Environmental law

Behind the Scenes: Bringing the Martz Symposium Back to Life in Print

Annie Carlozzi — Fri, 20 Jun 2025 13:02:47 +0000

Behind the Scenes: Bringing the Martz Symposium Back to Life in Print Annie Carlozzi Fri, 06/20/2025 - 07:02

Oliver Skelly

A look inside the editorial process that transformed two days of dialogue into Volume 36, Issue 2 of the Colorado Environmental Law Journal

After a five-year pandemic-induced hiatus, the Martz Symposium on Public Lands returned to the University of Colorado Law School this past October with renewed vigor and urgency. Now, just months later, we're proud to share how those conversations made their way into the pages of the Colorado Environmental Law Journal. Many thanks to our authors, S. James Anaya, Matt Dietz, Alison Flint, Travis Belote, Monte Mils, Martin Nie, and Sarah Matsumoto, for their excellent work throughout the process.

Yet the process of turning conversations into law review articles is no simple feat. The transition from symposium presentations to law review articles presents unique editorial challenges. Read on for an assuredly riveting 鈥渂ehind the scenes鈥� look on what happened in the Journal suite over the last six months to make it all happen.

From Spoken Word to Scholarly Articles

First up is tracking down your authors. This usually begins as a 鈥渃all for submissions鈥� and, if the conference鈥檚 listserv doesn鈥檛 heed the call, can often end as a 鈥減lease, please, please write something for us.鈥� Fortunately for yours truly, the 2024 Martz Symposium鈥檚 panelists and moderators鈥擬ills, Flint, Matsumoto, and Anaya, to be specific鈥攑romptly offered up their ideas and commitments.

Once the authors are selected, the waiting game begins because, unlike the usual process where we selected pre-written articles, symposium selections will be written after the fact (i.e., the event), and generally on the subject the author presented on. Again, trepidation set in as the first-draft December deadline grew nearer; again, our authors came through.

Bear with me here because it鈥檚 about to get really interesting. The editing process is as follows: two rounds of substantive edits, onto cite checks and then a copy edit / page proof finish. The latter two rounds are where law journals across the country win their notoriety. Imagine the most monotonous task you do daily, multiply its monotony by five, then find a rule to cite for why you do it. And then do that task several hundred times over the course of a month. That鈥檚 our bread and butter, baby.

Jokes aside, these editorial rounds are what allow for law review articles to be relied upon when writing the law鈥攂e it legislators or judges. Without a swarm of staff writers and editors to do that sort of rigorous fact checking, the articles鈥� value to the legal field would be greatly diminished.

Bridging Academia and Practice

Nevertheless, the value in this issue鈥檚 contents was apparent from the get-go. We were very fortunate to work with an esteemed group of authors covering a breadth of practice areas. Take it from my very own editor鈥檚 note:

Issue 2 opens with S. James Anaya's incisive and experiential analysis of the International Council on Mining and Metals' 2024 Position Statement on Indigenous Peoples, examining how the world's largest mining companies are grappling with their responsibilities toward Indigenous communities. Matt Dietz, Alison Flint, and Travis Belote of the Wilderness Society then present a compelling argument for the role of landscape intactness in the BLM鈥檚 multiple-use and sustained-yield mandate, tactfully striking that elusive literary balance between law and science. Professors Monte Mills and Martin Nie then offer up the first comprehensive framework for integrating tribal co-stewardship into federal public lands planning processes by addressing a critical, inequitable gap in the current planning approaches. Colorado Law鈥檚 very own Sarah Matsumoto rounds out the articles selection in the Pacific Northwest with an Oregonian expos茅 on the tension between legitimate wildfire management and its exploitation by industry.

The symposium issue doesn't just feature the distinguished speakers鈥攊t also showcases the Journal's student editors' own scholarship. Here鈥檚 me again, too lazy to paraphrase:

The Journal鈥檚 lead production editor, Lara Andenoro, kicks off the student notes with a weighty analysis of Held v. Montana and how state constitutional environmental rights provisions can serve as powerful tools for climate litigation. Next up is managing editor, Aidan Bodeo-Lomicky鈥檚 investigation into the Rice's whale鈥攖he world's most endangered baleen whale鈥攊llustrating the complex intersection of environmental protection and political change. Tying a bow on Volume 36 is lead notes editor, Mason Liddell, and his comparative analysis of the Lake Erie Bill of Rights and Happy the Elephant case, revealing the challenges facing rights-based environmental and animal advocacy.

Publication in a Changing Landscape

Perhaps the most challenging aspect of the editorial process was the rapidly changing political landscape. The Journal's commitment to publishing timely, relevant scholarship meant that articles required constant updates as policies shifted. This was particularly evident in pieces dealing with federal land management, where, as anyone who reads GWC blog posts knows, there has been some regulatory change afoot over the last six months.

