Information is the lifeblood of environmental law. Pollution control standards depend on data about public health and technical information about the availability and effectiveness of abatement technologies. Pesticide and chemical registrations rely on studies about efficacy and potential adverse impacts. Environmental remediation requires surveying contaminated sites to identify the location and prevalence of hazardous substances. Enforcement efforts, whether initiated by regulatory agencies or through citizen-suits, depend on monitoring the waste streams of regulated industries and the conditions of environmental systems. Accurate and abundant information is a prerequisite for these elements of environmental law and many others, and information disclosure rules are themselves an important, quasi-regulatory element of the architecture of environmental law. This list of some of the components of environmental law suggests the contours of the field for purposes of this essay. Environmental law, as I use the term, addresses the effects of human activities on the environment, often striking a delicate balance between environmental protection and other competing interests. Precisely defining the boundaries of the field is unnecessary for my present purposes, because the subject of this essay is the information that animates substantive regulatory provisions rather than the particulars of those provisions.9 Information also informs political debate and inspires the public to demand change. Environmental law is the subject of ongoing reevaluation in Congress and the executive branch, although the importance of accurate information is rarely called into question. Rather, contest over environmental

For decades, the situation of Indigenous peoples in Honduras has been closely monitored by the international community. With the passage of legislation in 2013 by the Honduran Government authorizing the creation of Zones of Economic Development and Employment (ZEDE), the renewed interest in Indigenous peoples’ rights in this relatively remote corner of the globe is not without merit. According to current United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, the situation of Indigenous peoples in Honduras is at a critical juncture – one beset by threats to “their rights over their lands, territories and natural resources,” which are “not protected,” and can even provoke acts of violence when Indigenous peoples lay claim to their rights. Given that Indigenous peoples comprise only seven percent of the total population of Honduras, and that roughly 80 percent of Indigenous peoples still live on their traditional lands, the observations of former Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, S. James Anaya, seem prescient. The situation of Honduras’s Indigenous peoples is complex precisely because of their ancestral relationship with their lands. When this ancient relationship to the land is coupled with the efforts of Indigenous peoples to maintain an identity as a people in the face of the most “powerful sectors of society,” it is not difficult to see why legislation aimed at economic development in Indigenous lands such as the ZEDE organic law would be so controversial. Nevertheless, according to 2016 figures gathered by the World Bank, Honduras is a very poor country facing “major challenges with more than 60.9 percent of the population living in poverty.” In addition, the country faces rampant economic inequality, soaring rates of crime and violence, and an economy that is particularly vulnerable to the whims of export prices which tend to have a disproportionate, adverse impact on the country’s poor. Far from the corridors of power in Tegucigalpa, rural Hondurans tend to rely upon agriculture to make ends meet, and it is exactly this reliance that places them in such a precarious economic situation. While many other scholars and economists (not mutually exclusive terms) have addressed the former question, Given these observations, it stands to reason that economic development would be a key priority for the Honduran Government. Indeed, it would be quite difficult to imagine any functional government in the world that would ignore such fiscal dire straits. The resulting question, then, is not whether economic development needs to occur in Honduras. The situation in Honduras, instead, leaves us with two questions: whether laws creating special economic zones (SEZ) like the ZEDE can actually address these economic issues, and whether they can be made to work for the country’s Indigenous peoples in such a way that their culture, identity, land rights, and natural resources are protected. this paper will seek to address the latter, exploring what some of the best practices related to Indigenous governance might look like within the context of a ZEDE regime: 1) Section I will provide a brief hhistorical overview of Indigenous peoples’ land rights in Honduras; 2) Section II will explore some of the key provisions of the ZEDE regime, and discuss international comparative approaches that have been implemented in other jurisdictions, including other Indigenous jurisdictions; 3) Section III will seek to outline key criticisms of the ZEDE legislation; 4) Section IV will evaluate contemporary best practices for strengthening Indigenous governance, and explore ways that a ZEDE regime can maintain consistency with international law and international norms with respect to Indigenous peoples.

