Environmental Law

Floating Fans in the Ocean: Recognizing the Significance of Maine’s Recent Bill Regarding Offshore Wind Development Projects

November 13, 2023
Energy Law, Environment, Environmental Law

Peter Lyon, MJLST Staffer

Recent efforts in Maine have continued the push for developing sustainable energy sources, specifically including offshore wind energy projects in the Gulf of Maine. Offshore wind projects have captured other coastal states’ and the federal government’s interest for quite some time, though the industry is not well developed due to several practical setbacks and pushback from different stakeholders. Maine has the potential to be a leader in this area, as a bill it passed in July lays more of the groundwork for developing offshore wind energy projects, calls attention to the development of innovative technology, and implements means to adequately address the interests of relevant stakeholders.

“An Act Regarding the Procurement of Energy from Offshore Wind Resources”

Maine Governor Janet Mills signed a bill in July to further the development of offshore wind energy projects in the Gulf of Maine, making several amendments to a previous bill and enacting six additional sections.[1] One of the major changes includes declaring a new wind energy goal of three gigawatts of installed capacity by December 2040. This could meet approximately fifty percent of Maine’s anticipated electricity needs at that time.[2] This goal is different from Maine’s unmet 2009 goal of two gigawatts of installed capacity by 2015 and is likely attributable to supply chain issues, higher interest rates, and the rising prices of materials.[3]

To facilitate its three gigawatts by 2040 goal, the bill establishes a process for competitive contracting by requiring the solicitation process and project proposals to be consistent with the Maine Offshore Wind Roadmap issued in 2023,[4] which emphasizes five key topics.[5] It also includes sections pertaining to offshore wind power transmission, supporting the development of port infrastructure and innovative technologies. This may include technologies such as floating or bobbing platforms because the Gulf of Maine is too deep for fixed-structure turbines[6] and storage capacity technology such as large batteries, which would maximize the amount of energy that can be used as it is needed.[7]

The bill also expands the minimum number of advisory board members of the Offshore Wind Research Consortium – a collaborative research initiative created by the bill – from seven to twelve members to reach a wider stakeholder audience. The new advisory board member requirements include adding the “Commissioner of Inland and Wildlife” (or the commissioner’s designee), “at least one individual who is a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe” in Maine, “two individuals with expertise in marine and wildlife habitats,” and “at least one individual with experience in commercial offshore wind power development.”[8] The bill also requires the opportunity for public comment during the project solicitation process.

Engaging with relevant stakeholders at this early stage allows the Consortium’s research to explore and mitigate risks in offshore wind development projects such as the potential negative impact on commercial fishing, species degradation, and harm to ecosystems. These kinds of concerns mirror much of the resistance to offshore wind projects, non-specific to the Gulf of Maine, and the bill emphasizes specific actions to answer them.

Addressing Stakeholder Concerns

Calls for offshore wind energy development have been met with pushback from multiple stakeholder groups, including Native American tribes, members of the commercial fishing industry, and local residents. These and other stakeholders voice concerns about environmental, economic, and social issues. For example, some people argue that installing offshore wind farms could disrupt key fishing and lobstering grounds, which generate more than $1.5 billion for Maine’s economy.[9] This disruption could happen by changing fish migration patterns, changing water temperatures by running large electrical cables onshore, and limiting fishers’ ability to access fishing grounds due to turbine structures being in the way.[10] Another concern is that animals, like the Eastern red bat and other bat species, are vulnerable to flying into wind farm structures.[11] Others simply worry that installing offshore wind farms will disrupt the environment’s natural beauty, as wind farms will be a sort of visual pollution.

In addition to seeking input from relevant stakeholders, the new bill anticipates these kinds of risks and includes specific actions to avoid or mitigate them. The Offshore Wind Research Consortium funds will now also be used to “support conservation that supports species and habitats impacted by offshore wind development,”[12] including research that aims to “avoid or minimize the impact of floating offshore wind power projects on ecosystems and existing uses of the Gulf of Maine.”[13]

Proposals for the development and construction of offshore wind projects must include a “fishing communities investment plan” which “supports innovation and adaptation in response to environmental change, shifting resource economics, and changes in fishing practices associated with offshore wind power development.”[14] Proposals given priority are those that are outside critical fishing and lobstering areas, provide employment and contracting opportunities to people from disadvantaged communities, provide financial or technical support for research regarding wildlife, fisheries, and habitats impacted by offshore wind development, or promote hiring Maine residents and affected community members.[15] Under the bill, proposals must seek to minimize an offshore wind project’s impact on the environment’s visual and scenic character.[16]

The Current State of Offshore Wind Development in the U.S.

Maine is not the only jurisdiction pursuing offshore wind development projects. Most of the locations for offshore wind projects are in federal waters, which means that they often require permits issued by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), which is housed in the Department of the Interior.[17] The federal government has allocated floating wind leases and has a goal to meet fifteen gigawatts of installed capacity by 2035.[18] Projects are underway in Maine, California, and Oregon, with more in the pipeline.[19]

Maine has the potential to be a leader in offshore wind development projects as its bill passed in July demonstrates the importance of engaging relevant stakeholders, conducting research to avoid or mitigate negative environmental impacts, and prioritizing developments that show commitment to social values. It also emphasizes the role of innovative technology like floating turbines, which are especially relevant because about eighty percent of the world’s offshore wind resource capacity is in locations not well-suited for fixed structures.[20] Offshore wind projects can spur economic growth[21] and contribute to the procurement of sustainable energy while decreasing reliance on non-sustainable sources like fossil fuels. Other jurisdictions should look to Maine’s bill as a great start in the early development of an industry with enormous potential.

Notes

[1] 2023 Me. SP 766.

[2] Maria Gallucci, Maine to go all in on offshore wind, Canary Media (July 25, 2023), https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/wind/maine-to-go-all-in-on-offshore-wind.

[3] Id.

[4] Maine Offshore Wind Roadmap Advisory Committee, The Maine Offshore Wind Roadmap, State of Maine Governor’s Energy Office (February 2023), https://www.maine.gov/energy/sites/maine.gov.energy/files/inline-files/Maine_Offshore_Wind_Roadmap_February_2023.pdf.

[5] Maine’s Offshore Wind Roadmap, State of Maine Governor’s Energy Office, https://www.maine.gov/energy/initiatives/offshorewind/roadmap (last visited Nov. 6, 2023) (stating the Roadmap’s objectives include “supporting economic growth and resiliency, harnessing renewable energy, advancing Maine-based innovation, supporting Maine’s seafood industry, and protecting the Gulf of Maine’s ecosystem.”).

[6] Heather Richards, Gulf of Maine wind could power 100% of New England—Report, E&E News (Oct. 31, 2023), https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2023/10/31/gulf-of-maine-wind-could-give-new-england-a-power-jolt-report-00124295.

[7] Id. (“Offshore wind from the Gulf of Maine could satisfy 72% of New England’s power demand but battery storage is critical; without the right storage capacities, offshore wind could only meet approximately 37% of New England’s needs.”).

[8] 2023 Me. SP 766.

[9] Maria Gallucci, Maine to go all in on offshore wind, Canary Media (July 25, 2023), https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/wind/maine-to-go-all-in-on-offshore-wind.

[10] Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Maine Draft Wind Energy Area (WEA) Notice, Regulations.gov

(October 18, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/document/BOEM-2023-0054-0001 (see public comments).

[11] Heather Richards, Gulf of Maine wind could power 100% of New England—Report, E&E News (Oct. 31, 2023), https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2023/10/31/gulf-of-maine-wind-could-give-new-england-a-power-jolt-report-00124295.

