﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="../StyleSheet/rss.xsl"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Environmental Law &amp; Climate Change Community Land Use</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/environmental-climatechangelaw</link><description>Environmental Law &amp; Climate Change Community, LexisNexis</description><copyright>http://www.lexisnexis.com/terms/copyright.aspx</copyright><atom:link href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/environmental-climatechangelaw/Rss.aspx?id=523" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Flood Insurance Guidance Announced By Federal Agencies</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2013/04/17/flood-insurance-guidance-announced-by-federal-agencies.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2013/04/17/flood-insurance-guidance-announced-by-federal-agencies.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/INSURANCELAW/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Insurance+LC+Images/ILC-New-Orleans-Flood-air-view.jpg" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;By the Ballard Spahr LLP Mortgage Banking Group&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The federal banking agencies, together with the Farm Credit Administration, have issued joint guidance on amendments to the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (FDPA). The amendments were part of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (Act), enacted on July 6, 2012. Participating in the guidance were the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Comptroller of the Currency, and the National Credit Union Administration.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.ballardspahr.com/~/media/Files/Alerts/2013-04-03-FDIC.pdf"&gt;Financial Institution Letter 14-2013&lt;/a&gt;, the agencies state that the Act&amp;#39;s increased penalties for FDPA violations</description><author>BallardSpahr@placeholder.com (Ballard Spahr LLP)</author><pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:11:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Property Owner Allowed To Pursue Just Compensation Claim Over Rails To Trails Taking Of Easement</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2013/04/09/property-owner-allowed-to-pursue-just-compensation-claim-over-rails-to-trails-taking-of-easement.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2013/04/09/property-owner-allowed-to-pursue-just-compensation-claim-over-rails-to-trails-taking-of-easement.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/documents/images/20091215083958_large.jpg" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;b&gt;By William Perry Pendley, President and Chief Operating Officer of Mountain States Legal Foundation&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A Wyoming man whose lawsuit-in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C. for &amp;quot;just compensation&amp;quot; for use of his private property as a federal trail-was dismissed in November 2011, has won a victory when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reinstated his lawsuit, Brandt v. United States, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5948 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 26, 2013) [&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?app=00075&amp;amp;view=full&amp;amp;searchtype=get&amp;amp;search=2013+U.S.+App.+Lexis+5948&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00205"&gt;enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers&lt;/a&gt;].&amp;nbsp; Marvin M. Brandt of Fox Park, who claims title to a railroad right-of-way and a road that accesses his property, asserts that, but for a</description><author>wppendley@mountainstateslegal.com (William Perry Pendley)</author><pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2013 10:13:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>State Net Capitol Journal Legislative Updates: NY, NJ Take Different Paths To Sandy Recovery</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2013/04/01/state-net-capitol-journal-legislative-updates-ny-nj-take-different-paths-to-sandy-recovery.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2013/04/01/state-net-capitol-journal-legislative-updates-ny-nj-take-different-paths-to-sandy-recovery.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.statenet.com/"&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/TAXLAW/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Tax_2C00_+Estates_2C00_+Corp/State-net.jpg" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NY, NJ TAKE DIFFERENT PATHS TO SANDY RECOVERY:&lt;/b&gt; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) are taking vastly different approaches to residents seeking to rebuild their coastal homes destroyed by Hurricane Sandy. Christie wants them to stay and to rebuild and is willing to pay them to do it. Cuomo is also willing to shell out cash incentives, but only to those residents who will agree to rebuild elsewhere.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Both plans, which were revealed last week, would utilize federal Hurricane Sandy relief funds. Christie supports a plan that would give Garden State owners of flood-damaged coastal homes $10,000 to stay and rebuild, provided they agree to remain there for at least two years. Cuomo</description><author>StateNet@placeholder.com (State Net)</author><pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:33:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Mountain States Legal Foundation: Miners Rebut Feds &amp; Environmentalists; Claim Land Law Is Unconstitutional</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2013/03/25/mountain-states-legal-foundation-miners-rebut-feds-amp-environmentalists-claim-land-law-is-unconstitutional.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2013/03/25/mountain-states-legal-foundation-miners-rebut-feds-amp-environmentalists-claim-land-law-is-unconstitutional.