents the state's enforcement of the federal Clean Water Act. In principle, the purpose of the federal Clean Water Act is to completely eliminate water pollution. 33 U.S.C. §1251 states that "it is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985."