[12] 2023 Me. SP 766.

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

[17] Nicholas P. Jansen, Reducing the Headwinds: the Need for a Federal Approach to Siting Offshore Wind Interconnection Infrastructure, Despite Protective State Laws, 26 Ocean & Coastal L.J. 123 (2021).

[18] Juliana Ennes, California’s floating wind lead threatened by fast-rising Maine, Reuters (September 14, 2023, 10:57 AM), https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/californias-floating-wind-lead-threatened-by-fast-rising-maine-2023-09-14/.

[19] Maria Gallucci, Maine to go all in on offshore wind, Canary Media (July 25, 2023), https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/wind/maine-to-go-all-in-on-offshore-wind.

[20] Id.

[21] Maine Offshore Wind Roadmap Advisory Committee, The Maine Offshore Wind Roadmap, State of Maine Governor’s Energy Office (February 2023), https://www.maine.gov/energy/sites/maine.gov.energy/files/inline-files/Maine_Offshore_Wind_Roadmap_February_2023.pdf.

Hello! My Name Is…Erie? Personhood for the Great Lakes

October 15, 2023
Climate Change, Environment, Environmental Law

Eric Gross, MJLST Staffer

As the climate change crisis worsens and environmental protection laws continue to fall short of their stated goals, the movement to give natural entities such as lakes, rivers, and forests legal rights associated with personhood has expanded. Legislation driven by the “environmental personhood” movement has recently begun to appear around the world and in the United States as communities make efforts to protect their natural areas from harmful activity.[1] The idea of entities that aren’t people having personhood status is not without precedent. Consider corporations, which have been defined as persons for limited legal purposes.[2] Given the judicial rights already possessed by non-human entities like corporations, legal personhood has become a more attractive tool for those seeking to protect natural entities such as the Great Lakes. However, broad attempts to give natural entities personhood have run into legal challenges.

Lake Erie Bill of Rights Struck Down

In August 2014, the City of Toledo issued a drinking water warning to citizens not to drink the water; agricultural runoff and pollution into Lake Erie had caused a toxic algal bloom.[3] The water remained undrinkable and even unusable for three days.[4] Frustration with years of state government inaction on pollution boiled over, and in February 2019, the City of Toledo voted to establish a bill of rights for Lake Erie.[5] Known as the Lake Erie Bill of Rights (“LEBOR”), the bill was the product of a multi-year effort by Toledo citizens to protect Lake Erie from pollution.[6]

LEBOR essentially gave personhood status to Lake Erie, including legal standing. It established “irrevocable rights for the Lake Erie Ecosystem to exist, flourish and naturally evolve, a right to a healthy environment for the residents of Toledo, and which elevates the rights of the community and its natural environment over powers claimed by certain corporations.”[7] LEBOR declared that “Lake Erie, and the Lake Erie watershed, possess the right to exist, flourish, and naturally evolve” and granted the people of Toledo “the right to a clean and healthy environment.”[8] Under the statute, the City of Toledo, or any of its residents, held the right to sue on behalf of Lake Erie.[9] The law also made governments and corporations strictly liable for violating the rights of Lake Erie “from any jurisdiction” and declared invalid any state laws or rules that conflicted with LEBOR.[10]

Drewes Farms Partnership, an agricultural company that grows crops in four counties near Toledo, brought a lawsuit against the City of Toledo the day after the initiative passed, with the state of Ohio joining as an intervenor soon after.[11] Drewes Farms and Ohio sought to have LEBOR declared invalid. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio sided with the corporation and state, holding LEBOR to be unconstitutionally vague and exceeding the power of municipal authority in Ohio.[12] While recognizing the “well-intentioned goal” of the drafters, the court held that LEBOR was impermissibly vague in violation of the 14th Amendment.[13] “LEBOR’s authors failed to make hard choices regarding the appropriate balance between environmental protection and economic activity. Instead, they employed language that sounds powerful but has no practical meaning.”[14] This language, according to the court, could “trap the innocent [agricultural companies] by not providing fair warning” and invited arbitrary enforcement by prosecutors, judges and juries.[15]

Additionally, the court held that LEBOR preempted state law and exceeded municipal authority. “LEBOR’s attempt to invalidate Ohio law in the name of environmental protection is a textbook example of what municipal government cannot do. Lake Erie is not a pond in Toledo. It is one of the five Great Lakes and one of the largest lakes on Earth, bordering dozens of cities, four states, and two countries…Consequently, municipal laws enacted to protect Lake Erie are generally void if they conflict with Ohio law.”[16] The court did note that “with careful drafting, Toledo probably could enact valid legislation to reduce water pollution,” citing a Wisconsin ordinance restricting the use of phosphorus-containing fertilizers in Madison city limits.[17]

Other Options Exist to Protect the Great Lakes

The striking down of LEBOR indicates that while a municipality may enact ordinances to limit water pollution, such ordinances will likely have to remain limited in nature to survive a court’s scrutiny. Broader legislation to protect ecosystems like the Great Lakes will likely have to come through a state’s legislature, at the bare minimum. However, there are other options available to help protect the Great Lakes as a whole.

The public trust doctrine is a legally established method for individuals to protect natural resources that otherwise wouldn’t be able to protect themselves. Cited most frequently with bodies of water, the public trust doctrine establishes that the government maintains certain natural and cultural resources that are “owned” by the public.[18] Recently, the Michigan Attorney General’s 2019 lawsuit to shut down an oil pipeline crossing the Straits of Mackinac cited the public trust doctrine, claiming the lease allowing the pipeline to operate violates the state’s obligation to “protect and preserve the waters of the Great Lakes and the lands beneath them for the public.”[19] Additionally, a 2021 resolution passed by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago recognized that the water of the Great Lakes will remain in the public trust.[20] This resolution from the water district of the largest metropolitan area in the Great Lakes region is another example of a step in the right direction for protecting the Great Lakes and equal access to clean water.

Notably, New York state assemblyman Patrick Burke has introduced legislation to create a more expansive Great Lakes Bill of Rights.[21] Burke’s proposal would create a Great Lakes bill of rights that declares the right of the Great Lakes to exist, flourish and naturally evolve, giving the state and affected localities to sue on the Lakes’ behalf.[22] The proposed legislation is remarkably similar to the struck-down Toledo law, and, if it becomes law, is likely to face similar legal challenges. While such a law would easily overcome the municipal overreach issue from Toledo, a proposed Great Lakes bill of rights statute is still likely to face the same vagueness issue that helped bring down LEBOR. However, in the face of continued pollution and disregard for our environment, laws like this represent the next logical step for protecting our lakes, rivers, and forests, and could finally give the Great Lakes the protection they deserve.

Notes

[1] Nicole Pallotta, Federal Judge Strikes Down ‘Lake Erie Bill of Rights,’ Animal Legal Defense Fund (May 4, 2020), https://aldf.org/article/federal-judge-strikes-down-lake-erie-bill-of-rights/#:~:text=The%20bill%20of%20rights%20established,powers%20claimed%20by%20certain%20corporations.

[2] Nina Totenberg, When Did Companies Become People? Excavating the Legal Evolution, NPR (July 28, 2014), https://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-become-people-excavating-the-legal-evolution.

[3] Michael Wines, Behind Toledo’s Water Crisis, a Long-Troubled Lake Erie, N.Y. Times (Aug. 4, 2014), https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/04/us/toledo-faces-second-day-of-water-ban.html.

[4] Id.

