Holly Doremus quoted in Contra Costa Times, March 29, 2012

Doremus noted the committee did not weigh in on plans to move water around the Delta. The committee wrote there are not enough details available for it to analyze…. “Diverters were hoping the report would point a finger at other stressors as more important, which it didn’t,” Doremus wrote.

Holly Doremus quoted in The Sacramento Bee, March 15, 2012

“It didn’t work,” said Holly Doremus, a UC Berkeley law professor and California water expert. “It’s widely regarded as a failure as a way to put in place balanced management of the Bay-Delta.”

Holly Doremus quoted in Environment & Energy News, March 9, 2012

“There are sort of two separate games going on―there’s the legal game and the political game,” Doremus said. “The fact that [NPS] may be playing a political game that fans of the farm may think is hard doesn’t mean anything is legally wrong with the NEPA process.”

Holly Doremus quoted in Los Angeles Times, March 1, 2012

“Part of what it tries to do is turn back time,” said UC Berkeley law professor Holly Doremus. “It’s a remarkable overreach. It tries to give the irrigators everything. They threw all of the wish list in here.”

Holly Doremus quoted in Environment & Energy News, March 1, 2012

“It is a big challenge for EPA,” said Doremus. “It is absolutely clear that they’re rejecting specific words of statute.”

Holly Doremus quoted in Environment & Energy News, February 29, 2012

“The Bush administration did nothing,” agreed Holly Doremus, a professor of environmental law at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. “The Obama administration EPA started exploring what they must and could do under the Clean Air Act.”

Environment & Energy News, February 3, 2012 by Lawrence Hurley
http://www.eenews.net/public/eenewspm/2012/02/03/1

“As Fletcher writes, it has long been the rule that agencies must evaluate the environmental consequences of their actions when it is reasonably possible to do so.”

Daily Journal, December 28, 2011 by Fiona Smith
http://bit.ly/A1iJm3 (registration required)

“The [Supreme] Court doesn’t seem to have come out with any clear doctrine, especially on when and to what extent they should presume state legislation is valid and to what extent they should put their thumb on the scales on behalf of the states,” Doremus said.

The Spokesman-Review, November 6, 2011 by Becky Kramer
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/nov/06/private-land-public-battle/

“The fact that the Supreme Court decided to take this case suggests that at least four members of the court think that the circuit courts are getting it wrong,” she said.

San Francisco Chronicle, September 25, 2011 by Gosia Wozniacka
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/09/24/BAG21L92R3.DTL

“I think those cases have been an incredible challenge,” said Holly Doremus, a law professor at UC Berkeley. “Judge Wanger took very seriously the task of sorting through the facts in these extremely complex, scientific cases.”

The New York Times, September 19, 2011 by Lawrence Hurley
http://nyti.ms/p31L8v

In defense of EPA, Berkeley’s Doremus dismissed the notion that the agency regularly throws its weight around by initiating enforcement proceedings against individual property owners like the Sacketts. That doesn’t happen, she said, because both EPA and the Army Corps “have been stung” in the past by efforts that have backfired politically.

The Billings Gazette, August 11, 2011 by Jeremy Pelzer
http://bit.ly/opFwkw

For one thing, she said, Fish and Wildlife biologists might be concerned whether Wyoming can accurately keep tabs on the state’s wolf population, given that wolves could be shot on sight without a license in part of the state. “They will have to do that process carefully,” Doremus said. “They’ll have to make sure they dot the procedural I’s and cross the T’s, because for sure they’re going to get sued.”

The New York Times, July 11, 2011 by Lawrence Hurley
http://nyti.ms/qiqmbJ

Legal experts do agree that there are enough differences between the GE and Sackett cases to explain why the court did not treat them the same. Holly Doremus, an environmental law professor … noted, for example, that the conservative wing of the court has a particular problem with wetlands regulation, which it sees, in her words, as a “breathtaking expansion of federal authority into virtually every corner of the geographic world.” The Superfund law does not attract “the same overt hostility” from those justices, which include the outspoken Antonin Scalia.

Associated Press, June 21, 2011 by Noaki Schwartz
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/22/travel/main20073328.shtml

Holly Doremus, an environmental law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, said there has been debate over what constitutes solid waste, but in this case there’s no doubt the tiny toxic elements are waste…. “It’s not a slam dunk either way, and I think it’s very creative by the NRDC to have found this possibility,” she said.

The New York Times, Room for Debate, April 22, 2011 by Holly Doremus
http://nyti.ms/gJUwh2

The great virtue of the Endangered Species Act is that it fights the human tendency to ignore problems indefinitely. It doesn’t force us to save endangered species, but it forces us to notice their plight. It’s a vital attention-getting device, and we need to be sure it continues to serve that purpose.

-The Huffington Post, April 5, 2011 by Marcus Baram
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/05/tokyo-electric-knew-radia_n_845021.html

The EPA has announced that it will delay finalizing its guidance memorandum on Clean Water Act permitting for mountaintop removal mining projects, pending review by the White House Office of Management and Budget. The move worries those “hoping the Obama administration won’t completely cave to regulated interests,” says Berkeley Law professor Holly Doremus.

-Greenwire, April 7, 2011 by Manuel Quinones
http://www.eenews.net/gw/ (registration required; go to H:\Law School in the News\In the News 2011\News Clips for article)

Doremus maintains an agency guidance does not need review by the executive branch. “What [White House officials] are supposed to be reviewing is new legal burdens. A rule is something that imposes new legal burdens,” she said in an interview. “All this guidance does is say, look at all the existing laws and regulations, this is how we are going to enforce them.”

-The Charleston Gazette, Coal Tattoo, April 7, 2011 by Ken Ward Jr.
http://bit.ly/dMKQXw

In a post on the group’s blog, Holly Doremus, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, outlined some serious concerns: Why is the White House really involved? Because since the mid-term elections it has been only too willing to bend to big-money attacks on regulatory agencies.

The New York Times, February 16, 2011 by Lawrence Hurley
http://nyti.ms/eJrsfG

“There are considerations either way,” said Holly Doremus, an environmental law professor at University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. Her instinct is that the Justice Department won’t appeal, for the simple reason that “they won’t want to piss off the judge any more than they already have.”

Environmental NewsStand, December 7, 2010
http://insideepa.com/ (registration required; go to H:\Law School in the News\In the News 2010\News Clips for article)

“Overall, this guidance is a very positive sign that CEQ is flexing its White House muscles, and an excellent start at standardizing quality NEPA implementation. If followed, it will go a long way toward reining in overuse of categorical exclusions,” writes Holly Doremus.

ClimateWire, December 7, 2010 by Dina Fine Maron
http://www.eenews.net (registration required; go to H:\Law School in the News\In the News 2010\News Clips for article)

“The 2nd Circuit took a pretty broad view, more or less saying until EPA is doing exactly what the plaintiffs are seeking to have done here, it doesn’t displace. My guess is the Supreme Court won’t agree with that; that they’ll think there is a broader displacement here, and if the Clean Air Act covers greenhouse gases, that might be enough.”

Contra Costa Times, June 14, 2010 by Mike Taugher
http://www.contracostatimes.com/environment/ci_15282537?nclick_check=1

“It doesn’t make any sense to do environmental analysis on the back end when you’re trying to help the environment,” said Holly Doremus, a professor at UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law. “What he’s saying is the agencies have to find absolutely the least burdensome way to save the species.”