Natural resource damages (NRD) under federal law is a statutory cause of action to compensate for injury to natural resources resulting from releases of hazardous substances or oil. Designated officials are authorized under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), among others, to act as “trustees” on behalf of the public or tribes.

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) established the “Superfund,” which allows the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to clean up contaminated sites. It also forces the parties responsible for contamination to either perform cleanups or reimburse the government for the EPA-led cleanup work. The Superfund program relies on several tools to protect against lasting contamination.

The Oak Ridge Reservation is one of the largest U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facilities in the country, with areas that are highly contaminated by chemicals, metals, and radionuclides. DOE is in the middle of a multi-decade, multi-billion-dollar cleanup there, and a recent Superfund decision for one portion of the site raises a number of significant legal issues. This Article addresses some related questions: Should radionuclides get less stringent cleanup than other equally harmful pollutants like mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls?

Superfund practitioners are waiting to see whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will designate perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonate, two chemicals in the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) group, as CERCLA hazardous substances. Such a designation may lead to selected remedies being modified and further work being required at Superfund sites where remedies were believed to be complete. This Article explores potential future liability by reviewing provisions of the 2021 Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) Model Consent Decree.

The recent passing of William D. Ruckelshaus has recalled and re-invited comparisons between the Trump and Nixon presidencies. Although Ruckelshaus might be most widely remembered for the “Saturday Night Massacre,” a review of his career in the Nixon and Reagan Administrations demonstrates a through-line of sound administration and independent regulatory leadership, at times in contrast to or in spite of his political environment.

This year, 2019, marks the 20th anniversary of the removal of the Edwards Dam, one of the first functioning hydroelectric dam to be decommissioned and removed in the United States. It was also the first to be removed under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC’s) asserted power to compel such a removal without compensation, an assertion raising legal questions that have yet to be fully resolved. As our hydroelectric infrastructure continues to age, these questions may again come to the forefront.

A number of bills have been introduced in recent years to put a price on carbon via a federal carbon tax. These proposals generally proceed from the implicit assumption that the federal government in general, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in particular, does not already have such authority. That is incorrect. Under a federal statute that has been on the books since 1952, EPA could impose a carbon “tax” any time an administration in power is willing to do so.

This Article explains that the conventional view of agency behavior—following the specific direction of the U.S. Congress or the president and using notice-and-comment rulemaking or adjudication processes—does not capture how public agencies and private entities develop innovative regulatory strategies and earn regulatory authority as a result. In particular, this Article explains how governmental agencies like the U.S.

In his recent statements and testimony before the U.S. Congress, Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt has expressed doubt he has the legal authority to limit his unrelenting campaign to lease fossil fuels on America’s public lands. He has supplemented this by offering a rather bizarre argument that he has no such obligation because carbon emissions are being curbed more in the United States than in many other countries. The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) reported not long ago that these emissions account for about one-quarter of total U.S. carbon emissions.

On August 15, 2017, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order entitled “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects," which seeks to expedite federal review and approval of infrastructure projects by imposing new timelines and procedures, including a two-year deadline for completing reviews under NEPA and issuing permits for major infrastructure projects.