Search for: "Conservation Law Foundation v. Energy Facilities Siting Board" Results 1 - 20 of 32
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act § 305 Essential Fish Habitat Consultation. [read post]
3 Jan 2023, 1:47 pm by Kevin LaCroix
The directors’ and officers’ liability environment is always changing, but 2022 was a particularly eventful year, with important consequences for the D&O insurance marketplace. [read post]
29 Dec 2021, 12:00 pm by Kevin LaCroix
I would like to thank the authors for allowing me to publish their article as a guest post on this site. [read post]
It rejected the Council’s claim that the County improperly piecemealed the CEQA analyses for each amendment, because, as stated in Banning Ranch Conservancy v. [read post]
It rejected the Council’s claim that the County improperly piecemealed the CEQA analyses for each amendment, because, as stated in Banning Ranch Conservancy v. [read post]
It rejected the Council’s claim that the County improperly piecemealed the CEQA analyses for each amendment, because, as stated in Banning Ranch Conservancy v. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 9:34 am by Abbott & Kindermann
Around the same time, the Regional Water Quality Control Board took interest in the site due to downstream stream contamination, potentially as a result of runoff from the horse and cattle facilities. [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 10:03 am by Abbott & Kindermann
Superior Court (Environmental Law Foundation), ___ Cal.App.4th ___, 2013 Cal. [read post]
23 Aug 2010, 1:22 pm by Steven M. Taber
Archives can be found there and on our blog, The Environmental Law and Climate Change Law Blog. [read post]
26 Jul 2010, 9:08 am by Steven M. Taber
Further, the settlement announced today requires Cardi to perform a comprehensive environmental audit of its facility to ensure that it is in compliance with all federal environmental laws. [read post]