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/documents/images/20091215083958_large.jpg" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;b&gt;By William Perry Pendley, President and Chief Operating Officer of Mountain States Legal Foundation&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A 117-year-old nonprofit, non-partisan mining trade association with thousands of members has rebutted arguments by federal lawyers and environmental groups in urging an Arizona federal district court to strike the lock-up of a million acres of federal land in northwestern Arizona because of an unconstitutional federal land law.&amp;nbsp; The Northwest Mining Association (NWMA) of Spokane, Washington, claimed in a March 2012 complaint that Interior Secretary Salazar&amp;#39;s January 2012 order withdrawing the land from entry under the General Mineral Law and blocking access to hundreds of millions of pounds of the highest-grade uranium ore in the nation violates federal laws.&amp;nbsp; Earlier in January, the district court rejected a Salazar motion</description><author>wppendley@mountainstateslegal.com (William Perry Pendley)</author><pubDate>Mon, 25 Mar 2013 10:20:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Mountain States Legal Foundation: Supreme Court Must Hear Western “Takings Clause” Case </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2013/03/13/mountain-states-legal-foundation-supreme-court-must-hear-western-takings-clause-case.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2013/03/13/mountain-states-legal-foundation-supreme-court-must-hear-western-takings-clause-case.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/documents/images/20091215083958_large.jpg" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;b&gt;By William Perry Pendley, President and Chief Operating Officer of Mountain States Legal Foundation&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A western, nonprofit, public-interest legal foundation with decades of experience defending the rights of westerners against the federal government has urged the Supreme Court of the United States to hear a case from Nevada in which actions of the U.S. Forest Service caused the taking of private property without compensation.&amp;nbsp; Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF), in a powerful friend of the court brief, urged the Court to hear the landmark and long-enduring litigation.&amp;nbsp; The first lawsuit in the case, which involves Forest Service managed lands used by the family for cattle grazing and the family&amp;#39;s private water rights, was filed in 1991.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW</description><author>wppendley@mountainstateslegal.com (William Perry Pendley)</author><pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2013 09:03:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Mountain States Legal Foundation: Alaska Landowners Fight Dismissal of Land Seizure Case</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2013/03/11/mountain-states-legal-foundation-alaska-landowners-fight-dismissal-of-land-seizure-case.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2013/03/11/mountain-states-legal-foundation-alaska-landowners-fight-dismissal-of-land-seizure-case.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/documents/images/20091215083958_large.jpg" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;b&gt;By William Perry Pendley, President and Chief Operating Officer of Mountain States Legal Foundation&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Property owners in Juneau and Seward, for themselves and others throughout Alaska, have responded to attempts by State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources officials to dismiss their lawsuit challenging Alaska&amp;#39;s claim to the beds of small streams that cross private property.&amp;nbsp; In December, Lacano Investments, Inc., Nowell Avenue Development, and Ava L. Eads filed a class-action lawsuit claiming that land sought by the State was patented and sold as homesteads, mining claims, or townsites beginning over 100 years ago and continuing until 1959.&amp;nbsp; When the lands were surveyed, federal surveyors set aside navigable rivers-&amp;quot;highways of commerce&amp;quot;&amp;#39;-for the future State of Alaska.&amp;nbsp; Small streams, which were not</description><author>wppendley@mountainstateslegal.com (William Perry Pendley)</author><pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2013 08:46:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Supreme Court Must Hear “Only Enviros May Sue” Case </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2013/03/07/supreme-court-must-hear-only-enviros-may-sue-case.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2013/03/07/supreme-court-must-hear-only-enviros-may-sue-case.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/documents/images/20091215083958_large.jpg" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;b&gt;By William Perry Pendley, President and Chief Operating Officer of Mountain States Legal Foundation&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A 118-year-old nonprofit, non-partisan mining trade association with thousands of members has urged the Supreme Court of the United States to hear a case decided by the &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?app=00075&amp;amp;view=full&amp;amp;searchtype=get&amp;amp;search=2012+U.S.+App.+LEXIS+17349&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00205"&gt;U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit&lt;/a&gt;. &amp;nbsp;The Northwest Mining Association (NWMA) of Spokane, Washington filed a friend of the court brief in support of a &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?app=00075&amp;amp;view=full&amp;amp;searchtype=get&amp;amp;search=2012+U.S.+Briefs+935&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00205"&gt;petition for &lt;i&gt;writ&lt;/i&gt; of &lt;i&gt;certiorari&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/a&gt; filed by American Independence</description><author>wppendley@mountainstateslegal.com (William Perry Pendley)</author><pubDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2013 15:08:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Roadless Rule Emerges Victorious From Decade of Legal Challenges</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2012/12/02/environmental-law-conservation-logging-national-forests-national-environmental-policy-act-roadless-rule-victorious-legal-challenges.