Still, the team's dedication to accuracy and timeliness and the authors鈥� hard work in keeping us up to date meant that what began as symposium presentations slowly but surely evolved into forward-looking scholarship that remains relevant even as the political landscape continues to shift.

A Labor of Love

The Martz Symposium issue represents more than just a collection of articles鈥攊t's a testament to the power of bringing together diverse voices to address our most pressing environmental challenges. From the distinguished speakers who trusted the Journal with their ideas to the student editors who worked tirelessly to bring those ideas to print, Volume 36, Issue 2 stands as a collaborative achievement and capstone on the return of the Martz Symposium.

Now, go read it yourself!

Volume 36, Issue 2 of the Colorado Environmental Law Journal is now available at scholar.law.colorado.edu/celj. Recordings of the symposium presentations can be found on the Getches-Wilkinson Center's YouTube channel.

Off

Traditional

White

Rapid Assessment of the Senate鈥檚 Proposal to Sell Off Public Lands

Annie Carlozzi — Wed, 18 Jun 2025 16:59:32 +0000

Rapid Assessment of the Senate鈥檚 Proposal to Sell Off Public Lands Annie Carlozzi Wed, 06/18/2025 - 10:59

Chris Winter

The Getches-Wilkinson Center has published a white paper that provides a rapid assessment of a proposal from the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee to mandate the sale of federal public lands. This proposal was being considered as a part of an expedited budget reconciliation process with little to no meaningful public engagement.

A Rapid Assessment of the Senate鈥檚 Proposal to Sell Off Public Lands

The updated white paper published on June 25, 2025 analyzes updated Senate language that was made available to the public on the same day.

The earlier version of the white paper dated June 18, 2025 can be viewed here.

On June 29, 2025, Senator Mike Lee from Utah announced that he was pulling the proposed sell-off of public lands form the budget reconciliation passage. His decision comes after several republican lawmakers from western states stated that they would oppose the reconciliation package if the sell-off was included in the bill.

Many million acres of public land were at risk under this proposal, and 1.2 million acres across the west could have be privatized in only 10 years. The resulting sell off would have threatened drinking water for rural communities, cultural resources valued by Tribes and Indigenous people, recreational access, wildlife habitat, and many other important ecosystem services that support rural economies and communities.

In addition, the sell-off proposal would have marked a dramatic departure from existing public land law and policy in the United States, which requires the retention of federal public lands and management of those resources according to multiple use, sustained yield principles for the benefit of the American public. Existing law carefully circumscribes when public lands can be sold to private parties, ensuring that those transactions are designed to further the public interest in public lands and that any proceeds are reinvested into conservation and recreation. The Senate ENR proposal would have waived these existing legal protections and instead sold off federal public land to fund the federal government and offset tax breaks.

If you have questions, please contact Chris Winter, Executive Director at chris.winter@colorado.edu.

Colorado Law students at Corona Arch in Southeast Utah, which could be sold off to a private developer under the current proposal

Off

Traditional

White

Turning Hindsight into Foresight: The Colorado River at a Crossroads

Annie Carlozzi — Tue, 17 Jun 2025 16:13:35 +0000

Turning Hindsight into Foresight: The Colorado River at a Crossroads Annie Carlozzi Tue, 06/17/2025 - 10:13

Jacob Lehrman

On Thursday, June 5^th and Friday, June 6^th, the Getches-Wilkinson Center and the Water & Tribes Initiative hosted the 45^th Annual Colorado Law Conference on Natural Resources. As efforts to finalize the post-2026 Interim Guidelines ramp up, the aptly titled Turning Hindsight into Foresight: The Colorado River at a Crossroads gathered attorneys, government officials, tribal leaders, NGO representatives, students, filmmakers, and academics to reflect on the successes and failures of the past to facilitate a discussion of how to better manage the Colorado River in the future.

Day 1 kicked off with inspiring tales of the rich history and culture of the Colorado River by author Craig Childs and professor Patty Limerick. Their impressive storytelling set the mood for the rest of the conference by underscoring the immense value of this natural resource and the importance of ensuring a more sustainable future for the river and the people who rely on it. Soon after, a panel of experts reviewed the legal principles and agreements that shaped the last set of rules for managing the Colorado River. Paired with insightful questions from the audience, the result was a truly interactive and stimulating experience.

