The proposed new definition of “Waters of the United States” by the EPA and USACE could have significant environmental ramifications for your property, operations or activities.
Moving on all fronts, Trump administration has several ways to affect environmental regulations and policy.
A proposed rule governing uncontrolled discharges of raw sewage into surface waters waits review by the new administration.
Michigan just made it easier for owners and operators of underground storage tanks to demonstrate financial assurance and obtain cash for closing leaking tanks.
EPA uses victim restitution statute to recover its costs for responding to massive asbestos release.
Great Lakes water diversion to Wisconsin city outside the Great Lakes Basin supported by science and the Great Lakes Compact.
Federal legislators try to insert weaker ballast discharge regulations into defense budget, which may pave the way for more invasive species in the Great Lakes.
EPA’s new rules will govern methane emissions from new oil and gas industry operation sources, with regulations for existing sources on the horizon.
Underground storage tank owners and operators can apply for funds to help pay cleanup costs for release of materials into environment.
Our access to drinking water is almost assumed, but how do we know it is safe?
Upwind states will have to control ground level ozone inducing air emissions to help downwind states comply with the Clean Air Act.
Federal appellate court blocks EPA’s rule defining “Waters of the United States” for the purposes of the Clean Water Act.
EPA must strengthen rule controlling introduction of invasive species into US waters through ballast discharge.
EPA proposes broad rules requiring healthcare and associated facilities to properly store, transport and dispose of hazardous pharmaceutical wastes and bans "down the drain" disposal.
Federal court upholds Chesapeake Bay multi-state water quality regulations, which may be a model for future Great Lakes regulations.
The Supreme Court handed the EPA a loss by sending EPA’s Clean Air Act mercury rule for existing power plants to the DC Circuit, but the practical effect is minimal.
Supporters and opponents of fracking can all find something they like in the EPA’s draft report on its assessment on the effect of fracking on drinking water resources.
In a much anticipated rulemaking, EPA has defined what waters are regulated under the Clean Water Act, and not everyone is happy.
SubscribeRSS Plunkett Cooney LinkedIn Page Plunkett Cooney Twitter Page Plunkett Cooney Facebook Page
- Environmental Regulation
- Environmental Liability
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
- Renewable Energy
- Clean Water
- Environmental Protection Agency
- Environmental Legislation
- Greenhouse Gases
- Great Lakes
- Waste Water
- Climate Change
- Oil & Gas
- Clean Air
- Public Policy
- Environmental Justice
- Carbon Neutrality
- Underground Storage Tanks (UST)
- Solar Energy
- Hazardous Materials
- Regulatory Law
- Solid Waste
- Natural Gas
- Zoning and Planning
- Commercial Liability
- Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
- Lead-based Paint
- Invasive Species
- Shareholder Liability
- Michigan Environmental Protection Act
- Land Use
- Real Estate
- What You Need to Know About EPA’s PFAS Guidance to States
- Hydrogen – What is it Good for and Why Should I Care?
- What You Can do to Prepare for Likely Impacts of EPA's Proposed Rulemaking for PFAS Chemicals
- EPA Proposes to Treat PFAS Chemicals as Hazardous Substances
- Framing the Future – Bans on New Gasoline-powered Vehicle Sales, Turning Mandates Into Opportunities
- Environmental Protection Agency Issues New PFAS Health Advisories
- Electricity Transmission Success Story in Michigan
- Understanding Gas Price Components and Potential Relief Options
- FERC Incorporates Environmental Justice, Climate Change Considerations in its Policies
- PFOS Advisory Impacting Beef from Michigan Farm