In order to manage California wilderness areas to preserve their natural and untrammeled character, as required by the Wilderness Act, federal land management agencies should adopt interpretations of the Act that allow prescribed burning and Indigenous cultural burning in areas where it existed pre-colonialism.
Understanding the nearly impossible task of containing contaminants from Superfund sites, it is imperative to find solutions in anticipation of disasters that scientists project will only increase in magnitude and frequency. This Comment proceeds in six parts. Part I identifies the challenge of increasing natural disasters and their impact at Superfund sites, which are toxic havens. Part II identifies efforts that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies have taken to make Superfund sites more climate-resilient.
This Comment focuses on energy developments offshore. Part I recognizes OCSLA’s purpose of balancing energy needs with protection of marine animals, coastal beaches, and wetlands. Part II discusses examples of presidential use of OCSLA §12(a) authority to protect (withdraw from leasing) portions of the OCS temporarily or permanently, including challenges to President Biden’s recent withdrawal of the East Coast, West Coast, and part of the Gulf of Mexico and Bering Strait from future oil and gas leases.
Four myths are distorting the national debate over permit reform. First, it is misconceived as a singular issue, with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) at its center. Second, reformers assume that federal reviews and permitting cause most project delays and failures. Third, there is a widespread belief that environmental laws are routinely weaponized against new infrastructure through obstructive litigation. Fourth, critics assert that environmental procedures and standards must be sacrificed to enable timely climate action.
There is significant research literature that has studied the civil enforcement process, but we still have a poor understanding of how the Agency uses its criminal enforcement tools to enforce compliance with CERCLA. We work to fill this gap by exploring charging and sentencing patterns in federal CERCLA prosecutions.
On June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, concluding that courts have a constitutional and statutory obligation to exercise their “independent judgment” when deciding whether a federal administrative agency has acted within its statutory authority. As Justice Neil Gorsuch noted in concurrence, the Court’s decision “places a tombstone on Chevron no one can miss.” This Comment discusses the Court’s decision and its implications for legal challenges to federal agency actions.
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.
Congress in the 2020s has authorized three new environmentally focused grant programs relating to western waters and appropriated $450 million in multi-year funding. The Bureau of Reclamation is responsible for creating and implementing these programs, giving it a new tool and resources for addressing stubborn environmental problems—some caused by the Bureau’s many dams.
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?