The following presentations, which centered on the role of agriculture in shaping the region鈥檚 water budget, laid out the harsh reality that without meaningful change there is not enough water available to meet everyone鈥檚 needs. Brian Richter鈥檚 segment, Reconciling the Math of Agricultural Water Use, provided a hard-hitting overview of the numbers that go into agricultural water consumption, a perspective that is ever so vital in setting the course for future management guidelines. Day 1 came to a close with a speech by Roger Fragua from the Flower Hill Institute that highlighted the need for cooperation and compassion, instilling a sense of purpose and commonality that perfectly teed up a lovely happy hour reception.

Day 2 began with an update from tribal leaders and representatives on their current situations and concerns for the future. For much of our history, tribal voices have been excluded from the decision-making process, so it was deeply impactful to hear their perspectives shared with clarity, strength, and vision. Next on the agenda was a film screening of What the River Knows that not only shined a light on the environmental and cultural significance of Glen Canyon, but it gave the audience an opportunity to appreciate the raw beauty of the region through stunning cinematography and documentation. Rounding out day 2, presentations from state and federal officials uncovered the competing interests of the varied stakeholders that rely on the Colorado River. Despite some disagreements, the overarching theme of cooperation and understanding gave way to a sense of hope that an equitable agreement is within reach.

Bringing the conference to a close was a discussion on the long-term goals and aspirations for successful management of the Colorado River. Turning hindsight into foresight, this panel reflected one last time on where we came from and how those lessons of the past can empower us to achieve a brighter future and ensure the health of the Colorado River for generations to come.

Off

Traditional

White

New GWC Scholarship Explores Renewables on Public Lands

Annie Carlozzi — Mon, 16 Jun 2025 15:40:07 +0000

New GWC Scholarship Explores Renewables on Public Lands Annie Carlozzi Mon, 06/16/2025 - 09:40

Chris Winter and Obie Johnson

The Getches-Wilkinson Center is pleased to announce the publication of a thought-provoking article, 鈥淔acilitating a Green Future? Permitting Reforms and Renewables on Public Lands,鈥� co-authored by Chris Winter, Executive Director of the Getches-Wilkinson Center, and Obie Johnson, a Colorado Law student and Wyss Scholar.

The piece was featured as the lead article in the spring 2025 issue of the American Bar Association鈥檚 Natural Resources & Environment journal and explores recent federal permitting reforms aimed at expanding renewable energy development on federal public lands. In recent years, the United States has accelerated its transition to a clean energy future, increasing the demand for new wind, solar, and transmission infrastructure. The article discusses many of the legal and policy initiatives spearheaded by the Biden Administration to facilitate the development of clean energy infrastructure on public lands.

Winter and Johnson highlight the tension between the development of clean energy infrastructure and the need to protect wildlife habitat and other natural resource values. They evaluate recent permitting reforms implemented under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and highlight how these new policies attempt to balance these important objectives across federal public lands.

Since the article was written, a new Administration that is less supportive of clean energy and conservation has taken office, prompting rapid changes to the legal and policy landscape. Despite these political dynamics, the long-term market trends still favor clean energy, though the full impacts of the Administration鈥檚 new policy agenda remain uncertain.

This publication reflects the GWC鈥檚 ongoing commitment to supporting scholarship and policy work that addresses the most pressing challenges in natural resources, energy, and environmental law. We are especially proud to highlight the contributions of student co-author Obie Johnson, whose work as a Wyss Scholar exemplifies the next generation of leadership in land conservation. The Wyss Scholars Program at Colorado Law School is made possible by the generous support and partnership of the Wyss Foundation.

Read the full article online:
Chris Winter and Obie Johnson, Facilitating a Green Future? Permitting Reforms and Renewables on Public Lands, ABA Natural Resources & Environment, Vol. 39, No. 1 (2025)

Read or download the full article PDF:
Chris Winter and Obie Johnson, Facilitating a Green Future? Permitting Reforms and Renewables on Public Lands, ABA Natural Resources & Environment, Vol. 39, No. 1 (2025)

To learn more about the GWC鈥檚 research and student programs, visit www.colorado.edu/center/gwc or contact us directly.

Off

Traditional

White

Getches-Wilkinson Center Defends the Endangered Species Act

Annie Carlozzi — Tue, 20 May 2025 14:41:41 +0000

Getches-Wilkinson Center Defends the Endangered Species Act Annie Carlozzi Tue, 05/20/2025 - 08:41

The Getches-Wilkinson Center recently partnered with almost 40 law professors from around the country to defend the Endangered Species Act from a regulatory rollback proposed by the Trump Administration. For more than 40 years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has prohibited the modification of habitat that incidentally causes the 鈥渢ake鈥� of a listed species. Thus, projects like timber sales, dam construction, water withdrawals, pesticide applications, construction projects and other activities that impact habitat for listed species have been regulated by FWS and subject to review and/or modification to mitigate impacts to the species and its habitat.

