Environmental Law



 

 


Environmental Law


Contact: James Plumb, Partner and Duncan Lomas, Solicitor 

A recent Qld Supreme Court decision examines the rejection of an application for an exploration permit under the MRA on the basis that the targeted resource is actually an unconventional petroleum resource.

To read the full article click here, or visit www.carternewell.com.  

 


Important amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) (EP Act), made by the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2014 (Qld) (EPTLA Act) as part of the Newman Government’s ‘Greentape Reduction Project’, came into force on 30 September 2015.

One of those changes is the introduction of a new way in which the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP) can seek to enforce the EP Act – by entry into an ‘enforceable undertaking’.

To read the full article click here or visit www.carternewell.com.


Contact: Channing J. Martin; Williams Mullen (North Carolina & Virginia, USA)

In a significant setback for the Obama Administration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has temporarily blocked implementation of the Clean Water Rule issued jointly by EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers last June.  The rule defined “Waters of the United States” and was designed to put to rest years of controversy about the extent of federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act over wetlands and other waters.  That didn’t happen.  Within weeks of its issuance, over 70 parties – including 31 states – filed suit to overturn the rule.  Three federal judges in different states were petitioned to temporarily block it while it was challenged in court.  Only one of the three – a federal judge in North Dakota – granted an injunction.  His order – issued on August 27, just one day before the effective date – blocked the rule from taking effect in 13 western states.  Undeterred, EPA issued a press release the next day saying it would enforce the rule in the rest of the country. 

Read the entire article.


Contact: James Plumb & Johanna Kennerley, Carter Newell (Queensland, Australia)

Land Court Objections for Environmental Authorities re-introduced On Friday 17 July 2015, the State Development and Public Works Organisation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 (bill) was passed. The bill was originally introduced into Queensland Parliament by the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines and State Development (Minister) with the stated aim of restoring community objection rights relating to mining developments. The most significant amendment is the repeal of s 47D of the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 2015 (Qld) (SDPWOA), previously introduced by the Newman LNP government.  

To read the full article click here or visit www.carternewell.com


Contact: James Plumb and Duncan Lomas; Carter Newell (Queensland, Australia)

The recent Land Court decision of Henry v ERO Georgetown Gold Operations Pty Ltd [2015] QLC 13 provides useful guidance as to the meaning of ‘material change in circumstances’ under the land access provisions of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) (MRA).

Under the MRA, either party to a Conduct and Compensation Agreement (CCA) may apply to the Land Court for a review of the compensation under the agreement. In order to make an application, there must have been a ‘material change in circumstances’ since the agreement was entered into.

Read more: Material change in circumstances