Georgia oysters have both a historic pedigree and a bright future. The salt marsh ecosystem Georgia's wild oysters inhabit and the booming market awaiting Georgia's farmed oysters each stand to benefit from the State's 2019-2020 oyster law andr egulations. This new legalframeworkprovidesfo r leasinga ndp ermitting offloating cages in public trust waters, and the potential for sustainable ecological and economic growth for coastal resiliency. These developments should allow Georgia to enter the national and international market for farmed oysters, alongside neighboring states and others on the Eastern Seaboard, Gulf Coast, and Pacific Northwest. By analyzing the history and structure of the new law, this article provides an in-depth analysis of how Georgia might establish its oyster farming industry, with an eye toward the benefits of protecting, preserving, and restoring the wild natural oyster resource. By comparing Georgia's approach to that of its "core corner four" neighbors South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida, and Alabama this article outlines the considerations and context used by other states developing oyster "mariculture" programs. By identifying the potential for the Georgia oyster farming industry to not only serve a growing market but also to strengthen coastal resiliency, this article also highlights the ecological benefits of oysters and the State's Coastal Marshlands Protection Act. Last, the article provides an Appendix with a short legal memorandum analyzing constitutional law issues related to residency requirements and contains several tables comparing state mariculture programs.

This Note analyzes the emerging, and under-documented litigation field of illegal dumping of electronic waste (e-waste). U.S. federal courts are inadequately prosecuting and failing to provide avenues for both criminal and civil restitution for international victims. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the primary legislation on e-waste recycling, protects only state interests and offers little relief to private actors. Under RCRA, which has both criminal and civil statutes, the exportation of e-waste is lightly monitored and is only scorned under specific circumstances, mainly if the receiving country has not authorized it. Further, most prosecutors elect to bring wire fraud charges under Title 18, the federal Criminal and Criminal Procedure law, rather than RCRA. Therefore, restitution is only granted to companies, not international victims. Using the three major e-waste criminal cases —Executive Recycling, Intercon Solutions, and Total Reclaim— as steppingstones to begin the discussion on international e-waste dumping, this Note demonstrates that victims are only narrowly provided relief, and international victims are virtually unable to seek relief. This Note focuses on administrative action to provide proper prosecutorial direction and critique legislative ignorance of modern environmental issues. In addition, this Note emphasizes international solutions to the growing waste epidemic and discusses how the U.S. can more effectively use these structures to prosecute e-waste smuggling and environmental waste smuggling at large.