Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Revision to the Definition of 'Waters of the United States'
In April of 2020 the EPA and the Department of the Army began the process of revising the definition of the term Waters of the United States (WOTUS). After the new administration took office in 2021 further study was conducted and a new final rule was recently published. The changes are scheduled to take effect this year, if currently pending challenges are unsuccessful. The definition is significant for a multitude of land uses, as it places limitations on activities that may be conducted within and adjacent to such waters or, in some instances, requires the issuance of permits before certain activities may be conducted.
The Clean Water Act (the Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq) enacted in 1972, established the need to regulate navigable waters to prevent pollution. The Act gave broad discretion to the EPA and Department of the Army to adopt regulations deemed necessary to implement the Act. As a result, the term Waters of the United States has been given a definition that is broader than might immediately seem apparent. By including adjacent and nearby lakes, streams and wetlands that meet specific definitions the rules, established based upon scientific evidence, prevent the migration of various pollutants into what traditionally would be viewed as navigable waters.
The definition has been tested over time in court. Prior to 2015 the definition broadly included those upstream waters that "… significantly affect the integrity of waters for which the Federal interest is indisputable." The purpose was to preclude activities such as dumping waste into upstream waters that would then pollute waters otherwise within the scope of concern of the Federal Government.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Role and Responsibilities of Practice Group Leaders
Ideally, the objective of defining the role and responsibilities of Practice Group Leaders should be to establish just enough structure and accountability within their respective practice group to maximize the economic potential of the firm, while institutionalizing the principles of leadership and teamwork.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?