2016 Annual Florida Chapters Conference
This panel will discuss whether we have Federal overreach in this environmental law area, such as current interpretations of the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Power Plan, etc., and what the appropriate roles for the Federal Government and Florida are in the context of environmental law.
This panel was part of the 2016 Annual Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's Boardwalk Inn in Lake Buena Vista, FL on January 22-23, 2016.
Federalism and Environmental Law
- Mr. Avi Garbow, General Counsel, United States Environmental Protection Agency
- Mr. Matthew Z. Leopold, Of Counsel, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA and former General Counsel, Florida Department of Environmental Protection
- Prof. Erin Ryan, Professor, Florida State University College of Law
- Mr. Patrick Strawbridge, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC
- Moderator: Hon. Edward L. Artau, Florida 15th Judicial Circuit
- Introduction: Mr. Gregory Munson, Shareholder, Gunster
Disney's Boardwalk Inn 2015 National Lawyers Convention
Lake Buena Vista, FL
Environmental law and policy raise profound questions about Congress's role and responsibilities. Many environmental regulatory statutes leave the Environmental Protection Agency with broad discretion. Although these grants of discretion create flexibility and take advantage of EPA expertise, they also invite congressional passivity, create administrative problems, and increase special-interest pressures on the EPA and Congress alike. Congressional-EPA relations matter now more than ever because many major federal environmental laws are now more than 40 years old. The EPA is using currently enabling language from old environmental organic acts to regulate global climate change and other cutting-edge problems. What are the proper relations between Congress and the EPA? If these relations are out of alignment, can Congress realign them and how? Panelists will explore these questions with examples ranging from hydrofracturing through clean water and clean air regulation.
Environmental Law: The Role of Congress in Environmental Law
11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
- Prof. Eric R. Claeys, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law
- Mr. Matt Leggett, Policy Counsel on Energy, Environment, and Agriculture, U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee
- Prof. Nicholas A. Robinson, University Professor on the Environment, and Kerlin Professor Emeritus, Pace University School of Law
- Prof. David Schoenbrod, Trustee Professor of Law, New York Law School
- Moderator: Hon. Steven M. Colloton, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
The Mayflower Hotel Environmental Law & Property Rights and Litigation Practice Groups Podcast
Michael H. Park September 17, 2015
In its new “Waters of the United States” rule, the EPA has substantially increased the scope of its regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act. Dozens of states, trade associations, and private companies have challenged the rule in federal courts across the country. A federal judge in North Dakota recently issued an injunction against the rule just before it was scheduled to take effect. Michael Park of Consovoy McCarthy Park, who represent several of the parties in this litigation, discussed the rule, the status of the litigation, and where things could go from here.
SCOTUScast 7-1-15 featuring Andrew Grossman
- Mr. Michael Park, Partner, Consvoy McCarthy Park PLLC
On June 29, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency. The question in this case is whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acted unreasonably when it did not consider the costs of compliance in determining whether it was appropriate to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities.
In an opinion delivered by Justice Scalia, the Court held by a vote of 5-4 that the EPA acted unreasonably when it treated the costs of compliance as irrelevant. The judgment of the D.C. Circuit was reversed and the case remanded.
Chief Justice Roberts, as well as Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito joined the opinion of the Court. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, which justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor joined.
To discuss the case, we have Andrew Grossman, who is an associate at the law firm BakerHostetler. Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group Podcast
On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the power of the EPA. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA can regulate, as a stationary source of emissions, power plants only if EPA concludes that "regulation is appropriate and necessary." The Court, in a split decision, held that the EPA acted unreasonably when it deemed cost of the regulations irrelevant when it decided to regulate power plants. But what does that mean for the EPA? Will the decision have an impact for other regulatory agencies?
- Andrew Grossman, Associate, Baker & Hostetler, and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato Institute