<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Virginia Lawyers Weekly &#187; Environmental</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/environmental/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 20:24:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Court Can’t Review Beach Protection Claim&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/22/court-cant-review-beach-protection-claim/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/22/court-cant-review-beach-protection-claim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2013 18:42:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Paul V. Niemeyer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73897</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A district court did not err in dismissing a North Carolina coastal town’s suit seeking to enforce the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ alleged commitments to protect adjacent beaches during a project to widen portions of the Cape Fear River navigation channel, and the 4th Circuit affirms dismissal of the suit. The Village of Bald [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/22/court-cant-review-beach-protection-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Past, Former Owners Share CERCLA Costs&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/10/past-former-owners-share-cercla-costs/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/10/past-former-owners-share-cercla-costs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:57:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Diana Gribbon Motz]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73688</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In these appeals arising from disputes over liability for hazardous substance cleanup at a former fertilizer manufacturing site in Charleston, S.C., the 4th Circuit affirms a trial court order that holds both the current and former owners responsible for costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. The westernmost 34 acres of the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/10/past-former-owners-share-cercla-costs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Coal ash settlement believed to be first of its kind in Virginia &#8211; $200,000 Settlement&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/01/coal-ash-settlement-believed-to-be-first-of-its-kind-in-virginia-200000-settlement/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/01/coal-ash-settlement-believed-to-be-first-of-its-kind-in-virginia-200000-settlement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 11:07:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Virginia Lawyers Weekly</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Verdicts & Settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chesapeake Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73428</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Defendant owned a commercial property adjacent to the plaintiff’s business in Chesapeake. As part of the construction of a new motel, the defendant dumped toxic coal ash along both sides of the property line. Here, the defendants spread coal ash up to six feet onto the plaintiff’s property. Coal ash is the by-product of burning [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/01/coal-ash-settlement-believed-to-be-first-of-its-kind-in-virginia-200000-settlement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Agency Pesticide Opinion ‘Arbitrary,’ Court Says&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/26/agency-pesticide-opinion-arbitrary-court-says/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/26/agency-pesticide-opinion-arbitrary-court-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:21:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Paul V. Niemeyer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72856</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A “biological opinion” issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service to the Environmental Protection Agency is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706, and the 4th Circuit reverses summary judgment for the Fisheries Service and vacates its opinion concluding certain pesticides would jeopardize the viability of Pacific salmonids and their [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/26/agency-pesticide-opinion-arbitrary-court-says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Contamination Claim Advances Against Coal Company&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/14/contamination-claim-advances-against-coal-company/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/14/contamination-claim-advances-against-coal-company/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:47:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James P. Jones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Western District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72606</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An Abingdon U.S. District Court will not dismiss plaintiffs’ suit seeking damages and injunctive relief against a coal company for placing contaminated water in an inactive mine located on real estate in which plaintiffs claim to be owners of other coal reserves and gas, including coal bed methane. Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) argument depends in part [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/14/contamination-claim-advances-against-coal-company/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Environmentalists May File CWA Suit Against ‘Gob Piles’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/04/environmentalists-may-file-cwa-suit-against-gob-piles/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/04/environmentalists-may-file-cwa-suit-against-gob-piles/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2013 16:51:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James P. Jones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Western District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72379</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Big Stone Gap U.S. District Court says plaintiff environmental group has stated a claim under the Clean Water Act for redress against a mining operator for discharges from coal mine “gob piles,” as the CWA allows citizen enforcement suits. Gob piles are piles of waste composed of coal mixed with mining by-products. They usually [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/04/environmentalists-may-file-cwa-suit-against-gob-piles/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>EPA Can’t Regulate Stormwater Load&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/29/epa-cant-regulate-stormwater-load/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/29/epa-cant-regulate-stormwater-load/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2013 18:54:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Liam O'Grady]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72256</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Clean Water Act does not authorize the EPA to regulate the level a pollutant in Accotink Creek, a 25-mile long tributary of the Potomac River in Fairfax County, by establishing a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for the flow of stormwater, a nonpollutant, into the creek, and the Alexandria U.S. District Court grants the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/29/epa-cant-regulate-stormwater-load/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Agency Decision on Dam Upheld Under NEPA&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/07/19/agency-decision-on-dam-upheld-under-nepa/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/07/19/agency-decision-on-dam-upheld-under-nepa/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:41:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Floyd County Circuit Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=68437</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 4th Circuit upholds a decision by the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service to eliminate from its 35-year-old project for preservation of the Lost River Subwatershed its plan to construct one of five dams, a decision challenged by seven owners who say their land will be adversely affected by this decision; the NRCS has complied [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/07/19/agency-decision-on-dam-upheld-under-nepa/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Owners Seek Damages for Bad Well Water&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/07/17/owners-seek-damages-for-bad-well-water/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/07/17/owners-seek-damages-for-bad-well-water/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:40:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James P. Jones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Western District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=68391</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Plaintiffs suing under the “citizens suit” provisions of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 have stated a claim for money damages by alleging defendant coal mining company has diminished and contaminated their water supplies and failed to provide them with an adequate and permanent replacement; the Abingdon U.S. District Court denies the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/07/17/owners-seek-damages-for-bad-well-water/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Wildlife Refuge Permit Decision Vacated&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/06/19/wildlife-refuge-permit-decision-vacated/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/06/19/wildlife-refuge-permit-decision-vacated/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:29:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert B. King]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=67860</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The “Friends of Back Bay” win their challenge to a Clean Water permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers to a developer who wants to build a mooring facility and concrete boat ramp about 3,000 feet from the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia Beach; the 4th Circuit vacates a decision upholding the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/06/19/wildlife-refuge-permit-decision-vacated/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