As a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), controversies surrounding legal, ethical, and societal implications associated with the use of marijuana are compounded by its adverse health effects, limited clinical data for therapeutic indications, and safe administration/ packaging/dispensing regulations. The fragmented transition of marijuana from a vilified substance to one with legitimate therapeutic merit has been convoluted and controversial. Cannabis is the most commonly cultivated, trafficked, and abused drug worldwide, with an annual usage by approximately 147 million individuals, which equates to 2.5% of the global population. The social attitudes and cultural norms surrounding marijuana use are shifting in a positive direction, as shown by the rapidly evolving cannabis policy at the state level. State cannabis laws are widespread and highly variable—which leads to some ambiguity and concern. As state legal restrictions have eased, marijuana use has increased. In states where it is legal, sales topped $8 billion in 2017, and they are projected to grow to $24 billion by 2025. State marijuana legalization and industry growth show no signs of slowing. This paper will outline the central issues within marijuana legality, provide potential legislative solutions, and pose several core questions that must be answered before significant changes occur at the federal level. The central issues regarding marijuana legality include: convoluted state and federal laws, adverse health effects of cannabis use, research restrictions that produce knowledge gaps, and inconsistency with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. In order to resolve the conflict, it is imperative to stress the importance of science in this policy debate. The changes in state laws have occurred largely without significant input from the medical, scientific, or policy research communities.10 Updating marijuana policy on the federal level is a desirable goal, but we must seek to minimize any adverse consequences in the form of social and public health costs. Scientific research must be at the heart of all legislative decisions.

The vaquita marina is a critically endangered porpoise, only found in the Gulf of California, whose numbers have dropped precipitously over the last few years such that fewer than 20 individuals remain in the population. Their predicament is exacerbated by the fact that they are often killed as bycatch in Mexican fishing nets set out to catch totoaba, an endangered fish endemic to the same waters. The totoaba, like many other endangered species, are imperiled by the high prices they command in illegal wildlife markets in other countries. Although both vaquita and totoaba are protected by environmental regimes such as the U.S. Endangered Species Act and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, efforts to apprehend and prosecute totoaba traffickers under these laws have been weak and ineffective, as have fishing bans and enforcement in Mexico. But wildlife traffickers who trade internationally in these endangered species are committing additional crimes such as smuggling, bribery, money laundering, and even drug trafficking. Yet existing tools and resources for these financial and other crimes, which include heavier penalties than environmental crimes, often go unused by law enforcement in investigating and charging wildlife traffickers. This article argues that wildlife traffickers should be more consistently prosecuted under these financial crime tools. Moreover, financial sanctions tools available to the U.S. Treasury could be effective for rapidly cutting off funds to the organized criminal networks engaged in wildlife trafficking.

This Note examines the systematic mismanagement of wild horses and burros on America’s public lands and proposes a cooperative solution to these problems. America’s wild horses and burros have faced a long history of abuse which led to their protection under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 (WHBA). However, between trying to work within the structure of an almost-50- year-old statute and a tight federal budget, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has not been able to find a proper balance between a thriving horse population and an overcrowded one. This Note proposes possible solutions to this problem. Cooperative federalism, voluntary intergovernmental agreements, or even proactive state legislation are all viable options that would allow the wild horses and burros to thrive on America’s public lands. In this instance, cooperative federalism seeks to set strict guidelines for states to meet in order for state governments to take over the care of these animals. Intergovernmental agreements would allow non-federal governments to take over the “smaller” tasks related to wild horses and burros in order to allow the Federal Government to focus on the task of long-term management and care of horses and burros in off-site holding facilities. Finally, proactive state legislating allows state governments to assume the care and control of horses and burros and it allows states to make the rules and suit them to their own state needs and resources.

