Coeur Alaska v. Southeast Alaska Conservation — SCT Argument Today

Here is a brief summary on this Clean Water Act case from SCOTUSblog:

Following the release of orders, the Court will hear argument in Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, et al. and Alaska v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, et al. (07-984) (07-990), involving the permit process for discharging mining pollutants under the Clean Water Act. Ted Olson of Washington, D.C., will argue for the petitioners, Thomas Waldo of Juneau, Alaska, will argue for the respondents, and Solicitor General Greg Garre will argue for the federal respondents in support of the petitioner.

Alaskan Natives are participating in this case as amici — and their brief is here.

Swinomish Wins Salmon Protection Case

The district court held that the Skagit County Dike District No. 22 violated the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act in the construction of tide gates in the Skagit River delta that injured salmon habitat. The case is Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Skagit County Dike Dist. No. 22 (opinion here).

Miccosukee Everglades Challenged Dismissed on Standing Grounds

Here is the opinion, and a link to our previous post with some background information on the case.

Miccosukee Everglades Challenge to EPA and Florida

This case, a continuation of the challenge first brought in 1988, and which once reached the Supreme Court, involves the Miccosukee Tribe’s attempts to protect the Everglades. This case involves an attempt by the State of Florida to alter the state’s water quality standards and avoid federal review, and EPA compliance with that alteration. Here is the opinion: miccosukee-v-us-dct-opinion

An excerpt:

Notwithstanding its complexity, the matters at issue may be reduced to two essential questions. The first question is whether the Environmental Protection Agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously under the Federal Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et. seq. (“CWA”), and the Federal Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701, et. seq. (“APA”), by concluding that the 2003 amendments to the Florida’s Everglades Forever Act did not change water quality standards. The second question is whether the Environmental Protection Agency further erred in its subsequent review of the State of Florida’s Phosphorus Rule by finding compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act.
I conclude against the Environmental Protection Agency on both questions (with some limited exceptions pertinent to the Phosphorus Rule). Contrary to the Environmental Protection Agency’s written Determinations, it is my view that the Florida Legislature, in 2003, by adopting the State’s draft Long-Term Plan, as proposed by the South Florida Water Management District’s Governing Board, changed water quality standards under the Federal Clean Water Act, and violated its fundamental commitment and promise to protect the Everglades, by extending the December 31, 2006 compliance deadline for meeting the phosphorus criterion for at least ten more years. Turning a “blind eye,” the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) concluded that there was no change in water quality standards. The EPA is patently wrong and acted arbitrarily and capriciously in reaching its conclusion. It did so by simply reading the words of specific sections of the Amended Everglades Forever Act (“Amended EFA”), rather than by connecting the dots to analyze its true effect. Its review is nothing more than a repeated imprimatur, i.e., acceptance without independent analysis, based on the State of Florida’s representation that the EFA Amendments did not change water quality standards.

Miccosukee Complaint re: EPA’s Water Transfer Exemption Rule

Here is the new complaint in Miccosukee Tribe v. EPA.

miccosukee-complaint

DC Circuit Vacates EPA Mercury Emissions — New Jersey v. EPA

Here is the opinion.

Here is a link to our previous post that included several briefs, including the tribal brief.

Congrats to the petitioners!

Challenge to EPA’s Mercury Rule — New Jersey v. EPA (CADC)

The D.C. Circuit will hear oral argument in the challenge to EPA’s regulations applying to coal-fired plants, New Jersey v. EPA, on December 6, 2007. The panel includes Judges Rogers, Tatel, and Brown. The order on oral argument is here: D.C Circuit Order

Selected briefs are included below:

State Governments Opening Brief

Environmental Groups Opening Brief

Treaty Tribes Opening Brief

EPA Brief

Brief of States Supporting EPA

State Government Reply Brief

Environmental Groups Reply Brief

Treaty Tribes Reply Brief