The eJournal is sponsored by the Environmental Law Center at the Vermont Law School, home to one of the nation's leading environmental law programs. Since establishing the Environmental Law Center in 1978, Vermont Law School has been training people to be environmental leaders in government, nonprofits, corporations, and private practice - locally, nationally, and internationally. With the largest and deepest graduate environmental law program in the country, the Environmental Law Center offers the most comprehensive environmental law and policy curriculum in the nation for law students, and also confers the Master of Environmental Law and Policy (MELP) and Master of Laws in Environmental Law (LLM) degrees, as well as a joint JD/MELP degree. The Vermont Law School's Environmental Law Center is also home to the Institute for Energy and the Environment, Environmental Tax Policy Institute, Climate Legacy Initiative, Land Use Institute, Partnership for Environmental Law in China, and Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic.
NATURAL RESOURCES LAW & POLICY eJOURNAL
Sponsored by the Environmental Law Center at Vermont Law School
Arizona Law Review, Vol. 56, 2014
U of Maryland Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2014-15
MICHAEL PAPPAS, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law
It may be a bad idea to waste resources, but is it illegal? Legally speaking, what does â€śwasteâ€? even mean? Though the concept may appear completely subjective, this Article builds a framework for understanding how the law identifies and addresses waste.
Drawing upon property and natural resource doctrines, the Article finds that the law selects from a menu of five specific, and sometimes competing, societal values to define waste. The values are: 1) economic efficiency, 2) human flourishing, 3) concern for future generations, 4) stability and consistency, and 5) ecological concerns. The law recognizes waste in terms of one or a combination of these values.
After identifying waste, the law seeks to eliminate it via targeted anti-waste provisions, which follow one of three approaches. First, â€śusage-vetoâ€? measures empower selected parties to halt perceived wasteful changes to resource uses. Second, â€śmarket-facilitatingâ€? measures prevent economic waste by encouraging and correcting markets. Third, â€śsustainabilityâ€? measures proscribe wasteful overconsumption of resources fundamental to human and ecosystem flourishing.
Through this framework, the Article synthesizes seemingly disparate property and resource doctrines into a coherent legal approach to the idea of waste. This overarching understanding of legal waste explains how individual anti-waste provisions originate and operate. Further, the waste framework serves as a practical tool for analyzing whether anti-waste laws remain in touch with current resource contexts and societal preferences. Finally, it offers theoretical insight about how anti-waste provisions work cumulatively to inject a necessary adaptability into property law.
"When Retreat is the Best Option: Flood Insurance after Biggert-Waters and Other Climate Change Puzzles"
47 John Marshall Law Review (2014 Forthcoming)
Loyola University New Orleans College of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series
ROBERT R. M. VERCHICK, Loyola University New Orleans College of Law, Loyola University New Orleans
LYNSEY R. JOHNSON, Loyola University New Orleans
Commentators argue, with good reason, that flood risk polices are soft on retreat. We Americans are more interested in fortifying our castles or building them higher than in moving out of harmâ€™s way. And that is despite warnings of rising seas and stronger storms associated with climate change. But the impulse to stay put may be eroding. In particular, the practices and policies of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are gradually encouraging retreat over other alternatives. As one example, FEMAâ€™s current Mitigation Best Practice Database, the agencyâ€™s new National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF), now contemplates retreat mechanisms. For a while, Congress, too, beat the drums of retreat. The Biggert-Waters Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (BW-12), promised to remove important insurance subsidies for flood-prone homes, forcing some residents to consider relocation as a cost-saving option. Two years later, in response to public backlash, Congress repealed the lawâ€™s strongest retreat-based incentives. Congress is expected to reform the insurance program once again by 2017.
In this article, we consider retreat as a strategy of hazard-risk reduction, with reference to the developments in FEMA practice and legislation listed above. As the effects of climate increase the risks of floods and other extreme events, we also see FEMAâ€™s evolving retreat strategies as an important part of the nationâ€™s climate adaptation efforts. Unfortunately, initiatives like the new NDRF and Congressâ€™s insurance reforms are developing piecemeal, with blind spots large enough to drive a tornado through. We believe that policy makers would do better to have a set of principles to guide them when considering and implementing strategies that are intended or will have the effect of encouraging retreat. In particular, we think that Congress could have avoided the embarrassing failure of BW-12 if lawmakers had more fully recognized the complex issues at stake in retreat-based policies. One aim of our analysis is to suggest what a successful reform of the NFIP might look like, setting the foundation for more detailed conversations about flood insurance as the 2017 deadline approaches.
"International Water Law Principles and Frameworks: Perspectives from the Nile River Basin"
Nile River Basin: Ecohydrological Challenges, Climate Change and Hydropolitics, 2013
RYAN B. STOA, Florida International University College of Law
With the current body of international water law limited to customary principles and nascent treaty instruments, the potential for major transboundary water resources conflict is high. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the Nile River Basin. At about 6,825 km long, the Nile is the longest river in the world, sustaining the livelihoods of more than 180 million people in 11 riparian countries. And yet, the Nile River continues to flow without a binding cooperative management treaty or agreement. While the Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA) may soon come into force, it lacks the support and participation of two of the largest players in the region, downstream Egypt and Sudan. Meanwhile, basin countriesâ€™ interpretations of customary international water law highlight the inherent and predictable difficulties of reconciling the principles of equitable use and no significant harm. Considering the Nile River Basinâ€™s critical importance to the economic development of basin states, the absence of a binding cooperative management agreement places the Nile River Basin at risk of conflict and continued mismanagement. This chapter analyzes the legal status of Nile River Basin water allocations through the lens of contemporary international water law, a developing body of law struggling to resolve transboundary disputes such as those found in the Nile River Basin.
About this eJournal
Sponsored by: Institute for Energy and the Environment at the Vermont Law School. This eJournal distributes working and accepted paper abstracts dealing with the regulation, management, and distribution of natural resources. The eJournal will discuss a diverse array of natural resource topics such as public and private land use, wildlife and biodiversity, forest protection, mineral rights, parks and wilderness, the public trust doctrine, water and wetlands, and tribal lands and resources.
To submit your research to SSRN, sign in to the SSRN User HeadQuarters, click the My Papers link on left menu and then the Start New Submission button at top of page.
If your organization is interested in increasing readership for its research by starting a Research Paper Series, or sponsoring a Subject Matter eJournal, please email: RPS@SSRN.com
Legal Scholarship Network (LSN), a division of Social Science Electronic Publishing (SSEP) and Social Science Research Network (SSRN)
ENVIRONMENTAL & NATURAL RESOURCES LAW EJOURNALS
BERNARD S. BLACK
Northwestern University - School of Law, Northwestern University - Kellogg School of Management, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
RONALD J. GILSON
Stanford Law School, Columbia Law School, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Please contact us at the above addresses with your comments, questions or suggestions for LSN-Sub.
Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal
LEE P. BRECKENRIDGE
Professor of Law, Northeastern University School of Law
Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley - School of Law
TIMOTHY P. DUANE
Professor, University of California, Santa Cruz
Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law
Associate Professor of Law, University of Maine - School of Law
ROBERT V. PERCIVAL
Robert F. Stanton Professor of Law and Director of the Environmental Law Program, University of Maryland - Francis King Carey School of Law
Assistant Professor of Law, Lewis & Clark Law School
J. B. RUHL
David Daniels Allen Distinguished Chair in Law, Vanderbilt University - Law School
MARK STEPHEN SQUILLACE
Professor of Law and Director of the Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado Law School
Associate Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School
Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law