Indigenous Nations have borne a wide array of harms as a result of U.S. nuclear policy. The extraction and processing of nuclear materials and testing of nuclear weapons have caused extensive health problems for Indigenous Peoples. Given that most nuclear facilities are located on tribal and traditional lands, Indigenous Peoples have been disproportionately harmed by these practices. Radiation exposure has led to increased rates of several types of cancers, as well as lung and renal diseases and many other chronic conditions. Moreover, radiation has caused environmental degradation, contaminating water and food sources across tribal and traditional lands. Nuclear exposure has created multigenerational injuries for Indigenous Peoples, leading to permanent genetic problems and lasting ecological and spiritual consequences. This Note argues that the United States should fulfill its international human rights commitments by implementing comprehensive redress specific to the nuclear injuries of Indigenous Peoples. U.S. nuclear policy implicates a legacy of colonial violence and oppression; to that end, meaningful redress requires contextualized remedial approaches. In 1990, the United States Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), a compensatory statute that has awarded lump sums of money to categories of people exposed to nuclear radiation, such as uranium miners and people “downwind” of testing sites. However, this model falls short in important ways. With underinclusive coverage and narrowly constructed regulations, RECA effectively excludes some radiation-exposed Indigenous people. Considering the deliberate treatment of Indigenous Peoples and lands as disposable for the sake of U.S. policy, monetary compensation alone misses the mark in remedying lasting generational and environmental consequences. This Note examines international legal frameworks in order to highlight the human rights obligations that should inform the United States’ efforts to redress Indigenous Nations. Most importantly, the United States should defer to the leadership of Indigenous Peoples and the sovereignty of Indigenous Nations, recognizing that the scope of Indigenous self-determination encompasses determining the frameworks of nuclear redress as well as shaping the future of nuclear and environmental policies.

In 1972, Congress passed sweeping amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948. Those amendments created what is known today as the Clean Water Act (CWA) which has fundamentally altered the way the United States protects federal waters. Importantly, the CWA mandates an absolute prohibition against the addition of any pollution to navigable waters from a point source. However, recent litigation over what constitutes “from” a point source has caused confusion. For example, if a polluter backs a point source away from a river so that the pollution first hits the ground before reaching the river—does the pollution come “from” that point source or “from” the ground? What if a polluter discharges their pollution from a point source into groundwater that is hydrologically connected to navigable waters—does the pollution come “from” that point source in the context of the CWA? Afterall, the regulation of groundwater is typically left to the individual States. This Paper addresses these tough questions by analyzing a recent circuit court split struggling to interpret the CWA. Ultimately, the answer lies in the CWA’s simple and zero-tolerance ban against any addition of pollutants. Water is one of our most precious natural resource and Congress acted intentionally when it drafted and passed the Clean Water Act in 1972. On its face, the CWA protects federal waters from any pollution—even when such pollution first travels through an intermediary.

This paper analyzes the impact of short-term shareholder profit maximization on environmental issues. The obsessive focus on quarterly returns at the expense of long-term investments produces perverse outcomes. These negative outcomes include often discussed economic issues such as increased income inequality and a lack of investment in research and development. Short-termism, however, also drives negative environmental externalities and prevents companies from adequately investing in reducing their environmental footprints. Finding that shorttermism constitutes one of the primary impediments to building a sustainable economy, the author recommends three reforms to corporate and securities law: (1) require all businesses to become social benefit corporations, (2) mandate climate stress testing, and (3) allow new classes of shares that reward long-term investors.

The U.S.-Mexico Border is in the midst of a decades-long environmental health crisis. Unsafe and discriminatory land use practices, pollution, and lacking infrastructure are among the problems causing Border residents to become sick. They suffer from “third world” health afflictions in the Southwest corner of the first world. Because residents of racial minority and low socio-economic status experience the brunt of environmental harm at the Border, this crisis is an obvious source of environmental injustice. Despite these well-documented, ongoing environmental injustices, two Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) programs aimed at solving problems along the Border consistently find themselves on the EPA’s budgetary chopping block. Those programs, Border 2020 and the U.S.- Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Grant Program, are relatively inexpensive programs targeted at improving some of the region’s most urgent environmental needs. This paper uses Professor Robert Kuehn’s four-part framework for exploring environmental justice issues to illustrate how a region in urgent need of environmental repair might suffer if its government makes good on the continued threat to environmentally divest from repairing the severe problems there.