My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP01468
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
WSP01468
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:31:08 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:27:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8240.300.31.A
Description
San Juan River - Project Description
Basin
San Juan/Dolores
Water Division
7
Date
10/19/1998
Title
New Articles - December 7 1998 - October 7 1999
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
News Article/Press Release
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />_~OEC-07-98 08,57 FROH,H.8.S.S. <br /> <br />ia <br />Ie) <br />il-~ <br />,fi.p <br />;~ <br />:.,.... <br />, <br /> <br />published by CEQ, which Ms. McGinty rd'uscd in a l~. <br />ta- to the Senate. Further opposilion took the fonn oC a <br />provision in the 1998 Budget Act prohibiting the use of <br />funds for AHRt, and later, a bill to prevent the iJUple- <br />mcncallon of AHRI. Flnally ill December 1997, four <br />members of COfIgfCSS filed a lawsuit In the: U.S. District <br />Court for the District oC Columbia. <br />Whatever the merits of AHRI, its method of ac- <br />ation and Implementation has crated fe:a: and strident <br />opposition in the legislative branch and In the COtlltIlU- <br />nities the aclrn1nlsl:ration says It IS Intended to help. <br />Presidenti21 initi2tIves can become reality ...ithout this <br />type of COlllIOVCrsy. The blllion-<lollar U.S. Global <br />Clinute OIangc Research Ptogr2m, for =ple. was <br />the l'CSlIlt of cattful groUlldworlc with each federal <br />agency Involved and with Co~ to ensure that all <br />activities and CJqXndlIlltCS were UIlderstood and <br />approved. by all componClltS of the government. The <br />ultimate outcome of AHRI may t3ke a while to be <br />!'C"calecl. but its a safe bet that a lot of Iawy<:r time will <br />be a huge component of its net dfecr on the public. <br /> <br />"- . <br />~;~J . <br />,. ',~ <br /> <br />Injunctive Relief in <br />Environmental Cases <br /> <br />E. Blaine Rawson <br /> <br />InjWlcUve relief in environmental tion can be <br />extremely complex and c:xpcnsivc. tills often <br />attempt to requln: defendants ugh preliminary <br />injunctions to c-'2luate, mo . or, and remediate COIlt:l.- <br />mlnation Ions before a On the merits of the: c.asc: is <br />scheduled. These at pts often lead to arguments that <br />ttial courtS sho apply different, more lenient stan- <br />dards for g injunctive relief in environmental <br />ClSCS. of the comple: allocation oC liability <br />issues en associated with cnvirotllllenwli' tlon <br />an e COSlS and burdens of addressing ution prob- <br />lems, courtS should not alter or m - e rr.zditional <br />injunctive relief stanc!:l~ in enviro enwlitlgation. <br />GenealIy, before a court ..' - an injunction. the <br />moving patty mUSt prove: (I) lW Iikelihoocllhat <br />it will evemually prevail on metjl:S; (2) it will suWer <br />irrepa.cIbIe injury wilho tlu:: injunction; (3) the tlueat. <br />cned inlllI1'- to the m ""'t outWeighs wh2rever d:unage <br />the injunction ma ClU$C the opposing party; and (4) the <br />injunction. if islsli'cd, would not be adverse to the public <br />interest. .Alm~ all courts agree that ttllditional equitable <br />principL::s mbst be cOnsidered in obl:lining an Injunction <br />in cnviromDentallitigation. Some environmental plalntlffi;, <br />howeverJugue that COurts sh0uJ4 modify these tradition- <br />al equitable prindpL::s for their type of Ct!<:. For example, <br />the plalntilfs in wason v. Amoco Oil Co. 1998 U.s. Dist. <br /> <br />Mr. Rowson Is Q 14wyw in r:be StIlt u.1o, Cil)' offiQl oJ <br />/fol_ Rob<rrt$.s- Ow"". UP. <br /> <br />Na&ii Su",",'" 1998 <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />10,870 247 8827 <br /> <br />PAGE <br /> <br />4/4 <br /> <br />~ <br />ed that the component of <br />the aadilion2l injUll~ d SI2lIdatd ~ a show. <br />ing of ineparabk: did not apply in silU2t:ions involv- <br />ing lile cnviro or public health. The Wilson dden- <br />danu count that the cowt should not dep2tt from the: <br />traditional Is maely beause the cas< presented <br />uniqur: or pressing mmtts of pub\ic cOuo..~... The <br />both the plainti1rs' and defendants' :ugu. <br />m t5 and complQtlUsed by appty;ng lile U2dition:tl equi- <br />Ie eu:rors for iDjunctivc reUd. but me weight <br />gi.-= to tilt: "im:pa:abk: harm" eIonent.. <br />The wasem pl2inliffs' d2im that should modi- <br />fy the ttllditiOnal injunaive relief in ranironmen- <br />tal litigation has some suppon. e cOWts ha--.: bsh. <br />ioned ccccplloD:l or modifi '005 to the U2ditional <br />IIljWlctivc relief SI2lId>tQ. cert:lln circumsrances. For <br />CX3mple, the U~ 5 gooemment convinced a fed. <br />eral drcult court of in Untl2d Slal8S v. <br />Betbkbem. Steel . 38 F.3d 862 (7th Or. 1994), that <br />there was IlO to ~ the equities or make a find- <br />ing of . e h:um in the RCRA case beClUSC the <br />d~dan' conduct was "willful' Anotlter !edcr::Il court <br />of ~ has SCItCd that a "coun may rest an injunction <br />en!jrdy upon a clf'U'T"min.rion that the 2Ctivit)' at issue <br />constiJ:utes a risk of danger to the public' plain. <br />riff is the United. St:au:s or a sovereign state ntted Szm-es <br />v_ MQrl:ne ~ Processo,s, 81 F.3d 13 (5th Cir. 1996)_ <br />A federal cIistrIa coun in Ohio held RCRA and tlte <br />aCUI Water Act both 5ugg= Cli/ferent ~ts <br />should be given to thc traditio t.lcrors ancl that tlte <br />"in"ep:u2bJe harm' I'>aor s be ICS5Cned in ClSCS <br />brought uncia these sta _ BudJJ:?olz v. Dayton <br />Intern4litmalAirport, 995 WI. 811897 (S.D. Ohio <br />1995). 'These ases, owC\'er, rq>.CllCClt unique circum- <br />Stoallces and do n reflect the guidance p",'ic1ed in <br />Supreme Co~. cedent. <br />The United S12tCS Supreme Court established in <br />Weinber? v. Ro~Barcelo, 456 U_S. 305 (1982), <br />that coons should apply the traditional injunctive relief <br />standards in envtronmcntallitigation. In Romer<>- <br />Barceli>, dtizens sought an injunction to p. . it the <br />Navy from c1isdI2tgiug munitions into Atlmtic <br />Ocean without first complying wi e Oean Water <br />Act. The Supreme Court hdd th although the Navy <br />had viol2ted tlte Ccan Water Ct. injunctive reIId was <br />not warranted. The Court explained where plaintiff and <br />defendant present competing daims of injury, .the <br />court balmces the com-eniences of the panics and p0s- <br />sible injurieS to ~a; according as they may be affected <br />by the granling.or withholding of tlte injunction_' <br />The Supreme Court reaffirmed its position that tra- <br />ditional eq6!table principles should be applied to <br />/ <br />injunctions in envirollment21 litigation in Amoco <br />Production Co. v_ Gam.beJl, 480 U.S. 531 (1987). In <br />Amoco. the Court bal2nced the possible injury to the <br />environment ogainst .the bet that the Oil company <br />(Continued on page 375) <br /> <br /> <br />36~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.