Friday, March 30, 2012

Oil and Gas: Interior Has Strengthened Its Oversight of Subsea Well Containment, but Should Improve Its Documentation, GAO

From the Highlights:
"Since the Deepwater Horizon incident, the oil and gas industry has improved its capabilities to respond to a subsea well blowout—the uncontrolled release of oil or gas from a well on the ocean floor—in the Gulf of Mexico. In particular, operators have formed two new not-for-profit organizations that can quickly make available well containment equipment, services, and expertise. Among the equipment that these organizations can provide are capping stacks—devices used to stop the flow of oil or gas from a well. This improved well containment response equipment consists primarily of existing technologies that have been modified to support well containment, according to industry representatives.

Following the Deepwater Horizon incident, Interior strengthened its review plans and resources to contain a subsea well blowout; however, its internal oversight processes have not yet been fully documented. Interior has issued guidance to operators outlining information that must be provided to Interior to demonstrate that operators can respond to a well blowout. Interior officials said that they expect to have documentation of their process for reviewing this information in place by spring 2012. Also, Interior incorporated tests of an operator’s well containment response capabilities into two unannounced spill drills, and Interior officials told us they intend to incorporate such tests into future spill drills. However, Interior has not documented a time frame for incorporating these tests, and until it does so there is limited assurance of an operator’s ability to respond to a subsea well blowout.

Subsea well containment capabilities developed for the Gulf of Mexico could generally be used elsewhere, including Alaskan waters, according to industry representatives and Interior officials. However, because other areas lack the infrastructure and equipment present in the Gulf of Mexico, well blowout response capabilities are more limited. Two operators have submitted plans to Interior to drill in waters north of Alaska as early as the summer of 2012. They are developing, but have not submitted, final well containment plans to Interior, and these plans will need to be approved by Interior before drilling. Oil and gas exploration and production off the coast of Alaska is likely to encounter environmental and logistical risks that differ from those in the Gulf of Mexico because of the region’s cold and icy conditions—factors that would also likely affect the response to a well blowout.

Report from the "EU-Africa Dialogue on Development Cooperation" at 6th World Water Forum EU-WI

Report from the "EU-Africa Dialogue on Development Cooperation" at 6th World Water Forum On 15 March 2012, at the 6th World Water Forum, the EUWI Africa Working Group and the AMCOW secretariat co-convened a side event entitled "EU-Africa Dialogue on Development Cooperation in Water for Growth". The purpose of the event was to gather EU and African counterparts to provide an opportunity to exchange African and EU views on the long term strategy of the EU Water Initiative in the context of recent EU policy developments.

Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer -- EIA

Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer from the Energy Information Administration explains how "natural gas production from hydrocarbon rich shale formations, known as “shale gas,” is one of the most rapidly expanding trends in onshore domestic oil and gas exploration and production today.

In some areas, this has included bringing drilling and production to regions of the country that have seen little or no activity in the past. New oil and gas developments bring change to the environmental and socio-economic landscape, particularly in those areas where gas development is a new activity. With these changes have come questions about the nature of shale gas development, the potential environmental impacts, and the ability of the current regulatory structure to deal with this development. Regulators, policy makers, and the public need an objective source of information on which to base answers to these questions and decisions about how to manage the challenges that may accompany shale gas development.

Review of Emerging Resources: U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays -- EIA

Review of Emerging Resources: U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays is a report from the Energy Information Administration explains the use of horizontal drilling in conjunction with hydraulic fracturing has greatly expanded the ability of producers to profitably recover natural gas and oil from low-permeability geologic plays—particularly, shale plays. Application of fracturing techniques to stimulate oil and gas production began to grow rapidly in the 1950s, although experimentation dates back to the 19th century. Starting in the mid-1970s, a partnership of private operators, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and predecessor agencies, and the Gas Research Institute (GRI) endeavored to develop technologies for the commercial production of natural gas from the relatively shallow Devonian (Huron) shale in the eastern United States. This partnership helped foster technologies that eventually became crucial to the production of natural gas from shale rock, including horizontal wells, multi-stage fracturing, and slick-water fracturing

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

New York State’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for New York -- NYS DEC

New York State’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for New York was created to provide:

(1) Information on the distribution and abundance of species of wildlife, including low and declining populations as the State fish and wildlife agency deems appropriate, that are indicative of the diversity and health of the State’s wildlife; and,

(2) Descriptions of locations and relative condition of key habitats and community types essential to conservation of species identified in (1); and,

(3) Descriptions of problems which may adversely affect species identified in (1) or their habitats, and priority research and survey efforts needed to identify factors which may assist in restoration and improved conservation of these species and habitats; and,

(4) Descriptions of conservation actions proposed to conserve the identified species and habitats and priorities for implementing such actions; and,

(5) Proposed plans for monitoring species identified in (1) and their habitats, for monitoring the effectiveness of the conservation actions proposed in (4), and for adapting these conservation actions to respond appropriately to new information or changing conditions; and,

(6) Descriptions of procedures to review the plan at intervals not to exceed ten years; and,

(7) Plans for coordinating the development, implementation, review, and revision of the plan with Federal, State, and local agencies and Indian tribes that manage significant land and water areas within the State or administer programs that significantly affect the conservation of identified species and habitats.

(8) That broad public participation is an essential element of developing and implementing these plans, the projects that are carried out while these plans are developed, and the Species in Greatest Need of Conservation.

2009 Open Space Conservation Plan -- NYS DEC

The New York State 2009 Open Space Conservation Plan takes a fresh approach to conserving our vital natural and recreational areas. Small or large areas; urban, suburban, rural or wilderness; can be protected with a combination of public land protection and thoughtful use of our own land.
Consider the example of riparian areas; lands that line waterways, when protected and managed properly, can filter runoff, absorb stormwater and reduce catastrophic flooding downstream.
Discover how open space conservation works for today's New Yorkers and future generations.

New Plan Identifies Conservation Priorities

The 2009 version features:
A new look for a fresh approach
A renewed commitment to plan, prioritize, and enable government and citizen actions
An action agenda oriented to:
  • respond to climate change
  • foster green, healthy communities
  • connect people to nature and recreation
  • safeguard our natural and cultural heritage

Strategy 2011–2014 -- NYC DEP

Update on New York City Department of Environmental Protection's Strategy 2011–2014

Today released the 2011 Progress Report on Strategy 2011–2014, which found that major advancements have been made toward making DEP the safest, most efficient, cost-effective, and transparent water utility in the nation. Released last year with Mayor Bloomberg, the groundbreaking plan outlined 29 broad goals and 100 distinct initiatives in the areas of strategic planning and performance; customer service; worker safety, public health, and environmental protection; operations, including water supply, distribution and treatment, and capital; regulatory relationships and policy; harbor water quality; energy; hazardous materials; and air and noise pollution.

The product of nearly one year of analysis and outreach, Strategy 2011–2014 built on PlaNYC, Mayor Bloomberg's sustainability blueprint for New York City. In the plan's first year, 63 initiatives have been fully or partially achieved while 36 are on track to be completed on schedule. One initiative was deferred after DEP concluded that capital resources should be redirected to repair the Rondout-West Branch Tunnel section of the Delaware Aqueduct to ensure continued and uninterrupted delivery of water to customers.

SeaWeb’s 10th International Seafood Summit

SeaWeb's 10th International Seafood Summit to be held in Asia.

SeaWeb has announced the dates and location for the 10th annual Seafood Summit. SeaWeb’s Seafood Summit brings together global representatives from the seafood industry and conservation community for in-depth discussions, presentations and networking around the issue of sustainable seafood.

The goal of the Summit is to foster dialogue and partnerships that lead to a seafood marketplace that is environmentally, socially and economically sustainable. The Summit, which has traditionally been held in Europe and North America, will celebrate its 10th anniversary next year in Asia. In addition to the core program there will be a series of unique field trips and topical workshops before and after the Summit.

WHO: The Seafood Summit is attended by a diverse group of seafood industry professionals including producers, processors, distributors, buyers, retailers, chefs and restaurateurs, as well as other stakeholders such as conservation groups, policy makers, academics and the media. The Summit is the only event where all stakeholders come together around sustainable seafood.

