Since passage of the early natural resource protection laws and regulations in the United States decades ago, legal, technical, and economic practitioners have been challenged with understanding the ever-changing and ever-evolving environmental law and policy landscape. Riveting changes have advanced the position of natural resources and related matters of conservation and biodiversity across domestic and international agendas, in corporate, government, and public interest agendas, and in the lives of everyday citizens.

The United States has historically valued free access to most public lands. But federal land management agencies also rely on users’ fee dollars to support critical operations. This tension between “free access” and “user pays” has been an important feature of public land law since the late 1800s. The primary statute at issue is the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA), which authorizes fees at some sites while mandating free access at others.

In April, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposed new regulations governing land management decisions on public lands. Dubbed the “conservation rule,” this rule seeks to protect intact landscapes, restore degraded habitat, and manage for ecosystem resilience.

Despite five decades of experience, there is a considerable gap in legal and empirical study on the impacts of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Proponents of reform often claim NEPA litigation is a major obstacle for federal actions; others have concluded litigation is not a major contributor of project cost escalation or delays. This Article studies the incidence and conditions of infrastructure project litigation under NEPA, using a data set of 355 major transportation and energy infrastructure projects that completed a federal environmental study between 2010 and 2018.

The Metals Company (TMC), sponsored by the Republic of Nauru, has made public its intention to be the first company to exploit polymetallic nodules, which contain minerals needed for electric batteries, from the deep ocean’s seabed. Nongovernmental organizations and national governments have objected to these proposed actions, with many calling for an outright ban. This Article offers a case study evaluating the parties’ respective claims in favor of, and in opposition to, permitting the proposed mining activities under the current legal framework.

This abstract is adapted from Justin R. Pidot & Ezekiel A. Peterson, Conservation Rights-of-Way on Public Lands, 55 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 89 (2022), and used with permission.

The name of the climate game right now is fast, sustained progress. The world needs this both politically and technologically to effectively fight climate change. Progress was achieved both politically and technologically with the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), which allocated $369 billion to “energy security and climate change,” amounting to the United States’ largest investment in climate action to date.

Carbon offsets allow polluters to pay someone else to reduce, avoid, or remove emissions to counterbalance their own emissions. For some, carbon accounting concerns render offsets a necessary evil to be tightly regulated on the path toward decarbonization. For others, moral and political concerns render offsets a dangerous mistake to be thrown out of the climate law toolbox.

More severe storms and rising sea levels resulting from the changing climate pose a threat to ecosystems along the U.S. coast. These include beaches, dunes, wetlands, and marshes, which provide significant environmental, recreational, and economic benefits. Practices to sustain these ecosystems are available, but are not well understood, face legal and financial obstacles, and have not been widely implemented. On January 25, 2023, the Environmental Law Institute hosted a panel of experts who explored measures and practices for sustaining beaches and dunes in the face of a changing climate.

The global transition to a carbon-neutral economy will bring about a surging demand for land and for minerals required in renewable energy technologies. It brings the threat of conflict between those seeking to develop these resources and those who live on the lands and risk displacement, loss of livelihood, and environmental contamination. These risks are particularly acute in Sub-Saharan Africa, though many Sub-Saharan countries have adopted legislation to prevent and peacefully resolve disputes.