Environmental Law in a Nutshell
Author:
Farber, Daniel A.
Edition:
11th
Copyright Date:
2024
9 chapters
have results for environment
Chapter 4 Risk Management 12 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Under the statute, a pesticide may receive EPA approval only if it “will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” when used in accordance with any EPA-imposed restrictions and “with widespread and commonly recognized practice.” . “Unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” include “any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the
- The first half of this chapter (Sections A and B) examines these issues, while the second half (Sections C to E) examines regulations of the manufacture and distribution of substances that may be harmful to the environment.
- The 1976 Act as a whole must be read in light of the policy section, § 2(b). Three policies were set forth. First, data should be developed on the environmental effects of chemicals; primary responsibility for the development of the data was placed on industry. Second, the government should have adequate authority to prevent unreasonable risks of injury to health or the environment, particularly imminent hazards. Finally, this authority should be exercised so as “not to impede unduly or create unnecessary economic barriers to technological innovation while fulfilling the primary purpose of this Act to assure that . . . such chemical substances . . . do not present an unreasonable risk of injury.” (Note the similarity to FIFRA’s mandate to balance adverse effects on human health or the environment against economic and social benefits of the use of a pesticide.) Obviously, much depended on the relative weights given to these potentially conflicting goals of protecting technological...
- The aim of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was to prevent “unreasonable risks of injury to health or the environment” associated with the manufacture, processing, distribution, use, or disposal of chemical substances other than drugs and pesticides. TSCA’s emphasis is on regulating products rather than wastes. Today’s policy of pollution prevention and of avoiding environmental and health problems by front-end regulation of chemical production and use is the same policy that underlies TSCA.
- substances. Such rules must be based on a finding that insufficient data are currently available concerning the substance, and that the substance may “present an unreasonable risk,” “enter the environment in substantial quantities,” or present a likelihood of “substantial human exposure.” There were a variety of complicated procedural devices set out in exhaustive detail in the section. In addition to § 4, the statute contained several other provisions aimed at collection of information.
- Open Chapter
- Environmental problems pay no heed to these geographic lines. Frequently, an environmental problem in one state is caused at least in part by conduct in another. Hence, any one state may be effectively unable to protect its own environment. On the other hand, when a state does attempt to engage in environmental regulation, its actions may well have repercussions in other states. The regulating state may fail to take into account the costs imposed by its regulations on individuals or firms in other jurisdictions. Moreover, it is commonly believed, the ability of individual states to regulate may be frustrated by a “race to the bottom,” in which states are forced to lower their standards to retain and attract industry. Thus, problems inevitably result from the division of governmental power into units that do not correspond with equally sharp divisions in either the environment or the economy. Relegating all regulation to the federal government would avoid these problems.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 6 Preservation of Natural Areas 3 results
- We close this book with the subject of biodiversity. Protection of endangered species raises the full panoply of issues we have discussed in this book: the division of labor between courts, agencies, and legislatures; the meaning and strength of environmental values; and relationship between environment and economic factors. As we will see, it also raises questions about the rights of governmental and private property owners.
- Several statutes that we have already considered incorporate this goal. For example, § 101(b) of NEPA requires the government to “fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations,” to “assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings,” and to “preserve important . . . natural aspects of our national heritage. . . .”
- , the court gave a much more expansive reading to the public trust doctrine. The court stressed that in administering the trust, the state is not bound by traditional classifications of land uses. Instead, the state can give recognition to the need to preserve lands in their natural state, so they can serve as “ecological units for scientific study, as open space, and as environments which provide food and habitat for birds and marine life, and which favorably affect the scenery and climate of the area.” As a result, the court held that a neighboring landowner could sue to prevent tidelands from being filled and developed. Such a suit could be brought even if lands had already been reclaimed with or without prior authorization from the state, since neither reclamation nor prior authorization “
- Open Chapter
Chapter 1 Judicial Oversight of Agencies 14 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Because some of the plaintiffs were state governments, the Court suggested that their standing claim should be treated with particular generosity. Having surrendered some of their sovereign abilities to protect their environments when they entered the union—for example, the ability to negotiate for greenhouse gas reductions with foreign powers—states were now reliant on Congress to help protect their “quasi-sovereign interests.”
