Coastal landowners have an acute interest in armoring the shoreline by erecting barriers to protect their property from inundation and erosion. One problem with armoring is that the barrier potentially destroys coastal wetlands and beaches and prevents them from migrating as sea levels rise. Under the public trust doctrine, the public has the right to use trust resources and, in some states, to conservation of trust resources and the ecological services they provide.

In Humane Society of the United States v. Jewell, a federal district court invalidated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) delisting of wolves in the western Great Lakes (WGL) Distinct Population Segment. This decision culminated a long history of litigation over wolves in the WGL region, and has generated a political backlash, with congressional attempts to delist wolves and to weaken the ESA itself. The author argues that the Jewell court’s analysis is erroneous on several central legal issues.

In two decisions released in November 2015, Merrick v. Diageo Americas Supply, Inc., and Little v. Louisville Gas & Electric Co., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit unambiguously held that the Clean Air Act does not preempt state common-law claims brought against regulated sources of air emissions in the same state. Many practitioners and observers had expected courts to treat state common-law claims the way the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with federal common-law claims as being preempted by the CAA.

In Pope Francis’ Encyclical on the environment, Laudato Si’, the leader of the Catholic church presents a moral argument for combating climate change and other environmental harm. As he has done throughout his papacy, the Pope highlights concerns about economic disparity, arguing that climate change disproportionally impacts developing nations and the world’s poor. Along with critiques of “consumerism” and the modern economic system, the Pope expressed deep skepticism about the motives and impacts of market mechanisms as emissions reduction tools.

“The history of California is written on its waters. . . .” These words by California appellate justice Ronald B. Robie in State Water Resources Control Board Cases reflect the state’s reputation for epic water wars, past and present. With landmark groundwater legislation—the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA)—passed into law late last year, the landscape for groundwater will change for years and decades to come. That much is certain: Groundwater basins in California will be mandatorily regulated and managed statewide for the first time in California’s 165-year history.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Clean Power Plan was accompanied by model rules for states that provide both a mass-based and a rate-based approach. The model rules, once finalized, will give states a streamlined but customizable template that is trading ready. EPA also provided proposed mass- and rate-based federal plans that would be implemented absent state-promulgated plans. They are similar to the proposed model rules, but they exclude certain compliance options, such as demand-side energy efficiency under the rate-based approach.

This Article, the fourth in a series of five, examines the continuing struggles to define “point source” and “nonpoint source” under the Clean Water Act. State regulation of nonpoint sources is neither pervasive nor robust, and most continuing water pollution problems can be traced primarily to nonpoint sources. EPA should define nonpoint sources by regulation and begin to expand the definition of point source by incorporating established case law and Agency practice to bring more nonpoint sources into the point source definition.

Livestock should be removed from public lands for myriad reasons. Eliminating what is now extensive grazing by ruminants would cut methane emissions, with attendant benefits for climate mitigation. Removing livestock from public lands also mirrors federal nutrition policy, particularly the recommendation to eat less red meat. Much of the degraded environmental conditions on public lands and waters caused by ruminant grazing would end, thereby enabling improvement or even recovery. Finally, undertaking this policy shift would make fiscal sense by saving taxpayer dollars.

The September 2015 issue of News & Analysis looked at China’s new Environmental Protection Law, including the first environmental public interest litigation case heard under it, the “Nanping case.” On October 29, 2015, the court ruled in the environmentalists’ favor. The decision sends a strong signal that Chinese courts have jurisdiction to enforce environmental laws beyond awarding money damages for pollution injuries. It may also signal a more active role for Chinese courts and nongovernmental organizations in protecting natural resources.

The disposal of coal ash, a combustion byproduct from coal-fired power plants, came to national attention when, on December 22, 2008, the Tennessee Valley Authority Kingston power plant suffered one of the largest coal ash spills in history. The Duke Energy Dan River spill on February 2, 2014, reignited the focus on the handling of coal ash. In December 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator signed a rule that, for the first time, regulates the disposal of coal ash.