WHEN: 6th – 8th September 2012

WHERE: The Kowloon Shangri-La, Hong Kong

Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) -- IPCC

The IPCC released its Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX). The report assesses the evidence that climate change has led to changes in climate extremes and the extent to which policies to avoid prepare for, respond to and recover from the risks of disaster can reduce the impact of such events

Recommendations from the 2nd Symposium on Fish Aggregating Devices 2011

 Recommendations from the 2nd Symposium on Fish Aggregating Devices 2011

From the Summary:

In the open ocean, tuna purse-seine operators profit from large pelagic fishes’ propensity to aggregate around drifting objects. They do so by fishing around FADs that have been deliberately set adrift for fishing purposes, and which are monitored by electronic tracking beacons. These drifting FADs (dFADs) are tools that have greatly increased catches of tuna around the globe. In fact, global catch of tuna from around dFADs accounts for about 43% of the 4.2 million tonnes of skipjack, bigeye, and yellowfin caught annually. However, the uncontrolled proliferation of dFADs deployed throughout the world’s oceans is a major concern of fisheries managers, environmentalists, and fishermen alike due to the impacts of dFAD fisheries on juvenile bigeye and yellowfin tuna, vulnerable sharks and sea turtle species, and the broader marine environment.

In November 2011, over 150 industry, science, and fisheries policy experts from 40 countries attended the International Symposium, “Tuna Fisheries and FADs,”* to discuss the challenges with FAD fisheries, and recommend best practices for responsible management of the world’s most prominent tuna fishing gear.

Symposium Conclusions:

•The unconstrained proliferation of dFADs has resulted in negative impacts on target and non-target species.

•Increased dFAD use has led to large increases in fishing mortality of juvenile yellowfin and bigeye tuna, which contributes to “growth overfishing”— the catching of too many fish before they reach a size at which maximum growth and productivity would be obtained from the stock.

•Bycatch levels for dFAD fisheries are high, and include catches of oceanic sharks, marine turtles, billfish and some pelagic bony fish.

Monday, March 26, 2012

Illegal Logging in South Eastern Europe: Regional Report -- REC

Illegal Logging in South Eastern Europe: Regional Report (English) -- published by the Regional Environmental Center finds that [from the Executive Summary] "in South Eastern Europe, the forestry sector has significant untapped potential that could contribute to the social and economic development of a large stratum of the population. It is therefore vital to identify trends, such as illegal logging, that prevent the realisation of the full potential of forestry in the region.

There are general patterns that can be discerned in the analysed countries:

• sizeable state-owned forest areas, and areas (especially near borders) particularly vulnerable to the illegal harvesting of timber;

• a mix of young and old forests, with a tendency towards a decrease in high-quality forests;

• a lack of reliable and aggregate data on forests and forest management structures; and

• the recent loss of substantial forest areas, through clear cutting and forest fires.

Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions and REDD+ -- ECA

Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions and REDD+ published by the Ecosystems Climate Alliance
The landmark REDD+ agreement reached at Cancun has significant potential to protect and restore the world’s forests. This ECA paper argues that Parties should not allow the extensive work put into REDD+ to now be undermined by the use of alternative and less stringent provisions relating to Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Activities (NAMAs).

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Environmental Compliance and Enforcement. -- INECE

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Environmental Compliance and Enforcement. The theme of the conference was “Enforcement Cooperation: Strengthening Environmental Governance” and the conference was held in Whistler, British Columbia, Canada, from 20-24 June 2011.

The Proceedings provide a robust overview of the breadth of issues discussed at the Conference. Among other things, they present summaries of the plenary sessions, the many workshop discussions, and include sixty-one papers, all submitted by members of the INECE community, that support the themes of the Conference: Enforcement Challenges Across Borders, Promoting Compliance with Climate-related Requirements, Proven Compliance and Enforcement Strategies, Improving Implementation of Environmental Legislation, Non-Traditional Approaches, Strengthening Compliance Institutions, and ‘Developing Effective Enforcement Networks.

As a whole, these Proceedings capture the calls to action, recommendations, and outcomes that emerged during INECE’s 9th International Conference. The Proceedings serve to promote dialogue at both the national and international level on the broad themes of the Conference. The Proceedings capture the awareness and excitement that was displayed at the Conference and serve to demonstrate that environmental compliance and enforcement programs create value across all areas of society.

Friday, March 23, 2012

Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance -- DOI

The Department of the Interior has created a Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance document that addresses Wind Enery issues:

From the Fact Sheet:

"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a Final Eagle Permit Rule (Eagle Permit Rule) on September 11, 2009 under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) authorizing limited issuance of permits to take Bald and Golden eagles where the take is associated with but not the purpose of an otherwise lawful activity. The Eagle Protection Act has prohibited take of Bald Eagles since 1940 and Golden Eagles since 1962. Take means pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, destroy, molest, or disturb. Since publication of the Eagle Rule, the planned development of wind-power facilities has increased dramatically in the core range of Golden Eagles in the western United States. Golden Eagles, in particular, are vulnerable to collisions with wind turbines. In some areas such collisions are a major source of mortality, and the documented level of take is increasing.

The draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance explains the Service’s approach to issuing programmatic eagle take permits and provides guidance to applicants and biologists for conservation practices and adaptive management necessary to meet standards required for issuance of these permits and to be in compliance with the Eagle Act. The draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance interprets and clarifies the provisions of the Eagle Permit Rule and does not impose additional regulatory requirements. Programmatic take permits will authorize limited incidental mortality and disturbance of eagles at wind facilities, provided effective offsetting conservation measures are carried out.

The draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance is written to guide wind-facility projects starting from the earliest conceptual planning phase. For projects already in the development or operational phase, implementation of all stages of the recommended approach in this Guidance may not be applicable or possible. Project proponents with operating or soon-to-be operating facilities at the time the draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance was first released that are interested in obtaining a programmatic eagle take permit should coordinate with the Service. The Service will work with project proponents to determine if the facility might meet the permit requirements by conducting eagle fatality and disturbance monitoring and by adopting reasonable operational avoidance and minimization measures that might reduce future eagle fatalities detected through monitoring. Sections of Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance that address these topics are relevant to both planned and operating wind facilities.

The draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance calls on wind turbine developers to consult with the Service in a 5-tiered process that includes: 1) early landscape-level site assessments; 2) site specific surveys; 3) risk assessment; 4) avoiding, minimizing and mitigating impacts; and 5) post-construction monitoring. Based on the presence of eagles relative to proposed projects, the draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance calls for categorizing the projects into one of four categories: Category 1 – High risk to eagles with low potential to avoid or mitigate impacts; Category 2 – High to moderate risk to eagles with opportunities to mitigate impacts; Category 3 – Minimal risk to eagles; and Category 4 – uncertain risk to eagles. For additional information, visit the Service’s website at"

Final Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines -- DOI

The Department of the Interior has issued Final Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines

The Department of the Interior today released guidelines designed to help wind energy project developers avoid and minimize impacts of land-based wind projects on wildlife and their habitats. The voluntary guidelines will help shape the smart siting, design and operation of the nation's growing wind energy economy.

Sackett v. EPA -- US S.Ct.


From the Syllabus:

The Sacketts may bring a civil action under the APA to challengethe issuance of the EPA’s order. Pp. 4–10.

(a) The APA provides for judicial review of “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.” 5 U. S. C. §704.The compliance order here has all the hallmarks of APA finality. Through it, the EPA “determined” “rights or obligations,” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U. S. 154, 178, requiring the Sacketts to restore theirproperty according to an agency-approved plan and to give the EPA access. Also, “legal consequences . . . flow” from the order, ibid., which, according to the Government’s litigating position, exposes theSacketts to double penalties in future enforcement proceedings. The order also severely limits their ability to obtain a permit for their fillfrom the Army Corps of Engineers, see 33 U. S. C. §1344; 33 CFR§326.3(e)(1)(iv). Further, the order’s issuance marks the “consummation” of the agency’s decisionmaking process, Bennett, supra, at 178, for the EPA’s findings in the compliance order were not subject tofurther agency review. The Sacketts also had “no other adequateremedy in a court,” 5 U. S. C. §704. A civil action brought by the EPAunder 33 U. S. C. §1319 ordinarily provides judicial review in suchcases, but the Sacketts cannot initiate that process. And each day they wait, they accrue additional potential liability. Applying to the Corps of Engineers for a permit and then filing suit under the APA if that permit is denied also does not provide an adequate remedy for the EPA’s action. Pp. 4–6.
(b) The Clean Water Act is not a statute that “preclude[s] judicial review” under the APA, 5 U. S. C. §701(a)(1). The APA creates a “presumption favoring judicial review of administrative action.” Block v. Community Nutrition Institute, 467 U. S. 340, 349. While this presumption “may be overcome by inferences of intent drawn from the statutory scheme as a whole,” ibid., the Government’s arguments do not support an inference that the Clean Water Act’s statutory scheme precludes APA review. Pp. 7–10.