[5] Claire Brown, How Ohio’s Chamber of Commerce Killed an Anti-Pollution Bill of Rights, The Intercept (Aug. 29, 2019), https://theintercept.com/2019/08/29/lake-erie-bill-of-rights-ohio/.

[6] Id.

[7] Lake Erie Bill of Rights, Beyond Pesticides (last visited Oct. 7, 2023), https://www.beyondpesticides.org/assets/media/documents/LakeErieBillofRights.pdf.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Drewes Farms P’ship v. City of Toledo, 441 F.Supp.3d 551 (N.D. Ohio 2020).

[12] Id. at 558.

[13] Id. at 557.

[14] Id. at 556.

[15] Id.

[16] Id. at 557.

[17] Id.

[18] Public trust doctrine, Cornell Law School (last visited Oct. 8, 2023), https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public_trust_doctrine#:~:text=Public%20trust%20doctrine%20is%20a,waters%2C%20wildlife%2C%20or%20land.

[19] Jim Malewitz, Michigan AG Dana Nessel files lawsuit to shut down Line 5 in Mackinac Straits, Bridge MI (June 27, 2019), https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-environment-watch/michigan-ag-dana-nessel-files-lawsuit-shut-down-line-5-mackinac-straits.

[20] Allison Fore, MWRD Board of Commissioners passes resolution that affirms water is a basic human right, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chi. (June 3, 2021), https://mwrd.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/Water%20Equity.pdf.

[21] NYS Assemblyman Patrick Burke Introduces Great Lakes Bill of Rights, N.Y. State Assembly (Mar. 2, 2022), https://nyassembly.gov/mem/Patrick-Burke/story/100976#:~:text=The%20Great%20Lakes%20Bill%20of,and%20the%20Great%20Lakes%20ecosystem.%E2%80%9D.

[22] Id.

Victory in the Big Sky Country: The Ramifications of Held v. Montana

October 1, 2023
Climate Change, Constitutional Law, Environment, Environmental Law

Joshua Fuller, MJLST Staffer

Introduction

The battle about climate change rages on. But one group of young students has dealt a significant blow to the state of Montana, claiming that under the Montana Constitution they have a right to a clean environment. This victory, while small in its effect, has reverberated across the nation. This case, Held v. Montana, is the first of its kind. Never before has there been a ruling that a clean environment was a right of a state’s citizens. And while the case will certainly be taken up by the Montana Supreme Court, the door has been opened for climate change activists to consider potential litigation across the country.

Background About the Case:

The Montana Constitution includes the following provision: “All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment and the rights of pursuing life’s basic necessities, enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and seeking their safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways.”[1] The phrase “right to a clean and healthful environment” is the basis on which the sixteen Montana youth (“the plaintiffs”) filed suit. They sued the state of Montana arguing that the passage of the State Energy Policy Act (the “Act”), which prohibited the state from considering the impacts of greenhouse gas emission when performing an environmental review, violates the clean environment provision in the Montana Constitution.[2] Judge Kathy Seeley, the District Court Judge for the 1st District, agreed with the plaintiffs. In her order, Judge Seeley found that the Act was unconstitutional under the ruling of Park Cnty: “Pursuant to the Court’s decision in Park Cnty., Mont. Code Ann. § 75-1-201(6)(a)(ii) is facially unconstitutional because it eliminates MEPA litigants’ remedies that prevent irreversible degradation of the environment, and it fails to further a compelling state interest.”[3] Shortly after the decision was rendered, a spokesperson for Montana Attorney General, Austen Knudsen, stated, “This ruling is absurd, but not surprising from a judge who let the plaintiffs’ attorneys put on a weeklong taxpayer-funded publicity stunt that was supposed to be a trial”[4] and stated that the Attorney General would be seeking an appeal with the Montana Supreme Court. 

While the future of the case is less than certain, there is light at the end of the tunnel for the plaintiffs. The Montana Supreme Court has often taken the position that the text of the Montana Constitution governs. In their recent decision in Board of Regents of Higher Education v. State, the Court struck down House Bill 102, a firearms bill that would have allowed carrying on Montana public college campuses. A unanimous Court found that under the Montana Constitution,[5] the Board of Regents had controlling power when deciding gun regulations on college campuses.[6] Given the heavy firearms culture that exists in Montana, this decision was of great surprise to many. But the case gave important context to the priorities of the Court. Given the decision to faithfully follow the Montana Constitution, this does give a glimmer of where the Court may lean when the decision goes up for appeal, if the Court takes it up. Additionally, Montana has traditionally been a bulwark of conservation of the land. Two well known National Parks, Glacier and Yellowstone, exist within the boundaries of the state. Protecting the environment, despite the misgivings of the current state administration, has been an important part of the culture. In Montana, Fish, Wildlife & Parks offers conservation easements with landowners, where the landowners are paid by the department to conserve certain parts of their land and limit the use.[7] With several parts of the government for protecting the environment, and a long standing tradition of conservation, there is reason to believe that the Montana Supreme Court would rule in favor of the plaintiffs. 

Implications of the Case

Despite the spokeperson’s statements, the reaction to the decision nationally has been overwhelmingly supportive. Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Litigation at Columbia University, stated, “Emissions contribute to climate change, climate harms are real, people can experience climate harms individually, and every ton of greenhouse gas emissions matters. These are important factual findings, and other courts in the U.S. and around the world will look to this decision.”[8] Similar litigation has already begun to occur. In Oregon, a county sued major oil companies for exacerbating the current climate change crisis.[9] But Held is the first time that a state has been held accountable for actions that the state attempted to create to get around climate change measures. As of the writing of this article, only six states have provisions in their constitutions that citizens have the right to a clean environment: Hawai’i, Illinois, Massachusetts, Montana, New York, and Pennsylvania.[10] While this may seem insignificant, the holding in Held is a first step for citizens to fight climate change. The court’s decision gives groundwork to other prospective plaintiffs on how to formulate litigation surrounding issues that deal with climate change. 

A New Type of Law?

Perhaps the most important impact of Held is the potential for a new body of law. Environmental law has existed for decades, harkening back to the era of Theodore Roosevelt and his decision to create the National Parks. However, its intersection with constitutional law has only been more recent, and it is far less defined. Despite agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Parks Service, litigation surrounding climate change has only emerged in the past couple of decades. This vacuum of law is ripe for the filling. This new law springs forward from the enjoinment of environmental law and constitutional law. This new “Green Constitutional Law” surfaces from the idea that state constitutions have provisions in place that protect the environment and establish the right to a clean climate.[11] Held provides an outline for what green constitutional law may look like. The litigation emanating in other states, and the call for more action to curb global warming, speak to the necessity of such a new form of law. At its core, green constitutional law addresses the idea that all people have the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”[12] Because the rise of climate change threatens the existence of countless species, including humans, it can be reasonably asked whether the United States Constitution, so quoted above, gives the right to an environment in which its citizens can survive and flourish. A new form of law is arising to help answer this question, to which Held is the foot in the door to begin this change. The battle may be won, but the war has just begun. 

Notes

[1] Mont. Const. Art. II, § 4.

[2] Id.

[3] Held v. Montana, No. CDV-2020-307 (Mont. Dist. Ct., 2023).

[4] David Gelles and Mike Baker, Judge Rules in Favor of Montana Youths in a Landmark Climate Case, The New York Times (Aug. 14, 2023) https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/14/us/montana-youth-climate-ruling.html.

[5] Mont. Const. art. X, § 9(2)(a).

[6] Bd. of Regents of Higher Educ. of Mont. v. State, 1, 12 (2022 MT 128).

[7] FWP, Habitat Montana, (Last visited Sept. 29, 2023) https://fwp.mt.gov/conservation/landowner-programs/habitat-montana.