Recently, however, the Trump Administration is proposing to rollback these long-standing protections for habitat by redefining the term 鈥渉arm鈥� under the ESA, which is included in the definition of take. Since 1981, FWS has defined 鈥渉arm鈥� to include modification of habitat that actually harms or injures a listed species 鈥� i.e., harm that is 鈥渋ncidental鈥� to otherwise lawful activity. Recently, however, the Trump Administration proposed to rescind that regulatory definition of harm and, in the process, significantly narrow the federal government鈥檚 interpretation of the ESA鈥檚 protections for imperiled species. Under this new interpretation of the statute, the ESA would prohibit only the 鈥渄irect application of force鈥� to a listed species and not impacts that result incidentally from modification of habitat.

GWC worked with the law professors to submit detailed comments opposing this new interpretation of the ESA and making two key points.

First, the law professors explained that the FWS鈥檚 interpretation of the statute 鈥� the definition of 鈥渢ake鈥� 鈥� is incorrect. Sections 7 and 10 of the ESA create review and approval processes that explicitly apply to activities that modify habitat, thus demonstrating Congress鈥檚 clear intent to prohibit and regulate incidental take.

Second, the law professors explained that FWS must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and prepare an environmental impact statement prior to amending the ESA regulations. This substantive change to FWS鈥檚 interpretation of the ESA would have far reaching impacts to imperiled species across the country, and FWS must consider and disclose those environmental effects prior to amending the regulation.

You can read the comments here. Please reach out to GWC Executive Director Chris Winter if you have any questions on this evolving issue under the ESA.

Off

Traditional

White

Spring Break on the Colorado Plateau

Annie Carlozzi — Tue, 22 Apr 2025 00:40:34 +0000

Spring Break on the Colorado Plateau Annie Carlozzi Mon, 04/21/2025 - 18:40

Obie Johnson

The Colorado Plateau had thirteen additional spring visitors this year. More conspicuous in our convoy of rental cars than the migratory geese that loudly pronounce spring鈥檚 arrival, at times more inebriated than the craftiest fermenters of the berries on the now-blooming Utah Junipers, and with a palpable conviction to protect public lands, our group of thirteen from the Natural Resources Law Seminar enjoyed an incredible spring break on the Plateau. Because of the pure enjoyment I had, I鈥檓 happy to briefly reflect on what I鈥檝e drawn from the experience in this blog post. I had never particularly enjoyed long road trips, probably thanks to one-too-many car rides with my family to youth soccer tournaments, but my reservations were erased by some combination of the spectacular landscapes, even more spectacular company, and inspiring conversations with stakeholders particularly impacted by the Plateau鈥檚 environmental issues. You can imagine a Floridian鈥檚 amazement at the Plateau鈥檚 Martian landscapes.

These stakeholders and underlying environmental issues are at the roots of our Seminar. We spent the early months of the semester teaching our fellow classmates about these issues鈥攊ncluding overgrazing, mining, and water scarcity, among others in a seemingly inexhaustible list鈥攚ith the hopefully not-too-frequent corrections of our professors, Mark Squillace and Chris Winter. Each of these topic matters were selected with the trip in mind so that we could speak constructively during meetings with the impacted groups on the plateau. Well, some of the groups; despite our best efforts, we couldn鈥檛 quite speak with the wildlife, though I鈥檓 sure some of us would have liked to tell the ducks and coyotes to quiet down at 4 or 5am. Nor could we speak to the endangered California Condor that sat pensively on the Navajo Bridge鈥檚 railings, as if to take in the great views of the Grand Canyon that its species was so nearly deprived of.

With the trip in the rearview mirror, I鈥檇 like to underscore a few challenges in our current management of public lands that I am impassioned to work through as a Wyss Scholar. Within the broad category of the struggle between development and the protection of environmental and cultural resources, there is a critical need to prioritize tribal sovereignty in public lands management. For many in our group, the highlight of the trip was the opportunity to speak to various Navajo and Hopi people about the issues of past and future development. Tribal nations continue to feel the impacts of development that proceeds without their control, whether that be groundwater pollution from uranium or coal mines for which the Navajo and Hopi nations received below-market royalties or efforts to strip protections for Bears Ears National Monument. In this sense, environmental law seems inseparable from human rights law. Take the Hopi people, for example, who emerged from the Grand Canyon and consider it the heart to which the Colorado River pumps life. Now restricted to a reservation that does not include the Grand Canyon (that these tribes have been removed from much of their ancestral lands underscores the inseparability of environmental and human rights law), do you think non-tribal entities adequately respected Hopi sovereignty when nearly damming the Grand Canyon in the 1960s? When precluding them and other tribes from decision-making authority during the upper and lower basin negotiations for Colorado River allocations? Mere consultation is insufficient, lest the process turn into a procedural box-checking exercise for the Government without any teeth to shape the outcome.