Recent Law Review Articles March 2012


Blumenauer, Rep. Earl. Beyond the backlash: using performance-based regulations to produce results through innovation. 26 J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 351-366 (2011).

Conrad, Daniel H. Filling the gap: the retroactive effect of vacating agency regulations. 29 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 1-41 (2011).

Criddle, Evan J. When delegation begets domination: due process of administrative lawmaking. 46 Ga. L. Rev. 117-212 (2011).

Harris, Michael Ray. Breaking the grip of the administrative triad: agency policy making under a necessity-based doctrine. 86 Tul. L. Rev. 273-308 (2011).

Owen, Dave. Critical habitat and the challenge of regulating small harms. 64 Fla. L. Rev. 141-199 (2012).

Seidenfeld, Mark. Substituting substantive for procedural review of guidance documents. 90 Tex. L. Rev. 331-394 (2011).

Vacca, Ryan. Acting like an administrative agency: the Federal Circuit en banc. 76 Mo. L. Rev. 733-762 (2011).

Adler, Robert W. Balancing compassion and risk in climate adaptation: U.S. water, drought, and agricultural law. 64 Fla. L. Rev. 201-267 (2012).

Bleshman, Rachel. Note. National Pork Producers Council v. U.S. EPA: striking down Clean Water Act rule for factory farms, the Fifth Circuit strips the EPA of effective regulatory power. (Nat’l Pork Producers Council v. U.S. EPA, 635 F.3d 738, 2011.) 25 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 207-219 (2011).

Chrostek, Garrett. Note. A critique of Vermont’s right-to-farm law and proposals for better protecting the state’s agricultural future. 36 Vt. L. Rev. 233-259 (2011).

Di Camillo, Nicole G. Comment. Methane digesters and biogas recovery—masking the environmental consequences of industrial concentrated livestock production. 29 UCLA J. Envtl. L. & Pol’y 365-394 (2011).

Kelly, Dana. Student article. Bringing the green to green: would the legalization of marijuana in California prevent the environmental destruction caused by illegal farms? 18 Hastings W.-Nw. J. Envtl. L. & Pol’y 95-118 (2012).

Norris, Patricia, Gary Taylor and Mark Wyckoff. When urban agriculture meets Michigan’s Right to Farm Act: the pig’s in the parlor. 2011 Mich. St. L. Rev. 365-404.

Slating, Timothy A. and Jay P. Kesan. Making regulatory innovation keep pace with technological innovation. 2011 Wis. L. Rev. 1109-1179.

Tettlebaum, Benjamin W. Note. “Vacation” at the farm: why courts should not extend “remand without vacation” to environmental deregulation. (Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 130 S. Ct. 2743, 2010.) 97 Cornell L. Rev. 405-432 (2012).

Acken, Albert H. and Matthew G. Bingham. Sustainable energy in Arizona. 43 Ariz. St. L.J. 669-695 (2011).

Bailey, Kristin L. Note. Insecurity for community solar: three strategies to confront an emerging tension between renewable energy investment and federal securities laws. 10 J. on Telecomm. & High Tech. L. 123-146 (2012).

McIntyre, Siobhan and Timothy P. Duane. Water, work, wildlife, and wilderness: the collaborative federal public lands planning framework for utility-scale solar energy development in the desert Southwest. 41 Envtl. L. 1093-1190 (2011).

Miller, Douglas K. Visibility issues in rural Arizona and Indian Country. 43 Ariz. St. L.J. 861-877 (2011).

Rule, Troy A. Airspace in a green economy. 59 UCLA L. Rev. 270-320 (2011).

Feld, Danielle Spiegel. Ensuring that imported biofuels abide by domestic environmental standards: will the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade tolerate asymmetrical compliance regimes? 29 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 79-120 (2011).

Keske, Catherine M.H. How lawsuits could ignite an energy market: the case of anaerobic digestion. 41 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis 11094-11100 (2011).

Braverman, Irus. Zoo registrars: a bewildering bureaucracy. 21 Duke Envtl. L. & Pol’y F. 165-206 (2010).

Shafer, Meredith L. Casenote. Perplexing precedent: United States v. Stevens confounds a century of Supreme Court conventionalism and redefines the limits of “entertainment.” (United States v. Stevens, 130 S. Ct. 1577, 2010.) 19 Vill. Sports & Ent. L.J. 281-342 (2012).

Hall, Laura. Note. The evolution of CAFE standards: fuel economy regulation enters its second act. 39 Transp. L.J. 1-29 (2011).

Wyatt, Timothy R. Balancing airport capacity requirements with environmental concerns: legal challenges to airport expansion. 76 J. Air L. & Com. 733-804 (2011).

Blair, Scott E. Note. Toxic assets: the EPA’s settlement of CERCLA claims in bankruptcy. 86 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1941-1988 (2011).

Dow, Christopher. Treatment of CERCLA claims for hazardous waste cleanup costs in bankruptcy. 41 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis 11091-11093 (2011).

Fischer, William M. Note. The Utah Bioprospecting Act of 2010: (unintentional) state-level implementation of the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity. 10 J. on Telecomm. & High Tech. L. 197-226 (2012).

Blumm, Michael. The real story behind the Columbia Basin salmon debacle: dam preservation under the Endangered Species Act. (Reviewing Steven Hawley, Recovering a Lost River: Removing Dams, Rewilding Salmon, Revitalizing Communities.) 41 Envtl. L. 1363-1369 (2011).

Lewyn, Michael. How suburbia happened in Toronto. (Reviewing John Sewell, The Shape of the Suburbs: Understanding Toronto’s Sprawl.) 6 Fla. A&M U. L. Rev. 299-311 (2011).

Slavich, John. As if it isn’t enough to have a non-performing loan: dealing with environmentally impacted distressed assets. 41 Tex. Envtl. L.J. 29-46 (2010).

Joyner, Sean H. Note. Superfund to the rescue? Seeking potential CERCLA response authority and cost recovery liability for releases of hazardous substances resulting from hydraulic fracturing. 28 J. Contemp. Health L. & Pol’y 111-143 (2011).

Kilbert, Kenneth K. Neither joint nor several: orphan shares and private CERCLA actions. 41 Envtl. L. 1045-1092 (2011).

Deng, Annie. Note. Dousing the flames: the Tang Fuzhen self-immolation incident and urban land takings reform in the People’s Republic of China. 20 S. Cal. Interdisc. L.J. 585-616 (2011).

Jeffery, Michael I. and Gao Qi. The development of payments for ecosystem services in China: cutting through the cloud of confusion over China’s eco-compensation. 42 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis 10041-10056 (2012).

Kelley, Jason E. Comment. Seeking justice for pollution victims in China: why China should amend the Tort Liability Law to allow punitive damages in environmental tort cases. 35 Seattle U. L. Rev. 527-557 (2012).

Noble, Jarrett. Comment. Land seizures in the People’s Republic of China: protecting property while encouraging economic development. 22 Pac. McGeorge Global Bus. & Dev. L.J. 355-377 (2010).

Brenner, Robert, et al. Recent air regulations: what picture will the jigsaw pieces create? 42 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis 10005-10016 (2012).

Clean Air Symposium. Introduction by Patrick J. Paul; articles by Albert H. Acken, Matthew G. Bingham, Daniel Bodansky, Edward Z. Fox, Matthew P. Fraser, Joy Herr-Cardillo, Eric L. Hiser, Kenneth A. Hodson, Gary E. Marchant, Matthew McDonnell, Kirsten Engel, Ardeth Barnhart, Joseph P. Mikitish, Douglas K. Miller, Patrick J. Paul, Christopher P. Colyer, Arnold W. Reitze, Jr. and William D. Wiley. 43 Ariz. St. L.J. 665-949 (2011).

