A waiver of sovereign immunity for the CWA?

Scott F. Romans
{"title":"A waiver of sovereign immunity for the CWA?","authors":"Scott F. Romans","doi":"10.1002/ffej.3330080209","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled in DOE v. Ohio, 112 S.Ct. 1627 (1992) that both the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) did not provide an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity which would allow enforcement of punitive fines and penalties (for past violations) against federal facilities. In response to this decision, Congress, in 1992, passed the Federal Facility Compliance Act (FFCA). This law amended RCRA to provide an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity. Members of Congress have expressed interest in amending the CWA to provide a similar waiver of sovereign immunity.</p><p>This article discusses the arguments for and against including an FFCA-type waiver of sovereign immunity in the CWA. On its face, such a waiver would appear to be an attractive way to increase federal compliance with the CWA. However, it should not be assumed that such a waiver would increase CWA compliance in the same manner the FFCA has increased RCRA compliance. The article concludes that the best approach would be to provide a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for CWA violations. This limited waiver would allow punitive penalty enforcement by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) against federal agencies (even in those states that have state-run programs), but maintain the prohibition against state enforcement. This type of waiver would provide the benefits of punitive penalty enforcement, while protecting federal prerogatives from the vagaries of state enforcement actions.</p>","PeriodicalId":100523,"journal":{"name":"Federal Facilities Environmental Journal","volume":"8 2","pages":"69-92"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/ffej.3330080209","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Federal Facilities Environmental Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ffej.3330080209","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled in DOE v. Ohio, 112 S.Ct. 1627 (1992) that both the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) did not provide an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity which would allow enforcement of punitive fines and penalties (for past violations) against federal facilities. In response to this decision, Congress, in 1992, passed the Federal Facility Compliance Act (FFCA). This law amended RCRA to provide an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity. Members of Congress have expressed interest in amending the CWA to provide a similar waiver of sovereign immunity.

This article discusses the arguments for and against including an FFCA-type waiver of sovereign immunity in the CWA. On its face, such a waiver would appear to be an attractive way to increase federal compliance with the CWA. However, it should not be assumed that such a waiver would increase CWA compliance in the same manner the FFCA has increased RCRA compliance. The article concludes that the best approach would be to provide a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for CWA violations. This limited waiver would allow punitive penalty enforcement by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) against federal agencies (even in those states that have state-run programs), but maintain the prohibition against state enforcement. This type of waiver would provide the benefits of punitive penalty enforcement, while protecting federal prerogatives from the vagaries of state enforcement actions.

放弃反恐局的主权豁免?
1992年,最高法院在美国能源部诉俄亥俄州案(112 s.c.)中作出裁决。1627(1992)指出,《清洁水法》和《资源保护和恢复法》都没有明确规定放弃主权豁免,从而允许对联邦设施实施惩罚性罚款和处罚(针对过去的违法行为)。作为对这一决定的回应,国会于1992年通过了《联邦设施合规法》(FFCA)。该法律修订了《区域储备金法》,明确规定放弃主权豁免。国会议员已表示有兴趣修改《反恐法》,以提供类似的放弃主权豁免的规定。本文讨论了支持和反对在《公约》中列入ffca类型的主权豁免放弃的论点。从表面上看,这种豁免似乎是提高联邦政府对《清洁能源法》遵守程度的一种有吸引力的方式。但是,不应假设这样的豁免将以FFCA增加RCRA遵守的同样方式增加CWA遵守。该条的结论是,最好的办法是对违反《公约》的行为规定有限地放弃主权豁免。这一有限的豁免将允许环境保护署(EPA)对联邦机构(即使在那些有州立项目的州)实施惩罚性处罚,但仍禁止州执行。这种类型的豁免将提供惩罚性处罚执行的好处,同时保护联邦特权免受州执法行动的变幻莫测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信