[8] Id.

[9] Clark Mindock, US Climate Change Lawsuit Seeks $50 Billion, Citing 2021 Heat Wave, Reuters (June 22, 2023 8:08 PM CDT) https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-climate-change-lawsuit-seeks-50-billion-citing-2021-heat-wave-2023-06-22/.

[10] John C. Dernbach, The Environmental Rights Provisions of U.S. State Constitutions: A Comparative Analysis, 1 Widener University – Commonwealth Law School (2023).

[11] Kate Burgess, Green Amendments in 2023: States Continue Efforts to Make a Healthy Environment a Legal Right,  National Caucus of Environmental Legislators, (Mar. 27, 2023) https://www.ncelenviro.org/articles/green-amendments-in-2023-states-continue-efforts-to-make-a-healthy-environment-a-legal-right/.

[12] The Declaration of Independence para.2 (U.S. 1776).

EJScreen: The Environmental Justice Tool That You Didn’t Know You Needed

March 4, 2023
Discrimination, Environment, Environmental Justice, Environmental Law, EPA, Industry, Public Health, Public Safety

Emma Ehrlich, Carlisle Ghirardini, MJLST Staffer

What is EJScreen?

EJScreen was developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) in 2010, 16 years after President Clinton’s Executive Order 12898 required federal agencies to begin keeping data regarding “environmental and human health risks borne by populations identified by race, national origin or income.” The program has been available to the public through the EPA’s website since 2015 and is a mapping tool that allows users to look at specific geographic locations and set overlays that show national percentiles for categories such as income, people of color, pollution, health disparities, etc. Though the EPA warns that EJScreen is simply a screening tool and has its limits, the EPA uses the program in “[i]nforming outreach and engagement practices, [i]mplementing aspects of …permitting, enforcement, [and] compliance, [d]eveloping retrospective reports of EPA work, [and] [e]nhancing geographically based initiatives.”

As the EPA warns on its website, EJScreen does not contain all pertinent information regarding environmental justice and other data should be collected when studying specific areas. However, EJScreen is still being improved and was updated to EJScreen 2.0 in 2022 to account for more data sets, including data on which areas lack access to food, broadband, and medical services, as well as health disparities such as asthma and life expectancy.

Current Uses

EJScreen software is now being used to evaluate the allocation of federal funding. In February of this year, the EPA announced that it will be allocating $1 billion of funding from President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to Superfund cleanup projects such as cleanups of sites containing retired mines, landfills, and processing and manufacturing plants. The EPA said that 60% of new projects are in locations that EJScreen indicated were subject to environmental justice concerns.

EJScreen is also used to evaluate permits. The EPA published its own guidance in August of 2022 to address environmental justice permitting procedures. The guidance encourages states and other recipients of financial assistance from the EPA to use EJScreen as a “starting point” when looking to see if a project whose permit is being considered may conflict with environmental justice goals. The EPA believes this will “make early discussions more meaningful and productive and add predictability and efficiency to the permitting process.” If an early EJScreen brings a project into question, the EPA instructs permitters to consider additional data before making a permitting decision.

Another use of EJScreen is in the review of Title VI Civil Rights Act Complaints. Using the authority provided by Title VI, the EPA has promulgated rules that prohibit any agency or group that is receiving federal funding from the EPA from functioning in a discriminatory way based on race, color, or national origin. The rules also enable people to submit Title VI complaints directly to the EPA when they believe a funding recipient is acting in a discriminatory manner. If it is warranted by the complaint, the EPA will conduct an investigation. Attorneys that have reviewed EPA response letters expressing its decision to conduct an investigation based on a complaint have noted that the EPA often cites EJScreen when explaining why they decided to move forward with an investigation.

In October of 2022, the EPA sent a “Letter of Concern” to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (“LDEQ”) and the Louisiana Department of Health stating that an initial investigation suggests that the two departments have acted in ways that had “disparate adverse impacts on Black residents” when issuing air permits or informing the public of health risks. When discussing a nearby facility’s harmful health effects on residents, the EPA cites data from EJScreen in concluding that the facility is much more likely to have effects on black residents of Louisiana compared to non-black residents. The letter also touches on incorrect uses of EJScreen in saying that LDEQ’s conclusion that a proposed facility would not affect surrounding communities was misleading because the LDEQ used EJScreen to show that there were no residents within a mile of the proposed facility but ignored a school located only 1.02 miles away from the proposed location.

Firms such as Beveridge & Diamond have recognized the usefulness of this technology. They urge industry decision makers to use this free tool, and others similar to it, to preemptively consider environmental justice issues that their permits and projects may face when being reviewed by the EPA or local agencies.

Conclusion

In conclusion, EJScreen has the potential to be a useful tool, especially as the EPA continues to update it with data for additional demographics. However, users of the software should heed EPA’s warning that this is simply a screening tool. It is likely best used to rule out locations for certain projects, rather than be solely relied on for approving projects in certain locations, which requires more recent data to be collected.

Lastly, EJScreen is just one of many environmental justice screening tools being used and developed. Multiple states have been developing their own screening programs, and there is research showing that using state screening software may be more beneficial than national software. An environmental justice screening tool was also developed by the White House Council on Environmental Quality in 2022. Its Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool is meant to assist the government in assigning federal funding to disadvantaged communities. The consensus seems to be that all available screening tools are helpful in at least some way and should be consulted by funding recipients and permit applicants in the early rounds of their decision making processes.

Whisky Is for Drinking, Water Is for Fighting

October 25, 2022
Administrative Law, Climate Change, Environment, Environmental Justice, Environmental Law, EPA, Public Health

Poojan Thakrar, MJLST Staffer

The American Southwest often lives in our imagination as an arid environment with tumbleweeds strewn about. This hasn’t been truer in centuries, as the Colorado River is facing its worst drought in 1200 years, in large part because of climate change.[1] The Colorado River is the region’s most important river, providing drinking water to about 40 million people.[2] In June, the federal government gave the seven states[3] that rely on the water two months to draft a water conservation agreement or risk federal intervention. The states blew past that deadline and the DOI’s Bureau of Reclamation imposed cuts to water usage as high as 21%.[4]

The History of the Modern Colorado River Allocation System

In 1922, the Colorado River Compact allocated an annual amount of 15 million acre-feet (maf) evenly between the Upper and Lower Basin states.[5] One acre-foot represents the volume of water that covers one acre in one foot of water and is about the amount of water that a family of four uses annually.[6] However, relying on 15 maf was already problematic; data from the past three centuries showed that the Colorado River has average flows of 13.5 maf, with some years as low as 4.4 maf.[7] 

Moreover, Arizona refused to sign this compact, arguing that water should be allocated amongst individual states instead of between river basins.[8] Tensions flared in 1935 as Arizona moved National Guard troops to the California border in protest of a new dam.[9] Arizona finally ratified the compact in 1944, but the disagreements were far from over.[10] 

Arizona also brought a case to the Supreme Court for a related dispute, asking the Supreme Court to allocate how each basin splits water according to the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928.[11] Originally filed in 1952, Arizona v. California was not resolved until a Supreme Court opinion in 1963.[12] In the end, the Supreme Court accepted the recommendations of a court-appointed Special Master, whose findings California disagreed with. Of the 7.5 maf allocated to the Lower River Basin, 4.4 maf was allocated to California, 2.8 maf to Arizona and 0.3 to Nevada.[13] The court affirmed each state’s use of their own tributary waters, which Arizona argued for.[14] The case also affirmed the Secretary of the Interior’s authority under the Boulder Canyon Project Act to allocate water amongst the states irrespective of their agreement to a compact.[15] Ultimately, this was a victory for Arizona. 

