Throughout the world, people struggle to gain access to stable sources of clean water. While there are increasingly innovative solutions being developed, many communities simply do not have access to efficient, centralized wastewater management systems, and as a result, face difficulty finding reliable sources of water for daily use. There is a great need to implement novel systems that can fill the gap, especially for isolated or “off-grid” communities.

Drinking water contamination in Flint, Michigan, has garnered much-needed nationwide attention, but such contamination is neither isolated, nor a primarily urban problem. A hidden water crisis is straining thousands of smaller communities that share Flint’s risk factors—shrinking populations, social marginalization, and deficient funds. This Article posits that the Safe Drinking Water Act’s increasingly decentralized monitoring and funding scheme has drained communities of the capacity to deliver safe water.

The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to calculate total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) of individual pollutants that impair their waters.

Two carbon pricing bills were introduced during the 115th Congress. Reps. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) introduced the MARKET CHOICE Act during the summer of 2018. Reps. Ted Deutsch (D-Fla.) and Francis Rooney (R-Fla.) introduced the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (Energy Innovation Act) in November 2018, and reintroduced it early in the 116th Congress, where it presently has more than 65 cosponsors. By different methods and with different comprehensiveness, both of these bills place a Pigouvian tax on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Established in over 65 countries and territories, marine protected areas (MPAs) embody a range of habitats, enable the provision of fundamental ecosystem services, protect marine biodiversity and cultural resources, and provide spaces to conduct cutting-edge research and implement innovative policies. Yet management of MPAs can face challenges, including the lack of adequate tools, the need for rules to secure comprehensive monitoring, the vastness of the ocean, and more.

Access to water is a fundamental climate change issue in North America and internationally. It is related to significant political, social, and ecological struggles that indigenous peoples face, and governments and courts so far have done little to address these inequities.

Aerial drones are emerging as an effective tool for environmental monitoring and enforcement because of their ability to reach areas that would be otherwise inaccessible or cost-prohibitive. However, the regulatory framework has not developed as fast as the technology, raising concerns. As EPA and other agencies consider using drones to monitor industrial sites and farmland, many landowners claim it would be an invasion of privacy. Using drones for inspections also raises legal questions about information obtained from drone flyovers and the associated evidentiary requirements.

In the western United States, the management of surface water quality and quantity is highly compartmentalized. This compartmentalization among and within state and federal authorities is not inherently objectionable. To the contrary, it likely is necessary. Yet, the degree of compartmentalization appears to have so divided management of this resource that damage has been done to both sides. Opportunities exist for cooperation, coordination, and a more holistic perspective on water management with little or even no change in law.

In Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly upheld orders issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to §§113(a)(5) and 167 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), prohibiting construction of a new power generator unit at a mine in Northwest Alaska.

Editors' Summary