Search for: "United States v. Rivers" Results 981 - 1000 of 1,803
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
  Under the Clean Water Act, these agencies have dual regulatory authority to protect “waters of the United States” and “adjacent wetlands. [read post]
11 May 2015, 8:59 am by WIMS
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act is proof that compromise is still possible in the halls of the United States Congress and that Washington can still work for manufacturers and citizens across the country. [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 9:47 am by Kali Borkoski
Natural Resources Defense Council (Granted )Docket: 11-460Issue(s): When water flows from one portion of a river that is navigable water of the United States, through a concrete channel or other engineered improvement in the river constructed for flood and stormwater control as part of a municipal separate storm sewer system, into a lower portion of the same river, whether there can be a “discharge” from an “outfall” under the… [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 9:47 am by Kali Borkoski
Natural Resources Defense Council (Granted )Docket: 11-460Issue(s): When water flows from one portion of a river that is navigable water of the United States, through a concrete channel or other engineered improvement in the river constructed for flood and stormwater control as part of a municipal separate storm sewer system, into a lower portion of the same river, whether there can be a “discharge” from an “outfall” under the… [read post]
25 Apr 2008, 10:27 am
United States Fish & Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004), we conclude that the jeopardy regulation requires NMFS to consider both recovery and survival impacts... [read post]
7 Feb 2013, 4:30 am by Christina Reichert
 Koontz appealed to the United States Supreme Court, and the Court agreed to hear the case as a constitutional question. [read post]
18 Aug 2008, 7:23 pm
Which is a relevant question, since that's what defendants are now doing (and what the United States files suit to enjoin).Judge McKeown frames the question as follows: "In this appeal, we are asked to determine the unusual question whether dogs are 'livestock.'" And while the district court said that they weren't, and hence granted summary judgment to the United States, Judge McKeown disagrees. [read post]
14 May 2014, 8:38 am by WIMS
" <> Coal River Energy, LLC v. [read post]
19 Mar 2016, 3:01 pm by Jeff Gittins
United States decision regarding the extent of Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction. [read post]
26 Feb 2020, 3:50 am by Edith Roberts
Adam Liptak reports for The New York Times that during yesterday’s argument in United States v. [read post]