Now, not only are market forces continuing to drive demand for renewable energy infrastructure and the mining of critical minerals on public lands, but the Trump administration is taking every step to increase fossil fuel extraction. And while the former can be (but is not always) justified with prudent siting, deference to tribal sovereignty, and a need to combat climate change, the latter is premised on a faux 鈥渆nergy emergency.鈥� Either way, development seems to be on an upward trajectory, which makes it even more concerning that this administration has proposed to, among many other things (see Secretarial Order No. 3418), rescind the Public Lands Rule and various Endangered Species Act protections. Because of these trends, our group was even more thankful to hear from leaders at the forefront of protecting our public lands, such as Neal Clark and the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

I鈥檝e become more thoughtful about the balance between recreation and preservation of the West since our trip. Perhaps it hit me on the trail to Horseshoe Bend, a few miles downstream of Glen Canyon Dam, which felt more like an obstacle course as we navigated a sea of people. Is the Horseshoe Bend viewpoint diminished by the constant flow of tourists who enjoy easy access from the adjacent parking lot? Does so formulaically regulating entry detract from the natural experience? Probably, but that presupposes that there still existed a natural experience to detract from, which is unlikely given the Glen Canyon Dam鈥檚 similarly formulaic regulation of the Colorado River鈥檚 flow through the sandstone walls of Horseshoe Bend. Either way, this raises an important consideration in public lands management to which there is no universally correct answer: how do we balance recreation and accessibility with the preservation of wild areas? There is an inherent tension here: increased access to scenic areas stokes conservation-mindedness yet may impair or degrade the very areas people leave with a deeper respect for. This is why The Access Fund鈥檚 work, for example, is so important; work at the margins like maintaining a trail can prevent the formation of social trails that trample wildlife, biotic crust, and increase erosion. We enjoyed a great hike in Indian Creek with some of their trail workers, learning about all of the work that is taken for granted to funnel hikers and climbers away from social trails. The impact of this work despite its granularity makes you wonder what our environmental agencies could do if their collective budgets weren鈥檛 being cut from ~$90 billion to ~$30 billion over the next decade by this Congress! If I were writing the checks, I鈥檇 certainly place my faith in people like Lena Pace, superintendent for Arches and Canyonlands national parks, who remarkably had answers for even our most incisive questions despite being just one year into her superintendency.

Finally, I鈥檇 like to encourage others to take this course. If we were to round up any student on the fence about pursuing environmental law, or those inclined to practice on the side of environmental law that will earn more in salary than in protection of the environment, and put them on this trip, I can鈥檛 help but think we鈥檇 return with more allies in preserving public lands. In that vein, thank you to the Getches-Wilkinson Center and the school for making possible such an unforgettable experience, thank you to Chris and Mark for such thoughtful and surprisingly smooth planning (apart from the many U-turns made), and thank you to the many stakeholders we spoke with throughout the trip for their insights!

Off

Traditional

White

Colorado Plateau Trip Reflections

Annie Carlozzi — Tue, 22 Apr 2025 00:24:43 +0000

Colorado Plateau Trip Reflections Annie Carlozzi Mon, 04/21/2025 - 18:24

Andrea Shipton

In March, I had the pleasure of spending a week on the Colorado Plateau with fellow students and professors from the Advanced Natural Resources Law Seminar. The Colorado Plateau 鈥� a heart-shaped desert region encompassing portions of Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Arizona 鈥� is home to some of the most unique landscapes and wildlife in the entire nation. In the fall of 2023, I took my first visit to the Plateau for a canyoneering trip and was immediately hooked. From the hoodoos of Goblin Valley State Park to the deep canyon walls of Dead Horse State Park to the iconic arches of Arches National Park, I loved traversing the region鈥檚 slickrock trails to explore red-rock features that absolutely blew my east-coast mind.

While the Colorado Plateau is certainly beautiful, it also faces many of the nation鈥檚 greatest natural resources challenges. These issues 鈥� specifically, how to manage these landscapes amidst climate change and increases in public popularity 鈥� are what encouraged me to study natural resources law in the first place. They鈥檙e what drew me to take this seminar and what drew me to apply for the Wyss Scholars Program, since I hope to devote my career to learning about and addressing these issues. Especially at a time where executive orders are opening up public lands for logging, the future of National Monuments remains unclear, and states like Utah are jockeying to claim ownership of 鈥渦nappropriated鈥� federal lands, these landscapes need scientists, scholars, lawyers and other passionate folks to advocate for their protection.

