Law Commons^™

Hiding In Plain Sight: How Corporations Can Save The National Park Service, Emily H. Rector

Arkansas Law Review

Since its inception, the privatization of the National Park Service has been a concern amongst conservationists. Recently, the topic gained more attention as the Trump Administration advocated for privatizing certain aspects of the parks. The dual purpose of the National Park Service, that of conservation and recreational efforts, has created conflict throughout the years. This Comment argues that Congress should update how the National Park Service manages concessioners. Full privatization is not

Preview—United States Forest Service V. Cowpasture River Preservation Association: Can The Pipeline Cross The Trail?, Alizabeth Bronsdon

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral argument in this matter on Monday, February 24, 2020, at 10 a.m. in the Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C. Anthony Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, will likely argue for the United States. In a divided oral argument, Paul D. Clement will likely appear for Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, the petitioner in consolidated case No. 18-1587, Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association. Michael K. Kellogg will likely appear for the Respondents.

Conserving Parks, Transforming Lives: How The Student Conservation Association Is Shaping The Next 100 Years Of National Parks And The Next Generation Of American Youth, Liz Putnam

Akron Law Review

The National Park Service greeted a record-shattering 307.2 million visitors in 2015. Ironically, however, national parks are becoming irrelevant to large segments of our society. The typical national park visitor is approaching retirement age. Nearly four in five visitors are White, despite the fact that Whites currently make up less than 63% of the US population and are on pace to be in the minority by 2044. Throw in the nature-deficit disorder epidemic among today’s youth and the ongoing shift in our population to urban areas, and the trends do not bode well for the future of our parks.

The …

Alaska: Extraordinary Parks, Extraordinarily Complicated, Julie Lurman Joly

Akron Law Review

In many ways, national parks in Alaska face the same difficulties as other parks nationwide: pockets of strong anti-federal sentiment, increasingly high usage rates (at least in a couple of Alaska parks) leading to resource degradation, decreasing funding, and increasing maintenance costs. On the other hand, Alaska parks are completely unique in their circumstances. Many parks in Alaska receive few to no visitors each year, and Alaska parks contain vast tracts of land and resources but are managed by the barest minimum number of employees. Furthermore, Alaska’s national parks operate in a more complex legal environment than most other national …

The National Park System And Nepa: Non-Impairment In An Age Of Disruption, Jamison E. Colburn

Akron Law Review

We live in an age of disruption. “Disruptive innovations,” typically digital in nature, create new markets and value chains that grow and overthrow market leaders and other incumbents. The founders of our National Park System and National Park Service (NPS) had little sense of such disruption and, judging by how our park ideals have fared in recent decades, too little sense of how disruption works in nature, either. The parks embody a set of ideals and, as one of the most noted inventions of America’s democracy, sit in uneasy tension with the constant disruption of nature’s composition and function. The …

The National Park Service At 100, Donald J. Hellmann

Akron Law Review

In its first century, the National Park Service was transformed from an agency that managed a small number of western parks to one responsible for over 400 sites across the country. The management of these park sites has changed as well, with many new parks structured as a partnership effort between the National Park Service and surrounding cities and towns, as well as non-profit organizations and friends groups. The Park Service has had its work extended by Congress to reach beyond park boundaries in order to help states and local governments with resource preservation and the development of recreational opportunities …

An Introduction To The National Park Service Symposium, Sarah J. Morath

Akron Law Review

This symposium features four different perspectives on the National Park Service Centennial, and includes the voice of Donald J. Hellman, an attorney who has spent much of his career working for the National Park Service in Washington, D.C., Jamison E. Colburn, an environmental law and policy scholar at Penn State Law School and former EPA attorney, Julie Joly Lurman, a natural resources law and public lands expert, and Liz Putnam, a youth and conservation advocate.

How National Park Law Really Works, John Copeland Nagle

University of Colorado Law Review

This Article provides the first explanation of the relationship between three overlapping sources of national park law. It first explains how the Organic Act affords the National Park Service substantial discretion to manage the national parks, including deciding the proper balance between enjoyment and conservation in particular instances. It next shows how federal environmental statutes push national park management toward preservation rather than enjoyment. Finally, the Article explains that Congress often intervenes to mandate particular management outcomes at individual parks, typically but not always toward enjoyment rather than preservation. The result is that the National Park Service has substantial discretion …

Issues Concerning Charges For Driving While Intoxicated In Texas Federal Courts., Brian L. Owsley

St. Mary's Law Journal

Each year numerous defendants appear in courts located in Texas, both state and federal, charged with offenses related to driving while intoxicated (DWI). Defendants appearing before state courts are prosecuted pursuant to Texas statutes, regulations, and binding case law. In certain circumstances, defendants appearing in federal courts face the same statutory elements of a crime and the same potential penalties as in a Texas state court. In many of the cases, however, statutory elements and potential penalties differ. Furthermore, certain rights and regulations afforded to Texas state defendants are unavailable to those charged in federal courts located in the state. …

Bones Of Contention: The Regulation Of Paleontological Resources On The Federal Public Lands, David J. Lazerwitz

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.