Eisenstat, Fredric. Note. American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut: how one less legal theory available in the effort to curb emissions is actually one step forward for the cause. (Am. Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut, 131 S. Ct. 2527, 2011.) 25 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 221-230 (2011).

Reitze, Arnold W., Jr. The intersection of climate change and Clean Air Act stationary source programs. 43 Ariz. St. L.J. 901-942 (2011).

Stensvaag, John-Mark. Preventing significant deterioration under the Clean Air Act: the BACT determination—part I. 41 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis 11101-11117 (2011).

Stensvaag, John-Mark. Preventing significant deterioration under the Clean Air Act: the BACT determination—part II. 42 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis 10024-10040 (2012).

White, Teal Jordan. Comment. Clean Air Act mayhem: the EPA’s Tailoring Rule stitches greenhouse gas emissions into the wrong regulatory fitting. 18 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 407-442 (2011).

Antony, Anil J. Shotguns, spray, and smoke: regulating atmospheric deposition of pollutants under the Clean Water Act. 29 UCLA J. Envtl. L. & Pol’y 215-268 (2011).

Bleshman, Rachel. Note. National Pork Producers Council v. U.S. EPA: striking down Clean Water Act rule for factory farms, the Fifth Circuit strips the EPA of effective regulatory power. (Nat’l Pork Producers Council v. U.S. EPA, 635 F.3d 738, 2011.) 25 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 207-219 (2011).

Devine, Jon, et al. The intended scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction. 41 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis 11118-11126 (2011).

Rapp, Jason. Coal and water: reclaiming the Clean Water Act for environmental protection. 25 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 99-154 (2011).

Climate Change Special Issue. Introduction by Lisa Heinzerling; articles by Dave Markell, J.B. Ruhl, Sarah Krakoff, Dave Owen, Robert W. Adler and Victor B. Flatt; case comment by Allison Fischman. 64 Fla. L. Rev. 1-304 (2012).

Gremillion, Thomas M. Setting the foundation: climate change adaptation at the local level. 41 Envtl. L. 1221-1253 (2011).

Rice, Brooks V. Comment. The “triumph” of the commons: an analysis of enforcement problems and solutions in the Western Climate Initiative. 22 Pac. McGeorge Global Bus. & Dev. L.J. 401-433 (2010).

Spence, Samara. Note. Three structural changes for a new system of international climate change mitigation agreements based on the WTO model. 44 Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 1415-1455 (2011).

Morgan, Jessica. Comment. Preventing coal companies from using compliance schedules to loophole around the mountains. 41 Envtl. L. 1295-1332 (2011).

Blomquist, Robert F. The logic and limits of environmental criminal law in the global setting: Brazil and the United States—comparisons, contrasts, and questions in search of a robust theory. 25 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 83-98 (2011).

Jeffery, Michael I. Climate change mitigation and adaptation policy options: reducing Australia’s dependence on coal, natural gas, and other nonrenewable energy resources. 21 Ind. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 447-480 (2011).

de Paula Domingos, Nicole. The interface between climate change and trade regimes through the eyes of Brazil. 6 Fla. A&M U. L. Rev. 239-255 (2011).

Rieu-Clarke, Alistair and Geoffrey Gooch. Governing the tributaries of the Mekong—the contribution of international law and institutions to enhancing equitable cooperation over the Sesan. 22 Pac. McGeorge Global Bus. & Dev. L.J. 193-224 (2010).

Sand, Peter H. The right to know: freedom of environmental information in comparative and international law. 20 Tul. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 203-232 (2011).

Cortemeglia, Cheryl. Note. Sarei v. Rio Tinto: how an exhaustion requirement for the Alien Tort Statute will further exhaust remedies for environmental injuries. (Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC, 550 F.3d 822, 2008.) 26 Md. J. Int’l L. 193-238 (2011).

Pearse, Adam. Note. John Doe VIII v. Exxon Mobil Corp.: the D.C. Circuit affirms corporate liability under the Alien Tort Statute. (Doe VIII v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 654 F.3d 11, 2011.) 25 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 231-250 (2011).

Markell, Dave and J.B. Ruhl. An empirical assessment of climate change in the courts: a new jurisprudence or business as usual? 64 Fla. L. Rev. 15-86 (2012).

Davidson, Justin M. Comment. Polluting without consequence: how BP and other large government contractors evade suspension and debarment for environmental crime and misconduct. 29 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 257-288 (2011).

The prosecution of environmental crimes in Oregon: an interview with Attorney General John Kroger. 26 J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 493-508 (2011).

Aladjem, David. Recycling the process: collaborative interest-based negotiations in an era of climate change. 22 Pac. McGeorge Global Bus. & Dev. L.J. 285-299 (2010).

Burleson, Elizabeth. From Coase to collaborative property decision-making: green economy innovation. 14 Tul. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 79-136 (2011).

Kuperman, Zachary D. Note. Cutting the baby in half: an economic critique of indivisible resource partition. 77 Brook. L. Rev. 263-301 (2011).

Carson, Trevor E. Comment. The decision from the Court of First Instance that destroyed the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme. 23 Pac. McGeorge Global Bus. & Dev. L.J. 157-185 (2010).

Gutherz, Ilan W. Comment. Cap and trade meets the Interstate Commerce Clause: are greenhouse gas regulations constitutional after Lopez and Morrison? 29 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 289-320 (2011).

Hamilton, Sophia. Student article. When scientific palmers make policy: the impact and future of cap-and-trade in the United States. 4 J. Bus. Entrepreneurship & L. 269-318 (2011).

Rylander, Jason C. Recovering endangered species in difficult times: can the ESA go beyond mere salvage? 42 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis 10017-10023 (2012).

Ellerbe, William H. Note. Toward legitimacy through collaborative governance: an analysis of the effect of South Carolina’s Office of Regulatory Staff on public utility regulation. 18 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 219-268 (2011).

Spence, David B. Regulation, “republican moments,” and energy policy reform. 2011 BYU L. Rev. 1561-1623

Symposium: Critical Intersections for Energy & Water Law: Exploring New Challenges and Opportunities. Foreword by Alastair R. Lucas, Gregory S. Weber and Patricia K. Wouters; articles by Alex Grzybowski, Stephen C. McCaffrey, Richard K. Paisley, Allan Ingelson, Lincoln Mitchell, Sean Assie, Alistair Rieu-Clarke, Geoffrey Gooch, Robin Kundis Craig, Steven Weissman, Lindsay Miller, David Aladjem and Kathleen Callison. 22 Pac. McGeorge Global Bus. & Dev. L.J. 135-321 (2010).

Environmental Law and Justice Symposium: New Directions in Environmental Law and Justice. Introduction by Randall S. Abate, Robert H. Abrams and Richard Gragg; keynote addresses by Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming and Beverly Wright; articles by Jaclyn Lopez, Elizabeth Ann Kronk, Nicole de Paula Domingos, Cathryn Henn and Alexandra Ritucci-Chinni, book review by Michael Lewyn; note by Tina M. Smith. 6 Fla. A&M U. L. Rev. 185-383 (2011).

Yacovone, Krista. Note. Brownfields and the poor: is cleanup a hazardous waste of time? An analysis of the United States’ efforts at remediation and their applicability to Brazil. 35 Fordham Int’l L.J. 201-247 (2011).

Recent developments. In the Congress. 42 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis 10089-10092 (2012).

Recent development. In the Congress. 41 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis 11157-11160 (2011).

Recent developments. In the courts. 42 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis 10092-10093 (2012).

Recent development. In the courts. 41 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis 11160-11161 (2011).

Recent developments. In the federal agencies. 42 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis 10094-10096 (2012).

Recent development. In the federal agencies. 41 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis 11162-11166 (2011).

Recent developments. In the state agencies. 42 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis 10097-10101 (2012).

Recent development. In the state agencies. 41 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis 11166-11169 (2011).

Heinzerling, Lisa. Climate change at EPA. 64 Fla. L. Rev. 1-13 (2012).

Kerret, Dorit. Don’t judge a book by its cover: use of an analytic framework and empirical data in analyzing environmental policy tools. 42 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis 10078-10088 (2012).

Amendola, Nathaniel H. Note. Let my people go fishing: apply the law of “givings” to private fishing preserves, exclusive fishing rights, and state-stocked rivers. 62 Syracuse L. Rev. 117-144 (2012).

