Kirsten L. Nathanson is a partner in the firm's Environment & Natural Resources Group. Her practice primarily involves litigation, enforcement defense, and regulatory counseling under all major federal environmental and public lands statutes, with particular focus on the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, NEPA, SMCRA, and CERCLA.

She has represented national trade associations and individual regulated entities in nationwide regulatory challenges, Administrative Procedure Act litigation, EPA civil and criminal enforcement actions, CERCLA cost recovery actions, and citizen suit litigation. She also represents corporations involved in large multi-party Superfund sites, including the Berry's Creek Study Area and the Lower Passaic River Study Area, both in New Jersey. She is admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous federal appellate and district courts nationwide.

Kirsten currently serves on the Board of Trustees of the Energy & Mineral Law Foundation and as a member of the Nanotechnology Project of the American Bar Association's Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources. She also leads the Crowell & Moring Women Attorneys' Network.

Notable Cases: 

Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 494 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 2007)
Along with Richard Schwartz, Kirsten represented the National Pork Producers Council and Roe Farm, Inc. as Intervenors on the side of EPA in this legal challenge to a series of innovative settlement agreements between EPA and thousands of animal feeding operations. The agreements resolved potential liabilities related to air emissions from the signatory farms under the Clean Air Act, CERCLA, and EPCRA. In exchange, the farms paid civil penalties and provided funding for an independent scientific study that will produce air emissions estimating methodologies, which EPA will apply to the entire industry to ensure future compliance with the relevant air laws. In AIR v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit rejected the Petitioners' arguments that the agreements were unlawful exercises of rulemaking power and adopted EPA's and our arguments that the agreements constituted unreviewable exercises of the agency's enforcement discretion. These settlement agreements, which resolve scientific and regulatory uncertainty outside of costly litigation and enforcement actions, can serve as a template for resolving future industry-wide or multi-facility compliance and enforcement challenges in the face of uncertain science.

Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486 (2nd Cir. 2005) 
Along with Richard Schwartz and Ellen Steen, Kirsten represented the National Pork Producers Council in the legal challenge to EPA's revised Clean Water Act regulations for concentrated animal feeding operations. We successfully argued that EPA's regulatory scheme was an unlawful interpretation of the Clean Water Act, to the extent that EPA sought to regulate parties that did not actually discharge pollutants to surface waters. In the challenged regulations, EPA codified its longstanding position that it could regulate parties based on a mere potential to discharge pollutants. The Second Circuit vacated EPA's regulations on this issue, adopted the arguments from our briefs, and held that EPA has no Clean Water Act jurisdiction over animal farms in the absence of an actual addition of a pollutant to navigable waters. 

Barrick Goldstrike Mines Inc. v. Whitman, 260 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D.D.C. 2003) 
Along with Richard Schwartz, Kirsten represented a gold mining company in a challenge to two EPA guidance documents detailing the metal mining industry’s reporting requirements for the Toxic Release Inventory (“TRI”) Program under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (“EPCRA”). The court granted summary judgment for Barrick on two issues, ruling that trace elements of toxic chemicals in waste rock should be eligible for the TRI de minimis exemption, and also rejecting EPA's interpretation that Barrick had to report the naturally-occurring impurities in the gold bars it produced. EPA has issued new guidance to the entire mining industry as a result of this decision at (http://www.epa.gov/tri). 

Citizens Coal Council, et al. v. Gale Norton and National Mining Association, 330 F.3d 478 (D.C. Cir. 2003) 
Along with Tim Means and Michael Klise, Kirsten represented the National Mining Association, which intervened in, and helped defeat, this challenge to a Clinton-era Interior Department regulation under which land subsidence caused by underground coal mining is excluded from the definition of "surface coal mining operations" under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. The D.C. Circuit unanimously reversed the district court and, at our urging, upheld the regulation as a reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutory language. 

Barrick Goldstrike Mines Inc. v. Browner, 215 F.3d 45 (D.C. Cir. 2000). 
Along with Richard Schwartz and Tim Means, Kirsten represented a gold mining company in a challenge to two EPA guidance documents detailing the metal mining industry's reporting requirements for the Toxic Release Inventory (“TRI”) Program under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act ("EPCRA"). The district court granted EPA's motion to dismiss on the grounds that the guidance documents were not "final agency action" as required by the APA and that our claims were not ripe for review. On appeal, the D.C. Circuit reversed, holding that the documents stated EPA's final position on TRI reporting requirements and presented purely legal issues ripe for review.

Education
University of Pennsylvania, B.A., 1992 - cum laude
George Washington University Law School, J.D., 1998 - with high honors, The Order of the Coif

Affiliations
Admitted to practice: District of Columbia, Maryland

Publications
"EPA Weighs Competing Arguments - And Likely Litigation - On Proposed CAFO Requirements," ABA Agricultural Management Committee Newsletter, Vol. 11, No. 1 (April 2007). Co-Authors: Ellen Steen, Kirsten Nathanson and Jessica Hall.

"Fallout From TVA v. Whitman: When Do EPA Orders Deny Due Process?," ABA Environmental Enforcement and Crimes Committee Newsletter, Vol. 8, No. 2 (February 2007). Co-Authors: Richard E. Schwartz and Kirsten Nathanson.

"Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. EPA: A View From The Farm Groups’ Perspective," Water Quality and Wetlands Committee Newsletter, Vol. 6, No. 2 (August 2005). Co-Authors: Ellen Steen, Richard E. Schwartz and Kirsten Nathanson.

"Success as a Part-Timer: Attorneys Seeking a Different Balance Can Thrive and Be Good For Firms," Legal Times (July 25, 2005). Author: Kirsten L. Nathanson.

"Overview of Administrative Agencies," American Law of Mining 2d, Ch. 185 (2005 update). Co-Authors: Tim Means and Kirsten L. Nathanson.

"Selected Administrative Procedures and Practice Topics," American Law of Mining 2d, Ch. 186 (2005 update). Co-Authors: Tim Means and Kirsten L. Nathanson.

"An Uncertain Outlook for General Permitting Under the Clean Water Act NPDES Program," Crowell & Moring Mining Law Monitor, Vol. 22, Issue 1 (Spring 2005). Co-Authors: Rich E. Schwartz, Ellen Steen and Kirsten Nathanson.

"Federal Court Rejects EPA Reporting Requirement for Metal Mining Waste Rock," ABA Mining Committee Newsletter (June 2003). Author: Kirsten L. Nathanson.

"ELR News & Analysis: Lessons Learned From the Intersection of CERCLA and Contract Law," 32 ELR 11481-11489 (December 2002). Co-Authors: Ridgway M. Hall, Jr. and Kirsten L. Nathanson.

"Final Agency Action" and "Ripe For Judicial Review," D.C. Circuit Holds, EPA Guidance Documents For The TRI Program (August 2000). Co-Authors: Richard Schwartz, Tim Means and Kirsten L. Nathanson.

"EPA Guidance Documents for the TRI Program Are "Final Agency Action" and Ripe for Judicial Review, D.C. Circuit Holds," C&M Mining Law Monitor, (August 2000). Co-Authors: Tim Means, Richard Schwartz and Kirsten Nathanson.

Case Note, "A Contract Is A Contract Is A . . . Grant?: An Application of Privacy Act Section(K)(5) To National Science Foundation Grants," 65 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 792, D.C. Cir. Rev. (1997). Author: Kirsten L. Nathanson.