Environmental

Displaying 61 - 70 of 107
Titlesort descending Summary
MI - Habitat Protection - Wilderness, Wild, and Natural Areas (Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act) These sections define, identify, and set guidelines for the protection of wilderness, wild, and/or natural areas.
MI - Natural Resources -Chapter 324. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. Natural Resources and Environmental Pro These sections describe the ability of courts and the Commission to review the Department of Natural Resources decisions and the ability for the public to circulate and sign petitions.
MI - Pollution - Environmental Protection Act: Pollution (Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act) These sections lay out the process and standards to determine a pollution violation, actions for declaratory and equitable relief, the burden of proof, and affirmative defenses to such violations.
MI - Wildlife Conservation - Chapter 324. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act This Section describes the Department of Natural Resource's authority to co-operate with the federal government and to use hunters' license fees for wildlife restoration.
MI - Wildlife Conservation -Chapter 324. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. These sections describe the regulatory powers of the Department of Natural Resources in issuing conservation orders protecting fish, game, and birds.
MN - Habitat - Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (Chapter 116B. Environmental Rights) Minnesota protects the environment under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA). Under MERA, citizens may bring suits for civil remedies where activities are interfering with their enjoyment of natural resources, including eagle nesting sites. The law provides a comprehensive scheme under which anyone with sufficient interest in protecting land, water, air, or any natural resources may bring suit to enjoin an action.
MO - Fish and Game - Chapter 252 (The Wildlife and Forestry Law)

This chapter establishes the Missouri Department of Conservation, outlines the agency's scope of authority, and includes all of the state's wildlife and endangered species statutes.
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Rodgers


An environmental organization brought an action against United States Bureau of Reclamation, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, alleging that agencies failed to examine critical issues in biological opinions (BiOps) before executing water contracts for delivery of California Water Project water to irrigation and water districts. On a cross motion for summary judgment, the District Court held that the agencies failed to conduct adequate adverse modification analyses, failed to conduct adequate jeopardy analyses, and that the conduct of BOR in relying on the issued BiOps was arbitrary and capricious.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. National Marine Fisheries Service


The Natural Resources Defense Council sought material from the National Marine Fisheries Service about an incident of mass stranding of whales under the Freedom of Information Act because the Council thought it had to do with navy sonar use. The Service did not want to release the materials, saying they were protected from disclosure because they were discussions of agency decision-making. The court required disclosure of most of the materials because purely factual matters are not protected from disclosure.
New Mexico State Game Commission v. Udall


The State of New Mexico filed an suit to prevent the U.S. Secretary of the Interior from killing deer in the Carlsbad Caverns National Park that were overbrowsing vegetation and posing a threat to the park's ecology without first having obtained the necessary state permit.  The Court held that the Secretary has the authority to kill the deer to protect the park property, and it is immaterial that the United States does not have exclusive jurisdiction over the lands within Carlsbad Caverns National Park as it has constitutional authority in the form of supervisory powers to manage national parks.  To New Mexico and the other states involved in an amicus capacity in the suit, the real concern was over the federal encroachment into state management of fish and game, particularly in those states where much of the land is under federal control.

Pages