Hausman, Nate. Student article. Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms: breathing a sigh of equitable relief. (Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 130 S. Ct. 2743, 2010.) 25 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 155-206 (2011).

Holing, Mary. Student article. It’s a question of proportionality: Proposition 26’s impacts on funding for the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. 18 Hastings W.-Nw. J. Envtl. L. & Pol’y 39-59 (2012).

DeAngelis, Kate. Comment. Black carbon: the most important ignored contributor to climate change. 26 Md. J. Int’l L. 239-270 (2011).

Hoffman, Nadine R. The emergence of carbon sequestration: an introduction and annotated bibliography of legal aspects of CCS. 29 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 218-256 (2011).

Mathews, Madeline. Note. Carbon sequestration and pore space ownership in Texas. 41 Tex. Envtl. L.J. 205-223 (2011).

Mounteer, Tom. Obama Administration efforts to control stationary source greenhouse gas emissions through rulemaking. 41 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis 11127-11145 (2011).

Murdock, Russell W. Note. The state of CO2 sequestration in the State of Texas. 41 Tex. Envtl. L.J. 65-81 (2010).

Keough, Elizabeth Betsy. Note. Heritage in peril: a critique of UNESCO’s World Heritage program. 10 Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev. 563-615 (2011).

Litton, Sam. Note. The World Heritage “In Danger” Listing as a taking. 44 N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol. 219-265 (2011).

Runnels, Michael B. and Andrea Giampetro-Meyer. Cooperative NRDA & new governance: getting to restoration in the Hudson River, the Gulf of Mexico, and beyond. 77 Brook. L. Rev. 107-149 (2011).

Billah, Muhammad Masum. The role of insurance in providing adequate compensation and in reducing pollution incidents: the case of the international oil pollution liability regime. 29 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 42-78 (2011).

Baez, Stephanie. Note. The “right” REDD framework: national laws that best protect indigenous rights in a global REDD regime. 80 Fordham L. Rev. 821-875 (2011).

Billah, Muhammad Masum. The role of insurance in providing adequate compensation and in reducing pollution incidents: the case of the international oil pollution liability regime. 29 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 42-78 (2011).

Rutledge, Jessica L. Comment. Wait a second—is that rain or herbicide? The ICJ’s potential analysis in Aerial Herbicide Spraying and an epic choice between the environment and human rights. 46 Wake Forest L. Rev. 1079-1112 (2011).

Benoit, Charles. Note. Picking tariff winners: non-product related PPMs and DSB interpretations of “unconditionally” within Article I.1. 42 Geo. J. Int’l L. 583-604 (2011).

Gu, Bin. Mineral export restraints and sustainable development—are rare earths testing the WTO’s loopholes? 14 J. Int’l Econ. L. 765-805 (2011).

Hull, Eric V. Poisoning the poor for profit: the injustice of exporting electronic waste to developing countries. 21 Duke Envtl. L. & Pol’y F. 1-47 (2010).

Stein, Jeffrey D. Note. Waging waterfare: Israel, Palestinians, and the need for a new hydro-logic to govern water rights under occupation. 44 N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol. 165-217 (2011).

Fischman, Allison. Case comment. Preserving legal avenues for climate justice in Florida post-American Electric Power. (American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut (AEP), 131 S. Ct. 2527, 2011.) 64 Fla. L. Rev. 295-304 (2012).

Brunner, Scott W. Comment. Sharing the green: reformatting Wisconsin’s forgotten green space grant with a public-private partnership design. 95 Marq. L. Rev. 305-357 (2011).

Chrostek, Garrett. Note. A critique of Vermont’s right-to-farm law and proposals for better protecting the state’s agricultural future. 36 Vt. L. Rev. 233-259 (2011).

Pounds, Erin. Comment. State trust lands: static management and shifting value perspectives. 41 Envtl. L. 1333-1362 (2011).

Hausman, Nate. Student article. Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms: breathing a sigh of equitable relief. (Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 130 S. Ct. 2743, 2010.) 25 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 155-206 (2011).

Mank, Bradford C. Reading the standing tea leaves in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut. 46 U. Rich. L. Rev. 543-602 (2012).

Smith, Tina M. Note. Wildlife protection and off-shore drilling: can there be a balance between the two? 6 Fla. A&M U. L. Rev. 349-383 (2011).

Bush, Brittan J. Comment. The answer lies in admiralty: justifying oil spill punitive damages recovery through admiralty law. 41 Envtl. L. 1255-1294 (2011).

Ritucci-Chinni, Alexandra. The need for Congress to get onboard with cruise ship pollution regulation: how the lack of federal regulation of the cruise ship industry is destroying the nation’s waters. 6 Fla. A&M U. L. Rev. 313-348 (2011).

Gantz, David A. Labor rights and environmental protection under NAFTA and other U.S. free trade agreements. 42 U. Miami Inter-Am. L. Rev. 297-356 (2011).

Kloeckner, Jane. Hold on to that tribal sovereignty: establishing tribal pesticide programs that recognize inherent tribal authority and promote federal-tribal partnerships. 42 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis 10057-10077 (2012).

Sproat, D. Kapua‘ala. Wai through kānāwai: water for Hawai‘i’s streams and justice for Hawaiian communities. 95 Marq. L. Rev. 127-211 (2011).

Brown, Holli. Student article. The attack on frack: New York’s moratorium on hydraulic fracturing and where it stands in the threat of takings. 41 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis 11146-11156 (2011).

Turgeon, Elizabeth. Recent development. “Goin’ to Carolina in my mind:” prospects and perils for natural gas drilling in North Carolina. 13 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 147-181 (2011).

Willie, Matt. Comment. Hydraulic fracturing and “spotty” regulation: why the Federal Government should let states control unconventional onshore drilling. 2011 BYU L. Rev. 1743-1781.

Hoffman, Hillary M. Signs, signs, everywhere signs: The Wilderness Society v. Kane County leaves everyone confused about navigating a right-of-way claim under Revised Statute 2477. 18 Hastings W.-Nw. J. Envtl. L. & Pol’y 3-35 (2012).

Kalen, Sam. Ecology comes of age: NEPA’s lost mandate. 21 Duke Envtl. L. & Pol’y F. 113-163 (2010).

Graham, Jane Cynthia. Snakes on a plain, or in a wetland: fighting back invasive nonnative animals—proposing a federal comprehensive nonnative animal species statute. 25 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 19-81 (2011).

Harse, Grant A. Plastic, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, and international misfires at a cure. 29 UCLA J. Envtl. L. & Pol’y 331-363 (2011).

Orth, Derek. Comment. Administering America’s offshore oil fields: how fewer, performance-based regulations can produce better results. 26 J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 509-534 (2011).

Veron, J. Michael. Oilfield contamination litigation in Louisiana: property rights on trial. 25 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 1-18 (2011).

Bush, Brittan J. Comment. Addressing the regulatory collapse behind the Deepwater Horizon oil spill: implementing a “best available technology” regulatory regime for deepwater oil exploration safety and cleanup technology. 26 J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 535-569 (2011).

Costonis, John G. The Macondo well blowout: taking the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act seriously. 42 J. Mar. L. & Com. 511-568 (2011).

Davis, Andrew B. Note. Pure economic loss claims under the Oil Pollution Act: combining policy and congressional intent. 45 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. 1-44 (2011).

Lopez, Jaclyn. Too much oil for the rubber-stamp: the government’s role in the BP oil spill. 6 Fla. A&M U. L. Rev. 201-214 (2011).

Pappas, Fay. Note. Gulf Coast blowout: how the BP oil spill is corroding communities and what attorneys & policymakers must do to stop it. 22 U. Fla. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 229-254 (2011).

Queale, Abby J. Student article. Responding to the response: reforming the legal framework for dispersant use in oil spill response efforts in the wake of Deepwater Horizon. 18 Hastings W.-Nw. J. Envtl. L. & Pol’y 63-92 (2012).

Sole, Shannon L. Note. BP’s compensation fund: a buoy for both claimants and BP. 37 J. Corp. L. 245-263 (2011).

Vanham, Riley W. Comment. A shift in power: why increased urban drilling necessitates a change in regulatory authority. 43 St. Mary’s L.J. 229-287 (2011).

Fehm, Sarah. Note. From i-Pod to e-waste: building a successful framework for extended producer responsibility in the United States. 41 Pub. Cont. L.J. 173-192 (2011).