On the seminar trip, our class met with many of these local advocates of the Colorado Plateau. One of my favorite conversations of the whole trip happened on day one, when we met with Lena Pace, Superintendent of Arches and Canyonlands National Parks and Hovenweep and Natural Bridges National Monuments. She spoke of the delicate balance between managing Parks for the twin purposes of public recreation and conservation, as well as preserving the 鈥渨ilderness feel鈥� while also keeping recreators safe. She pointed to tools like timed-entry permit systems to control visitation to popular areas, and keeping fees at a price that helps fund the parks but doesn鈥檛 erect barriers to use. I was also struck by many of our conversations with the Hopi, and the unique challenges of being a nation completely surrounded by another nation (Navajo Nation), affected by severe poverty, and facing serious issues regarding reliable water quality and supply. I really enjoyed getting to meet Vernon Masayesva of the Coyote Clan, a former Tribal Chairman and Founder of the Black Mesa Trust, who played a gigantic role in shutting down power plants and mines that were polluting and drying up Hopi waters.

I really enjoyed getting to personally experience the landscapes I鈥檝e learned so much about in the classroom. After three nights spent inside Bear鈥檚 Ears National Monument, I just can鈥檛 fathom a world where these lands cease to be protected by the Antiquities Act or are otherwise opened up to development. One of my favorite ways to explore new landscapes is through trail running, and my sunrise trail runs through the Indian Creek portion of Bears Ears, where I watched rock cliffs and spires light up in fiery red blazes, is something I鈥檒l never forget for the rest of my life. Hiking to panels of petroglyphs, ancient granaries, and other archaeological sites also really cemented the importance of large-scale protection of these landscapes for cultural reasons. I enjoyed getting to spend an afternoon rock climbing in this beautiful region too 鈥� learning how to crack climb from a law school professor is an opportunity I never could have imagined pre-law school, especially in such a special place.

I am so grateful to everyone who made this trip possible 鈥� from the Getches-Wilkinson Center, to Professors Chris Winter and Mark Squillace, to the people we met with on the Plateau, to donors, and to my fellow classmates who made this trip so enjoyable. This trip has truly stoked the fire in me to continue fighting for the lands, waters, and Tribes of the Colorado Plateau.

I鈥檒l conclude with one of my favorite pre-seminar trip anecdotes about the Plateau: in November of 2023, during thanksgiving break, I ran the Dead Horse Ultra 30K in Moab. About half a mile into the race, as I trudged up a steep section of dirt road, I heard someone say my name 鈥� I looked to my right, and there was Mariah Bowman, Colorado Law鈥檚 2024-25 Wyss Scholar. Unbeknownst to each other, we had signed up for the same distance of the same race, six hours away from Boulder, and before either of us had been named Wyss Scholars. Looking back, I鈥檓 reminded of the importance of these random moments of human connection that I鈥檝e gotten to experience as a law student at Colorado Law. From running into classmates on the trails, to climbing 14ers with them, to skiing before class with them, I鈥檓 so lucky to live in a place where I can immerse myself in my law school studies, in meaningful adventures on public lands, and perhaps most importantly 鈥� study the intersection of the two. I鈥檓 so grateful for the Wyss Foundation for supporting me as I pursue public lands law, and I鈥檓 looking forward to more of these moments on the trail that remind me why public lands are so worth fighting for.

Off

Traditional

White

The Legal Effect of Executive Orders - Professor Panel March 18th

Annie Carlozzi — Mon, 03 Mar 2025 21:07:19 +0000

The Legal Effect of Executive Orders - Professor Panel March 18th Annie Carlozzi Mon, 03/03/2025 - 14:07

A Colorado Law Student Event

Presented by: The Byron White Center, The Getches-Wilkinson Center, and the American Constitution Society

Panelists: Professor Daria Roithmayr, BWC Director Deep Gulasekaram, and GWC Director Chris Winter

Tuesday, March 18th 12-12:50pm in Room 207

Join us for a panel discussion regarding the slurry of executive orders that Trump has passed over the past month that he has been in office, impacting several (if not all) areas of law. This panel's purpose is to discuss each of the executive orders, how they compare to those in previous administrations, and the extend of the orders' legal impact. Lunch will be provided, so please arrive early to grab your food and a seat!

