A district court denied summary judgment for a company that owns and manages Iowa farmland in a lawsuit concerning a federal wetland conservation law known as Swampbuster. The company challenged the program, which disqualifies one from receiving USDA farm benefits if they convert certified wetl...
State trust lands, covering more than 40 million acres across the West, were granted to states with the primary purpose of generating revenue for public schools and other designated beneficiaries. These lands were historically managed for extractive uses such as grazing, timber harvesting, and mineral development. This Article examines how recreation—ranging from hiking and hunting to wildlife viewing and camping—fits within this fiduciary framework.
There has been an influx of “climate superfund” bills introduced and adopted in state legislatures across the country. Modeled after the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), these laws are designed to recover costs from large emitters of greenhouse gases (GHGs) to pay for climate adaptation infrastructure.
An antitrust paradox lies at the heart of private-sector climate commitments. On the right, state attorneys general have warned that they may challenge these collaborations under antitrust laws. On the left, antitrust enforcers in the Biden Administration asserted that these actions will not receive preferential treatment even if they address societal ills that are not being addressed by governments. This Article asks what antitrust law is willing to consider: if prosocial goals are framed in terms of economic harms, should antitrust law view climate action as violating that standard?
In order to manage California wilderness areas to preserve their natural and untrammeled character, as required by the Wilderness Act, federal land management agencies should adopt interpretations of the Act that allow prescribed burning and Indigenous cultural burning in areas where it existed pre-colonialism.
Understanding the nearly impossible task of containing contaminants from Superfund sites, it is imperative to find solutions in anticipation of disasters that scientists project will only increase in magnitude and frequency. This Comment proceeds in six parts. Part I identifies the challenge of increasing natural disasters and their impact at Superfund sites, which are toxic havens. Part II identifies efforts that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies have taken to make Superfund sites more climate-resilient.
The Comment shows the importance of EJ and cumulative impact governance coming from municipalities by highlighting a specific case study that has worked: San Francisco.