Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Pennsylvania Federal Court Clarifies HSCA Statute of Limitations and “Response Costs” Under HSCA and CERCLA
- New Jersey Federal Court Dismisses PFAS Consumer Suit Against Band-Aid on Standing Grounds
- Massachusetts Federal Court Concludes that Biopellets Containing PFAS are “Useful Products,” Providing Defense to Superfund Liability
- District Court Certifies 23(b)(3) Class Action Alleging Injury from Misrepresentations That Pet Food Was “Healthy” Despite Presence of PFAS
- Fifth Circuit Upholds TCEQ’s Third Construction Extension for Texas LNG Project
Topics
- Venue
- State Implementation Plans
- NJDEP
- Pollutants
- Connecticut
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Agency Action
- Loper Bright
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Public Trust Doctrine
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Environmental Justice
- Disparate Impact
- Title VI
- Massachusetts
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- FIFRA
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- Georgia
- 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
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Successor Liability
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- Apportionment
- National Contingency Plan
- Divisibility
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- 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
- Martime
- Asbestos
- Gold King Mine
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- Delaware
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Corporate Veil
- Alter Ego
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- Property Damage
- PCBs
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Innocent Party
- Brownfield
- Brownfields
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- PHMSA
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- TMDL
- Stormwater
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Hearing Board
- Civil Penalties
- Clean Streams Law
- Arranger Liability
- Retroactive
- Sovereign Immunity
- Stigma
- Fair Market Value
- Damages
- Tax assessment
- Property Value
- Storage Tank
- Energy
- Fifth Circuit
- Electric
- Indemnification
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Discovery Rule
- Fourth Circuit
- Eighth Circuit
- Taxes
- Administrative Appeals
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Natural Gas
- Contamination
- Procedure
- Residential
- Inspection
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- New York
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- HAPs
- Mercury
- D.C. Circuit
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Storage
- Fifth Amendment
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Interior
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Landfill
- Eminent Domain
- Sixth Circuit
- Private Right of Action
- Illinois
- Water
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Montana
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Riverbed
- Navigability
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- Delay Notice
- Equity
- Laches
- CISWI
- Rulemaking
- Consent Decree
- Boiler MACT
- EPA
- Enforcement
- Second Circuit
- Declaratory Relief
- Contribution
- NPDES
- Standing
- Medical Monitoring
- Dimock
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Dukes
- Certification
- Louisiana
- CLE
- Cases to Watch
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Expert Witness
- Decisions of Note
- Discovery
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Farming
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Hog Barn
- Trespass
- Odors
- Class Actions
- New Jersey
- Informal Agency Action
- ISRA
- Administrative Hearing
- RCRA
- Railroad
- Cancer
- Air
- Combustion
- Waste
- Emissions
- CERCLA
- Speaking Engagements
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Third Circuit
- Removal
- Permits
- Clean Air Act
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Supreme Court
- Cleanup
- Cost Recovery
- Superfund
- Tolling
- Statute of Repose
- Multi-District Litigation
- Camp Lejeune
- Clean Water Act
- Wetlands
- Enforcement Action
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Deeds
- Due Process
- Mineral Rights
- Exploration
- Drilling
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
- Real Estate
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 »
