ENV140 Midterm Study Guide PDF

ENV140 Midterm Study Guide Multiple Choice What was the guiding principle of judicial review of agency decisions or development of regulations, as presented by the court in Chevron v. NRDC? 1. Courts should make sure agencies conform to the language of a statute, even when the law is unc...

ENV140 Midterm Study Guide Multiple Choice What was the guiding principle of judicial review of agency decisions or development of regulations, as presented by the court in Chevron v. NRDC? 1. Courts should make sure agencies conform to the language of a statute, even when the law is unclear. 2. Where Congress is silent or ambiguous in creating a statute, courts should assume they did not mean to delegate authority to an agency to interpret it. 3. Where Congress is silent or ambiguous in creating a statute, courts should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of the law. 4. Where a case involves a question over whether an agency action is allowed by the constitution, Courts do not have power to interpret the law and must defer to Congress? Which of the following is not a stated goal of the federal Clean Water Act 5. Achieve fishable and swimmable waters by 1983 6. Eliminate the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters by 1985 7. Eliminate toxic pollutants entirely from waterways by 1993 **No year associated with this goal 8. Restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of our nation's waters 9. All of these are stated goals of the Clean Water Act Short answer (1-2 paragraphs) What was the principal issue that the court dealt with in the Laurel Heights case brought against the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF), and what did it say about when proper review of environmental impacts must occur? The Laurel Heights vs. UCSF case brought up the principal issue of CEQA’s EIR thoroughness and how they have to list alternative actions for the site of UCSF School of Pharmacy. The ruling in the case sided with the Laurel Heights Neighborhood Association stating that UCSF did not do a thorough CEQA Environmental Impact Report. This fails to uphold the full public transparency aspect of CEQA and does not give a full analysis of the site and its alternative locations, rather than the Laurel Heights neighborhood in San Francisco. It stated the proper review of environmental impacts must occur before the project is approved and before any substantial resources are committed to the project.  CASES I. Marbury v. Madison (1803) – JUDICIAL REVIEW A. Context: Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams for President B. Outcome: Established judicial review where the court system could strike down laws and actions that violated the Constitution C. Winner: Madison II. Worcester v. Georgia (1832) – NATIVE LANDS A. Context: the state of Georgia wanted to force Native Americans westward as part of a larger policy of Indian removal B. Outcome: U.S. cannot make laws regarding native land, led to the Trail of Tears C. Winner: Worcester and the Cherokee Nation III. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) – ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE A. Context: racial segregation in public schools & separate school systems B. Outcome: racial segregation in public schools is unconstitutional, served as major catalyst for civil rights movement and environmental justice initiator C. Importance: Created the NIMBYism (Not in my backyard) and resulted in LULUs expelled to minority communities; Environmental Justice D. Winner: Brown IV. Ethyl Corp. v. EPA (1976) – CLEAN AIR ACT A. Context: Ethyl gasoline sold fuel with lead additives to improve engine performance and researchers began to think it was causing health & environmental problems for children’s brain development (and other health risks) B. Outcome: EPA has rights to uphold regulations regarding gasoline through the Clean Air Act and it led to a gradual removal of lead from all gasoline sold in the U.S. C. Winner: EPA V. Chevron v. NRDC (1984) – CHEVRON DEFERENCE A. Context: EPA issued a new rule for stationary sources to reduce pollution which was revised under the Reagan administration to a bubble approach. The NRDC challenged the new rule because they stated that each pollution-emitting divide should be calculated individually. B. Outcome: Chevron deference (if the federal law is silent, then defer to agencies ruling) C. Winner: Chevron and EPA (Bubble Approach) VI. Laurel Heights v. Regents of California (1988) – CEQA EIR A. Context: relocation of UCSF School of Pharmacy biomedical research lab to Laurel Heights neighborhood of San Francisco which was opposed by residents due to concerns about health and environmental impacts B. Outcome: CEQA requires environmental review and an EIR must provide a thorough analysis (including alternative sites)  C. Winner: Laurel Heights Improvement Association VII. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992) – STANDING A. Context: Endangered Species Act was put into question in foreign countries B. Outcome: U.S. Environmental Policy should apply to U.S. foreign projects even if not on U.S. soil and you need standing (evidence) C. Winner: Lujan (Defenders of Wildlife lacked standing) VIII. Whitman v. American Trucking (2001) – ECONOMIC COST (No) A. Context: Clean Air Act mandates EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards to protect health and environment but American Trucking thinks they are not considering the economic burden being put on companies B. Outcome: EPA is not required to consider economic costs C. Winner: Whitman (EPA) IX. Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS A. Context: Does GHG fall under the Clean Air Act regarding pollutants? Massachusetts and other environmental organizations urged EPA to regulate GHG B. Outcome: EPA has to regulate GHG which paved the way for future climate change regulations under the Clean Air Act C. Winner: Massachusetts X. Michigan v. EPA (2015) – ECONOMIC COST (Yes) A. Context: EPA’s regulations regarding air pollutants emitted by power plants and Michigan (and other states) stated that the EPA was not considered economic cost B. Outcome: EPA does have to consider economic costs (contradicted Whitman) C. Winner: Michigan XI. West Virginia v. EPA (2022) – CARBON EMISSIONS A. Context: EPA’s implementation of the Clean Power Plan to reduce carbon emissions from existing power plants, WV argued EPA had overstepped B. Outcome: limited EPA’s ability to regulate carbon emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act C. Winner: West Virginia XII. Sackett v. EPA (2012, 2023) – CLEAN WATER ACT A. Context: Sackett excavation company buys wetland and begins to excavate. EPA stops them and claims wetlands are protected under the Clean Water Act. B. Outcome: wetlands are not navigable waters and only wetlands with a continuous surface connection to waters of the U.S. constitute under the CWA; began to limit the EPA’s power C. Importance: contradicted Chevron Deference because the law did not fall back on the EPA D. Winner: Sacketts  ACTS/LAWS I. Constitution A. Preamble: Promote general welfare. B. Article 1 (Commerce Clause): Federal Government sets regulations for mobile sources while states set regulations for stationary sources. C. Article 4 (Property Clause): Federal Government controls and protects public land. D. 5th Amendment: Federal Government cannot take private land without compensation to the owner. E. 14th Amendment: Equal protection for all U.S. citizens, foundation of Environmental Justice. II. New Deal A. Theodore Roosevelt uses powers of the government to rebuild the economy and create agencies to protect U.S. land B. Ex. Flood Control Act, Public Works Administration III. Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 A. Keep public informed and establish uniform standards for rule making in Administrative Agencies such as the EPA IV. Water Quality Act of 1965 A. Established water pollution standards across state borders B. 3 Parts: 1. Designated uses 2. Water quality criteria 3. Antidegradation policy V. Air Quality Act of 1967 A. Established federal standards for mobile sources of air pollution and their fuels. B. Established cap-and-trade program for emissions that caused acid rain. C. Gave California the ability to set its own state standards for air quality. VI. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 A. Basic national charter for protection of the environment and requires agencies to assess environmental effects of proposed actions. B. Must include: 1. Impact (EIS) 2. Adverse effects 3. Alternative plans VII. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 A. California charter for protection of the environment and has substantive mandates that NEPA does not have (more detailed baby NEPA). B. Must include: 1. Impacts are outweighed by benefits of project (EIR)  2. Environmental mitigation 3. Alternative plans C. Does not require: 1. Specific result D. Types of Projects: 1. Under public agency 2. Under government contract 3. Under government leasing E. Three Step Evaluation Process: 1. Is the activity exempt from CEQA? 2. What are the significant adverse effects or initial study? 3. Prep. of EIR VIII. National Ambient Air Quality Standards A. Set of standards generated by EPA to protect public health and general welfare. 1. Federal Government = mobile sources 2. States = stationary sources B. 6 Major Criteria Pollutants: 1. Sulfur dioxide 2. Nitrogen dioxide 3. Lead 4. Ozone 5. PM 6. Carbon monoxide IX. Clean Air Act of 1970 A. Sets standards for certain types of pollutants, criteria for pollutants, and the health and public welfare of communities. B. Creates State Implementation Plans (SIPs) 1. If the states fail to generate sufficient plan, it goes to Federal Gov. C. 1990 Revisions: 1. Acid rain 2. Ozone layer damage 3. Toxic pollutants X. Clean Water Act of 1972 A. Primary law for surface water protection in the U.S. to restore and maintain our nation’s waters and requirement of report every 2 years. 1. Achieve fishable and swimmable waters by 1983 2. Eliminate discharge of pollutants into navigable water by 1985 3. Prohibit the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts B. 1986 Revision: Include regulation of stormwater and urban runoff. C. What is protected?  1. Navigable waters 2. Wetlands adjacent to navigable waters 3. Non-navigable tributaries of navigable water that flow year round 4. Wetlands adjacent to those tributaries D. Does not require consideration of economic cost. KEY TERMS I. Silent Spring A. Rachel Carson exposed adverse effects of pesticide (DDT) usage post WWII and set stage for environmental movement. II. Horizontal Separation of Powers A. Congress: legislates, oversees EPA, regulates money B. Executive: President, EPA (conduct, issue, monitor, enforce) C. Courts: regulates EPA rulings/challenges to Constitutionality III. Vertical Separation of Powers A. Federal: mobile sources, EPA B. State: stationary sources IV. Cost-Benefit Analysis: level of regulation A. Will spending this amount of money on this specific project save x amount of life in the future. **equation V. Instrument Choice (5 P’s): how to regulate A. Prescriptive Regulation (Direct) B. Property Rights (Direct) C. Financial Payments (Incentive) D. Financial Penalties (Incentive) E. Persuasion (Incentive) VI. Direct Regulatory Instruments (Command and Control) A. Standards, disclosures, regulations VII. Incentive-based Instruments (Cap-and-Trade) A. Subsidies, taxes, persuasion VIII. Chevron Deference A. If the Federal Gov. is silent on the issue then it is deferred to the respective agency if it is permissible B. Chevron v. NRDC (EPA set new rule for single source and NRDC challenged) IX. Cooperative Federalism A. Relationship between Federal and State governments B. Example: EPA sets regulation and the states decide how to implement said regulation via the SIP (State Implementation Plan) process.