On March 18, 2019, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed legislation authorizing municipalities (and other public entities) to establish utilities for the creation and management of stormwater infrastructure. The legislation, S1073, also known as the Clean Stormwater and Flood Reduction Act (the “Act”), provides that a governing body of a county or municipality may create a stormwater utility “for the purposes of acquiring, constructing, improving, maintaining, and operating stormwater management systems.” The Act also allows municipalities and counties that have established sewerage authorities to request that the authority create a stormwater utility, so that the functions of the utility would be managed by the existing authority rather than the municipality(ies) or county directly. Perhaps most importantly, the Act authorizes stormwater utilities to “charge and collect reasonable fees and other charges” to recoup the costs incurred by the utility in performing stormwater management in the subject locality. Under the Act, charges may be assessed against the owner or occupant, or both, of any real property from which stormwater enters a stormwater management system. The Act also includes provisions allowing municipalities, etc. that establish stormwater utilities to issue bonds to fund stormwater management systems, and imposes reporting requirements on utilities and rulemaking...
On January 30, 2017, as promised during his campaign, President Trump signed an executive order requiring federal agencies to identify two regulations to be repealed for every new regulation that is created. The order comes on the heels of a January 20, 2017 memorandum from White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus directing agency heads to freeze new or pending regulations including those that had been finalized but not yet published in the Federal Register. The “one in, two out” rule and regulatory freeze spell uncertainty for regulations currently in the pipeline for adoption by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), including the proposed financial assurances rules for the hardrock mining industry we have previously covered here. Other impacted EPA rule proposals include a stormwater general permit designed to reduce polluted runoff from construction sites and a rule which would include vapor intrusion as a method of evaluating contamination levels at potential Superfund sites. At present, it is unclear how the administration’s actions will ultimately impact any pending EPA regulations (or those of other federal agencies). The environmental attorneys at Gibbons P.C. will be closely monitoring any further executive action impacting proposed EPA rules and report on any important developments.
On June 1, 2015, after significant outreach to the relevant stakeholders, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) released for public comment sweeping proposed changes to the rules governing Coastal Zone Management (CZM), N.J.A.C. 7:7E-1.1 et seq., Stormwater Management (SWM), N.J.A.C. 7:8-1.1 et seq., and the Flood Hazard Area Control Act (FHACA), N.J.A.C. 7:13-1.1 et seq. However, the New Jersey Legislature is poised to use its constitutional authority to find that the proposed regulations are inconsistent with the legislative intent of the enabling statutes.
The Deposition Not Taken: Eighth Circuit Holds Third Party Document to be Business Records of Another Entity Admissible Under FRE 803(6)
In Residential Funding Co., LLC v. Terrace Mortgage Co., (Docket No. 12-2569, August 7, 2013) the Eighth Circuit upheld a grant of summary judgment, including damages evidenced by records created by a third party and supported by the third party’s affidavit. Ordinarily, an affidavit of a third party, if authenticated under FRE 902(11) (See Klock, New Jersey Practice, V2D, 555 (West 2009) is admissible if an appropriate foundation is laid. See Klock, New Jersey Practice, V2E, 342-43 (West 2012). Proper authentication requires notice of intent to use the affidavit. The affidavit in question apparently was not authenticated in that manner.
In Clean Water Act Case, Three Justices Invite Future Challenge to Rule of Deference to Agencies in Interpretation of Their Own Regulations
A victory in the Supreme Court is generally welcome news for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). But, the Court’s decision last month in a Clean Water Act case may foreshadow a sweeping change in administrative law that would certainly not please EPA or other agencies: the end of a long-standing rule of judicial deference to agencies in the interpretation of their own regulations.
Another Edition of “No Addition”: Supreme Court Applies Precedent to Confirm Plaintiffs’ Concession That Movement of Water Within River Channel Was Not a “Discharge”
The answer you get depends on the question you ask. That’s the take-home lesson from the Supreme Court’s decision in Los Angeles Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council. All parties agreed on the answer to the specific question on which the Court granted certiorari. The Court, applying its own 2004 precedent, said they were correct — there was no “discharge” that violated the District’s permit because the flows in question simply went from one part of the same river system to another. The Court never reached the alternative ground for liability urged by the plaintiffs because it went beyond that narrow question. The result? A reversal and a win for the District on essentially procedural grounds.
USEPA Grants Technical Assistance to Coopers Ferry Partnership to Study SMART Initiative in Camden, N.J.
On July 19, 2012, Coopers Ferry Partnership was one of 17 community partners selected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to receive technical assistance as part of its 2011 strategic agenda to renew support for green infrastructure and promote its effective implementation. The Coopers Ferry Partnership will receive $70,000 to advance projects aimed at reducing water pollution in Camden, New Jersey.
Judge Robert J. Bryan of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington recently issued two opinions in United States v. Washington State Department of Transportation that could have significant implications on the scope and extent of liability under the Comprehensive, Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq., particularly at urban river sites and harbors. Both decisions examine the liability of the Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) at the Commencement Bay/Nearshore Tidelands Superfund Site.
Last week, Governor Rendell signed the Permit Extension Act (“Act”) into law as part of the approval of the budget, breathing life into expired and expiring permits and the development projects they represent. The Act, found at pages 99-110 of the budget bill, extends the expiration date of many governmental approvals, permits and agreements, including building permits and construction permits, relating to construction and development projects.
On February 1, 2010 all construction projects that are over one acre in size must comply with the United States Environmental Protection Agency rules that were published on December 1, 2009. Essentially, the new rules are deigned to control discharges from the construction site such as sediment, turbidity, nutrients and metals. See Final Rule at 74 Fed. Reg. 62,996, 63,0003-04, 63,032 (December 1, 2009). The rule is national in scope and to the extent a state’s regulations are not as demanding the federal standard must be met. Any new construction permits after February 1, 2010 to which the act applies musts comply with the federal standard.