Search for: "California Building Industry Association v. State Water Resources Control Board"
Results 21 - 40
of 67
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Aug 2013, 8:58 am
City of Beaumont (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 316; and Building Industry Association of Central California v. [read post]
1 Jul 2021, 3:00 am
On June 22, 2021, the State Water Resources Control Board (“SWRCB” or “Board”) issued a notice of proposed emergency rulemaking to address drought conditions in the Russian River watershed. [read post]
1 Jul 2021, 3:00 am
On June 22, 2021, the State Water Resources Control Board (“SWRCB” or “Board”) issued a notice of proposed emergency rulemaking to address drought conditions in the Russian River watershed. [read post]
3 Jun 2021, 3:00 am
AB 377 would also prohibit the State Water Resources Control Board (“Water Board”) from issuing compliance schedules (aside from those for physical construction time) for new or more stringent water quality standards adopted after January 1, 2021. [read post]
3 Jun 2021, 3:00 am
AB 377 would also prohibit the State Water Resources Control Board (“Water Board”) from issuing compliance schedules (aside from those for physical construction time) for new or more stringent water quality standards adopted after January 1, 2021. [read post]
1 Sep 2021, 3:00 am
State Water Resources Control Board Issued Curtailment Orders To All 861 Water Right Holders In The Upper Russian River. [read post]
1 Sep 2021, 3:00 am
State Water Resources Control Board Issued Curtailment Orders To All 861 Water Right Holders In The Upper Russian River. [read post]
4 Jan 2022, 3:00 am
State of Water Resources Control Board (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 258. [read post]
3 Mar 2020, 4:53 pm
(California Independent Petroleum Association, et al., Real Parties in Interest); Committee for a Better Arvin, et al. v. [read post]
10 Nov 2020, 3:00 am
WETLANDS Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Association v. [read post]
30 Dec 2016, 1:27 pm
Of particular concern to the states (as well as many farming and industry groups) are the definitions in the Rule for “tributaries” and “adjacent waters. [read post]
17 Jul 2020, 3:00 am
The State Water Resources Control Board Releases Proposed Rule Modifying The General Permit For Suction Dredge Miners. [read post]
7 Feb 2023, 12:07 pm
The important opinion was ordered published based on requests submitted by City, Attorney General Rob Bonta, YIMBY, and the California Building Industry Association. [read post]
30 Dec 2015, 7:28 pm
Although the various complaints seek multiple forms of relief, they generally ask the courts to declare that the rule is unlawful because it: 1) exceeds the agencies’ statutory authority under the Clean Water Act; 2) violates the 11th Amendment of the Constitution and the Clean Water Act, which preserves the primary role of States in planning the development and use of local land and water resources; and 3) violates the Administrative… [read post]
1 Oct 2009, 5:48 pm
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in State of Connecticut v. [read post]
25 Feb 2010, 10:57 am
The California Air Resources Board announced Wednesday that it has penalized Conopco Inc. d/b/a Unilever $1.3 million for illegal consumer sales of AXE Deodorant Bodyspray for Men. [read post]
November 30, 2009 – Environmental Law Settlements, Decisions, Regulatory Actions and Lawsuit Filings
30 Nov 2009, 9:25 am
Click Here California Appeals Court Affirms Lower Court Holding in Goodrich v. [read post]
26 Jul 2010, 9:08 am
OG Property Owner Corp., which is developing the 1,600-acre Wilder project just east of the Caldecott Tunnel, has agreed to pay the Regional Water Quality Control Board $530,000 to resolve a 2009 complaint that violated its construction permit and state water regulations including the Clean Water Act. [read post]
14 Mar 2010, 10:47 pm
The environmental group sued the EPA last year for not requiring Washington state to list its coastal waters as impaired by rising acidity under the Clean Water Act. [read post]
31 Oct 2009, 4:06 pm
Paul, United States Magistrate Judge Jeanne Graham fined the company $100,000 and ordered it to make a $50,000 community service payment to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to benefit the Rice Creek Watershed. [read post]
