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 ...
Sackett v. 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 Administrative Procedure Act. [1]
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. [6]
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. 651 (2023), also known as Sackett II (to distinguish it from the 2012 case), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that only wetlands and permanent bodies of water with a "continuous surface connection" to "traditional interstate navigable waters" are covered by the Clean Water Act.
Case history; Prior: 729 F.2d 391 (6th Cir. 1984); cert. granted, 469 U.S. 1206 (1985).: Holding; The District Court's findings are not clearly erroneous, and plainly bring respondent's property within the category of wetlands, as the language, policies, and history of the Clean Water Act compel a finding that the Corps has acted reasonably in interpreting the Act to require permits for the ...
Hawaii Wildlife Fund, No. 18-260, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving pollution discharges under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The case asked whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit when pollutants that originate from a non-point source can be traced to reach navigable waters through mechanisms such as ...
Water designated for human consumption as drinking water may be subject to specific drinking water quality standards. In the United States, for example, such standards have been developed by EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act, [14] are mandatory for public water systems, [15] and are enforced via a comprehensive monitoring and correction ...
The potential fine for the spill under the act is $1,100 to $4,300 a barrel spilled, meaning the fine could be as much as $21 billion. [59] On January 3, 2013, the US Justice Department announced "Transocean Deepwater Inc. has agreed to plead guilty to violating the Clean Water Act and to pay a total of $1.4 billion in civil and criminal fines ...