Law Commons^™

Climate Security Insights From The Covid-19 Response, Mark P. Nevitt

Faculty Articles

The climate change crisis and COVID-19 crisis are both complex collective action problems. Neither the coronavirus nor greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions respect political borders. Both impose an opportunity cost that penalizes inaction. They are also increasingly understood as nontraditional, novel security threats. Indeed, COVID-19’s human cost is staggering, with American lives lost vastly exceeding those lost in recent armed conflicts. And climate change is both a threat accelerant and a catalyst for conflict—a characterization reinforced in several climate-security reports. To counter COVID-19, the President embraced martial language, stating that he will employ a “wartime footing” to “defeat the virus.” Perhaps …

Uncooperative Environmental Federalism 2.0, Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

Has the Trump Administration made good on its pledges to reinvigorate cooperative federalism and constrain environmental regulatory overreach by the federal government? Perhaps less than one would think. This paper, prepared for the Hastings Law Journal symposium, “Revolution of Evolution? Administrative Law in the Age of Trump,” provides a critical assessment of the Trump Administration’s approach to environmental federalism. Despite the Administration’s embrace of “cooperative federalism” rhetoric, environmental policy reforms have not consistently embodied a principled approach to environmental federalism in which the state and federal governments are each encouraged to focus resources on areas of comparative advantage.

Testimony Before The Committee On Energy And Commerce, Subcommittee On Environment And Economics, U.S. House Of Representatives, Hearing On Constitutional Considerations: States Vs. Federal Environmental Policy Implementation July 11, 2014, Rena I. Steinzor

Congressional Testimony

No abstract provided.

Endogenous Decentralization In Federal Environmental Policies, Howard F. Chang, Hilary Sigman, Leah G. Traub

All Faculty Scholarship

Under most federal environmental laws and some health and safety laws, states may apply for “primacy,” that is, authority to implement and enforce federal law, through a process known as “authorization.” Some observers fear that states use authorization to adopt more lax policies in a regulatory “race to the bottom.” This paper presents a simple model of the interaction between the federal and state governments in such a scheme of partial decentralization. Our model suggests that the authorization option may not only increase social welfare but also allow more stringent environmental regulations than would otherwise be feasible. Our model also …

The Story Of Kleppe V. New Mexico: The Sagebrush Rebellion As Un-Cooperative Federalism, Robert L. Fischman, Jeremiah Williamson

Articles by Maurer Faculty

The story of Kleppe v. New Mexico dramatizes how assertion of federal power advancing national conservation objectives collided with traditional, local economic interests on public lands in the 1970s. This article connects that history with current approaches to natural resources federalism. New Mexico challenged the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, which diminished both state jurisdiction and rancher influence over public rangelands. In response, the Supreme Court resoundingly approved federal authority to reprioritize uses of the public resources, including wildlife, and spurred a lasting backlash in the West. Further legislation passed in the wake of Kleppe transformed this unrest into …

Reforming Our Wasteful Hazardous Waste Policy, Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

Federal hazardous waste regulation and cleanup programs suffer from poor prioritization, insufficient flexibility, high costs, and questionable benefits. Many of these problems are a result of excessive regulatory centralization. With the enactment of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Comprehensive Emergency Response, Cleanup and Liability Act (CERCLA, aka "Superfund") Congress centralized environmental policy questions that are, in many respects, inherently local in nature. This produced a "mismatch" between those jurisdictions with regulatory primacy and the nature of the environmental problems at issue.

Contamination of soil and groundwater are site-specific, rarely crossing state lines. Due to the local nature …

When Is Two A Crowd: The Impact Of Federal Action On State Environmental Regulation, Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

This article seeks to identify the ways in which federal actions can influence state regulatory choices in the context of environmental policy. The federal government may directly influence state policy choices by preempting state policies or by inducing state cooperation through the use of various incentives and penalties for state action. The federal government may indirectly, and perhaps unintentionally, influence state policy choices as well. Federal policies may encourage greater state regulation by reducing the costs of initiating regulatory action or by placing issues on state policy agendas. Federal regulation may also discourage or even "crowd-out" state-level regulatory action by …

Cooperative Federalism And Natural Resources Law, Robert L. Fischman

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Cooperative federalism describes an arrangement under which a national government induces coordination from subordinate jurisdictions, such as states and tribes, through incentives rather than requirements. In environmental law, cooperative federalism highlights the divide between pollution control and resource management. This article examines the divide from both sides.

Even though almost all of the environmental law commentary on cooperative federalism focuses exclusively on the pollution control side, the basic elements of cooperative federalism can be combined in a wider variety of forms than are recognized by most pollution control programs or scholarship. This article reviews the ways in which resource management …

Agenda: Challenging Federal Ownership And Management: Public Lands And Public Benefits, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center

Challenging Federal Ownership and Management: Public Lands and Public Benefits (October 11-13)

Conference organizers, speakers and/or moderators included University of Colorado School of Law professors David H. Getches, Michael A. Gheleta, Teresa Rice, Elizabeth Ann (Betsy) Rieke and Charles F. Wilkinson.

In the face of numerous proposals for privatizing, marketing, and changing the management of public lands, the Natural Resources Law Center will hold its third annual fall public lands conference October 11-13, at the CU School of Law in Boulder.

A panel of public land users and neighbors, including timber, grazing, mining, recreation, and environmental interests, will address current discontent with public land policy and management. There will also be discussion …

Cooperative Federalism Under The Surface Mining Control And Reclamation Act: Is This Any Way To Run A Government?, Mark Squillace

Publications

No abstract provided.