Nelson, Robert H. Rethinking church and state: the case of environmental religion. 29 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 121-217 (2011).

McDonnell, Matthew, Kirsten Engel and Ardeth Barnhart. The potential and power of renewable energy credits to enhance air quality and economic development in Arizona. 43 Ariz. St. L.J. 809-834 (2011).

Zeller-Powell, Christine Elizabeth. Defining biomass as a source of renewable energy: the life cycle carbon emissions of biomass energy and a survey and analysis of biomass definitions in states’ renewable portfolio standards, federal law, and proposed legislation. 26 J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 367-434 (2011).

Argetsinger, Beren. Comment. The Marcellus Shale: bridge to a clean energy future or bridge to nowhere? Environmental, energy and climate policy considerations for shale gas development in New York State. 29 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 321-343 (2011).

Farber, Daniel. Seventeenth Annual Lloyd K. Garrison Lecture. Sustainable consumption and communities: bringing the American way of life into the twenty-first century. 29 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 344-361 (2011).

Lopez, Alberto B. Kelo-style failings. 72 Ohio St. L.J. 777-820 (2011).

Peñalver, Eduardo M. and Lior Jacob Strahilevitz. Judicial takings or due process? 97 Cornell L. Rev. 305-368 (2012).

Peterson, Megan S. Comment. Condemnation blight: the need for adoption in Louisiana. 57 Loy. L. Rev. 299-374 (2011).

Spencer, Peter. Note. When giving almost becomes a taking: an analysis of ... (Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 129 S. Ct. 2792, 2009.) 16 Roger Williams U. L. Rev. 751-796 (2011).

Sprankling, Thomas G. Note. Does five equal three? Reading the Takings Clause in light of the Third Amendment’s protection of houses. 112 Colum. L. Rev. 112-151 (2012).

Lowe, Sean. Comment. A way through the impasse in U.S. climate change legislation: a GHG tax that possesses political and administrative feasibility and conforms to international law. 29 UCLA J. Envtl. L. & Pol’y 435-470 (2011).

Green Technology and Economic Revitalization in Michigan Symposium. Articles by Thomas P. Lyon, Russell A. Baruffi, Jr. and Stanley “Skip” Pruss. 18 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 303-365 (2011).

Hickey, Jay. Note. Green technology: an alternative path to accelerated patent examination. 62 Syracuse L. Rev. 145-165 (2012).

Jaffe, Seth. Comment. Manufacturing a system of remanufacturing: how the Patent Office can facilitate environmentally conscious product design. 48 Hous. L. Rev. 919-957 (2011).

Pruss, Stanley “Skip”. The case for clean energy technology manufacturing: ten steps business and industry must take to optimize opportunities in the emerging clean energy economy. 18 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 349-365 (2011).

Smith, Van. Note. Enabling environments or enabling discord: intellectual property rights, public-private partnerships, and the quest for green technology transfer. 42 Geo. J. Int’l L. 817-854 (2011).

Latham, Mark, Victor E. Schwartz and Christopher E. Appel. The intersection of tort and environmental law: where the twains should meet and depart. 80 Fordham L. Rev. 737-773 (2011).

Pratt, Laura A.W. Decreasing dirty dumping? A reevaluation of toxic waste colonialism and the global management of transboundary hazardous waste. 41 Tex. Envtl. L.J. 147-180 (2011).

TSCA Reform: The Standard of Safety. Linda Breggin, moderator; James V. Aidala, Wendy Cleland-Hamnett and Richard Denison, panelists. 41 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis 11081-11090 (2011).

Ingelson, Allan, Lincoln Mitchell and Sean Assie. Coal and coalbed methane development in the Flathead—an international water dispute. 22 Pac. McGeorge Global Bus. & Dev. L.J. 155-191 (2010).

Andrew, Nicholas. Note. Interstate water transfers and the Red River shootout. 41 Tex. Envtl. L.J. 181-203 (2011).

Changing Conceptions of Water in the Law. Introduction by Kali Murray; articles by David A. Myers, Barton H. Thompson, Jr., Joseph W. Dellapenna, Shelley Ross Saxer, D. Kapua‘ala Sproat and Asmara M. Tekle. 95 Marq. L. Rev. 1-243 (2011).

Dellapenna, Joseph W. The evolution of riparianism in the United States. 95 Marq. L. Rev. 53-90 (2011).

Losi, Christopher J. Student article. Keeping dry streams green: can landowners in Arizona and California use property rights to maintain groundwater-dependent riparian habitat along non-perennial watercourses? 18 Hastings W.-Nw. J. Envtl. L. & Pol’y 121-153 (2012).

Saxer, Shelley Ross. The fluid nature of property rights in water. 21 Duke Envtl. L. & Pol’y F. 49-112 (2010).

Saxer, Shelley Ross. Managing water rights using fishing rights as a model. 95 Marq. L. Rev. 91-126 (2011).

Shelley, Adrian. Note. Fair, effective, and comprehensive: the future of Texas water law. 41 Tex. Envtl. L.J. 47-64 (2010).

Henn, Cathryn. Enemy of the People: the need for Congress to pass the Clean Water Restoration Act. 6 Fla. A&M U. L. Rev. 257-297 (2011).

Kalisek, Lauren. The principle of antidegradation and its place in Texas water quality permitting. 41 Tex. Envtl. L.J. 1-27 (2010).

Leitman, Melanie. Comment. Water Rx. The problem of pharmaceuticals in our nation’s waters. 29 UCLA J. Envtl. L. & Pol’y 395-433 (2011).

Benson, Reed D. Environmental review of Western water project operations: where NEPA has not applied, will it now protect farmers from fish? 29 UCLA J. Envtl. L. & Pol’y 269-330 (2011).

Craig, Robin Kundis. Water supply, desalination, climate change, and energy policy. 22 Pac. McGeorge Global Bus. & Dev. L.J. 225-255 (2010).

Davis, Mark and James Wilkins. A defining resource: Louisiana’s place in the emerging water economy. 57 Loy. L. Rev. 273-298 (2011).

Larson, Elise L. Note. In deep water: a common law solution to the bulk water export problem. 96 Minn. L. Rev. 739-767 (2011).

Link, Adam D. Comment. The perils of privatization: international developments and reform in water distribution. 22 Pac. McGeorge Global Bus. & Dev. L.J. 379-399 (2010).

Stanton, Marcia Silva. Payments for freshwater ecosystem services: a framework for analysis. 18 Hastings W.-Nw. J. Envtl. L. & Pol’y 189-290 (2012).

Tekle, Asmara M. Lawns and the new watershed law. 95 Marq. L. Rev. 213-243 (2011).

Thompson, Barton H., Jr. Water as a public commodity. 95 Marq. L. Rev. 17-52 (2011).

Addes, Kirah. Note. The fate of affordable housing legislation in New Jersey: how Governor Christie’s proposed S-1 legislation threatens to undo the New Jersey Supreme Court decisions in Mount Laurel I and Mount Laurel II. (Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel (Mount Laurel I), 336 A.2d 713, 1975; Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel (Mount Laurel II), 456 A.2d 390, 1983.) 36 Seton Hall Legis. J. 82-105 (2011).

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Annual OSPAR report on dumping of wastes or other matter at sea in 2009 -- OSPAR

Annual OSPAR report on dumping of wastes or other matter at sea in 2009

The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (the “OSPAR Convention”) was opened for signature at the Ministerial Meeting of the former Oslo and Paris Commissions in Paris on 22 September 1992. The Convention entered into force on 25 March 1998. It has been ratified by Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom and approved by the European Union and Spain.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012



The MEPC adopted four sets of guidelines intended to assist in the implementation of the mandatory Regulations on Energy Efficiency for Ships in MARPOL Annex VI, which are expected to enter into force on 1 January 2013:

• 2012 Guidelines on the method of calculation of the attained Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for new ships;
• 2012 Guidelines for the development of a Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP);
• 2012 Guidelines on survey and certification of the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI); and
• Guidelines for calculation of reference lines for use with the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI).

The guidelines adopted will support Member States in their uniform implementation of the amendments to MARPOL Annex VI Regulations for the prevention of air pollution from ships, adopted in July 2011, which add a new chapter 4 to Annex VI on Regulations on energy efficiency for ships to make mandatory the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI), for new ships, and the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) for all ships.