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2012/12/02/environmental-law-conservation-logging-national-forests-national-environmental-policy-act-roadless-rule-victorious-legal-challenges.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;By Mr. Michael Anderson&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;Get the latest expert analysis on the federal &amp;quot;Roadless Area Conservation Rule,&amp;quot; which bans road building and logging on millions of acres of national forest land in numerous states. This article includes an overview of the extensive roadless rule litigation and discusses implications of the U.S. Supreme Court&amp;#39;s October 2012 decision not to review a Tenth Circuit opinion.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Excerpt from the Commentary:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description><author>LNEnvSpecialStaffPhoto9@placeholder.com (LexisNexis Environmental Law Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Sun, 02 Dec 2012 16:23:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>The Struggle Over the Mississippi River Basin</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2012/06/06/environmental-law-agriculture-numeric-nutrient-criteria-florida-struggle-over-mississippi-river-basin.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2012/06/06/environmental-law-agriculture-numeric-nutrient-criteria-florida-struggle-over-mississippi-river-basin.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;&lt;img height="56" width="65" src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Contributor+Spotlight+Authors/Todd-Janzen-130x112.jpg" alt="Todd Janzen" border="0" style="max-width:550px;border:0;" /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;strong&gt;By Todd J. Janzen, Partner, Plews Shadley Racher &amp;amp; Braun LLP&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;While most farmers go quietly about their spring planting this year, a storm is brewing over the Mississippi River Basin of which few are probably aware. &amp;nbsp;I am referring to the legal struggle over establishing &amp;quot;numeric nutrient criteria&amp;quot; for the Mississippi watershed, that would set numeric thresholds</description><author>tjanzenpsrb@gmail.com (Todd Janzen)</author><pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:51:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Marten Law on PPL Montana, LLC v. State of Montana: Supreme Court Reverses Montana High Court in Rent for Riverbeds Case</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2012/04/18/environmental-law-marten-law-ppl-montana-state-supreme-court-reverses-montana-high-court-rent-riverbeds-case.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2012/04/18/environmental-law-marten-law-ppl-montana-state-supreme-court-reverses-montana-high-court-rent-riverbeds-case.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/documents/images/20091215092302_large.jpg" alt="Russell Prugh" border="0" style="max-width:550px;border:0;" /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;strong&gt;By Russell Prugh, Associate, Marten Law PLLC&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;In this Emerging Issues Analysis, Russell Prugh of Marten Law PLLC discusses the U.S. Supreme Court&amp;#39;s reversal of a decision by the Montana Supreme Court that required a hydroelectric dam operator to pay the State of Montana back rent for the use of state-owned riverbeds. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the state high court incorrectly applied the &amp;quot;navigability-for-title&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;navigability-in-fact&amp;quot; test.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial</description><author>RussellPrugh@placeholder.com (Russell Prugh)</author><pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 19:35:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Raising the Stakes in Farm Nuisance Cases </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2012/04/11/raising-the-stakes-in-farm-nuisance-cases.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2012/04/11/raising-the-stakes-in-farm-nuisance-cases.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;img border="0" src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Contributor+Spotlight+Authors/Todd-Janzen-130x112.jpg" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&amp;nbsp;By Todd J. Janzen, Partner, Plews Shadley Racher &amp;amp; Braun LLP&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Indiana farms that are the victims of &amp;quot;nuisance&amp;quot; suits by neighbors who don&amp;#39;t like the smell, sounds, or sights associated with farming are generally protected by Indiana&amp;#39;s Right to Farm Act. &amp;nbsp;The Right to Farm Act bars nuisance suits against &amp;quot;agricultural operations&amp;quot; that have been in operation for more than one year at the time the alleged &amp;quot;nuisance&amp;quot; began. &amp;nbsp;An &amp;quot;agricultural operation&amp;quot; is broad category, encompassing crop farming, raising livestock and poultry, and forestry. &amp;nbsp;In addition, conversion from one type of agricultural operation to another--e.g. from raising hogs to milking</description><author>tjanzenpsrb@gmail.com (Todd Janzen)</author><pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:36:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Marten Law PLLC Analyzes Chantell Sackett v. EPA: Scalia and Unanimous Supreme Court Uphold Pre-Enforcement Review in Wetlands Case Under Clean Water Act</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2012/03/29/marten-law-sackett-epa-unanimous-supreme-court-pre-enforcement-review-clean-water-act-environmental-law.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2012/03/29/marten-law-sackett-epa-unanimous-supreme-court-pre-enforcement-review-clean-water-act-environmental-law.