Misc. Wetlands Legal Issues
|
By Sara Gosman – National Wildlife Federation – April 27, 2012
Approximately one million gallons of diluted bitumen, a heavy crude oil, spilled into a wetland that feeds Talmadge Creek, and from there into the Kalamazoo River. The spill affected wetlands, farmlands, residential areas, and businesses, raising health concerns and leading to evacuations and warnings about swimming, fishing, and drinking water. By August 5th, the spill had contaminated 30 miles of the Kalamazoo River but had stopped well short of Lake Michigan. The cause of the rupture is not yet known. In 2011, Enbridge estimated that the cleanup costs would be at least $725 million. For full story, click here. For full report, click here. |
|
|
Monday, 16 January 2012 16:35 |
By Lawrence Hurley – E&E – January 12, 2012A federal appeals court today upheld an Oregon ballot measure that pared back a pro-development law that originally gave landowners significant power to redevelop their property as they saw fit. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected challenges to Measure 49, which was approved by voters in 2007. It amended Measure 37, approved in 2004, which allowed long-term landowners to obtain waivers exempting them from regulations curbing development. Alternatively, they could obtain compensation from the state for lost value caused by regulations (Greenwire, Nov. 7, 2007). The earlier measure prompted a flood of applications for major developments that led to the amended version, which set limits on the amount of development. In the unanimous ruling on Jan. 12 by a three-judge panel, the appeals court rejected constitutional claims made by supporters of Measure 37, including the argument that the earlier law created a property interest that was then unlawfully taken from landowners by the passage of Measure 49 in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. JON BOWERS V. RICHARD WHITMAN 10-35966 (9th Cir. 01/12/2012) Case origin Medford District Court Civil. To jump to the ruling, click here. |
|
Monday, 02 January 2012 17:20 |
Fox News/Associated Press – January 2, 2012Mike Sackett remembers what he thought when he saw the eye-popping fines of more than $30,000 a day that the Environmental Protection Agency was threatening to impose on him over a piece of Idaho property worth less than one day's penalty. "If they do this to us, we're going to lose everything we have," Sackett said. The EPA said that Sackett and his wife, Chantell, illegally filled in most of their 0.63-acre lot with dirt and rocks in preparation for building a home. The agency said the property is a wetlands that cannot be disturbed without a permit. The Sacketts had none. For full article, click here. |
|
|
Thursday, 03 November 2011 17:55 |
Associated Press
Government agencies that deny development permits cannot be made to pay for "taking" property in Florida just because negotiations over conditions attached to those permits fail. That's what the Florida Supreme Court said in a ruling recently. The justices reversed lower court orders for the St. Johns River Water Management District to compensate a property owner $376,155 for a temporary taking of his land. For full story, click here.
|
|
Friday, 01 July 2011 18:57 |
Opinion By Marc B. Fried – Shawangunk Journal –June 30, 2011
Recent news that the DEC is updating its map of wetlands in the Wallkill River basin should be met with praise: an important State agency is doing its job. Instead, it has been met with hues and cries from those who seem to think taxpayers should compensate them for the additional potential profits they might have made if they'd been allowed to eventually sell or develop wetlands and neighboring buffer zones without regard for environmental consequences. For full opinion, click here.
|
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 1 of 4 |