The EEDI is a non-prescriptive, performance-based mechanism that leaves the choice of technologies to use in a specific ship design to the industry. As long as the required energy-efficiency level is attained, ship designers and builders would be free to use the most cost-efficient solutions for the ship to comply with the regulations.

The SEEMP establishes a mechanism for operators to improve the energy efficiency of ships.

Finalization and adoption of the supporting guidelines was a significant achievement and also provides sufficient lead time for Administrations and industry to prepare.

The MEPC also agreed an updated work plan for the development of further guidelines and the development of energy efficiency frameworks for those ships not covered by the current EEDI regulations.

Green Lease Library -- DOE Website

Green Lease Library 

About the Green Lease Library

This website is a collaboration between a number of stakeholders in the green leasing community (see below). It's purpose is to consolidate green leasing resources to provide a one-stop-shop for all audience types from building owners and tenants to lawyers and building raters. The green lease library is organized by resource type, and resources are tagged by relevance to audience and building types.

Green leases (also known as aligned leases, high performance leases, or energy efficient leases) align the financial and energy incentives of building owners and tenants to save money, conserve resources, and ensure the efficient operation of buildings.

Building leases lay out how energy costs are divided between tenants and owners, but they are often not structured to promote energy savings. Under most gross leases, for example, tenants have no incentive to save energy in their leased premises because energy costs are based on tenant square footage. Under most net leases, building owners have no incentive to invest in efficiency for their building systems because the operating expenses are passed through to tenants, who would therefore receive all of the energy cost savings.

Green leases promote energy efficiency by creating lease structures which equitably align the costs and benefits of efficiency investments between building owners and tenants.

Tools and Best Practices for Implementing Green Leasing -- DOE Webinar

Tools and Best Practices for Implementing Green Leasing

Monday, March 26, 2012 1:00 PM - 2:30 PM EDT

Misaligned incentives between building owners and tenants are a prominent barrier to increasing energy efficiency in commercial buildings. Typical leases either do not hold the tenant accountable for energy costs or do not allow building owners to recoup energy cost savings from efficiency investments. Green leasing (or energy- efficient leasing) is a non-technical solution that allows property owners and occupants to share energy-efficiency costs and benefits.

This webinar, showcasing green leasing as a market solution to improve building energy efficiency, is targeted to a broad audience, from building owners and tenant organizations to lawyers and building raters. The webinar will introduce a new green leasing library website offering a one-stop-shop for green leasing resources, developed in coordination with BOMA, Rocky Mountain Institute, Natural Resources Defense Council, the U.S. Department of Energy, NYU, GSA, and the Institute for Market Transformation.

The webinar speakers will present on the following topics:

- What is green leasing and what barriers does it seeks to overcome

- Challenges and opportunities to implementing green leasing

- Components and mechanics of a green lease

- Best practices in adopting green leases

- Strategies for negotiating lease clauses with tenants

- GSA’s efforts to implement green leasing practices

Sustainability: How to get There -- Pace Center for Environmental Legal Studies

Sustainability: How to Get There presented by: Federated Conservationists of Westchester County and The Pace Center for Environmental Legal Studies

This public meeting will feature the impressive municipal consortiums of both northern and southern Westchester which have been formed to save energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and foster
group purchasing, as well as examples of sustainable activities, including green building (residential and institutional), a green business promoting local food and municipal programs. 

A panel of experts from non-profits, universities and municipalities will discuss the successes they've achieved in sustainability in Westchester County and the steps they took to get there.

This meeting encourages members of the public as well as municipal officials to bring their questions and examples of sustainable activities to share.

Saturday, March 31, 2012

Pace Law School
Preston Hall,
Tudor Room
78 North Broadway,
White Plains,

RSVP via Email
Or by Phone
(914) 422-­‐4053

Monday, March 19, 2012

Electronic Waste: Actions Needed to Provide Assurance That Used Federal Electronics Are Disposed of in an Environmentally Responsible Manner -- GAO

Electronic Waste: Actions Needed to ProvideAssurance That Used Federal Electronics Are Disposed of in an EnvironmentallyResponsible Manner, GAO-12-74, February 17.

From the Summary:

"Federal agencies have made some progress to improve their management of used electronic products, as measured by greater participation in the FEC and an increase in certified electronics recyclers, but opportunities exist to expand their efforts. For instance, agency participation in the FEC represents only about one-third of the federal workforce. GAO identified challenges with the tracking and reporting on the disposition of federal electronic equipment. For the five agencies GAO reviewed (Departments of Defense, Energy, Education, and Housing and Urban Development and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration), data provided on the disposition of electronic products were inconsistent, which hampered GAO’s efforts to accurately assess the extent to which electronic products procured by federal agencies are disposed of in an environmentally sound manner. Challenges associated with clarifying agencies’ responsibility for used electronics sold through auctions also remain. Currently, neither the agency nor the auction entities are required to determine whether purchasers follow environmentally sound end-of-life practices. Not having controls over the ultimate disposition of electronics sold through these auctions creates opportunities for buyers to purchase federal electronics and export them to countries with less stringent environmental and health standards. Other challenges that may impede progress toward improving federal agencies’ management of used electronics include defining key terms such as “electronic product” and “environmentally sound practices,” as each agency uses its own definition of electronic products to report progress in implementing policies for electronics stewardship."

New Library Acquisitions -- Week of March 18, 2012

Direito ambiental / Paulo de Bessa Antunes

Energy and environmental policy in China : towards a low-carbon economy / ZhongXiang Zhang

Climate Change
World resources 2010-2011 [electronic resource] : decision making in a changing climate : adaptation challenges and choices / United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme, World Bank, World Resources Institute

International Law
Conservation, biodiversity and international law / Alexander Gillespie

Land Use
Planning in 2011 : l'addition s'il vous plaît : papers from the 39th Joint Planning Law Conference held at New College, Oxford, in September 2011 / organised by the Law Society, the Bar Council, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Royal Town Planning Institute

Sustainable Development
Handbook of sustainable development / edited by Giles Atkinson, Simon Dietz, Eric Neumayer

“Climate and Energy Policy in the Obama Administration” -- Pace Law School

The 2012 Pace Law School Lloyd K Garrison Lecture will feature Professor Jody Freeman speaking on “Climate and Energy Policy in the Obama Administration”

March 26, 2012, 5:00 pm
Pace Law School 
Robert B. Fleming Moot Courtroom

Jody Freeman is the Archibald Cox Professor of Law and Director, Environmental Law Program, Harvard Law School.

Thursday, March 15, 2012

An Inventory of Fiscal Year 2010 Federal Initiatives -- GAO

An Inventory of Fiscal Year 2010 Federal Initiatives (GAO-12-259SP, February 2012), an E-supplement to GAO-12-260 from the Government Accountability Office. 

From the summary:
"This document is an E-supplement to GAO-12-260 This e-supplement provides a detailed inventory of federal renewable energy initiatives implemented by 23 departments and independent agencies in fiscal year 2010, which we refer to collectively as 'agencies.' For each initiative, this inventory includes the following data that were reported to us by the agencies: (1) the implementing agency, subagency, and office; (2) a description of the initiative, including its purpose, how it works, and how it relates to renewable energy; (3) the renewable energy sources it supports, regulates, or otherwise relates to; and (4) a description of the direct recipients it supports. In addition, this e-supplement provides our analysis of the federal role and the types of direct recipients each initiative supports based on information collected from the agencies. This inventory is the basis for information presented in the full report, Renewable Energy: Federal Agencies Implement Hundreds of Initiatives, GAO-12-260(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2012)."

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

The Future We Want - Zero draft of the outcome document -- Rio + 20

The Future We Want - Zero draft of the outcome document is the draft document of the work to be done at Rio +20 Why is Rio+20 convened? How it is organized? Who are the main actors? How can all citizens of the planet take part in shaping its preparations and outcome?

The objective of the Conference is to secure renewed political commitment for sustainable development, assess the progress to date and the remaining gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development, and address new and emerging challenges

The Conference will focus on two themes: (a) a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication; and (b) the institutional framework for sustainable development.

