This publication provides a brief overview of the Clean Water Act (CWA).

Sometimes it pays to intervene. On September 15, 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is.

On December 8, 1999, EPA adopted new regulations governing the discharge of storm water. The regulations will be e.

Dow Chemical Company (Dow) has agreed to pay a $100,000 civil penalty to settle a Clean Water Act (CWA) citizen sui.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP") has developed draft final regulations under its Re.

This publication provides a brief overview of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA).

INTRODUCTION The environmental compliance audit has become more widespread in the last few years.

Geographic Information Network. The Virginia Geographic Information Network Division and the Geographic Information.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has removed provisions to eliminate and phase out mixing zo.

On August 15, 2003, the Environmental Quality Commission adopted rules that impose federal Clean Water Act ("CWA") permitting requirements on certain facilities that raise, feed, and maintain animals in a confined or concentrated setting. The rules apply to operations meeting the Oregon definition of "confined animal feeding operations" ("Oregon CAFOs") or the federal definition of "concentrated animal feeding operations" ("federal CAFOs"). These facilities will now have to get a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit. Oregon has adopted some, but not all, of the federal CAFO permitting requirements. This article discusses some of the significant changes to the Oregon CAFO program and permitting requirements.

The controversy over the construction of U.S. Route 202 in Chester County has resulted in a decision by the EHB th.

In the midst of the furor surrounding efforts by the Oregon DEQ to ensure compliance with Oregon's water quality standards, the DEQ recently unveiled its effluent trading program. Effluent trading allows a point source of pollution to meet applicable water quality standards by purchasing and using effluent trading credits in lieu of implementing more stringent pollution controls.

On January 29, 2000, the Environmental Quality Board published new wastewater management regulations effective on t.

In August 1998, DEP proposed amendments to its Statement of Policy known as the Water Quality Toxics Management St.

California's State Water Resources Control Board ("State Board") recently issued new regulations as part of a national effort to reduce storm water pollution. Previously unregulated governmental entities statewide will soon be required to implement new programs to minimize water pollution resulting from runoff of rain and snowmelt.

On October4, 1999, EPA proposed an amendment to its Final Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System (the ".

In a closely watched case interpreting California and federal water law, the California Supreme Court ruled on April 4, 2005 that Regional Water Quality Control Boards ("Regional Boards") must consider the economic costs of compliance with wastewater discharge permit restrictions if they impose restrictions that are more stringent than those required by federal law. City of Burbank v. State Water Resources Control Board, 2005 WL 742810 (Cal.).

As Governor Don Sundquist's Administration transitions toward a second four-year term, the Tennessee Department of .

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided a groundbreaking Clean Water Act (CWA) case, holding that the passive conveyance of pollutants into jurisdictional waters requires a discharge permit under the Act's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program regardless of whether the pollutants originate from that discharge. While the Court remanded the case for further findings, the ruling may affect municipalities, water districts, industrial facilities and agricultural users that transfer water from one location to another.

On January 1, 2000, the Environmental Quality Board published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin amendments to Chapter 1.