David G Mandelbaum

June 18, 2013 | The Legal Intelligencer

My individual practice has caused me to focus on mandatory injunctions under the environmental laws for a while now, as in United States v. NCR, No. 1:10-cv-910-WCG (E.D. Wis. May 1, 2013).

By David G. Mandelbaum

8 minute read

January 29, 2013 | The Legal Intelligencer

The environmental laws are full of provisions that could turn into large sources of liability but never do. One of those sleeping liabilities may have stirred last month. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection v. Blue Chip Transportation, No. 153 C.D. 2012 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Dec. 13, 2012), was an action by the state to recover the costs of addressing the Starr tire pile.

By David G. Mandelbaum

7 minute read

November 20, 2012 | The Legal Intelligencer

Last month, U.S. Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson in Harrisburg denied a request for a Lone Pine order in a natural gas migration case, Roth v. Cabot Oil & Gas, Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-898 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 15, 2012). That decision offers an opportunity to consider some issues arising from claims that shale gas development (fracking) in Pennsylvania has caused personal injury or property damage as the result of contamination of neighbors' water wells or other migration of natural gas to neighbors' property.

By David G. Mandelbaum

8 minute read

October 16, 2012 | The Legal Intelligencer

On September 4, the Environmental Hearing Board decided a motion in limine in Barron v. Department of Environmental Protection, EHB No. 2011-142-L, that highlights issues presented by the intersection of the bar on pre-enforcement review under, in that case, the Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act (HSCA), Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 35, §§6020.101 to .1305, and reliance on "institutional controls."

By David G. Mandelbaum

8 minute read

September 18, 2012 | The Legal Intelligencer

Earlier this month, the Commonwealth Court issued an unpublished opinion affirming a contempt order in a Pennsylvania Safe Drinking Water Act case, Department of Environmental Protection v. Peckham.

By David G. Mandelbaum

8 minute read

August 28, 2012 | The Legal Intelligencer

On July 26, the Commonwealth Court decided Robinson Township v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Comm'n, No. 284 M.D. 2012, invalidating portions of the Oil and Gas Act amendments of 2012 (known as Act 13). Specifically, Robinson Township struck down the provisions of Act 13 constraining the application of local land use controls to oil and gas facilities and sustained others.

By David G. Mandelbaum

8 minute read

June 26, 2012 | The Legal Intelligencer

On June 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decided a Superfund case, Commonwealth Department of Environmental Protection v. Lockheed Martin, No. 10-4078 (3d Cir. June 6, 2012). Lockheed Martin indirectly illustrates a recurring problem under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, the Superfund statute.

By David G. Mandelbaum

8 minute read

May 22, 2012 | The Legal Intelligencer

On May 8, Judge Louis H. Pollak passed away. I served as law clerk to Pollak at the beginning of my career.

By David G. Mandelbaum

9 minute read

May 01, 2012 | The Legal Intelligencer

Controversy over development of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale and other "unconventional" resources resulted in two unrelated legal news items during the week of April 9. On April 11, Senior Judge Keith Quigley of the Commonwealth Court preliminarily enjoined the effectiveness of Section 3309 of the 2012 amendments to the Oil and Gas Act, known as Act 13. Then, on April 13, President Obama issued Executive Order 13605, titled "Supporting Safe and Responsible Development of Unconventional Domestic Natural Gas Resources." Each of these events addresses, in part, the important question of which government ought to regulate the pace, manner and form of natural gas development.

By David G. Mandelbaum

6 minute read

April 10, 2012 | The Legal Intelligencer

On March 21, in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court (mirabile dictu) held that regulated entities may obtain judicial review of administrative compliance orders issued by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act even if the EPA has not sued on an order. The court expressed some consternation over the EPA's assertion of the ability to take unreviewable enforcement actions merely because without review, enforcement orders would more quickly induce "voluntary" compliance.

By David G. Mandelbaum

8 minute read