§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al., Appellants,v.New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Respondent.

Brief

17 Cited authorities

  1. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

    966 F.2d 1292 (9th Cir. 1992)   Cited 116 times
    Holding arbitrary and capricious EPA rule exempting various types of light industry and construction sites of less than five acres from permitting requirements

  2. Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. U.S.E.P.A

    399 F.3d 486 (2d Cir. 2005)   Cited 74 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding manure spread across fields is a point source

  3. Natural Resources Defense Council, v. Costle

    568 F.2d 1369 (D.C. Cir. 1977)   Cited 117 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding unlawful EPA's exemption of stormwater discharges from NPDES permitting requirements

  4. Assateague v. Dept. of Environment

    200 Md. App. 665 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2011)   Cited 39 times
    Holding that, because State agency's "construction of [a regulation] . . . [was] reasonable," this Court would "not substitute our judgment for that of the agency"

  5. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. N.Y. Dep't of Envtl. Conservation

    120 A.D.3d 1235 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 8 times
    Assessing MEP standard as the appropriate one for municipal discharges

  6. Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

    660 N.W.2d 427 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 11 times

    C6-02-1243. Filed: May 6, 2003. Appeal from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Janette K. Brimmer, (for relator) Mike Hatch, Attorney General, and Paul A. Merwin, Assistant Attorney General, (for respondent) Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge, Hudson, Judge, and Poritsky, Judge. Retired judge of the district court, serving as judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. OPINION PORITSKY, Judge. Respondent issued a general permit

  7. Mississippi River Revival, Inc. v. City of St. Paul

    Civil No. 01-1887(DSD/SRN) (D. Minn. Dec. 2, 2002)

    Civil No. 01-1887(DSD/SRN) December 2, 2002 Richard B. Bates, Esq., Bates Law Office, 1985 Grand Avenue, B1, St. Paul, MN 55105, counsel for plaintiffs. Peter G. Mikhail, Esq., Office of St. Paul City Attorney, 550 City Hall, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul, MN 55102, counsel for defendant City of St. Paul; and Paul Merwin, Esq., Office of Minnesota Attorney General, Suite 1100, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101, counsel for defendant Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. ORDER DAVID S.

  8. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

    673 F.2d 392 (D.C. Cir. 1980)   Cited 8 times

    Nos. 80-1607, 80-1660, 80-1720, 80-1723, 80-1733, 80-1740, 80-1741, 80-1809, 80-1821, 80-1837, 80-1889, 80-1928, 80-1932, 80-1934, 80-1975, 80-1989, 80-1999, 80-2004, 80-2007 and 80-2114. November 4, 1980. On Motion to Designate a Court to Determine Venue. Alan W. Eckert and Richard G. Stoll, Jr., Washington, D.C., were on respondents' motion to designate a court to determine venue. Theodore L. Garrett and John T. Smith, II, Washington, D.C., were on response to respondents' motion to designate a

  9. Section 1311 - Effluent limitations

    33 U.S.C. § 1311   Cited 1,970 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Imposing general prohibition on "the discharge of any pollutant by any person"

  10. Section 1342 - National pollutant discharge elimination system

    33 U.S.C. § 1342   Cited 1,478 times   43 Legal Analyses
    Granting EPA the authority to require a permit for such discharges

  11. Section 1362 - Definitions

    33 U.S.C. § 1362   Cited 1,163 times   101 Legal Analyses
    Defining “pollutant” to include “rock”

  12. Section 1318 - Records and reports; inspections

    33 U.S.C. § 1318   Cited 146 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Noting that monitoring and reporting requirements may be imposed when necessary to fulfill the objectives of the Act

  13. Section 17-0813 - Compliance schedules

    N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law § 17-0813

    SPDES permits issued pursuant hereto may contain compliance schedules. Such compliance schedules shall require that the permittee within the shortest reasonable time consistent with the requirements of the Act conform to and meet; 1. applicable effluent limitations. 2. any further limitations necessary to insure compliance with water quality standards adopted pursuant to state law. 3. standards of performance for new sources. 4. ocean discharge criteria adopted by the federal government pursuant

  14. Section 122.62 - Modification or revocation and reissuance of permits (applicable to State programs, see Section 123.25)

    40 C.F.R. § 122.62   Cited 31 times

    When the Director receives any information (for example, inspects the facility, receives information submitted by the permittee as required in the permit (see § 122.41 ), receives a request for modification or revocation and reissuance under § 124.5 , or conducts a review of the permit file) he or she may determine whether or not one or more of the causes listed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section for modification or revocation and reissuance or both exist. If cause exists, the Director may

  15. Section 122.34 - Permit requirements for regulated small MS4 permits

    40 C.F.R. § 122.34   Cited 19 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Mandating compliance with the requirements, standards and conditions "developed consistent with the provisions of §§ 122.41 through 122.49"

  16. Section 122.47 - Schedules of compliance

    40 C.F.R. § 122.47   Cited 9 times
    Allowing for limited schedules of compliance

  17. Section 26.08.04.02 - Requirements for the Issuance and Reissuance of Discharge Permits

    Md. Code Regs. 26.08.04.02   Cited 2 times

    A. General. The Department shall issue or reissue a discharge permit upon a determination that: (1) The discharge or proposed discharge specified in the application is or will be in compliance with all applicable requirements of: (a) Effluent limitations, (b) Surface and ground water quality standards, (c) The Federal Act, (d) State law or regulation, (e) Best available technology, and (f) Federal effluent guidelines; (2) The discharge or proposed discharge from publicly owned treatment works (POTW)