Off

Traditional

White

WDEP Shared Governance Committee Final Report

Anonymous — Thu, 24 Oct 2024 00:17:05 +0000

WDEP Shared Governance Committee Final Report Anonymous (not verified) Wed, 10/23/2024 - 18:17

Nadav Orian Peer

In 2024, the Getches-Wilkinson Center and the Boulder Faculty Assembly Climate Science and Education Committee (CSEC) co-chaired a shared governance committee regarding campus energy and climate policy. The Committee was nominated by the University鈥檚 Chief Operating Officer to review and, if appropriate, recommend alternatives to the University鈥檚 plans to upgrade the Western District Energy Plant (WDEP). The Committee's nomination was followed by an open letter expressing concerns with the climate impacts of the WDEP upgrade and signed by over 460 CU community members.

On March 21, 2024, the WDEP Shared Governance Committee submitted its Preliminary Recommendation Report to the Chief Operating Officer. In its Preliminary Report, the Committee recommended that the University not go forward with its original upgrade plan for WDEP, citing the increase in greenhouse gas emissions that would result from that plan, and the availability of alternative options to meet campus resilience needs in a cost-feasible way. In July 2024, the University rejected the Committee's recommendation and approved the original WDEP upgrade plan. In October 2024, the Committee released its Final Report, addressing the University's claims and documenting concerns with the University's decision-making process around WDEP. The key findings from that Final Report are reproduced below.

The Committee's reports can be accessed here:

Download the Final Report

Download the Preliminary Recommendation Report

Download Additional Questions from the Committee

***

Summary Findings from the WDEP Committee Finding Report

The University鈥檚 original program plan for the WDEP project was written without adequate alternatives analysis, which is essential to adequate environmental decision making.
The University鈥檚 original WDEP plan (Option 2E) was developed with a lack of understanding of the regulatory flexibility offered by the explicit language of Reg 7. The University鈥檚 perception that Option 2E was required to ensure campus resilience likely resulted from that misunderstanding.
In its Preliminary Report, the Committee found that Option A1 provides similar resilience benefits to the University鈥檚 Option 2E. The University continued to claim that compelling resilience needs required the adoption of Option 2E despite detailed analysis by the Committee to the contrary when considering the regulatory flexibility in Reg 7. The University did not provide the Committee with any data or analysis supporting its claim.
The University claims Option 2E is required to protect continuity of mission critical research. Under the University鈥檚 own Energy Master Plan, that goal is supposed to be achieved by other means, which the University has not yet implemented.
In the program plan it submitted to the CU Board of Regents (Fall 2023, see here), the University did not take into consideration the additional greenhouse gas emissions that would result from Option 2E relative to the business-as-usual assumptions in its 2024 climate action planning. In this program plan, the University also highlighted carbon reduction benefits of the plan that are 鈥�...likely [to] hold true until at least 2030.鈥�2 According to the Committee鈥檚 review of the University鈥檚 models, those emissions reductions are small and short-lived. Meanwhile, the University did not alert the Board of Regents to more substantial increases in carbon emissions that the plan would represent relative to the business-as-usual scenario in the long-term.
The University鈥檚 program plan included several additional claims that were incorrect and/or incomplete based on available data. It is possible that if the Regents had received more accurate and complete information, they would have invested greater resources in finding an alternative to the University鈥檚 plan. For example:
- The University claimed that Option 2E will replace 鈥渆xisting 30-year-old combustion turbines鈥� (p. 3), without mentioning the turbines have been rebuilt in 2013, and had very little depreciation on them given minimal use since 2013;
- The University claimed (p.4) that Option 2E aligns with the University鈥檚 2021 Energy Master Plan (EMP), despite the fact that the EMP explicitly planned to avoid base loaded cogeneration starting 2027, given GHG considerations (see here, p. 52; note that at the time the EMP was finalized, Reg 7 which the University claims precipitated the need for Option 2E was already in force);
- Under the heading 鈥淪ustainable Design鈥�, the University highlighted the possibility of reconfiguring the new turbines 鈥渢o operate on alternative fuels like hydrogen or other cleaner burning fuel sources鈥� (p. 4), even though it is widely accepted that hydrogen does not provide a feasible source of energy for heating for environmental, economic, and other reasons.
Concerns regarding the University鈥檚 recent planning to upgrade WDEP should also be understood in the context of WDEP鈥檚 role in the University鈥檚 failure to achieve its 2020 climate targets. As the Committee noted in its preliminary report (p. 9): 鈥淭he minimal use of cogen throughout the 2010s substantially contributed to the University鈥檚 miss of its 2020 climate target. With the grid expected to become cleaner than cogen by 2029, there is a risk that once again the University will find itself using the less climate friendly option for energy generation. In other words, the University that did not baseload cogeneration when it was climate friendly to do so will shift to baseloaded cogeneration just when it is no longer climate friendly to do so.鈥� The University did not provide the community with adequate transparency regarding the minimal use of cogeneration during the 2010s. That minimal use ran counter to the University鈥檚 planning under the 2009 Conceptual Plan for Carbon Neutrality (see Preliminary Report, pp. 4-5).
The desire to obtain federal tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was, according to the University, an important factor in its decision to pursue Option 2E, as well as the timing for its decision. Nevertheless, the University did not carry out the necessary analysis regarding eligibility requirement for the credit. To the Committee鈥檚 understanding, the University lacked such analysis as late as June 2024, even though concerns were flagged by the Committee in March 2024.
The University used contradictory assumptions in its financial analysis and its climate analysis. The contradictory assumptions created a biased impression regarding the financial benefits of the University鈥檚 Option 2E. On the one hand, the University claimed its intention to reduce the excess emissions of Option 2E over Option A1 through an early phase-out of baseloaded cogeneration. On the other hand, for its lifecycle cost analysis, the University assumed that baseloaded cogeneration would continue in the long run, resulting in financial benefits to the University over Option A1. The University should not use two contradictory sets of assumptions, one to claim financial advantages (assuming long-term base-loading), then another to try to limit the increase in emissions (assuming a shift away from baseload generation, presumably as early as 2029).
The University did not share with the Committee a campus load-curve, which is essential for energy planning. Despite repeated Committee requests, the University did not corroborate its claim regarding peak-load of 200 kpph steam needs.
While the University鈥檚 Climate Action Plan assumes a 30% decline in campus energy consumption, the University planning for WDEP assumed peak demand would remain constant long into the future. The University was not willing to engage with the Committee regarding options to reduce peak-load through demand-side management.
The University鈥檚 claims that Option 2E will reduce campus NOx emissions by 50% relative to current emissions has not been supported by data. While the turbines the University plans to install under Option 2E have lower NOx emissions intensity than the existing turbines, the existing turbines are only operated by the University on rare occasions. In distinction, under the University plan, the new turbines will be used continuously for base-loaded cogeneration. The University did not present an analysis of the absolute levels of NO x emissions that would result from its plan to support the claim of 50% reduction.
While claiming to be committed to shared-governance principles, the University essentially ignored the Committee鈥檚 Preliminary Report, instead repeating claims (including publicly) that were found and documented by the Committee to be incorrect based on available data. The University refused to share relevant planning documents, or to engage the Committee in a meaningful review of the materials that the University developed in April-May 2024.
The University鈥檚 lack of cooperation with the Committee during April-May 2024, hindered the work of the Committee, and, among other things, hindered the development of additional alternatives to the University鈥檚 Option 2E, which may have been even more favorable than Option A1.
There was no urgency for the University to finalize its decision by the original April 1 deadline, or by July 2024, as later claimed by the University. Given the regulatory flexibility identified by the Committee, the University鈥檚 resiliency needs were met at all times and there was no threat that they would be unmet in the coming years. Further, as discussed in the Preliminary Report, eligibility for tax credits did not present a consideration justifying expediting the decision without appropriate analysis and consideration of alternatives. At the end, the University delayed its decision beyond its original April 1 deadline, but also failed to cooperate with the Committee to develop additional alternatives after April 1.