Colorado River water use has been less contentious since Arizona v. California. The Upper Basin states of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico signed a contract to divide their 7.5 maf amongst themselves without the need for federal intervention.[16] However, because of comparatively less development in these Upper Basin states, they collectively only use 4.4 maf of their allocated 7.5 maf.[17] California has historically enjoyed the excess and has often historically surpassed its own allocation.[18]

Modern Water Allocation

Until this year, the seven Colorado River states have relied on voluntary agreements and cutbacks to manage water allocation. For example, in 2007, the states agreed to rules which decreased the amount of water that can be drawn from reservoirs when levels are low.[19] In 2019, they agreed to Drought Contingency Plans (DCPs) in the face of waning reservoir levels.[20] It was under this new DCP that the Bureau of Reclamation first announced a drought in August of 2021.[21] Later that December, the Lower Basin states were able to come to an agreement regarding the drought declaration to keep more water in Lake Mead, a reservoir on the Colorado.[22]

However, the December 2021 cutbacks were presumably not enough. In June of 2022, Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Camille Calimlim Touton testified in front of the Senate Energy Committee about the dire situation on the Colorado.[23] She testified that Lake Powell and Lake Mead, both reservoirs on the Colorado, cannot sustain the current level of water deliveries.[24] Commissioner Tounton gave the seven states 60 days to agree how to conserve 2 to 4 maf.[25] 

Underlying this recent situation is the megadrought that the western United States has suffered since 2000.[26] The last 20 years have been the driest two decades in the past 1200 years.[27] The Colorado River states have become remarkably adept at conserving water in that time. For example, the Las Vegas basin’s population has grown by 750,000 in the past 20 years, but its water usage is down 26%.[28] Earlier this year, Los Angeles banned lawn watering to only one day a week, much to the chagrin of Southern California’s most famous residents.[29] 

Commissioner Tounton’s 60 day deadline came and went without an agreement.[30] During a speech on August 15th of this year, Commissioner Tounton mandated that the seven states have to cut their water usage by 1 maf, roughly the amount of water usage of four million people.[31] However, the cuts were not proportioned equally. Arizona was mandated to cut its water by 21% because of the old water agreements, while California was not required to make any.[32]

More recently on October 5th, several California water districts volunteered cuts of almost one-tenth of their total allocation.[33] California conditioned these cuts upon other states agreeing to similar reductions, as well as on incentives from the federal government.[34] California’s cuts are significant, representing roughly 0.4 maf of the 1 maf that Commissioner Tounton asked states to conserve in her August 15th statement.[35] This represents a bold, good-faith move considering California was not mandated to make any. However, there is no doubt that these ad hoc negotiations are unsustainable. As the drought continues, Colorado River water policy will have implications on how food is grown and where people live. The 40 million people that live in the American Southwest may see their day-to-day lives affected if a solution is not crafted. Ultimately, this situation is far from over as states are forced to come to grips with a new water and climate reality.

Notes

[1] The Journal, The Fight Over Water In The West, Wall Street Journal, at 00:50 (Aug. 23, 2022) (downloaded using Spotify).

[2] Luke Runyon, 7 states and federal government lack direction on cutbacks from the Colorado River, NPR (Aug. 27, 2022, 5:00 AM) https://www.npr.org/2022/08/27/1119550028/7-states-and-federal-government-lack-direction-on-cutbacks-from-the-colorado-riv.

[3] Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico are considered Upper Basin states and California, Arizona and Nevada are the Lower Basin states.

[4] The Journal, supra note 1, at 12:30.

[5] Joe Gelt, Sharing Colorado River Water: History, Public Policy and the Colorado River Compact, The University of Arizona (Aug. 1997), https://wrrc.arizona.edu/publications/arroyo-newsletter/sharing-colorado-river-water-history-public-policy-and-colorado-river.

[6] The Journal, supra note 1, at 8:08.

[7] Gelt, supra note 5.

[8] Id.

[9] Nancy Vogel, Legislation fixes borders wandering river created; Governors of Arizona, California sign bills to get back land the Colorado shifted to the wrong state, Contra Costa Times, Sept. 13, 2002.

[10] Gelt, supra note 5.

[11]  Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963).

[12] Supreme Court Clears the Way for the Central Arizona Project, Bureau of Reclamation https://www.usbr.gov/lc/phoenix/AZ100/1960/supreme_court_AZ_vs_CA.html.

[13] Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546, 565, 83 S. Ct. 1468, 1480 (1963).

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Gelt, supra note 5.

[17] Heather Sackett, Water managers set to talk about how to divide Colorado River, Colorado Times (Dec. 13, 2021) https://www.steamboatpilot.com/news/water-managers-set-to-talk-about-how-to-divide-colorado-river.

[18] Gelt, supra note 5.

[19] Lower Colorado River States Reach Agreement to Reduce Water Use, Renewable Natural Resources Foundation (Feb. 4, 2022) https://rnrf.org/2022/02/lower-colorado-river-states-reach-agreement-to-reduce-water-use/.

[20] Id.

[21] Id.

[22] Id.

[23] Marianne Goodland, Reclamation official tells Colorado River states to conserve up to 4 million acre-feet of water, Colorado Politics(June 15, 2020) https://www.coloradopolitics.com/energy-and-environment/reclamation-official-tells-colorado-river-states-to-conserve-up-to-4-million-acre-feet-of/article_376a907a-ece6-11ec-b0ba-6b2e72447497.html.

[24] Id.

[25] Id.

[26] Ben Adler, ‘Moment of reckoning:’ Federal official warns of Colorado River water supply cuts, Yahoo News (June 15, 2020) https://news.yahoo.com/moment-of-reckoning-federal-official-warns-of-colorado-river-water-supply-cuts-171955277.html.

[27] Id.

[28] The Journal, supra note 1, at 5:50.

[29] Id. at 6:10.

[30] Id. at 8:55.

[31] Id. at 10:05.

[32] Id.

[33] Marketplace, Why women have been left behind in the job recovery, American Public Media, at 11:35 (Oct. 6, 2022) (downloaded using Spotify).

[34] Id.

[35] Ian James, More water restrictions likely as California pledges to cut use of Colorado River supply, L.A. Times, (Oct. 6, 2022) https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-10-06/southern-california-faces-new-water-restrictions-next-year.

Hunting the Hunters: The Recent Saga of Gray Wolf Hunting and Protection

March 5, 2022
Agriculture, Animal Law, Endangered Species Act, Environment, Environmental Law, Public Lands

Mason Medeiros, MJLST Staffer

Hunting is a common activity throughout the United States. Whether for sport or sustenance, it is commonly practiced in every state across the country. States, to protect animals from overhunting and extinction, have enacted laws detailing which animals can be hunted and the period of time in which the hunt can occur. Furthermore, the Endangered Species Act has made it illegal to hunt, harm, or damage the habitat of any species on the endangered species list. But what happens when the government removes a species from the endangered species list? And particularly, what happens when a state has a statutory hunting period for such species? This question was brought to light in Wisconsin, and across the nation, when the federal government the gray wolf from the endangered species list on January 4, 2021. The resulting hunts and legal disputes have created a thrilling saga about the future of the gray wolf and the protections available to them. This post will discuss (1) the Wisconsin wolf hunt litigation and aftermath, (2) what a recent Ninth Circuit opinion means for the future of the gray wolf, and (3) what this saga shows about the weakness of endangered species protections in the United States.