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Waters that Qualify as Waters of the United States Under Section (a)(1) of the Agencies’ Regulations -- EPA

From the introduction: "The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) "Guidance on Identifying Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act" guidance (Guidance) affirms that EPA and the Corps will continue to assert jurisdiction over "[a]ll waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide." 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a)(1); 40 C.F.R. § 230.3(s)(1). The Guidance also states that, for purposes of the guidance, these "(a)(1)waters" are the "traditional navigable waters." These (a)(1) waters include all of the "navigable waters of the United States," defined in 33 C.F.R. Part 329 and by numerous decisions of the federal courts, plus all other waters that are navigable-in-fact (e.g., the Great Salt Lake, UT and Lake Minnetonka, MN)."

Draft guidance on waters protected by the Clean Water Act -- EPA

Draft guidance on waters protected by the Clean Water Act from the Environmental Protection Agency
From the Introduction: "This draft guidance clarifies how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) will identify waters protected by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Clean Water Act or CWA or Act) and implement the Supreme Court’s decisions concerning the extent of waters covered by the Act (Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC)and Rapanos v. United States (Rapanos)). This document clarifies how the EPA and the Corps understand existing requirements of the CWA and the agencies' implementing regulations in light of SWANCC and Rapanos and provides guidance to agency field staff in making determinations about whether waters are protected by the CWA. "

CAFTA-DR Regional EIA Technical Review Guidelines and Example Terms of Reference -- INECE

CAFTA-DR Regional EIA Technical Review Guidelines and Example Terms of Reference offered by the International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement.  From the INECE webpage:

"Three regional EIA Technical Review Guidelines for the review and preparation of EIAs for energy mining and tourism projects were prepared by relevant experts from Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the United States in both EIA and the mining, energy and tourism sectors respectively, supported by the U.S. Agency for International Development’s Environment and Labor Excellence Program and the Central American Commission on Environment and Development, through a regional collaborative process coordinated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The Guidelines are an outgrowth of environmental cooperation between the governments of five Central American Countries, the Dominican Republic and the United States associated with the CAFTA-DR free trade agreement. The guidelines are a product of regional experts in EIA and the relevant sectors, drawing upon existing materials from within and outside these countries and from international organizations and do not represent the policies, practices or requirements of any one country or organization.

The Guidelines were developed to better ensure proposed projects undergoing review by government officials, NGOs, and the general public successfully identify, avoid, prevent and/or mitigate potential adverse impacts and enhance potential beneficial impacts throughout the life of the projects. From the vantage point of enforcement, the guidelines emphasize auditable commitment language, monitoring and follow up, as well as compliance with EIA procedures and existing environmental performance requirements which are benchmarked in Appendix C for many different countries and international organizations.

Volume 1 contains the guidelines which track with internationally recognized elements of environmental impact assessment with a glossary and references; Volume 2 contains Appendices with detailed information on the applicable sector, requirements and standards, predictive tools, and international codes; and Volume 1, Part 2 contains example Terms of Reference cross-linked to Volumes 1 and 2 for different types of mining, energy, and/or tourism projects respectively for use by the countries as they prepare their own EIA program requirements."

Why is wind power so expensive: An economic analysis -- GWPF

Why is wind power so expensive: An economic analysis, a report from the Global Warming Policy Foundation finds that (from the Summary):
1. Wind power is a capital-intensive means of generating electricity.  As such, it competes with electricity generated by nuclear or coal-fired generating plants (with or without carbon capture). However, because wind power is intermittent, the management of electricity systems becomes increasingly difficult if the share of wind power in total system capacity approaches or exceeds the minimum level of demand during the year (base load). It is expensive and inefficient to run large nuclear or coal plants so that their output matches fluctuations in demand. Large investments in wind power are therefore to undermine the economics of investing in nuclear or coal-fired capacity.

2. The problems posed by the intermittency of wind power can, in principle, be addressed by (a) complementary investments in pumped storage, and/or (b) long distance transmission to smooth out wind availability, and/or (c) transferring electricity demand from peak to off-peak periods by time of day pricing and related policies. However, if the economics of such options were genuinely attractive, they would already be adopted on a much larger scale today because similar considerations apply in any system with large amounts of either nuclear or coal generation.

3. In practice, it is typically much cheaper to transport gas and to rely upon open cycle gas turbines to match supply and demand than to adopt any of these options. As a consequence, any large scale investment in wind power will have to be backed up by an equivalent investment in gas-fired open cycle plants. These are quite cheap to build but they operate at relatively low levels of thermal efficiency, so they emit considerably more CO2 per MWh of electricity than combined cycle gas plants.

4. Meeting the UK Government’s target for renewable generation in 2020 will require total wind capacity of 36 GW backed up by 13 GW of open cycle gas plants plus large complementary investments in transmission capacity – the Wind Scenario. The same electricity demand could be

met from 21.5 GW of combined cycle gas plants with a capital cost of £13 billion – the Gas Scenario. Allowing for the shorter life of wind turbines, the comparative investment outlays would be about £120 billion for the Wind Scenario and a mere £13 for the Gas Scenario.
5. Wind farms have relatively high operating and maintenance costs but they require no fuel. Overall, the net saving in fuel, operating and maintenance costs for the Wind Scenario relative to the Gas Scenario is less than £500 million per year, a very poor return on an additional investment of over £105 billion.
6.  Indeed, there is a significant risk that annual CO2 emissions could be greater under the Wind Scenario than the Gas Scenario. The actual outcome will depend on how far wind power displaces gas generation used for either (a) base load demand, or (b) the middle of the daily demand curve, or (c) demand during peak hours of the day. Because of its intermittency, wind power combined with gas backup will certainly increase CO2 emissions when it displaces gas for base load demand, but it will reduce CO2 emissions when it displaces gas for peak load demand. The results can go either way for the middle of the demand curve according to the operating assumptions that are made.

7. Under the most favourable assumptions for wind power, the Wind Scenario will reduce emissions of CO2 relative to the Gas Scenario by 23 million metric tons in 2020 - 2.8% of the 1990 baseline – at an average cost of £270 per metric ton at 2009 prices. The average cost is far higher than the average price under the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme or the floor carbon prices that have been proposed by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). If this is typical of the cost of reducing carbon emissions to meet the UK’s 2020 target, then the total cost of meeting the target would be £78 billion in 2020, or 4.4% of projected GDP, far higher than the estimates that are usually given.

8. Wind power is an extraordinarily expensive and inefficient way of reducing CO2 emissions when compared with the option of investing in efficient and flexible gas combined cycle plants. Of course, this is not the way in which the case is usually presented. Instead, comparisons are made between wind power and old coal or gas-fired plants. Whatever happens, much of the coal capacity must be scrapped, while older gas plants will operate for fewer hours per year. It is not a matter of old vs new capacity. The correct comparison is between alternative ways of meeting the UK’s future demand for electricity for both base and peak load, allowing for the backup necessary to deal with the intermittency of wind power.

Monday, March 5, 2012

Building Re-Tuning Training: Providing Energy Saving Solutions through Interactive e-Learning -- PNNL

Building Re-Tuning Training: Providing Energy Saving Solutions through Interactive e-Learning from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 

"PNNL initiated the Commercial Building Re-tuning project for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Building Technologies Program. The goal of this project is to improve building operations by transferring the skills to “re-tune” large (>100,000 sf) commercial buildings through a series of training programs and development of an online interactive training curriculum. The project will target technicians currently working in the industry for an immediate impact. The re-tuning training is intended to provide building operators, building managers and energy service providers with the necessary skills to identify no- and low-cost operational problems that plague commercial buildings and provide the skills necessary to take corrective action. The secondary goal of the project is to train a number of “trainers” to carry out the re-tuning training beyond this project."

New Library Acquisitions -- Week of March 4, 2012

Progress of forest management in the Adirondacks

Alternative Energy
Offshore wind energy : research on environmental impacts / [edited by] Julia Koeller, Johann Koeppel, Wolfgang Peters

What I don't know about animals / Jenny Diski

Carbon-neutral architectural design / Pablo La Roche

Comparative Law

Environmental law in Mexico / Jose Juan Gonzalez Márquez

Environmental law in Canada / Jamie Benidickson

Environmental law in Italy / Stefano Grassi ... [et al.]

Climate change
Handbook on climate change and agriculture / edited by Ariel Dinar and Robert Mendelsohn

Respect for nature : a theory of environment ethics / Paul W. Taylor

Natural Resources
Essai théorique de droit naturel [electronic resource] : basé sur les faits / Le R. P. Taparelli d'Azeglio ; traduit de l'italien d'après la dernière édition avec approbation de l'auteur