Environmental Law Portal

Welcome to the Beveridge & Diamond Environmental Law Portal.

Beveridge & Diamond’s 100 lawyers in seven U.S. offices focus on environmental and natural resource law, litigation and dispute resolution. We help clients around the world resolve critical environmental and sustainability issues relating to their products, facilities, and operations. 

Subscribe for updates via:

Meet the Contributors


Recent Posts

Click here to learn more about us

Showing 12 posts in Wetlands. View our practice description for Wetlands.

Impacts of the 2016 U.S. Election on Environmental Law, Policy, and Enforcement

The 2016 election results will have wide-ranging impacts on the future direction of environmental law, policy, and enforcement in the U.S.  With 100 lawyers in offices around the U.S. focused on environmental and natural resource law and litigation, Beveridge & Diamond helps clients navigate legal and business risks arising from this evolving legal landscape. Read More ›

Parker Moore Quoted in BloombergBNA on the Benefits of Science Training for Attorneys

Parker Moore, a Principal in Beveridge & Diamond's Washington, DC office and leader of the firm’s Endangered Species and Wildlife Protection,Wetlands, and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) practice groups, was quoted in a BloombergBNA Daily Environment Report article titled "Science Training Gives Some Attorneys Advantages."  The article discusses how training and degrees in the sciences have advantages in the practice of environmental law. Read More ›

Supreme Court Again Sinks Government on Wetlands

If only Vegas betting were this easy.

A few months ago, we (and most everyone else not working at the Justice Department) predicted that the Supreme Court would rule that property owners seeking to develop potential federal wetlands on their property may immediately challenge in federal court approved jurisdictional determinations (“JD”) by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The government had countered that JDs are not final agency actions.  Instead, recipients must either await denial of a Clean Water Act Section 404 wetlands permit after a lengthy and expensive administrative process, or proceed to fill wetlands at their own risk.  The federal appellate courts had split on this issue. Read More ›

Local Wetlands Bylaw Decision Survives Pre-emption Challenge

The Massachusetts Appeals Court has again upheld the validity of a local conservation commission’s ruling under a local wetlands bylaw notwithstanding that the commission’s partial reliance on the State Wetland Protection Act was erroneous. Parkview Electronics Trust v. Conservation Commission of Winchester, Appeals Court No. 13-P-276 (January 12, 2016). Read More ›

WOTUS Litigation Update: Confusion Breeds Confusion

Perhaps it is poetic justice.  The litigation over the final Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule is as disjointed and confusing as the rule itself.  Following a key court ruling yesterday, the WOTUS rule is now preliminarily enjoined.  Or is it? Read More ›

Supreme Court Backs Landowner in Major Takings Case

The Supreme Court yesterday expanded private property rights in a major takings case that arose from the Florida state courts. The Court held in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District that not only does the Constitution’s Takings Clause apply to situations where a project is approved with “extortionate” conditions but it also applies where a project is denied because the owner refuses to accede to coercive property demands of the government. Read More ›

Army Corps’ New Plant List Expected to Increase Number of Wetlands, Assertions of CWA Jurisdiction

An article authored by Parker Moore analyzing the potential impacts of the 2012 National Wetland Plant List was published in a recent issue of BNA Inc.'s Daily Environment Report. To read the article, Army Corps’ New Plant List Expected to Increase Number of Wetlands, Assertions of Clean Water Act Jurisdiction, please click here.

Beveridge & Diamond Scores Major NEPA/Wetlands Victory for Railroad in 10th Circuit

On November 28, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit unanimously upheld environmental studies supporting the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit issued for a proposed $250 million intermodal facility near Gardner, Kansas. Hillsdale Envtl. Loss Prevention, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, __ F.3d __, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24531 (10th Cir. 2012). The Court rejected claims from environmental groups that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had violated the National Environmental Policy Act by evaluating the project in an environmental assessment and the CWA by permitting project construction that would fill wetlands and other waters. Litigators in Beveridge & Diamond’s Washington, D.C. office represented the facility’s developer, one of the nation’s largest freight railroad companies, which intervened as a defendant in the litigation. Read More ›

MassDEP Continues Efforts at Regulatory Reform Affecting Nearly All Agency Programs

MassDEP has conducted an extensive review of its regulations and programs searching for opportunities to improve its efficiency. During the spring, MassDEP sought public input on which specific changes should be made.  During October, MassDEP published an update on its progress, located at http://www.mass.gov/dep/about/priorities/regreform/1012update.htm. Here is a brief summary of the proposed reforms, based on the recent update: Read More ›

Supreme Court Rules Property Owners May Challenge EPA Compliance Orders

In a closely-watched case, the U.S. Supreme Court on March 21 told the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to stop “strong-arming . . . regulated parties” who wish to go directly to court to contest compliance orders that assert jurisdiction over wetlands as well as other waters under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”).  EPA had long maintained that property owners could not challenge in court the assertion of jurisdiction over wetlands and waters when EPA issues compliance orders against owners for filling those features without a permit.  Accordingly, property owners had to wait for EPA to bring a civil suit against them for alleged CWA violations before they could argue in front of a judge that the wetlands or waters were not subject to federal jurisdiction.  Meanwhile, EPA could and would assess heavy financial penalties against owners for each day they failed to abide by a compliance order, even if an owner believed the U.S. had no jurisdiction over its land. Read More ›