The Natural Gas Act (“NGA”) governs the siting of interstate natural gas pipelines. There is not a federal body that sites pipelines—instead, the NGA delegates federal eminent domain to private actors to site pipelines through a certificate of need. Private actors have condemned private and state land to site pipelines through NGA-delegated federal eminent domain power for approximately eighty years. In 2019, in a case called In re PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC, the Third Circuit held that a private actor with an NGA certificate could not condemn land in which the state of New Jersey had a property interest because the NGA only delegated the federal eminent domain power and did not delegate the federal government’s exemption to a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit. This Note argues that every state in the nation can utilize the reasoning in PennEast to prevent the siting of an interstate natural gas pipeline within its borders because every state has conservation easement laws that allow the conveyance of such an easement to a state governmental body that satisfies the “arm-of-the-state” test for the purposes of Eleventh Amendment immunity. Thus, any state can halt a natural gas pipeline in two steps: first, obtain a conservation easement in the way of the proposed pipeline and, second, invoke Eleventh Amendment immunity to prevent a private actor holding a federally approved NGA certificate from condemning the land in question. Whether states act to utilize this power remains to be seen.

Salmon remain an integral part of culture, religion, and subsistence for tribes in the Pacific Northwest, which, unsurprisingly, results in more salmon consumed by tribal members than other groups in the area. Because of this increased consumption, human health impacts from toxins in the fish are higher for tribal populations. Fish consumption rates are set as a part of Water Quality Standards under the Clean Water Act, in order to protect human health. This article addresses whether the Columbia River tribes can use their treaty fishing rights to require more stringent water quality standards in Idaho. This article asserts that tribal treaty rights include a right to the protection of human health. If eating salmon in traditional quantities is dangerous, this is a violation of tribal treaty fishing rights. As such, there is an obligation to regulate water quality in Idaho at more stringent levels to protect tribal treaty rights and the health of tribal. Ultimately, this article concludes that tribal treaty rights include not only the right to allocation and abundance of resources, but also the right to the protection of the quality of those resources.

Wetlands provide a multitude of benefits including flood protection, clean water, carbon sequestration, and critical species habitat. Given that wetlands are valuable natural resources, it is important to better understand the extent to which federal regulation impacts optimal wetlands conservation. Where federal regulation under the 2015 Clean Water Rule abrogated the ability of the states to make certain regulatory decisions over their waters, the recently promulgated Navigable Waters Protection Rule—that narrows the definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS)—may create new opportunities for alternative wetlands conservation strategies. This Article examines five states in the Prairie Pothole Region to evaluate the integral roles the federal government, state governments, and private organizations have in wetlands conservation. Environmental federalism considers the optimal balance of federal and state regulation in achieving complementary environmental protection. Insofar as scaling back federal regulation over isolated wetlands reduces conflict between federal regulators and private landowners, private organizations can more effectively align economic incentives with voluntary conservation objectives. This Article concludes with an examination of Ducks Unlimited, the world’s largest waterfowl and wetlands conservation organization, as a case study for private conservation and public-private action in the region.

Conservation easements have long served as a private land conservation tool by allowing landowners to keep their land while forgoing certain rights, like the right to develop their land. Congress created federal income tax deductions for conservation easements to provide an income tax benefit to private landowners with conservation easements meeting Internal Revenue Code requirements. These deductions benefit the government, the public, and private landowners by encouraging conservation easements to keep land beautiful and wild. Large real estate investors are misusing this tool to gain hefty tax deductions on outdoor recreational areas like golf courses and resorts with limited public access. The Internal Revenue Code and the relevant Treasury regulations controlling conservation easement deductions require recreational areas be usable by the general public but fail to explain what constitutes general public access. This ambiguity creates uncertainty over whether a deduction is appropriate for recreational areas that may restrict public access physically or financially. Modifying the relevant regulations is essential to resolve such ambiguity and to ensure deductions for conservation easements serve their intended purpose of encouraging conservation and the preservation of American heritage. This Article offers a mulligan on the Treasury regulations to fulfill the hope of conservation by: (1) defining “general public” as “public at large,” (2) preventing limitations on access unless a limitation is for the health and safety of the general public, and (3) including an example of a recreational property where access is limited with an interpretation of whether the property qualifies for a deduction.