On November 4, 2016, DOJ’s Environment and Natural Resources Division convened an extraordinary group of legal scholars and practitioners to discuss “The Future of Environmental Law.” Speaking before the presidential election but mindful of the transition possibilities, the symposium panelists identified and discussed cutting-edge issues in administrative law, natural resources law, and environmental enforcement that will be crucial going forward for both government lawyers and the environmental law profession as a whole.

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.

Climate change has important implications for the management and conservation of natural resources and public lands. The federal agencies responsible for managing these resources have generally recognized that considerations pertaining to climate change adaptation should be incorporated into existing planning processes, yet this topic is still treated as an afterthought in many planning documents. Only a few federal agencies have published guidance on how managers should consider climate change impacts and their management implications.

Perhaps Congress should throw up its hands and move on to something more manageable than global climate change. Richard Lazarus asserts that the challenges of enacting effective national strategies for mitigating and adapting to changes in the Earth's climate are not just "wicked," but "super wicked," meaning they defy resolution.

Editors' Summary

The timing of environmental analysis and judicial review presents critical issues of interpretation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Courts must be able to review an agency's compliance with NEPA before the agency makes major decisions, and before it invests significant resources that can compromise environmental review. Agencies must not be allowed to delay environmental review just because necessary data and research are difficult to obtain, or environmental impacts are uncertain. This Article discusses how the courts have handled these timing problems.

A recent headline on the front page of the Wall Street Journal hailed the opening of the nation's first "butterfly bank." The "deposits" in this unusual bank are conservation credits earned by preserving an important area of habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly, an endangered species restricted to California. The bank's intended customers are other landowners who hope to develop other sites where the butterfly occurs. In order to do so, they can buy credits from the private entrepreneur who established the butterfly bank.

Despite the recent furor over the environmental damage threatened by the Republican-dominated 104th Congress, the so-called salvage logging bill—a rider on a budget-rescissions bill—so far is one of the few changes to environmental protection programs actually signed into law. One should not assume, however, that the logging rider's ability to survive a presidential veto means that it is an innocuous compromise.

Editor's Summary: In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its most recent pronouncement on the executive foreign affairs preemption doctrine in American Insurance Ass'n v. Garamendi. In this Article, Kimberly Breedon argues that lower courts are prone to overbroad applications of Garamendi because the Court assumed the presence of three elements when it developed the standard for executive foreign affairs preemption of state law: (1) formal source law; (2) nexus to a foreign entity; and (3) indication of intent by the executive to preempt the state law under challenge.

When the 103d Congress convened on January 5, 1993, many observers believed that it would make up for the dismal environmental record of its predecessor. The 102d Congress had tried and failed to reauthorize the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Its attempt to elevate the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to a cabinet-level department had been blocked in the House of Representatives, and its attempt to reform the General Mining Law of 1872 had been blocked in both houses.