The modern doctrine of environmental standing prevents many worthy plaintiffs from presenting their cases in court. Especially in the context of climate change, this restrictive doctrine has profound implications. But the modern doctrine is an aberration; this Article shows that for most of American history there were no comparably severe standing requirements, that the Supreme Court Justices of the mid-20th century who transformed the doctrine did so inadvertently, and that Justices’ invocation of “tradition” in justifying the modern doctrine is simply incorrect.

The U.S. regulatory environment is changing rapidly, at the same time that visible and profound impacts of climate change are already being felt throughout the world, and enormous, potentially existential threats loom in the not-so-distant future. What does it mean to think about and practice environmental law in this setting? In this Article, members of the Environmental Law Collaborative have taken on the question of whether environmental law as we currently know it is up to the job of addressing these threats, and, if not, what the path forward should be.

Mitigation—shorthand for avoiding impacts to important species and habitat, minimizing impacts, and then providing offsets for the remaining, residual impacts—is a valuable tool for developers and federal agencies to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a variety of federal statutes that regulate impacts to important wildlife species and habitat, and/or public land management statutes requiring that uses of public lands are balanced with protection and conservation.

In 2008, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) overhauled federal policy governing how impacts to wetlands, streams, and other aquatic resources authorized under §404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) are offset—an action known as compensatory mitigation. On the 10-year anniversary of the Corps/EPA Compensatory Mitigation Rule, it is important to highlight this progress as well as some potential important work that remains to be done.

In St. Bernard Parish Government v. United States, Louisiana property owners argued that the U.S. government was liable under takings law for flood damage to their properties caused by Hurricane Katrina and other hurricanes. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit disagreed, however, noting that the government cannot be liable on a takings theory for inaction, and that the government action was not shown to have been the cause of the flooding.

This Article offers a framework for analysis of potential developments in the law of standing in cases involving public lands and natural resources. It is based on recent federal case law and academic literature addressing the law of standing in cases that involve planning, conservation, exploitation, and disposition of public lands and resources administered by the federal government. While necessarily grounded on U.S. Supreme Court doctrines, the focus is on the application and development of standing law in the lower federal courts.

Lead exposure through drinking water is an acute and persistent problem in the United States. The Flint, Michigan, water crisis brought national attention to this problem, but every city is at risk where lead-containing materials are present in water infrastructure and building plumbing. Preventing childhood exposure to lead is the consensus policy in the medical community and exposure costs the U.S.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), residential exposure to radon gas represents the second-leading cause of lung cancer among smokers and the leading cause of lung cancer among nonsmokers in the United States. To reduce the lung cancer risk associated with inhaling radon, EPA, and almost all states, have created programs to protect the public. Among other things, federal and state programs recommend that all existing homes be tested for radon and that homes found to have high levels undergo mitigation.

When the United States withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement, 100 private corporations reaffirmed their commitment to fighting climate change. While governments are often tasked with facing climate change, many major private institutions are taking steps to significantly reduce carbon emissions, reaping the benefits of favorable public image and reduced operational costs from energy and other savings.

This Article examines potential opportunities for state and tribal natural resource trustees to integrate restoration and compensation for natural resource damages with other ecological restoration programs and coordinating with mitigation banks and in-lieu fee (ILF) programs developed under Clean Water Act §404. The Oil Pollution Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act provide for recovery of funds from responsible parties to restore natural resources damaged by the release of petroleum or hazardous substances.