<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly &#187; Environmental</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nclawyersweekly.com/category/opinion-digest/environmental/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 22:56:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Environmental &#8211; CWA Permit Upheld for Mine Company&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/environmental-cwa-permit-upheld-for-mine-company/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/environmental-cwa-permit-upheld-for-mine-company/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 13:43:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clean Water Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73308</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers </em>  The 4th Circuit affirms issuance of a water quality permit under the Clean Water Act to Highland Mining Company, on the basis that a proposed surface coal mine adjacent to a stream in Logan County would not damage water quality or violate water quality standards.
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/environmental-cwa-permit-upheld-for-mine-company/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Environmental &#8211; Stormwater Runoff – Administrative – Agency Interpretation – Entire Area Requirement&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/environmental-stormwater-runoff-administrative-agency-interpretation-entire-area-requirement/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/environmental-stormwater-runoff-administrative-agency-interpretation-entire-area-requirement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:05:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Environmental]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals Unpublished]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72498</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Quality Built Homes, Inc. v. North Carolina Department of Environment &#38; Natural Resources</em>  Since wetlands absorb runoff rather than producing it, wetlands are not included in a development’s “drainage area.”

We affirm the superior court’s decision to uphold respondent’s approval of a 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions.
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/environmental-stormwater-runoff-administrative-agency-interpretation-entire-area-requirement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Environmental &#8211; Court Can’t Review Beach Protection Claim&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/19/environmental-court-cant-review-beach-protection-claim/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/19/environmental-court-cant-review-beach-protection-claim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2013 14:40:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Army Corps]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72417</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em> Village of Bald Head Island v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers </em>  A district court did not err in dismissing a North Carolina coastal town’s suit seeking to enforce the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ alleged commitments to protect adjacent beaches during a project to widen portions of the Cape Fear River navigation channel, and the 4th Circuit affirms dismissal of the suit.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/19/environmental-court-cant-review-beach-protection-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Environmental &#8211; Past, Former Owners Share CERCLA Costs&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/12/environmental-past-former-owners-share-cercla-costs/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/12/environmental-past-former-owners-share-cercla-costs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2013 20:39:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fertilizer plant]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72240</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>PCS Nitrogen Inc. v. Ashley II of Charleston LLC</em> In these appeals arising from disputes over liability for hazardous substance cleanup at a former fertilizer manufacturing site in Charleston, S.C., the 4th Circuit affirms a trial court order that holds both the current and former owners responsible for costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/12/environmental-past-former-owners-share-cercla-costs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Environmental &#8211; Agency Pesticide Opinion ‘Arbitrary,’ Court Says&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/03/04/environmental-agency-pesticide-opinion-arbitrary-court-says/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/03/04/environmental-agency-pesticide-opinion-arbitrary-court-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2013 15:36:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Biological Opinion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=71049</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Dow AgroSciences LLC v. National Marine Fisheries Service</em> A “biological opinion” issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service to the Environmental Protection Agency is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706, and the 4th Circuit reverses summary judgment for the Fisheries Service and vacates its opinion concluding certain pesticides would jeopardize the viability of Pacific salmonids and their habitat and that the pesticides could not be reregistered and used without substantial restrictions.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/03/04/environmental-agency-pesticide-opinion-arbitrary-court-says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Environmental &#8211;  Administrative – Licenses &amp; Permits – Real Property &#8212; Fill &#8212; Wetlands – Freshwater&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/10/08/environmental-administrative-licenses-permits-real-property-fill-wetlands-freshwater/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/10/08/environmental-administrative-licenses-permits-real-property-fill-wetlands-freshwater/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2012 17:52:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals Unpublished]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administrative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freshwater]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Licenses & Permits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wetlands]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=66928</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>State ex rel. N.C. Department of Environment &#038; Natural Resources v. Pharr</em> The trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law make it clear that the Army Corps of Engineers’ issuance of fill permits to the defendant-landowners did not “tip the scale” in favor of the landowners. The trial court gave more weight to the opinions of the landowners’ experts than to the plaintiff-agency’s expert in finding that any occasional flooding of the landowners’ property was due to rain and runoff rather than the tides.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/10/08/environmental-administrative-licenses-permits-real-property-fill-wetlands-freshwater/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Environmental &#8211; Dam Plans &#8212; NEPA&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/07/19/environmental-dam-plans-nepa/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/07/19/environmental-dam-plans-nepa/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2012 20:52:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dam Plans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NEPA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=64174</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Webster v. U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture</em> The 4th Circuit upholds a decision by the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service to eliminate from its 35-year-old project for preservation of the Lost River Subwatershed its plan to construct one of five dams, a decision challenged by seven owners who say their land will be adversely affected by this decision; the NRCS has complied with the procedures mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act and taken a hard look at the project’s environmental effects.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/07/19/environmental-dam-plans-nepa/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Environmental &#8211; Administrative – Licenses &amp; Permits &#8212; Wildlife Refuge – Clean Water Act&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/06/21/environmental-administrative-licenses-permits-wildlife-refuge-clean-water-act/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/06/21/environmental-administrative-licenses-permits-wildlife-refuge-clean-water-act/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:30:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administrative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clean Water Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Licenses & Permits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wildlife Refuge]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=63368</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Friends of Back Bay v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers</em> The “Friends of Back Bay” win their challenge to a Clean Water permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers to a developer who wants to build a mooring facility and concrete boat ramp about 3,000 feet from the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia Beach; the 4th Circuit vacates a decision upholding the permit, as the Corps relied on voluntary compliance with a “secret” no-wake zone to protect the Refuge from the negative effect of adding 64 boat slips to the existing 12 in the area.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/06/21/environmental-administrative-licenses-permits-wildlife-refuge-clean-water-act/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Environmental &#8211; N.C. Road Project – NEPA Violation&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/05/09/environmental-n-c-road-project-nepa-violation/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/05/09/environmental-n-c-road-project-nepa-violation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 18:07:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Road Project]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NEPA Violation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=62372</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>N.C. Wildlife Federation v. N.C. Dep’t of Transportation </em>The 4th Circuit vacates summary judgment for state and federal highway agencies in North Carolina that approved construction of the “Monroe Connector Bypass,” a new 20-mile toll road linking Mecklenburg and Union Counties; the agencies violated the National Environmental Protection Act by failing to disclose “critical assumptions” underlying project approval and by providing the public with incorrect information.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/05/09/environmental-n-c-road-project-nepa-violation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Environmental &#8211; SPCA – ‘Sedimentation’ – Body of Water Requirement – Golf Course&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/03/20/environmental-spca-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%98sedimentation%e2%80%99-%e2%80%93-body-of-water-requirement-%e2%80%93-golf-course/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/03/20/environmental-spca-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%98sedimentation%e2%80%99-%e2%80%93-body-of-water-requirement-%e2%80%93-golf-course/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:52:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Body of Water Requirement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Golf Course]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SPCA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[‘Sedimentation’]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=61131</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em> Applewood Properties, LLC v. New South Properties, LLC</em> Defendants’ failure to control erosion on their development project deposited sediment only on plaintiffs’ land; no body of water was involved. Therefore, plaintiffs were limited to common-law remedies; they could not make out a claim under the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/03/20/environmental-spca-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%98sedimentation%e2%80%99-%e2%80%93-body-of-water-requirement-%e2%80%93-golf-course/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
