Category:

environmental regulation

Court’s Denial of Motion to Dismiss Advances Blocks of Offshore Drilling

Congress has granted the President the authority to withdraw the Secretary of the Interior’s grants of mineral rights on public lands. However, President Trump has used that same grant of power to remove withdraws of some of the protections President Obama placed. On May 3, 2017, a group of environmental non-profits filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration in the Federal District Court of Alaska, alleging that his actions were an unauthorized use his Presidential power. On March 20, 2018, the Court denied the Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Coal Ash Regulation: Revisited

Power plants generate a residue after burning coal called coal ash. In October 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established standards to address the environmental dangers and health risks of coal ash. In May 2017, industry officials petitioned the EPA to reconsider the rule, claiming adverse effects due to high compliance costs. The EPA agreed to review the coal ash regulations and announced one of two proposals to amend regulations in March 2018. The new proposal provides facilities more flexibility in coal ash disposal based on their needs.

Deregulation of Uranium Mining or: How I Learned to Stop Regulating and Love the Bomb

Compliance professionals all over the country are paying close attention to the Trump administration’s deregulatory campaign. While deregulation in finance has received the most media attention, the uranium mining industry has been a quiet beneficiary of the President’s new regulatory scheme.

Waters of the United States

The Obama administration’s “Clean Water Rule” was designed to control pollution in approximately 60% of the country’s bodies of water. The Rule primarily extended current federal regulations to smaller bodies of water, requiring that pollution of rivers and wetlands be held to the same environmental penalties as larger bodies of water. However, the Trump administration has suspended enforcement of the regulation for two years. During that time, they will re-consider the definition of “waters of the United States.” The Trump administration intends to release a new version this year.

Threat of the Border Wall: Impact on the Enforcement of Environmental Regulation

In early January of this year, the House Committee on Armed Services granted an extension to a bill that would increase border security. An unlikely opponent of this bill is the environmental lobby, since the bill would allow the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to waive the requirements of some of the most important environmental protection statutes. These statutes have been the basis for almost all the citizen enforcement in the environmental arena; they work to maintain protections for 73 different areas along the border, along with numerous endangered species.

Required Regulation? Challenge to BLM repeal of New Fracking Standards

Environmental and tribal groups have historically taken important roles in implementing and enforcing regulations to protect the environment. In a recent action, environmental and tribal groups took on the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in an attempt to quash BLM’s elimination of a rule regulating the chemicals used in fracking. Although the final rule was originally officially published and implemented in 2015,  it never went into full effect due to major challenges brought by the oil and gas industry. However, the Trump administration recently repealed the rule in its entirety, prompting a lawsuit arguing that the BLM is required to promulgate regulations as part of its mission.

Once In, Always In

The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) recently issued a guidance memorandum withdrawing the decades-old “once in, always in” policy. The policy prohibited facilities once considered to be major sources of emissions of hazardous air pollutants to be later reclassified. These facilities are always subject to the class Maximum Achievable Control Technology (“MACT”) standards, regardless of any newly implemented processes or controls that reduce emissions.

However, the EPA found that the policy was established upon an incorrect interpretation of the Clean Air Act. Facilities may now be reclassified as “area sources” if their emissions fall below the threshold and will be subject to less strict standards.

Trump Administration and BSEE Plan to Reopen Federal Waters to Offshore Drilling

A government agency created in response to the 2011 BP oil spill is proposing changes to its rules surrounding offshore drilling. The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) was established to replace the former Minerals Management Service (MMS) agency in response to its perceived conflict of interest and poor regulatory oversight. Since 2011, the BSEE focused exclusively on safety. Now it seems its changing its tune to promote more offshore oil and gas drilling.

Unlikely Trophies: Big Game Hunting and Conservation Regulation

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”), a federal agency, has recently moved to issue permits allowing hunters to bring back their trophies from Zambia and Zimbabwe into the United States. Trophy hunting is the classified as legal shooting of animals under official government license for sport or enjoyment. Typically, as a reward and/or prize, the hunter gets to take home the “trophy”—the animal carcass or its remains. However, not all species can be hunted and there are restrictions on where and when the hunting can happen, in addition to limitations on the weapons that can be used for the kill.

Battle of Bears Ears: Challenging Presidential Authority Under the Antiquities Act

After an executive order for review of designations under the Antiquities Act, the Department of Interior to review 27 different national monuments, a leaked internal memo revealed a plan to reduce the size of four national monuments. One of the reductions, recommended by Secretary Zinke, was the shrinking of Bears Ears National Monument. Senator Hatch of Utah since confirmed the whispers; in a conversation with Senator Hatch, President Trump revealed his plans to downsize multiple monuments in Utah, including Bears Ears. This action has raised questions about whether a president, under the Antiquities Act of 1906, is allowed to shrink national monuments.