612-877-5000 | Contact us

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

The Environmental Law group of Moss & Barnett is prepared to respond to all client needs in the area of environmental law and regulation. Our attorneys assist clients with the assessment of environmental issues and liabilities in mergers and acquisitions, as well as in real estate transactions. We are also involved with litigation related to contaminated property. Moss & Barnett attorneys have extensive experience in both the public and private law sectors, including broad experience in dealing with regulations and permitting matters involving air quality, water quality, and solid and hazardous waste management.

We have represented clients in enforcement and permitting proceedings before federal agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OSHA, the U.S. Department of Transportation, as well as the gamut of state and local environmental agencies. In 2004, our law firm successfully defended a local business owner against a pollution claim brought by the State of Minnesota that resulted in recovery of all attorneys’ fees incurred by our client and recognition as "Lawsuit of the Year" by Minnesota Law & Politics.

Moss & Barnett serves as outside environmental counsel to corporations with operations throughout the United States. We also help clients develop environmental management and auditing programs designed to address compliance and permitting issues. We represent clients in all areas of the environmental practice including:

Phase I environmental site assessments
Site remediation through State voluntary cleanup programs
Mergers and acquisitions due diligence
Administrative permitting and enforcement proceedings
Responses to agency requests for information
Regulatory reviews
Rulemaking proceedings
Environmental, health and safety audits
Real estate due diligence
Superfund cost recovery litigation
Potentially responsible party common counsel representation
Defense and prosecution of citizen suits
Insurance coverage disputes
Contaminated property litigation
Defense of environmental crimes

Attorneys in this Area

Joseph G. Maternowski (Chair)

News Headlines

News

Environment

[09/02] UN: Climate funds shouldn't divert poverty aid
[09/02] Risks remain with Gulf well cap coming off

More...

Case Summaries

Environmental Law

[09/01] Western Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink
In a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) challenge to eighteen amendments to the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) grazing regulations, partial summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part where: 1) the BLM failed to address concerns raised by its own experts, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the EPA, and state agencies; and 2) there was resounding evidence from agency experts that the eighteen amendments to the BLM's grazing regulations may affect listed species and their habitat. However, the order is vacated in part where the district court failed to consider plaintiffs' Federal Land Policy and Management Act claim under the framework and with the deference set forth in Chevron.

[08/31] Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy v. Universal Paragon Corp.
In defendant's suit against a law firm, claiming that an arbitrator's award of $7,554,149.13 in attorney fees and expenses for the law firm, related to its representation of defendant in an underlying complex environmental litigation, is unconscionable and violates public policy, superior court's affirmance of the award is affirmed as, assuming that defendant's claim of unconscionability is subject to judicial review as a predicate for determining whether the arbitration award violates public policy, the claim is rejected on the merits as neither the fee agreement nor the award actually issued by the arbitrator is unconscionable under rule 4-200 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

[08/25] Northern Cal. River Watch v. Wilcox
In an action claiming that defendants violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by digging up and removing endangered plant species, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where "areas under Federal jurisdiction" in section 9 of the ESA did not include the privately-owned land at issue here.