Divided Third District panel plainly at odds on plain meaningsJanuary 2001In a decision that Bill Clinton surely would love, a panel of the Third District Appellate Court disputed the plain meaning of "person" as used at subsections (a) and (p)(1) of section 21 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/21(a) and (p)(1)). It seems that "person" is as difficult to define as "is" is.
Does size matter in Illinois—The fallacy of the permit exemptionBy Kevin B. HynesDecember 2001What, you ask, does "size matter in Illinois" mean? Well, you'll ask yourself the same question when the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("IEPA") tells you that your on-site disposal operation is too big and requires a permit--even though the Illinois Environmental Protection Act ("Act") allows on-site disposal without a permit.
Don’t ELUC now, but there’s a new Brownfields institutional control in townBy Stephen F. HedingerMarch 2001One of Illinois' most progressive environmental policies instituted in recent the past was an approach to remediation that recognized the potential risk of contamination in relation to a property's use, likely future use, and the potential for humans to come into contact with contamination.
Environmental insurance rescues the “lawsuit from hell”By Frederick S. MuellerJune 2001Following passage of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) in 1980, a prospective buyer (Buyer) of industrial property may have retained an environmental consulting firm to perform a "due diligence" investigation at the seller's (Seller) property.
First District panel agrees: sometimes, less (costs) moreBy Phillip R. Van NessJune 2001A recent opinion of the First District Appellate Court (Second Division) confirms that where contract law and environmental law combine, minimalist environmental remedies purchased at the cost of protracted delay may be disfavored.
Footnote: USEPA reluctantly bows to Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Harmon “overfiling” caseBy Phillip R. Van NessJanuary 2001Readers of this newsletter will recall earlier comments regarding a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Smith, J.) in Harmon Industries, Inc. v. Browner, 19 F.Supp.2d 988 (W.D. Mo. 1998), which, inter alia, held that USEPA could not "overfile" where an authorized state had acted, unless it first took steps to pull that state's authorization.
In this issueDecember 2001This month's newsletter covers a few environmental issues and the topic of unauthorized practice of law.
In this issueJuly 2001This issue of the Environmental Law Section Council's newsletter features articles that address several water issues of which practitioners should be aware.
In this issueJune 2001This issue starts with additional information from the chair of the Environmental Law Section Council, Diana Jagiella, about the 2001 Illinois Environmental Conference, to be held in Chicago on September, 21 & 22--mark your calendars!
In this issueMarch 2001The first and most exciting item in this issue of the Environmental Law Section Council's newsletter is the "View from the chair" by Diana Jagiella, the chair of our section council, providing notice of a May 21 and 22 environmental conference to be held in Chicago.
In this issueJanuary 2001This issue of the Environmental Law Newsletter starts off with a private practitioner's reply to an article by USEPA's Galene Vasaturo, published in this newsletter several issues ago, concerning the federal government's attempts to regulate lead based paint in residential housing.
A private practitioner’s reply to “Lead paint poisoning law and enforcement: a federal perspective”By Maureen MartinJanuary 2001An article in the last issue of Environmental Law entitled "Lead paint poisoning law and enforcement: a federal perspective" (hereinafter the "Federal Article") provided an overview of local, state and federal laws and regulations addressing childhood lead exposure, with particular emphasis upon aggressive enforcement activities by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA") under the federal Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (the "Act").
Seventh Circuit rejects USEPA access/remediation orderBy Charles J. NorthrupDecember 2001In an interesting opinion that has garnered significant national attention, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has rejected the United States Environmental Protection's Agency ("USEPA") attempt to obtain a dual access and remediation order pursuant to section 104(e)(5) of CERCLA.
Third District panel gets the last wordBy Phillip R. Van NessJune 2001In an otherwise unremarkable decision, the Third District Appellate Court has held that last-minute public comments by a landfill siting applicant and a biased staff in the employ of the final siting authority do not render the siting proceedings fundamentally unfair.
Total maximum daily loads: a roadmap for water qualityBy Ivan J. Lieben & Craig A. MelodiaJuly 2001The goal of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, later renamed the Clean Water Act (CWA), is to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters."
Total maximum daily loads: Destination IllinoisBy Margaret P. HowardJuly 2001This article briefly discusses the impaired waters found in Illinois, the causes of those impairments, and the Illinois EPA's options for achieving the TMDLs that are presently being developed.
View from the chairBy Diana M. JagiellaJune 2001In our last issue, we recommended all environmental law practitioners keep September 21 and 22, 2001 open for the upcoming "2001 Illinois Environmental Conference."
View from the chairBy Diana M. JagiellaMarch 2001Environmental law is in its infancy compared to many other areas of law. While contract and family law has developed over centuries, environmental law dates back mere decades.