Search for: "Waters v. United States" Results 121 - 140 of 4,950
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 May 2008, 9:14 am
Traditionally, water has been abundant in the Eastern United States, and water transfers from one body of water to another were rarely a subject of dispute. [read post]
28 Feb 2017, 4:42 pm by Abbott & Kindermann
Cucchi In his Executive Order, President Trump directs the EPA and USACE to clarify the 2015 Waters of the United States (“WOTUS”) Rule and in doing so, to take into consideration Justice Scalia’s 2006 Supreme Court opinion in Rapanos v. [read post]
9 Apr 2013, 1:13 pm by WIMS
Appealed from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. [read post]
29 Feb 2008, 1:42 am
United States, at least so far as recognition of ecosystem services is concerned. [read post]
2 Jun 2014, 8:46 am by Wells Bennett
The United States, pursuant to the Federal Government’s constitutionally enumerated power to make treaties, ratified the treaty in 1997. [read post]
28 May 2014, 6:09 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
” This right was first recognized in 1906 by the United States Supreme Court in Winters v. [read post]
6 Jun 2023, 12:36 pm by Kevin Rogers
EPA, ruling that federal jurisdiction over wetlands under the Clean Water Act (CWA or the Act), which prohibits discharging pollutants into “the waters of the United States” (WOTUS), extends to only those wetlands with a continuous surface connection to WOTUS. [read post]
7 Sep 2007, 1:54 pm
United States, the Supreme Court limited the scope of the Clean Water Act's protection of "navigable waters" to only include those bodies of water that are "permanent, standing or continuously flowing," and thus did not apply to channels through which water flows only some of the time. [read post]
8 May 2020, 11:19 am by Joseph Koncelik
The NWPR replaces the Obama Administration’s “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule. [read post]
5 Feb 2017, 9:00 am by Stephen D. Daly
Feb. 2, 2017), the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan granted motions to dismiss complaints that alleged that state officials had violated residents’ constitutional rights by exposing them to contaminated water. [read post]