Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Fourth Circuit Clarifies Irreparable Harm Showing Required to Obtain Preliminary Injunction to Prevent PFAS Discharges in Excess of Permit Limits
- Fourth Circuit “Decline[s] to Hit Pause” on Pipeline Project Involving Trenching Through Streams and Wetlands
- When Does NEPA Apply? The Eleventh Circuit Draws a Hard Line in Friends of the Everglades v. DHS
- Supreme Court Broadly Interprets “relating to” in Federal Officer Removal Statute
- Pennsylvania Federal Court Clarifies HSCA Statute of Limitations and “Response Costs” Under HSCA and CERCLA
Topics
- Venue
- State Implementation Plans
- NJDEP
- Pollutants
- Connecticut
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Agency Action
- Loper Bright
- Public Trust Doctrine
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Environmental Justice
- Disparate Impact
- Title VI
- Massachusetts
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- Georgia
- FIFRA
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- Major Questions Doctrine
- Lead Paint
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- Solvents
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Successor Liability
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Operator Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- National Contingency Plan
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- Strict Liability
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Public Utilities Commission
- Utilities
- Historic Resources
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- PFAS
- Ohio
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Gold King Mine
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- Delaware
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- Endangered Species Act
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- Property Damage
- First Circuit
- PCBs
- Building Materials
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfields
- Innocent Party
- Brownfield
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- Effluents
- FOIA
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- TMDL
- Stormwater
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Penalties
- Hearing Board
- Clean Streams Law
- Arranger Liability
- Retroactive
- Sovereign Immunity
- Stigma
- Damages
- Fair Market Value
- Tax assessment
- Property Value
- Storage Tank
- Indemnification
- Electric
- Energy
- Fifth Circuit
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Discovery Rule
- Fourth Circuit
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Procedure
- Contamination
- Natural Gas
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Residential
- Inspection
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Natural Gas Act
- HAPs
- D.C. Circuit
- Mercury
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Storage
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Fifth Amendment
- Causation
- Spill Act
- NEPA
- Interior
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- California
- Zoning
- Act 13
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Landfill
- Eminent Domain
- Sixth Circuit
- Private Right of Action
- Illinois
- Water
- Citizen Suit
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Diligent Prosecution
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Riverbed
- Navigability
- Montana
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Seventh Circuit
- Indiana
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Green House Counsel
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Boiler MACT
- EPA
- Enforcement
- Delay Notice
- Equity
- Laches
- CISWI
- Rulemaking
- Consent Decree
- Second Circuit
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- NPDES
- Standing
- Medical Monitoring
- Dimock
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- Certification
- CLE
- Decisions of Note
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Cases to Watch
- Discovery
- Insurance
- Defense Costs
- Consultant Liability
- Response Action Contractors
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Rapanos
- Donovan
- Army Corps
- Kentucky
- Farming
- Nuisance
- Hog Barn
- Class Actions
- Trespass
- Odors
- ISRA
- Informal Agency Action
- New Jersey
- Administrative Hearing
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Waste
- RCRA
- Railroad
- Cancer
- Air
- Speaking Engagements
- CERCLA
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Removal
- Federal Procedure
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Permits
- Clean Air Act
- Cost Recovery
- Supreme Court
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Statute of Repose
- Multi-District Litigation
- Camp Lejeune
- Tolling
- Deeds
- Wetlands
- Enforcement Action
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Mineral Rights
- Clean Water Act
- Due Process
- Marcellus Shale
- Exploration
- Drilling
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Real Estate
- Royalties
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Showing 1 post in Donovan.
Since the Supreme Court issued its splintered 4-1-4 decision in Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), district and circuit courts have grappled with how to define “wetlands” for purposes of application of the Clean Water Act. Whether adding to the confusion or bringing clarity to the subject, the Third Circuit for the first time has weighed in on the issue in United States v. Donovan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, No. 10-4295 (3rd Cir., October 31, 2011) (J. Rendell). Donovan a land owner, defended an enforcement action on the basis that the Clean Water Act did not apply to his actions in filling part of his property and that the Army Corps lacked jurisdiction because the wetlands at issue were not adjacent to navigable-in-fact waters. The Third Circuit disagreed. While Donovan may be disappointed by this decision (after litigating the issues for 15 years), the case has much more far-reaching ramifications. Read More »