 

The Wisconsin Wolf Hunt Litigation

Soon after the gray wolf was delisted, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (W-DNR) began receiving requests for a wolf hunt. The first of such requests came from Republican lawmakers on January 15—less than 20 days after the delisting. They based their argument based on two statutes: Wisconsin Statute 29.185(1m) and Wisconsin Statute 29.185(5)(a). Statute 29.185(1m) states that “[i]f the wolf is not listed on the federal endangered list and is not listed on the state endangered list, the [W-DNR] shall allow the hunting and trapping of wolves” as regulated by this section. This provision is further developed by Statute 29.185(5)(a), which requires the W-DNR to “establish a single annual open season for both hunting and trapping wolves that begins on the first Saturday in November of each year and ends on the last day of February of the following year.” The lawmakers argued that, when taken together, these statutes require the W-DNR to immediately allow a wolf hunt for the remainder of the 2021 season because the wolves were no longer under federal protection.

On January 22, in a 4-3 vote, the W-DNR Board voted against allowing a wolf hunt for the remainder of the 2021 season. Rather than starting a hunt right away, they claimed that they needed additional time “to develop a science-based harvest quota, gather input from tribes and update its wolf management plan.” This decision, however, was short-lived.

On February 3, Hunter Nation, Inc., a Kansas-based organization, filed a lawsuit challenging the W-DNR’s decision. The court ruled that, because of the state’s statutes mandating the hunting season, the W-DNR must allow it to occur during the remainder of the season. Complying, the W-DNR set a quota of 200 wolves, 81 of which were reserved for native Ojibwe tribes. In only three days, hunters unaffiliated with the tribes exceeded this quota by killing 218 wolves.

 

The Ninth Circuit Returns Protections for the Gray Wolf

Luckily, protections for the gray wolf are beginning to return. On February 10, 2022, a Federal District Court in the Ninth Circuit returned federal protections for wolves in Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30123 (N.D. Cal. 2022). The court found that, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delisted the gray wolves, they failed to consider threats to gray wolf populations outside of the Great Lakes and Northern Rocky Mountains and “didn’t rely on the best available science.”

This decision returned federal protections to gray wolves in the contiguous United States outside of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana, which remain under state control. Many pro-hunting groups oppose the decision, claiming that the wolf populations have recovered enough and should be managed by the state. Conservation organizations, on the other hand, believe that the decision is a step in the right direction but that more government intervention is needed to protect wolf populations in the remaining states from overhunting. While this decision is a major step in wolf protection, it does not address the issue of what happened to the wolves when they were initially delisted.

 

Better Policies are Needed to Protect Animals Coming Off of the Endangered Species List

This saga has highlighted some of the weaknesses in the endangered species program. Even though the animals are protected while on the list, they can immediately be hunted once the government removes them. This is particularly the case in states with statutorily mandated hunting seasons for certain species. Once one of these species is removed from the endangered species list, the statutes act as a trigger, forcing the hunt to begin. These “trigger laws” have major impacts on the species and need to be addressed.

One of the major issues with the trigger laws is that they do not provide a chance for the state to ensure that the quotas they set are scientifically accurate. Rather, the hunt needs to start during a statutorily required period.

Additionally, the hunters may not follow the quotas set by the state. This situation occurred in the 2021 Wisconsin hunt when hunters unassociated with tribes killed over 200 wolves, nearly doubling their quota in only three days. This hunt had potentially devastating effects on the wolf population. Wisconsin’s Green Fire, a conservation group, estimates that the wolves’ reproduction rate will be depleted by 24–40% because of the loss of females and alpha males in the hunt. If these rates remained, it would lead to a rapid decrease in wolf populations.

To address this concern, the government need to implement further protections for animals that they delist. Even though the species’ population is reportedly stable at the time they are delisted, the sudden hunting can quickly return them to critical levels. One potential solution is to mandate a protection period between the delisting and when hunting can actually begin. This period will allow states to develop scientifically accurate quotas and ensure that their protocols for the hunt are up to date while negating the applicability of potential trigger laws hidden in a state’s statutes.

Zombie Deer: Slowing the Spread of CWD

February 18, 2022
Administrative Law, Agriculture, Animal Law, Environment, Environmental Law, Public Lands

Warren Sexson, MJLST Staffer

Minnesota is one of the premier states in the Union for chasing whitetails. In 2020, over 470,000 licenses were purchased to harvest deer. As a hunter myself, I understand the importance of protecting Minnesota’s deer herd and habitat. The most concerning threat to whitetail deer in the state is Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD). CWD alters the central nervous system, similar to “mad cow disease,” causing deer to lose weight, stumble, drool, and behave similarly to an extra on The Walking Dead. It was first discovered in 1967 in Colorado mule deer and is transmissible to other ungulates such as moose, elk, red deer, black-tail deer, Sitka deer, and reindeer. It is 100% fatal in animals it infects and there is no known treatment or vaccine. While it currently poses no threat to humans, Canadian researchers have shown eating the meat from infected animals can infect hungry macaques, prompting the CDC and the World Health Organization to recommend against consumption of CWD positive animals. Luckily, in Minnesota there were only a handful of cases last season. Challenges still remain, however, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the state legislature have tools at their disposal to combat the spread.

The DNR currently has a comprehensive response plan. In order to get a deer hunting license, the hunter has to pick what “zone” he or she will be hunting in. Minnesota is divided up into zones based off of the deer population and geography. Each zone has different guidelines for how many licenses will sell to the public. Some are “limited draw,” meaning a lottery system where only a certain number of applicants are selected, others are “over-the-counter,” meaning anyone who wants a license in that unit may buy one. Within the zoning system, the DNR has three “CWD Zone” classifications that restrict harvesting deer depending on the risks of the disease—surveillance, control, and management zones. Surveillance zones are where CWD has been found in captive deer or in wild deer in an adjacent zone. Control zones border the management zones, and management zones take up most of the south-eastern portion of the state, where CWD is highly concentrated. The restrictions in each type of zone vary, with surveillance zones being the least restricted and management zones being the most. Hunters have a key role in slowing the spread of CWD. Reducing deer populations in CWD ridden areas helps to reduce contact among deer and lower infection rates. However, there are other ways to further Minnesota’s commitment to slowing the spread of CWD.

The DNR can use emergency actions; it has done so recently. In October of 2021, the DNR temporarily banned moving farmed deer into and within the state through emergency action. Farmed deer (deer raised in captivity for use in trophy hunting) are a main vector of transmission for CWD. The ban was lifted in December but could have lasted longer. The DNR has emergency authority under Minn. Stat. § 84.027 Subd. 13(b) and (g). By enacting emergency declarations, the DNR can continue to use proven measures to slow the spread: requiring testing in high risk areas, banning movement between deer farms, increasing legal limits, and requiring hunters who desire a big buck to first harvest does in so called “Earn-a-Buck” programs. But, such emergency authority can only be 18 months at the longest. While limited in time, emergency orders provide the DNR the flexibility it needs to combat the disease’s spread.

The agency could also attempt to regulate by standard rulemaking authority as laid out in Chapter 14 of Minnesota’s statutes. The agency likely has authority to regulate deer hunting rules relating to CWD and recently has gained concurrent authority over deer farms along with the Board of Animal Health. However, if the DNR attempted to ban deer farming or imposed severe regulatory requirements, industry and interest groups would likely respond with legal challenges to the rulemaking process. In previous attempts to severely restrict deer farms, the Minnesota Deer Farmers Association has filed lawsuits attempting to block restrictions.

