Livestock should be removed from public lands for myriad reasons. Eliminating what is now extensive grazing by ruminants would cut methane emissions, with attendant benefits for climate mitigation. Removing livestock from public lands also mirrors federal nutrition policy, particularly the recommendation to eat less red meat. Much of the degraded environmental conditions on public lands and waters caused by ruminant grazing would end, thereby enabling improvement or even recovery. Finally, undertaking this policy shift would make fiscal sense by saving taxpayer dollars.

The September 2015 issue of News & Analysis looked at China’s new Environmental Protection Law, including the first environmental public interest litigation case heard under it, the “Nanping case.” On October 29, 2015, the court ruled in the environmentalists’ favor. The decision sends a strong signal that Chinese courts have jurisdiction to enforce environmental laws beyond awarding money damages for pollution injuries. It may also signal a more active role for Chinese courts and nongovernmental organizations in protecting natural resources.

The disposal of coal ash, a combustion byproduct from coal-fired power plants, came to national attention when, on December 22, 2008, the Tennessee Valley Authority Kingston power plant suffered one of the largest coal ash spills in history. The Duke Energy Dan River spill on February 2, 2014, reignited the focus on the handling of coal ash. In December 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator signed a rule that, for the first time, regulates the disposal of coal ash.

Renewable energy projects located in the ocean are likely to play an increasingly important role in supplying electricity worldwide. Experience in ocean management indicates that, as new uses of the seas are made available, ocean space allocation becomes an increasingly controversial issue, demanding the attention of regulators and policymakers alike.

Tropical countries face a host of challenges to their natural environment and resources. Environmental law liability provisions offer one set of potential protections. This Article surveys such provisions in a variety of tropical country contexts. Of the seven countries studied, spanning a range of legal systems and economic development and environmental governance performance, all but one have the authority to bring liability claims for harms to the environment.

Federal agencies are beginning to incorporate descriptions of climate change impacts into environmental reviews for buildings and infrastructure, but there is no consistent methodology for evaluating these impacts and mitigating any foreseeable risks to the project or affected environment. This Article asserts that an assessment of climate-related risks and adaptation options falls within the scope of considerations that should be addressed under the National Environmental Policy Act and similar laws.

On August 3, 2015, President Barack Obama announced the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan (CPP), which establishes guidelines that states must apply to achieve reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from the existing fleet of fossil fuel-fired electric generating units. Organizations and companies outside of the utility sector have expressed concerns regarding the impacts of the CPP on electricity prices and reliability.

Four hundred stakeholder meetings and one million comments later, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released the final Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule on May 27, 2015. Response to the rule has been immediate, vocal, and varied across the political spectrum. Some environmental advocates have criticized the rule for what it explicitly excludes, arguing that the rule leaves out too many streams and wetlands. At the same time, industry and agriculture interests have decried the rule as federal overreach.

Acting under its Clean Air Act (CAA) authority, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has attempted to regulate air quality on behalf of Native American tribes. However, the D.C. Circuit—in reviewing EPA’s tribal CAA rules—significantly cut back on these efforts, resulting in state encroachment on the environmental authority congressionally delegated to tribes. This undermines tribes’ sovereignty, control over their natural resources, and opportunities for economic development.

Throughout the past decade, the United States Supreme Court has questioned the constitutionality of affording deference to a federal agency’s interpretation of its own regulations. This level of deference originated with the Court’s 1945 opinion in Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., and in 1997, the Court reinvigorated Seminole Rock in Auer v. Robbins. The impact of “Auer deference” has continued to grow with the expansion of the administrative state.