Short Cressman & Burgess PLLC attorneys Paul Dayton and Leslie Clark presented at the Washington State Bar Association’s May 2013 Environmental and Land Use Law midyear conference.  They described the use of summary adjudication to narrow trial on issues of CERCLA liability, drawing from the Pakootas v. Teck Metals, Ltd. lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.  Paul and Leslie represent the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, plaintiffs

“Get ready and fasten your seatbelts” was the message House Natural Resources Committee Chair, Doc Hastings (R-Wash), sent to the other committee members yesterday, January 23, 2013, during the Natural Resources Committee Organizational meeting. Representative Hastings announced that the Natural Resources Committee for the 113th Congress will take an active and aggressive approach to create jobs, protect the environment, and grow the economy.  The Committee, Hastings said, will also keep the Obama Administration in check

Press Release, December 14, 2012.   Today, a judge in the United States District Court in Yakima issued a ruling that Canadian mining and smelting giant Teck Metals, Ltd. is liable under United States environmental law for contaminating the Columbia River with millions of tons of smelting waste. In finding Teck liable under the Comprehensive, Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, also known as Superfund), the Honorable Judge Lonny R. Suko ruled that, “for decades

For years, Indian tribes have pleaded with Congress to let them manage their lands with less Federal supervision. On July 30, 2102, their pleas were finally answered when President Obama signed into law the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act (HEARTH Act), Public Law No. 112-151, amending the Indian Long Term Leasing Act, 25 U.S.C. § 415.

On May 16, 2012, Washington’s Department of Ecology (Ecology) issued a Modified Industrial Stormwater General Permit (Modified Permit), with an effective date of July 1, 2012.  The modified Permit responds in part to the Pollution Control Hearing Board’s (PCHB) April, 2011 decision related to the numerous Permit challenges by both industry and environmental groups.  While the PCHB generally upheld the Permit, it also found that certain aspects of the Permit required modification.   In general, the

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari today, June 25, 2012, in two stormwater cases, continuing its review of environmental jurisprudence under the Clean Water Act. The first case consolidated two petitions, Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center, U.S., No. 11-338, and Georgia-Pacific West v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center, U.S., No. 11-347, and will address the question of whether stormwater runoff from logging roads is a point source or nonpoint source for the purpose of determining

Washington Department of Ecology (“Ecology”) is proceeding with the first phase of the legislatively directed updates to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA); this first phase of Ecology’s SEPA updates will be narrowly focused to address only the following two issues: 1)      “increasing the thresholds for SEPA review of minor construction projects under Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-800(1) and 23(c);” and 2)      “[i]mproving the efficiency of the environmental checklist in WAC 197-11-960.” The legislature, in

The House Appropriations Committee released its Fiscal Year 2013 Interior-Environment Funding Bill on June 20, 2012.  The proposed bill sets funding levels for numerous federal agencies and programs, but the most significant impact is to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which will endure a $1.4 billion cut from its current $7 billion budget – a 17% reduction.  Combined with last year’s 16% reduction and previous budget cuts, EPA funding will return to the level it

Summary and Materials from the 2012 Tribal Environmental Law Seminar now available . . .

In the unanimous March 21, 2012 decision authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Compliance Orders issued by EPA under the Clean Water Act (CWA) are final agency actions, and that the CWA does not “preclude judicial review” under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).