While the DNR likely can regulate deer hunting to slow the spread, the legislature is the best option for stopping deer farming as a whole. It is not necessarily a one-sided issue; a bi-partisan coalition of hunters and environmentalistswish to see the practice banned. State Rep. Rick Hansen (DFL) who chairs the House Environment and Natural Resources Finances and Policy Committee has discussed ending the practice and buying out all existing operators. Craig Engwall, head of the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association has additionally called for such a ban. State legislation would be the most comprehensive way to slow the spread of CWD.

State legislators should also consider funding more research for potential vaccines and treatments for CWD. Funding is beginning to pick up; Canadian researchers have begun working on potential vaccines. Additionally, Rep. Ron Kind’s (D-WI) bill, the Chronic Wasting Disease Research and Management Act passed the House of Representatives with Bipartisan support and awaits a vote in the Senate. While this is encouraging, more can be done to support scientific research and protect deer herds. If Minnesota wants to lead the United States in solving such a global issue, the bipartisan support exists to help tackle the largest threat to deer hunting in the U.S. and the state.

CWD threatens the state’s large and historic deer hunting tradition. The DNR and the state legislature have the tools at their disposal to impose meaningful reform to combat the spread of “zombie-deer,” so the population can thrive for generations to come.

Holy Crap: The First Amendment, Septic Systems, and the Strict Scrutiny Standard in Land Use Law

December 22, 2021
Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, Discrimination, Environmental Law, First Amendment

Sarah Bauer, MJLST Staffer

In the Summer of 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court released a bevy of decisions favoring religious freedom. Among these was Mast v. City of Fillmore, a case about, well, septic systems and the First Amendment. But Mast is about so much more than that: it showcases the Court’s commitment to free exercise in a variety of contexts and Justice Gorsuch as a champion of Western sensibilities. It also demonstrates that moving forward, the government is going to need work harder to support that its compelling interest in land use regulation trumps an individual’s free exercise rights.

The Facts of Mast

To understand how septic systems and the First Amendment can even exist in the same sentence, it’s important to know the facts of Mast. In the state of Minnesota, the Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is responsible for maintaining water quality. It promulgates regulations accordingly, then local governments adopt those regulations into ordinances. Among those are prescriptive regulations about wastewater treatment. At issue is one such ordinance adopted by Fillmore County, Minnesota, that requires most homes to have a modern septic system for the disposal of gray water.

The plaintiffs in the case are Swartzentruber Amish. They sought a religious exemption from the ordinance, saying that their religion forbade the use of that technology. The MPCA instead demanded the installation of the modern system under threat of criminal penalty, civil fines, and eviction from their farms. When the MPCA rejected a low-tech alternative offered by the plaintiffs, a mulch basin system not uncommon in other states, the Amish sought relief on grounds that the ordinance violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). After losing the battle in state courts, the Mast plaintiffs took it to the Supreme Court, where the case was decided in their favor last summer.

The First Amendment and Strict Scrutiny

Mast’s issue is a land use remix of Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, another free exercise case from the same docket. Fulton, the more controversial and well-known of the two, involved the City of Philadelphia’s decision to discontinue contracts with Catholic Social Services (CSS) for placement of children in foster homes. The City said that CSS’s refusal to place children with same-sex couples violated a non-discrimination provision in both the contract and the non-discrimination requirements of the citywide Fair Practices Ordinance. The Supreme Court didn’t buy it, holding instead that the City’s policy impermissibly burdened CSS’s free exercise of religion.

The Fulton decision was important for refining the legal analysis and standards when a law burdens free exercise of religion. First, if a law incidentally burdens religion but is both 1) neutral and 2) generally applicable, then courts will not ordinarily apply a strict scrutiny standard on review. If one of those elements is not met, courts will apply strict scrutiny, and the government will need to show that the law 1) advances a compelling interest and 2) is narrowly tailored to achieve those interests. The trick to strict scrutiny is this: the government’s compelling interest in denying an exception needs to apply specifically to those requesting the religious exception. A law examined under strict scrutiny will not survive if the State only asserts that it has a compelling interest in enforcing its laws generally.

Strict Scrutiny, RLUIPA, and Mast

The Mast Plaintiffs sought relief under RLUIPA. RLUIPA isn’t just a contender for Congress’s “Most Difficult to Pronounce Acronym” Award. It’s a choice legal weapon for those claiming that a land use regulation restricts free exercise of religion. The strict scrutiny standard is built into RLUIPA, meaning that courts skip straight to the question of whether 1) the government had a compelling government interest, and 2) whether the rule was the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest. And now, post-Fulton, that first inquiry involves looking at whether the government had a compelling interest in denying an exception specifically as it applies to plaintiffs.

So that is how we end up with septic systems and the First Amendment in the same case. The Amish sued under RLUIPA, the Court applied strict scrutiny, and the government failed to show that it had a compelling interest in denying the Amish an exception to the rule that they needed to install a septic system for their gray water. Particularly convincing at least from Coloradan Justice Gorsuch’s perspective, were the facts that 1) Minnesota law allowed exemptions to campers and outdoorsman, 2) other jurisdictions allowed for gray water disposal in the same alternative manner suggested by the plaintiffs, and 3) the government couldn’t show that the alternative method wouldn’t effectively filter the water.

So what does this ultimately mean for land use regulation? It means that in the niche area of RLUIPA litigation, religious groups have a stronger strict scrutiny standard to lean on, forcing governments to present more evidence justifying a refusal to extend religious exemptions. And government can’t bypass the standard by making regulations more “generally applicable,” for example by removing exemptions for campers. Strict scrutiny still applies under RLUIPA, and governments are stuck with it, resulting in a possible windfall of exceptions for the religious.

Monumental Tug-of-War: America’s National Monuments May Be the Latest Targets in the Partisan Policy Back-and-Forth

October 19, 2021
Environment, Environmental Law, Public Lands

Douglas Harman, MJLST Staffer

On October 7, 2021, the Biden Administration moved to restore the size and protections of two national monuments in the state of Utah: Bears Ears National Monument and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. This latest action culminates a back-and-forth of the last three presidencies that has drawn national attention. It suggests an emerging pattern of using national monuments as part of a broader legal and political debate over the use of federal lands.

There is a cultural and political split with liberals broadly favoring conservation/preservation of wilderness and Native American heritage sites and conservatives broadly favoring resource extraction and land development. It now seems likely that national monuments, and the underlying law dealing with their creation, will be subject to the same intense partisan tug-of-war as are other federal land use policies.

 

The Antiquities Act of 1906 and National Monuments

In the early 20th century, Congress passed the Antiquities Act, delegating to the President the power to “declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest [situated on federal lands]…to be national monuments.” Once a monument is established, the antiquities act also provides for its protection, and penalizes anyone who detrimentally interferes with it. Such a grant of power is quite significant, as it allows a President to designate areas for protection without the requirement for an act of Congress, as is needed for national parks. It is also important to note that, although the statute expressly authorizes the creation of national monuments, the statute is silent about the reduction or dissolution of the same. For this reason, there is general consensus that the President lacks granted or implied authority to completely abolish a national monument without congressional approval (though, as discussed below, some Presidents have reduced the sizes of monuments). 

Because it allows Presidents a relatively free hand in preserving lands and does not require congressional approval (with some exceptions added later for Wyoming and Alaska), Presidents have used the Antiquities Act quite frequently to designate lands as monuments. As an additional incentive, the Supreme Court has generally held that Presidents have extremely broad discretion when creating national monuments, and that a designation as a monument protects incidental resources needed to maintain the monument. See Cameron v. United States, 252 U.S. 450 (1920); Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128 (1976). There are currently 129 National Monuments ranging widely in area and character. Though there has been some controversy over creation of monuments in the past, there had been no record of a President unmaking or effectively undercutting a monument made by a predecessor prior to 2017.

