BOARD00146 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

designated pollutants, precludes Environmentll Protection Agency (EP A) approval of "seasonal" or . '.annual" limits on effluent discharges as arbitra~, capricious and unreasonable. ! 06-716. Korsinsky v. Environmental protectiJ Agency. 75 V.S.L.W. 3382. I First ruling below (2d Cir., August 4, 2006, unpublished): A district court ruling that a New York resident lacked standing to bring an action agaibst federal, state and city agencies to compel ~hem to take steps to ensure a "safe, reliable, sufficient water supply" and to protect the "health and w~ll-being [of] natural resources" of New York is affirmed for Ithe reasons given by the district court, which held that the plaintiff failed to allege any concrete or particularized injury caused by the defendants, any causal connection between his alleged injuries and the alleged wrongful conduct by defendants, or that his purported injuries are likely to be redressed by ~ny relief that the court could order. I Second ruling below (2d Cir, August 10; 2006, unpublished): A New York resident's claim that global warming and carbon dioxide emissions ~ay cause him future injury is too speculative to establish standing and, in addition, he failed to sufficieqtly allege that his injury is likely to be redressed by any relief the district court could grant, and thus the! district court's dismissal for lack of standing 'of plaintiff's complaint, which seeks, inter alia, to hold varIous government agencies jointly and severa~ly liable for their contributions to global warming, is affirmJd. : I , Review Granted No. 06-340. National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife. 75 V.S.L.W. 3339. Ruling below (Defenders of Wildlife ~. EPA, 9th Cir., 420 F.3d 946, 60 ERC 2025) The I Environmental Protection Agency's decision to transfer CW A permit authority to Arizona is invalid because of the agency's erroneous conclusion that it lacks the authority to consider the effects of the transfer on species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), inconsistent agency posi~ons on that issue, and the agency's failure to fulfill the d*ty under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA to "in~ure" that its actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or their habitat. : Questions presented: (1) Can the court append additional criteria to Section 402(b) of the CW A that require state National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) programs to include protections for endangered species? (2) Does Section 7(~)(2) of the ESA, 16 V.S.C. ~ l536(a)(2), constitute an independent source of authority, requiring Federal agencies to take affirmative action to benefit endangered species even when the agency's e~abling statutes preclude such action? (3) Did the Ninth Circuit incorrectly apply the holding of Depart'r'ent of Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541V.S. 752, in concluding that EPA's approval of Arizona's NPDES permitting program was a legally relevant cause of the impacts to endangered species resulting frdm future private land use activities? (4) Did'the court of appeals correctly hold that EPA's decision to ~ansfer pollution permitting authority to Arizona under the CW A, 33 V.S.C. ~ 1342(b), was arbitrary i and capricious because it was based on :inconsistent I interpretations of Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA and, ifso, should the court of appeals have remanded to EPA for further proceedings without ruling on the in~erpretation of Section 7(a)(2)? . WN 2007-2 I No. 06-549. Environmental Protection Agency v. Defenders of Wildlife. 75 U.S.L.W. 3339. I Ruling below (9th Cir., 420 F.3d 946, 6? ERC 2025): The Environmental Protectiqn Agency's decision to transfer CW A permit authority t~ Arizona is invalid because of the agency;s erroneous conclusion that it lacks the authority to consider the effects of the transfer on species listc::d under the ESA, inconsistent agency positions on that issu~, and the agency's failure to fulfill its duty u~der Section 7(a)(2) ofthe ESA to '.insure" that its actions a~e not likely to jeopardize the continued existepce oflisted species or their habitats. : 8 . .