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Author+Thumbnails/Steve-Jones-Russell-Prugh-Brad-Marten.gif" alt="Steve Jones and Russell Prugh and Brad Marten" border="0" style="max-width:550px;border:0;" /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;strong&gt;By Steve Jones, Russell Prugh and Brad Marten of Marten Law PLLC&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;In this Emerging Issues Analysis, Steve Jones, Russell Prugh and Brad Marten of Marten Law PLLC discuss the U.S. Supreme Court&amp;#39;s unanimous decision in Sackett v. EPA, striking down EPA&amp;#39;s ban on &amp;quot;pre-enforcement review&amp;quot; of administrative compliance orders issued under the Clean</description><author>LNEnvSpecialStaffPhoto9@placeholder.com (LexisNexis Environmental Law Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:10:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>LexisNexis® Environmental Law and Climate Change Community Podcast: Brad Marten on the U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Sackett v. EPA.  </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2012/03/29/LexisNexis_AE00_-Environmental-Law-and-Climate-Change-Community-Podcast_3A00_-Brad-Marten-on-the-U.S.-Supreme-Court-decision-in-Sackett-v.-EPA.--.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2012/03/29/LexisNexis_AE00_-Environmental-Law-and-Climate-Change-Community-Podcast_3A00_-Brad-Marten-on-the-U.S.-Supreme-Court-decision-in-Sackett-v.-EPA.--.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;On this edition, Brad Marten of Marten Law in Seattle discusses the U.S. Supreme Court&amp;#39;s decision in &lt;i&gt;Sackett v. EPA&lt;/i&gt;. The unanimous high Court found that an Idaho couple could appeal an administrative compliance order issued by the EPA under the Clean Water Act. Mr. Marten explains the background of the case and how it may be viewed both narrowly and broadly. Copyright&amp;copy; 2012 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. Visit &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/environmental-climatechangelaw" title="LexisNexis Environmental Law &amp;amp; Climate Change Community"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;&lt;span style="color:#0000ff;"&gt;www.lexisnexis.com/community/environmental-climatechangelaw&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span</description><author>Lnstaff@community.com (LexisNexis Community Staff)</author><enclosure url="http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3?http://www.lexisnexis.com/mealeys/podcasts/LNENVPODCAST_032912.mp3" length="550" type="audio/mp3" /><pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:00:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Supreme Court Holds in Sackett v. EPA That Idaho Couple Can Challenge EPA Wetlands Compliance Order As A Final Agency Action</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2012/03/26/supreme-court-sackett-epa-that-idaho-couple-challenge-epa-wetlands-compliance-order-final-agency-action.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2012/03/26/supreme-court-sackett-epa-that-idaho-couple-challenge-epa-wetlands-compliance-order-final-agency-action.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey&amp;#39;s) The U.S. Supreme Court on March 21 unanimously found that an Idaho couple could file a lawsuit challenging a compliance order issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act (CWA) because the order was a final agency action that could be reviewed under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) (&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?app=00075&amp;amp;view=full&amp;amp;searchtype=get&amp;amp;search=2012+U.S.+LEXIS+2320&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00205" title="Lexis.com"&gt;&lt;span style="color:#0000ff;"&gt;&lt;span style="text-decoration:underline;"&gt;Chantell Sackett, et al.v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency&lt;/span&gt;, No. 10-1062, U.S. Sup., 2012 U.S. LEXIS 2320&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;(Lexis.com subscribers may also access the &lt;a target="_blank" href=</description><author>andrew.dilworth@lexisnexis.com (Shane Dilworth)</author><pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:08:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Montana Homeowners Battle Forest Health (Timber Removal) Delay Demand By Environmental Groups</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2011/11/30/montana-homeowners-battle-forest-health-timber-removal-delay-environmental-groups.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2011/11/30/montana-homeowners-battle-forest-health-timber-removal-delay-environmental-groups.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/documents/images/20091215083958_large.jpg" alt="William Perry Pendley" border="0" style="max-width:550px;border:0;" /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;strong&gt;By William Perry Pendley, President and Chief Operating Officer of Mountain States Legal Foundation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;DENVER, CO. - Two Montanans have urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to reject a motion to stay a July 2011 ruling by a &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?app=00075&amp;amp;view=full&amp;amp;searchtype=get&amp;amp;search=2011+U.S.+Dist.+LEXIS+120806&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00205" title="Lexis.com"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size</description><author>wppendley@mountainstateslegal.com (William Perry Pendley)</author><pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2011 14:55:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Marten Law: Supreme Court Preview--Ownership of Navigable Riverways and Due Process Challenge to Enforcement Orders to be Decided in 2011-12 Term</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2011/10/13/marten-law-supreme-court-preview-ownership-of-navigable-riverways-and-due-process-challenge-to-enforcement-orders-to-be-decided-in-2011-12-term.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2011/10/13/marten-law-supreme-court-preview-ownership-of-navigable-riverways-and-due-process-challenge-to-enforcement-orders-to-be-decided-in-2011-12-term.