1 / 5

Pacific Legal Foundation

Pacific Legal Foundation. Clean Water Act Litigation Tony francois, senior attorney. Pacific legal foundation. Pro bono public interest law firm, founded 1973 Website: pacificlegal.org Represent property and business owners, and others

candid
Download Presentation

Pacific Legal Foundation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Pacific Legal Foundation Clean Water Act Litigation Tony francois, senior attorney

  2. Pacific legal foundation • Pro bono public interest law firm, founded 1973 • Website: pacificlegal.org • Represent property and business owners, and others • Frequently represent clients against local governments and special districts • But also represent local governments in several cases • State and federal court • nationwide

  3. Plf clean water act experience • Rapanos v. united states (1986 regulations) • Sackett v. epa (compliance orders) • Army corps v. hawkes co. inc. (jurisdictional determinations) • National association of manufacturers v. Dept of defense (2015 Regulations) • Robertson v. United states (scope of “navigable waters” post-Rapanos) • Oregon and Washington cattlemen’s associations v. EPA (2015 regulations) • Duarte nursery v. army corps/u.s. v. LaPant (scope of farming exemption)

  4. North Dakota, et al, v. epa • 13 state challenge to 2015 regulation in district of north Dakota • Enjoined regulation in 13 states in 2015 • Fully briefed motion for summary judgment now pending • Included new mexico and Colorado • Early 2019, new mexico and Colorado moved to dismiss their claims • Az/nm coalition of counties (represented by plf) moved to intervene to take the place of new mexico • Coalition agreed to join in pending summary judgment motion • Coalition granted intervention without opposition • injunction left in place as to them • Motion pending to clarify scope in new mexico

  5. colorado • Court granted Colorado’s motion to dismiss • vacated injunction as to Colorado • To restore injunction in Colorado: • Someone must intervene • Declarations necessary to establish interest of intervenor in the case • Then, move to restore the injunction • Declarations necessary to establish how 2015 regulation harms intervenors • Potentially several week process

More Related