The public trust doctrine is an ancient legal principle undergoing a modern resurgence. Under it, governments hold certain natural resources in trust for the benefit of present and future generations, and have a judicially enforceable legal obligation to protect trust resources and the public’s interest in them. This Article argues that courts could use the public trust doctrine to enforce regulation of water pollution caused by pesticides because the current regulatory framework is insufficient to protect human health, the environment, wildlife, or water quality.

In 2012, the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Day reversed 100 years of state water law by changing the principle that establishes groundwater ownership rights from a “rule of capture” to a rule of ownership of “groundwater in place.” Ongoing litigation in Bragg v. Edwards Aquifer Authority is the first of what could be a number of Texas cases invoking Day to claim a regulatory taking due to the Edwards Aquifer Authority’s (EAA’s) management of the Edwards Aquifer groundwater.

In December 2014, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued for public comment a draft guidance document on how federal agencies should evaluate climate change in their analyses under NEPA. Like the 2010 draft guidance, the 2014 draft guidance repeatedly states that it is not intended to create any new or binding requirements on agencies. But if the guidance, either in draft or final form, is purely advisory, why would a NEPA document’s legal sufficiency depend on whether the agency had followed the draft guidance?

On March 20, 2015, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued a final rule regulating hydraulic fracturing on federal and Indian lands. The new regulations will require public disclosure of chemicals used in fracking fluids, higher standards for storing water produced by wells, and the provision of more geologic information in an effort to decrease the risk of crosswell contamination. Though the rule will only impact about 100,000 wells, or 10% of fracking operations in the United States, critics from across the political spectrum have challenged it in the press and in the courts.

Aquaculture is an important and growing element of the domestic and international food supply; however, the industry has grown slowly in the United States, where offshore facilities remain rare despite recent interest in deploying new facilities. Commentators have blamed this situation on a complex regulatory environment and unsettled regulatory practice.

Habitat conservation plans (HCPs) are critical tools for managing species and their habitats. Climate change poses special challenges for successful habitat conservation planning, but there are several steps to take to address these challenges. Key provisions in government regulations and guidance are at odds with considering climate change in HCPs, and revisions are recommended, including reliance on adaptive management.

On May 15, 2015, the Nanping Intermediate People’s Court in Fujian Province conducted the first-ever Chinese trial involving environmental civil public interest litigation. The case, which concerned resource destruction and environmental restoration related to an illegal mining site, was heard under China’s new Environmental Protection Law, a strongly worded mandate that includes, among other potentially far-reaching provisions, a right of standing for nongovernmental organizations to bring environmental cases.

Interstate compacts are legal tools that can help states address the increasing number of extreme weather events they face. This Comment discusses how interstate compacts have already been used to deal with such collective problems and will point out additional roles that they can play.

In April 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in Ameripride Services, Inc. v. Texas Eastern Overseas, Inc., that could significantly impact private parties’ settlement strategy at multiparty sites subject to CERCLA.

The history of land use in the American West has traditionally been one of conflict, but the divisive relationships between ranchers, foresters, land management agencies, recreational users, and conservationists are transforming. Grassroots coalitions have developed among unlikely allies. Together, they are advocating for management approaches that incorporate local knowledge, community needs, and sound environmental stewardship.