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/documents/LawSchoolTutorials/20070926045821_large.jpg" alt="Steven Jones" border="0" style="max-width:550px;border:0;" /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;strong&gt;By Steven Jones, Partner, Marten Law PLLC&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:x-small;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:x-small;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;&amp;quot;The U.S. Supreme Court&amp;#39;s new term has just begun. There are two environmental cases on the Court&amp;#39;s docket,&amp;quot; reports Steve Jones. &amp;quot;The first, &lt;i&gt;PPL Montana, LLC v. State of Montana&lt;/i&gt;, presents the question of who owns the beds and banks of three Montana rivers</description><author>sjones@martenlaw.com (Steven G Jones)</author><pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:42:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Flooding from Irene: Whither the Flood Plain?</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2011/09/07/flooding-from-irene-whither-the-flood-plain.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2011/09/07/flooding-from-irene-whither-the-flood-plain.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Author+Thumbnails/J-wylie-donald.jpg" alt="J. Wylie Donald" border="0" style="max-width:550px;border:0;" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;By J. Wylie Donald, Partner, McCarter &amp;amp; English&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;My train this morning usually continues to New York. Today it terminated in Philadelphia, a victim of the deluge delivered by Hurricane Irene. Amtrak explained:&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;Most Northeast Regional service will operate south of Philadelphia, but no Acela Express, Northeast Regional</description><author>jdonald@mccarter.com (J. Wylie Donald)</author><pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:21:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Legal News Podcast - Supreme Court: Wyoming Farmers Permitted to Use Sprinkler Irrigation Affecting Yellowstone River</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2011/05/10/legal-news-podcast-supreme-court-wyoming-farmers-permitted-to-use-sprinkler-irrigation-affecting-yellowstone-river.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2011/05/10/legal-news-podcast-supreme-court-wyoming-farmers-permitted-to-use-sprinkler-irrigation-affecting-yellowstone-river.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;The Supreme Court finds modern irrigation methods do not violate the water rights of several states, and, a class action lawsuit seeks $50 million from Google for tracking cell phone users&amp;#39; locations. Hear these and other stories from LexisNexis&amp;reg; Mealey&amp;#39;s Publications. Copyright&amp;copy; 2011 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. For the latest litigation news headlines, visit &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/mealeys"&gt;&lt;span style="color:#0000ff;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;&lt;span style="color:#0000ff;"&gt;www.lexisnexis.com/me&lt;span style="color:#0000ff;"&gt;aley&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="color:#0000ff;"&gt;s&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"</description><author>lexisnexisenvironmentallawstaff@placeholder.com (LexisNexis Environmental Law Community Staff)</author><enclosure url="http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3?http://www.lexisnexis.com/mealeys/podcasts/LNPODCAST_050411.mp3" length="550" type="audio/mp3" /><pubDate>Tue, 10 May 2011 10:11:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>UNFCCC makes major step towards incentivising wetland restoration</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2010/06/18/unfccc-makes-major-step-towards-incentivising-wetland-restoration.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2010/06/18/unfccc-makes-major-step-towards-incentivising-wetland-restoration.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;&lt;span style="mso-spacerun:yes;"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;img border="0" src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/documents/images/20091028032158_large.JPG" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;strong&gt;By Malcolm Dowden, Solicitor and Environmental Law Consultant&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold;" lang="EN-GB"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:10pt;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold;" lang="EN-GB"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:small;"&gt;Despite widespread disappointment at the outcome of last year&amp;rsquo;s climate change summit in Copenhagen, quiet but significant progress</description><author>MDowden@placeholder.com (Malcolm Dowden)</author><pubDate>Fri, 18 Jun 2010 04:14:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>California Environmental Law and Land Use Practice</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2009/03/04/California-Environmental-Law-and-Land-Use-Practice.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2009/03/04/California-Environmental-Law-and-Land-Use-Practice.aspx</guid><description>&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>lexisnexisenvironmentallawstaff@placeholder.com (LexisNexis Environmental Law Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:14:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Zoning and Land Use Controls</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2009/02/09/Zoning-and-Land-Use-Controls.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL-CLIMATECHANGELAW/blogs/landuse/archive/2009/02/09/Zoning-and-Land-Use-Controls.aspx</guid><description>&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>lexisnexisenvironmentallawstaff@placeholder.com (LexisNexis Environmental Law Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2009 11:43:00 -0400</pubDate></item></channel></rss>