Marten Law LLP

An Executive Order issued on April 8, 2025 directs the U.S. Attorney General to immediately identify and challenge in court any state or local law that addresses “‘climate change’ or involve ‘environmental, social, and governance’ initiatives, ‘environmental justice,’ carbon or ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions” or that collects “carbon penalties or carbon taxes.” In addition to filing litigation against state and local governments, the order, titled Protecting American Energy From State Overreach (the “Order”), directs the Attorney General to deliver a report to the White House in 60 days that identifies potential executive and legislative actions that could be used to challenge state and local climate laws. For more information on the State Climate Law Executive Order, please contact any of the authors or any of the environmental professionals who practice at Marten. Read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/graDYu4W

Marten Law Partner James Pollack is hosting a monthly PFAS briefing sponsored by the Environmental Law Institute on April 17th. This month, the focus of discussion is PFAS disposal. The ubiquitous presence of PFAS in consumer products and industrial waste poses a challenge for waste management. PFAS chemicals are notoriously difficult to dispose of, and the designation of certain PFAS as hazardous has serious implications for PFAS-contaminated waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Want to learn about the technical and legal issues surrounding PFAS waste disposal and the impacts on generators and handlers of such waste? Sign up using the link below! Topic: PFAS Disposal When: Thursday, April 17th, 9:00-10:00 am (PT) Where: Webinar Register now: https://lnkd.in/gWN6Fi8i #EnvironmentalLaw #PFAS #Disposal

An effort to shift the cost of waste disposal from the consumer to the manufacturers and retailers of consumer products has picked up steam recently. Canada is one country in which we are seeing this trend, along with the United States and many others. Product manufacturers have taken note and are beginning to establish Producer Responsibility Organizations for a variety of products, from plastics to electronics to clothing. Eight of Canada’s provinces and one territory have enacted Extended Producer Responsibility (“EPR”) requirements for managing packaging waste. The programs address disposal of used packaging, paper products and packaging-like products (“PPP”). The fact that these regulations operate at the provincial and not the national level creates challenging ongoing compliance obligations for consumer product manufacturers and retailers in Canada. While many of these programs have existed for years, all of them are transitioning to a model where regulated companies cover the cost and administrative burden of administering the province’s recycling services for these products.  Read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/gs6eQHUG We will continue tracking evolving Canadian regulatory requirements targeting packaging and other single-use goods for our clients and readers. Please contact members of Marten’s Consumer Products Practice, including James Pollack and Isabel Carey if you have questions regarding compliance with Canadian or U.S. EPR laws and reporting obligations.

James Pollack from Marten Law LLP and Rick Crawford will be discussing PFAS & Sustainability Regulations at AMERICAN FLY FISHING TRADE ASSOCIATION’s Confluence in Boulder, CO this week! Register here: https://lnkd.in/eS2F4VTn #protectwhatyoulove #pfas #sustainability #flyfishing

The Canadian government announced plans this month to phase out PFAS chemicals from the Canadian economy. Environment and Climate Change Canada (“ECCC”) and Health Canada proposed, first, to list PFAS chemicals -- as a class -- as toxic substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (“CEPA”), SC 1999, c 33, s 46. The agencies further proposed phasing out PFAS use wherever feasible: first in firefighting foams and then across a range of industries where PFAS can be replaced, including in textiles, food packaging, cosmetics, and medical devices. In the final phase of regulation, Canada will evaluate prohibiting PFAS use in industries where alternatives are not available. Please contact members of Marten’s Consumer Products Practice, including James Pollack and Isabel Carey if you have any questions about complying with federal, state, or Canadian PFAS regulations. Read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/gsq4_Dit

This past week, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin unveiled plans to revisit roughly two dozen environmental regulations, including significant climate change-related actions. The proposed changes were framed in both environmental and economic terms. Announcing the plans, Mr. Zeldin said EPA is “committed to fulfilling President Trump’s promise to unleash American energy, lower cost of living for Americans, revitalize the American auto industry, restore the rule of law, and give power back to states to make their own decisions.” The historic mission of EPA is to “protect human health and the environment.” Adding a heavier focus on the costs of regulation will be seen by some as necessary. Others will object. One thing that seems clear is that it will lead to a lot of litigation. For more information regarding these proposals or their potential impact, please contact Scott Fulton, Brad Marten, Jack Lyman, or Aidan Freeman. Read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/gs8PgtK9

Next Thursday, Isabel Carey is moderating this month's PFAS briefing webinar hosted by the Environmental Law Institute. The topic of discussion for March is PFAS and Agriculture. We're excited to be joined by panelists Scott Faber, Linda S Lee, and Nancy McBrady. Some may not realize that PFAS litigation and activism began in 1999, after cattle ranchers in Parkersburg, West Virginia, sued DuPont for damage to their livestock and property that stemmed from contaminated water. This led to a $16.5 million settlement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. More than 20 years later, biosolid application in agricultural areas has been linked to PFAS contamination of soil and groundwater, as well as even the uptake of PFAS into crops. This has been identified as a growing problem nationwide, with particularly robust responses occurring in Iowa, Maine, and Michigan. Want to learn about the risks posed by PFAS to U.S. agriculture and the state efforts to limit livestock and farmland exposure to these chemicals? Sign up using the link below! Topic: PFAS and Agriculture Date: Thursday, March 20th, 9:00-10:00 am (PT) Where: Webinar Register now: https://lnkd.in/gFSJTbBh Note: This event is open to ELI members and to non-members who pay a $25 fee. Registration is required by March 17th. #EnvironmentalLaw #PFAS #Agriculture #ELI

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must establish specific numeric and narrative effluent limits in NPDES permits to achieve compliance with applicable water quality standards. The Court invalidated what it described as an “end-result” narrative effluent limit prohibiting a discharge from causing a violation of water quality independent of the specific compliance conditions in a permit. In so doing, the Court made clear that an agency may not enforce permit requirements that fail to “spell out what a permittee must do or refrain from doing.”  Read more here: https://lnkd.in/ghaaMvSp Please contact authors Chris Locke, James Tupper, Jack Lyman, Kameron Schroeder, or others in Marten Law's Water Quality practice group for more information.

Kicking off Managing Stormwater in Washington with Vince McGowan, Washington State Department of Ecology and Jeff Kray, Marten Law LLP Sponsored by Hazen and Sawyer

A number of states, including Washington, New York, California, and Massachusetts are weighing the adoption of new disclosure and other compliance obligations on apparel and footwear manufacturers. These laws target the manufacturers, importers, retailers, and—in some cases—online marketplaces. These proposals would functionally regulate the global apparel industry, valued in 2023 at over $1.7 trillion. The bills, directed at “fashion producers,” are not aimed simply at “fast fashion” brands. Instead, they target apparel more generally, including all footwear and clothing made, imported, or sold in the subject states. If passed, these bills would require brands and retailers to disclose to regulators and the public the chemicals in their clothing, the supply chain involved in production, the climate impacts of making and selling the clothing, the working conditions at factories, and a host of other information about production and sales. State laws like these create a quandary for manufacturers and retailers of covered products because most cannot sell different products in different markets and the changes they must make to accommodate a single state’s fashion products may force global change. Taken together, these bills attempt state regulation of the global operations of apparel brands. Read more here: https://lnkd.in/ghaaMvSp Please contact members of Marten’s Consumer Products Practice, including  James Pollack and Zachary Zahner if you have questions regarding state or federal laws on environmental disclosures.