Search for: "National Wildlife Federation v. United States Army Corps of Engineers" Results 21 - 40 of 58
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Oct 2018, 8:49 am by Sandi Zellmer
It is well settled that the Army Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard, and even the U.S. [read post]
18 May 2015, 8:57 am by WIMS
 "waters of the United States. [read post]
31 Aug 2010, 5:01 pm by Keith Rizzardi
River Watch argues that the term encompasses privately-owned wetlands adjacent to navigable waters that have been designated as “waters of the United States” by the Army Corps of Engineers. [read post]
28 Jul 2015, 1:34 pm by Anthony B. Cavender
The United States Department of Agriculture’s California Raisin Marketing Order for raisins requires raisin growers in certain years to give percentage of their crop to the government, free of charge. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 11:08 am by Miriam Seifter
On the other side, defending the propriety of the appellate forum, are the federal government and several more environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council and the National Wildlife Federation. [read post]
14 Feb 2016, 3:35 pm by Ben Rubin
And, In re: EPA and Dep’t of Defense Final Rule, which challenges the legitimacy of the waters of the United States rule promulgated by the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers under the auspices of the Clean Water Act. [read post]
1 Oct 2014, 1:01 pm by Taryn Rucinski
Army Corps of Engineers: The Corps Needs to Take Steps to Identify All Projects and Studies Eligible for Deauthorization GAO-14-699: Published: Aug 21, 2014. [read post]
22 Feb 2023, 3:23 pm by Maggie Pahl
Army Corps of Engineers the power to regulate the “discharge of dredged and fill material to the waters of the United States. [read post]
26 May 2015, 8:57 am by WIMS
United States Fish & Wildlife – 5/26/15. [read post]
25 Feb 2010, 10:57 am by admin
A federal inspection of the company’s Jesse Hunton Viola Unit, an oil field production facility in Pontotoc County, Oklahoma, on November 9, 2009, found the facility’s SPCC plan did not meet federal requirements, was not certified by a professional engineer, was not approved by the company’s management and did not designate the person accountable for spill prevention. [read post]
26 Jul 2010, 9:08 am by Steven M. Taber
– Trading Markets.com, July 21, 2010 Consistent with Section 122 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(d), and 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on July 16, 2010, the United States lodged a Consent Decree with 163 defendants (each of which is identified in the proposed Decree) in United States of America v. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 3:17 pm by admin
This Settlement Agreement proposes to compromise a claim the United States has at this Site for Past Response Costs, as those terms are defined in the Settlement Agreement. [read post]
7 Apr 2010, 3:44 pm by admin
The two companies will also pay a combined $3.3 million civil penalty to the United States as well as to Alabama and Louisiana, and $200,000 to Louisiana organ [read post]
3 May 2010, 9:30 pm by admin
– Michael Aubele, Valley News Dispatch, April 27, 2010 The federal Environmental Protection Agency and Allegheny County Health Department want a federal judge to sign off on an agreement with Allegheny Ludlum Corp. and Harsco Corp. intended to control slag dust at the Ludlum steel mill in Natrona. [read post]