- inconsistent with other statutory requirements, include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the head of the lead agency on—
- the relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and
- codifies the two-track process for environmental reviews developed by courts and embedded in the CEQ regulations. If the agency determines that an action will have a “reasonably foreseeable significant effect” on the environment, it prepares an environmental impact statemen (EIS). Otherwise, it prepares an environmental assessment (EA), a more abbreviated statemen about environmental effects, along with a Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact (FONSI).
- Although the Court remains sharply divided on how to apply the standing requirements, it does seem united in its understanding of the basic test. To summarize the law of standing, the Supreme Court has required plaintiffs to prove that they have suffered an injury in fact. An environmental plaintiff must allege the existence of a chain of causation between the allegedly illegal government action and an injury to some portion of the environment used by the plaintiff. The plaintiff need not allege any health injury or any economic damage; aesthetic or
- Open Chapter
Chapter 5 Hazardous Waste 15 results (showing 5 best matches)
- RCRA is primarily a forward-looking statute. Most of its provisions were aimed at creating a regulatory program to control future waste treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) activities. However, it also authorized clean-up orders against past contributors to TSD facilities that currently present an “imminent and substantial endangerment” to health or the environment.
- Three sets of standards are required, covering generators, transporters, and disposal sites. EPA has broad authority to prescribe such standards “as may be required to protect human health and the environment.” Beginning with the start of the disposal chain, section 3002 requires standards for generators of hazardous wastes covering recordkeeping, reporting, labeling, and use of appropriate containers.
- pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed.
- hazardous waste unless EPA “determines the prohibition of one or more methods of land disposal of such waste is not required in order to protect human health and the environment for as long as the waste remains hazardous.” In making these determinations, EPA was directed to take into account the characteristics of the waste, “the long-term uncertainties associated with land disposal,” and the importance of encouraging proper management of hazardous waste initially. Sections 3004(d)(1), (e)(1), and (g)(5) limited EPA’s discretion by specifying that a method of land disposal cannot be considered protective of human health and the environment unless EPA determines “there will be
- The Act has four basic elements. First, it establishes an information gathering and analysis system to enable federal and state governments to characterize disposal sites and develop priorities for response actions. Section 102 directs the EPA Administrator to issue regulations designating as “hazardous” those substances that, when released into the environment, may present “substantial danger” to the public health or welfare or the environment. Section 101(14) also incorporates by reference any substance designated by EPA as hazardous or toxic pursuant to the Clean Water Act, RCRA, the Clean Air Act, or TSCA. Note, however,
- Open Chapter
Preface 1 result
- Chapters 3 through 5 focus on legal mechanisms for dealing with environmental threats to public health. Chapter 3 examines air and water pollution. Chapter 4 introduces the reader to risk management and the problem of scientific uncertainty. Chapter 5 examines the complex legal regimes for keeping hazardous substances out of the environment and cleaning them up if necessary. Fortunately, the statutory regime has been fairly stable in these areas, but regulations have whipsawed under recent Presidents.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 3 Pollution Control 2 results
- One would not say that it is even rational, never mind “appropriate,” to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits. In addition, “cost” includes more than the expense of complying with regulations; any disadvantage could be termed a cost. EPA’s interpretation precludes the Agency from considering any type of cost—including, for instance, harms that regulation might do to human health or the environment.
- emissions, there nevertheless would be a fixed limit on total permissible discharges. (This is the “cap” in a cap-and-trade system.) Excessive discharges and damage to the environment would not be legal, as they would be under an effluent charge system (assuming willingness to pay the effluent charges), but could occur only through outright violation of the permit.
- Open Chapter
- Publication Date: October 2nd, 2024
- ISBN: 9798887863849
- Subject: Environmental Law
- Series: Nutshells
- Type: Overviews
- Description: Farber’s Environmental Law in a Nutshell provides an up-to-date foundation for understanding environmental law. Expert text includes coverage of the full range of environmental issues, from climate change and air pollution, to waste disposal and wetlands. Surveys the many statutory and common-law regulations shaping the world in which we live.