Debate remains around whether and to what extent a President can diminish a national monument. Despite Presidents reducing the size of existing monuments in the past (the last President to do so before Trump was Eisenhower), courts have never squarely addressed the issue of whether and how much a President may reduce an already-created National Monument. Additionally courts have not addressed the companion issue of what level of reduction would constitute an effective abolition of the monument, and might therefore exceed a President’s authority under the Antiquities Act.

 

Clinton/Obama, then Trump, then Biden

President Clinton established Grand Staircase as a National Monument by proclamation in 1996, a move that sparked controversy in Utah, but received relatively little attention overall and was hardly a national issue of concern. Clinton’s Republican successor, George W. Bush, took no action against Grand Staircase in the eight years he was President. Years later, in December of 2016, as negotiations between Native American Nations and Utah fell apart, and with an eye on both his legacy and his successor, President Obama signed a declaration creating Bears Ears National Monument. Environmentalists, Native American Nations, and academic groups hailed Bears Ears as protecting unique habitats, historical areas, and indigenous sacred sites. However, Utah locals and politicians, as well as various resource-extraction industries, derided the creation of Bears Ears as federal government overreach and a denial of resources to the state.

When the Trump Administration took office in 2017, it had a different set of goals for federal lands. In addition to environmental deregulation and increased oil and gas extraction, Trump signed a proclamation in late 2017 to shrink Bears Ears and Grand Staircase. The actions sparked public interest for two reasons. First, because no President since Eisenhower had reduced a national monument, and previous reductions and revisions of boundaries appear to have been relatively non-controversial. Second, because the reduction proclaimed by Trump amounted to the largest reduction of national monument land in US history, reducing Bears Ears by 85% and Grand Staircase by 50%. The action was promptly challenged in court, with plaintiffs arguing that the reduction effectively abolished the monuments, thereby intruding on congressional powers. Wilderness Society v. Trump, 2019 WL 7902967 (Nov. 2019) (trial pleading). There was an additional legal issue regarding Grand Staircase, as Congress statutorily recognized and modified the monument in 1998, raising the question of whether a President could unilaterally further alter a monument with borders designated by Congress.  The case dragged on in DC courts and has not yielded a clear resolution as of this writing (and is unlikely to do so, as Trump is no longer President and the proclamation reducing the size of the monuments has now been superseded).

President Trump was defeated in the 2020 election, and Joe Biden became President. One of his myriad goals was to restore environmental protections undone during his predecessor’s term. This included restoring Bears Ears and Grand Staircase to their pre-Trump sizes (in the same proclamation, Biden restored protections to the marine Northeast Canyons and Seamounts National Monument, which Trump had opened to commercial fishing). This has meant that, just like many other land use and environmental priorities, the pendulum has swung on national monuments based solely on the party affiliation of the occupant of the White House.

 

The Future of National Monuments

In the proclamations restoring the monuments, the Biden Administration took no legal issue with the actions of the Trump Administration. There was no claim that the diminishment had been illegal or unconstitutional; there have been no circulated legal memos denouncing the Trump White House’s legal logic as flawed; and there has been no argument that the reduction exceeded the scope of Presidential power by effectively abolishing the monuments. The reversal of policy has also essentially rendered any court decision of the cases against the Trump administration moot. This means that, although the Biden administration undid Trump’s actions, it appears to have tacitly accepted and affirmed their validity. This means the pattern of the last several years can (and probably will) be repeated.

It does not take a huge logical jump, then, to imagine the national monuments pulled into a perpetual seesaw. Perhaps a Republican takes the White House in 2024 or 2028 and moves to slash the size of national monuments as Trump did, only for them to be re-expanded by a future Democrat. Perpetual change of federal land designation, and, therefore, use, is not good for anyone. Industry will be disincentivized from making investments in development on lands that could be incorporated or re-incorporated into a protected National Monument, while environmental and Native American groups will have to be constantly on the alert for actions from a hostile President unilaterally undoing everything they’ve worked extremely hard to protect on national monument land. 

Such a policy seesaw hurts everyone. It seems evident that the unilateral and unlimited Presidential power to create and diminish National Monuments will lead to significant instability as long as the major parties have such diametrically opposed land use goals. One possible solution is for Congress to amend the law, but that seems unlikely given Congress’s declining productivity in the last several years and the political divisions in an evenly split Congress. Without Congressional action, further guidance from the courts about the extent of a President’s legal ability under the Antiquities Act to diminish national monuments may be the only way to stabilize the process. The question is when, and if, the courts will have their chance to weigh in.

It’s Not Always Greener on the Other Side: Challenges to Environmental Marketing Claims

March 28, 2021
Environment, Environmental Law, FTC, Regulatory

Ben Cooper, MJLST Staffer

On March 16, 2021 a trio of environmental groups filed an FTC complaint against Chevron alleging that Chevron violated the FTC’s Green Guides by falsely claiming “investment in renewable energy and [Chevron’s] commitment to reducing fossil fuel pollution.” The groups claim that this complaint is the first to use the Green Guides to prevent companies from making misleading environmental claims. Public attention has supported companies that minimize their environmental impact, but this FTC complaint suggests that a critical regulatory eye might be in the future. If the environmental groups convince the FTC to enforce the Green Guides against Chevron, other companies should review the claims they make about their products and operations.

A Morning Consult poll released in early December 2020 showed that nearly half of U.S. adults supported expanding the use of carbon removal practices and technologies. Only six percent of survey respondents opposed carbon removal practices. In response to the overwhelming public support for carbon reduction, hundreds of major companies are making some type of commitment to reduce their carbon footprint and curb climate change. One popular program, the Science Based Targets initiative, has over 1,200 participants who made various pledges to decarbonize (or offset the carbon within) their operations.

International and non-governmental organizations took the reins of climate change policy, especially once the Trump Administration withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement in 2017. “Climate change seems to be the leading fashion statement for business in 2019,” declared a Marketplace story in October of 2019. Yet, as with fashion, style only gets one so far. Substance is key—and often lacking. One of the founders of the Science Based Targets initiative criticized fashionable but flimsy voluntary corporate commitments: “[T]here is not a lot of substance behind those [voluntary corporate] commitments or the commitments are not comprehensive enough.”

The voluntary commitments placated environmental groups when the alternative was the Trump Administration’s silence—but the Biden Administration presents an eager environmental partner: the FTC complaint “is the first test to see if [the Biden Administration] will follow through with their commitment to hold big polluters accountable,” said an environmental group spokesperson according to a Reuters report. The consensus of environmental groups, industry commentators, and regulatory observers appears to be that government oversight is imminent to encourage consistency and accountability—and to avoid “greenwashing.”

Should organizations that make environmental claims be concerned about enforcement action?  It is too early to tell if the Chevron FTC complaint portends future complaints. In the Green Guides, the FTC declared that it seeks to avoid placing “the FTC in the inappropriate role of setting environmental policy,” which might suggest that it will stick to questions of misrepresentation and avoid wading into questions of evaluating environmental claims. It is also worth noting that the FTC is missing one of its five commissioners and Commissioner Rohit Chopra is expected to resign in anticipation of his nomination to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. While the FTC might not be in a position at the moment to enforce the Green Guides, organizations that make environmental claims in marketing materials should monitor this complaint and ensure their compliance with FTC guidance as well as any policy changes from the Biden Administration.

Home | Contact Publishing Services | My Account