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.

Combating climate change requires not only rapid reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, but also removal of significant amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. CO2 removal (CDR) comes in many different forms, but climate scientists and policymakers are focusing on the potentially important role of large-scale use of emerging ocean-based techniques, often referred to as marine CDR (mCDR). In the United States, mCDR in domestic waters is governed by a patchwork of laws and regulations.

A number of facilities intended for permanent sequestration of carbon dioxide are being developed in the United States. Several will be located on or near the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, making them easily accessible to ships. Meanwhile, in Europe there is substantial interest in capturing carbon dioxide from industrial operations, but currently inadequate sequestration facilities, and growing interest in shipping carbon dioxide for sequestration in the United States. This Article reviews the main U.S.

This abstract, which is adapted from Michele Okoh, Forgotten Waters, 111 Geo. L.J. 723 (2022), argues that approaches to addressing access to safe drinking water must account for the legacy of discrimination and discusses why the Rural Electrification Act provides a promising model to provide safe drinking water to well-dependent populations.

For more than half a century, the Chesapeake Bay and many of its tributaries have suffered from poor water quality. Compelled by an executive order and litigation, in 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load (Bay TMDL) to reduce pollution discharges and thereby restore Bay water quality; unfortunately, the Bay TMDL will fail to meet its 2025 objective.

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.

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.

On August 29, 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a direct final rule that revised the “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) definition rule. This rule amended the final WOTUS rule, previously published in January 2023, to be consistent with the Supreme Court’s May decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. On September 14, the Environmental Law Institute hosted a panel of experts to analyze the new rule and discuss its regulatory and policy consequences.

Communities around the world are seeking to acknowledge nature’s rights through legal tools and litigation. This Article provides an overview of recent developments in earth law movements, including Rights of Nature, Rights of Rivers, and Ocean Rights, and considers the potential impacts these ecocentric conservation measures could have on Indigenous peoples and local communities.

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.