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.

This Comment looks at the background of national scenic trails and lawmakers’ intent for the experiences these trails should provide, analyzes the difference in meaning between the terms and concepts of “on” and “along,” and considers the width of adjacent management areas that lawmakers implied with the use of the latter term. It also examines the management implications of these interpretations, and where agencies and nonprofit trail management partners may go from here.

The relationship between the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights regime under the World Trade Organization is complex. The manner in which intellectual property rights (IPRs) pertaining to genetic resources (GRs) and associated traditional knowledge (ATK) are handled is the main source of this dissonance.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

Animal agriculture is one of the leading sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon offset markets allow entities to reduce their overall climate impact by financing projects that decrease emissions elsewhere. This Article analyzes the viability of an offset protocol that credits farms for transitioning from raising livestock to growing crops, based on the difference in emissions between these operations.