The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the difficult mission of crafting complex environmental rules and regulations while considering the economic costs of those actions. The Agency must also engage in law enforcement functions to enforce these rules and regulations to ensure compliance, punish appropriately, and deter future offenders. Most of these enforcement actions rely on civil remedies to gain compliance, such as negotiating consent decrees or issuing civil penalties. In cases of willful, chronic, or serious offenses, the Agency can seek criminal penalties.

Section 401 certification and permit conditioning under the Clean Water Act is one of the most significant tools for states to influence federally permitted activities involving discharges into navigable waters. However, states are required to set conditions within one year or they forgo their ability to do so. In practice, the one-year review is difficult for states to meet and led to a common practice known as “withdraw and resubmit” in which states could reset the clock. But in Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm’n, the D.C.

The role that cost-benefit analysis (CBA) plays in regulatory decisionmaking is at a crossroads, as is the role played by the agency that oversees its implementation, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). The Trump Administration has largely demonstrated agnosticism toward CBA; this has left many to question whether OIRA can still play the role of ensuring quality analysis while serving as the eyes and ears of the president in overseeing regulation.

Throughout the world, people struggle to gain access to stable sources of clean water. While there are increasingly innovative solutions being developed, many communities simply do not have access to efficient, centralized wastewater management systems, and as a result, face difficulty finding reliable sources of water for daily use. There is a great need to implement novel systems that can fill the gap, especially for isolated or “off-grid” communities.

The United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union is anticipated to have a breadth of impacts on its environmental law and policy. Proponents point to opportunities ahead for the government to draft and enact U.K.-specific environmental laws and regulations that are more attuned to issues facing the country. Others believe the departure could lead to deregulation, a lack of consistency and stability, and potential decreases in advances made.

Cities around the world are looking to reduce greenhouse gas and other emissions from vehicles through the use of low emission zones and congestion pricing. These strategies have been employed to great success abroad, including in central London, where both congestion pricing and fees and restrictions on higheremitting vehicles are in effect. In the U.S. law context, these policy approaches give rise to significant legal issues that have not been well-explored. This Article proposes that these policy approaches be called “Low Traffic Zones” (LTZs), and surveys those legal considerations.

The Trump Administration has aggressively rolled back prior administrations’ environmental regulations and natural resource policies, and critics of this agenda have turned to the judiciary. A remarkable string of federal court decisions has faulted the Administration for failing to follow the standard for agency policy change articulated in Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.

Drinking water contamination in Flint, Michigan, has garnered much-needed nationwide attention, but such contamination is neither isolated, nor a primarily urban problem. A hidden water crisis is straining thousands of smaller communities that share Flint’s risk factors—shrinking populations, social marginalization, and deficient funds. This Article posits that the Safe Drinking Water Act’s increasingly decentralized monitoring and funding scheme has drained communities of the capacity to deliver safe water.

This Article reviews the legal and environmental issues in bankruptcy matters involving: (1) a trustee responsible for dispersing funds to stakeholders, including those responsible for addressing environmental liabilities; or (2) alleged fraudulent transfer actions claiming inadequate environmental cost projections for environmental liabilities. In the first instance, the trustee must assign current costs for necessary and appropriate actions to achieve regulatory closure so that excess funds can be distributed to remaining stakeholders.