40 C.F.R. § 257.3
Criteria for classification of solid waste disposal facilities and practices
Solid waste disposal facilities or practices which violate any of the following criteria pose a reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the environment:
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: O'GUIN v. Bingham Cnty., 122 P.3d 308 (Idaho 2005).
O'GUIN v. Bingham Cnty., 122 P.3d 308 (Idaho 2005). “NOTES [1] A further indication of the intent to protect the public appears in a subsequent revision to the landfill rules in which existing landfills were required to comply with 40 C.F.R. 257.3 for the two-year period beginning April 26, 2002.”
Brod v. Omya, Inc., 653 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2011). “Compare 40 C.F.R. § 257.3 -l(a) (prohibiting solid waste disposal facilities in floodplains from "restricting] the flow of the base flood .”
Cmty. Ass'n for Restoration of the Env't, Inc. v. Cow Palace, LLC, 80 F. Supp. 3d 1180 (E.D. Wash. 2015). “211 at 28 (citing 40 C.F.R. § 257.3 ^4(e)(5)). Because it is undisputed that groundwater beneath the Dairy generally flows to the south and southwest, any nitrates that migrate into the underlying aquifer will either be extracted from a well or eventually discharged to surface…”
O'LEARY v. Moyer's Landfill, Inc., 523 F. Supp. 642 (E.D. Pa. 1981). “30 Further, plaintiffs failed to establish a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 257.3 -4’s prohibition on the contamination of an underground drinking water source.”
Dague v. City of Burlington, 732 F. Supp. 458 (D. Vt. 1989). “11 Thus, we conclude that since December 27, 1985, the City has not violated 40 C.F.R. § 257.3 — 8(a)(2). b. Discharge of ■pollutants into waters of the United States This open dumping issue, raised pursuant to 40 C.”
Covington v. Jefferson Cnty., 358 F.3d 626 (9th Cir. 2004). “RCRA authorizes citizen suits for violations of the federal sanitary landfill criteria, 40 C.F.R. § 257.3 et seq., even if the EPA approved the state’s program.”
Potomac Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Nat'l Capital Skeet & Trap Club, Inc., 388 F. Supp. 2d 582 (D. Maryland 2005). “]” 40 C.F.R. § 257.3 -l(b)(3). “Carrying away” does not require ongoing human conduct.”
Living Lands, LLC v. Cline (S.D.W. Va 2023). “1 (a)(1), the agency defines an open dump as a facility or practice that fails to satisfy any of the criteria set out in 40 C.F.R. § 257.3 These criteria in pertain to a variety of facilities and practices with probable adverse effects, including disposing of waste in…”
Jones (D. Maryland 2026). “Defendants contend that these allegations are insufficient because Plaintiffs have not specified a water quality management plan or explicitly alleged that the statutes and regulations cited constitute “legal requirements implementing an areawide or Statewide water quality…”
McElmurray v. United States Dep't of Agric., 535 F. Supp. 2d 1318 (S.D. Ga. 2008). “40 C.F.R. § 257.3 — 5(a)(l)(i) (2007). Nor may such crops be grown where the annual application of cadmium from solid waste exceeds 0.”
Staten Island Citizens for Clean Air, Ltd. v. City of New York, 998 F. Supp. 208 (E.D.N.Y 1997). “A discharge of pollutants into navigable waters is deemed to “pose a reasonable proba *211 bility of adverse effects on health or the environment” under 40 C.F.R. § 257.3 . Consequently, plaintiffs have made a showing of a possible endangerment of health or the environment…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.