This Article attempts to unpack the meaning and significance of the recent decision in Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington,¹ in which the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a takings challenge to Washington State's Interest on Lawyers' Trust Accounts (IOLTA) program.

One of the many devastating, and often overlooked, effects of armed conflict is impact on the environment. An inevitable casualty of military conflict is destruction of land, water, air, and other natural resources.

The Defenders of Wildlife Judicial Accountability Project—undertaken with the assistance of the Vermont Law School Clinic for Environmental Law and Policy—seeks to fill a data void on the environmental record of the current Bush Administration by analyzing all reported environmental cases in which the Administration has presented legal arguments regarding an existing environmental law, regulation, or policy before federal judges, magistrates, or administrative tribunals.

In May 2002, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) issued its long-awaited, authoritative report, Global Environmental Outlook 3 (GEO-3).¹ This 446-page document, which reflects the work of more than 1,000 scientists around the globe, surveyed the present state of the world's environment and offered provocative policy recommendations for addressing the regional and global environmental problems facing humankind over the next 30 years.

Can you remember a day when you opened your morning newspaper without finding a dramatic and disturbing story about some environmental crisis that's either here already or lurks just around the corner? That would be a rare day. On one day the story may be about global warming, on the next it may be about overpopulation, or air pollution, or resource depletion, or species extinction, or sea-level rise, or nuclear waste, or toxic substances in our food and water.

In May 2000, in a town of 4,800 people in southern Ontario, 7 people died and more than 2,300 became seriously ill from drinking tap water contaminated with Escherichia coli (e-coli). The loss of life and the staggering degree of illness devastated the small town community. Even today many Walkerton residents continue to suffer adverse health effects while feelings of frustration and insecurity persist.

I am not one who was born in the possession of knowledge; I am one who is fond of antiquity, and earnest in seeking it there.

—Confucius¹

The environmental movement has come a long way since the first half of the 20th century, when such forward thinkers as John Muir and Aldo Leopold helped shape worldwide environmental policy with their articles and books on preservation. Despite their good intentions, rapid industrialization still resulted in a slew of nightmares: Love Canal; Times Beach; the air pollution episodes of the 1960s; and Bhopal, India.

The ESA mandates protection of endangered and threatened species on an individual species and project basis.¹ A species is only protected by the ESA when it is listed as endangered or threatened, and its critical habitat is designated.² Once a species has been listed, a number of provisions providing for its protection are triggered. The primary provisions for species conservation are § 7(a)(1) conservation obligations and § 4(f) recovery plans.

Introduction