dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

>Is the leaker a Supreme Court Justice? A certain Obama appointee perhaps?

thot passed on, why did Roberts offer provide his written opine?

a distraction to divert attention, or did q-team get his submission/cooperation to exit quietly?

qlock keeps on ticking

UPcoming WV vs EPA ?!?!?

/picrel of pdf

This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such.

<>ENVIRONMENT ALERT

THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN [May 25, 2006]

S.D. WARREN CO. v. MAINE: SEEING THE FOREST

FOR THE TREES OR FLOODING THE VALLEY?

On May 15 the Supreme Court unanimously held in S.D. Warren Co. v.

Maine Board of Environmental Protection that the mere flow of water

through an existing dam constitutes a “discharge” regulated by the Clean

Water Act. In so holding, the Court affirmed a state’s authority to require

federally licensed hydroelectric projects to comply with state water-quality

standards. This decision, arising in the context of federal and state power in the area of licensing

infrastructure projects, is thefirst environmental decision of the Roberts Court.

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires “[a]ny Applicant for a federal license or permit to

conduct any activity . . . which may result in a discharge into navigable water[s]” to obtain a

certification from the state in which the discharge originates. The statute further requires that

any effluent limitations and other requirements set forth in the certification become conditions

on the federal license or permit. The Federal Power Act, in turn, grants the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC) exclusive authority to license hydroelectric projects on

navigable waters of the United States.