This Comment examines the legal framework for state protection of nonfederal waters and its implications for cooperative federalism. After a brief overview and legal background, it identifies some recent state actions that attempt to fill gaps in coverage created by changes in federal interpretations of the Clean Water Act. It then summarizes the current scope of state regulation of waters in every state, in order to discern the likely impact of changes at the federal level on the status of waters in the states.

The Tana River in northernmost Norway is the most diverse Atlantic salmon river in the world. Its native salmon population has declined dramatically and resulted in a fishing ban that has affected indigenous life and distressed the local economy. Concern is mounting over the secondary infestation of Pacific pink salmon, transplanted decades ago, which creates a potential threat to the river’s genetic diversity and challenges the regime structures of international fisheries.

In 2009, when carbon dioxide (CO2) levels were at 387.43 parts per million, the Center for Biological Diversity and 350.org submitted a citizen petition calling on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to take steps necessary to institute a national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under §§108-110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). For 12 years, the petition was simply ignored. Then, the day President Donald Trump left office, outgoing EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler issued a letter denying the petition.

Salmon require cool temperatures to migrate and reproduce. The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to develop and implement water quality standards sufficient to produce fishable waters. Nearly a half-century after its 1972 enactment, the modern federal statute’s goal of fishable waters has yet to be achieved in the case of salmon streams.

Nearly nine million tons of plastic waste flow into our oceans each year, arriving in many ways—ranging from polluted rivers and waterways to the wastewater from our washing machines. Once in the ocean, this pervasive plastic pollution is nearly impossible to clean up. If there is anything positive to say about such a broad and complex challenge, it is that there are multiple ways to tackle the problem. Legal and policy solutions are increasingly moving away from the piecemeal, product-by-product approach of single-use plastic bans and toward mor

State wildlife agencies commonly claim they are entitled to manage wildlife under the public trust doctrine (PTD). This assertion is frequently made in judicial proceedings, with state requests that their managerial authority be given due force throughout state, private, federal, and even tribal lands. One might conclude that a rich body of PTD practices and policies exists for wildlife; in reality, the PTD in state wildlife management proves to be ephemeral.

On May 7, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order No. 13921, Promoting American Seafood Competitiveness and Economic Growth, stating that it is U.S. policy to “facilitate aquaculture projects through regulatory transparency and long-term strategic planning.” To further this policy, the Order directs the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to create a nationwide permit for aquaculture operations, and tasks the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration with a variety of planning- and permit-related responsibilities.

Over the past 50 years, tremendous progress has been made in reducing air pollution under the Clean Air Act. Nevertheless, while air quality has improved greatly for much of the nation, there are still places where the goal of attaining national standards has still not been reached. This is often true in urban locations that are affected by multiple pollution sources; typically, these areas are also environmental justice communities. Recent events have called attention to the urgent need for concrete action to address the many problems of these communities.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service raises important questions about the scope of the Endangered Species Act’s (ESA’s) protections for critical habitat. Foremost among them is a question one might think was long settled: what is “habitat”? In a short ruling, the Weyerhaeuser Court opined that “critical habitat” must first be “habitat,” but it did not attempt to define exactly what habitat is or how much deference the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should get on what is both a biological and policy question.

This Article, adapted from Chapter 16 of What Can Animal Law Learn From Environmental Law?, 2d Edition (ELI Press, forthcoming 2020), explores existing and potential wildlife conservation policies that could play a vital role in mitigating global climate change. It describes how climate change is impacting wildlife and biodiversity around the globe and reviews the history and current state of U.S. policy, including how the federal government currently manages climate change issues under the ESA.