|
|
Summaries of Published Opinions By Environmental Practice Group
In a ruling strictly construing the powers of the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, the Supreme Court of South Carolina has ruled in favor of Buist Moore Smythe McGee client, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP as represented by principal, Jim Myrick. The Court affirmed a development permit for a 43-acre site in Florence, South Carolina. A citizens group, Responsible Economic Development, and its Members and Directors; Angela Ketchum, Carolyn Jebaily, Peggy Brown, Rachell Hyman, Bobby Griffin and Walter Sallenger opposed the Stormwater Permit and alleged that the runoff from the site violated the Pollution Control Act and South Carolina Water Quality Anti-Degradation Requirements. The Court ruled “in the absence of statutory authorization to apply the two acts and their corresponding regulations to each other, the regulations of the Pollution Control Act do not apply to the Stormwater Act or its regulations.”
The decision followed related wins before South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Ray Stevens, a unanimous South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Board and Circuit Court Judge James Brogden.
The ruling is precedential. It potentially limits SCDHEC’s ability to control development in situations involving isolated wetlands. In short, the ruling lessens the ability of state government to control the use of private property, and is a victory for private landowners and developers alike.
The South Carolina Supreme Court denied a Petition for Rehearing of the decision on March 7, 2007.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control v. Commerce and Industry Insurance Company, 372 F.3d 245 (4th Circuit 2004).
This appeal concerns the application and interplay of two major federal environmental protection statutes. The first is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), which authorizes the pursuit of civil actions directly against insurers who have provided RCRA-mandated evidence of financial responsibility to owners and operators of RCRA-regulated hazardous waste facilities. The second is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), commonly known as “Superfund”), which in proper circumstances authorizes the pursuit of claims for cost recovery and contribution against parties potentially responsible for contaminating CERCLA-regulated facilities. The primary issue on appeal was whether RCRA’s direct action provision could be utilized to pursue CERCLA claims. The circuit court dismissed the claims. Affirmed on appeal. Charles J. Baker and David S. Yandle for appellees.
Beazer East, Inc. v. United States Navy, 111 F.3rd 129, 44 ERC 1846 (4th Cir. 1997). BMSM represented Beazer in a third party complaint against the Navy and six other parties for cleanup costs. On appeal of an order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Navy on Beazer's CERCLA and RCRA claims, the Appeals Court reversed and held in favor Beazer stating that the district court prematurely dismissed Beazer's RCRA claims.
|
|