Off

Traditional

White

It鈥檚 Time to Amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to include Tribal River Protections

Anonymous — Mon, 16 Sep 2024 23:36:23 +0000

It鈥檚 Time to Amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to include Tribal River Protections Anonymous (not verified) Mon, 09/16/2024 - 17:36

A co-published blog by American Rivers and the Getches-Wilkinson Center at Colorado Law.

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 has been the preeminent tool to protect free-flowing rivers in the United States since it was passed more than 50 years ago. Under the Act, rivers with 鈥渙utstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values,鈥� as well as their immediate environments, are protected from dams and other potential harms. In spite of its success, the Act largely omits Tribes, failing to give Native Nations the authority to designate, manage, and co-manage Wild and Scenic rivers within their own boundaries and on ancestral lands. Correction of this omission is long overdue, both in terms of equity and the long-term benefit to rivers.

A current example of this omission was brought to our attention through conversations with Indigenous community members along the Little Colorado River (LCR) in Arizona. The LCR was threatened in recent years by a series of pumped-storage hydropower projects proposed on Navajo Nation lands by non-Indigenous developers, and against the will of the Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, and others who find the LCR culturally important. Historically, under the Federal Power Act, proposed hydropower projects have been given a preliminary permit on tribal trust lands by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) against the will of the Tribe whose land the projects would be located on. Indigenous community advocates understandably wanted to know, 鈥淲hat can we do to permanently protect the Little Colorado River from these unwanted hydropower projects?鈥�

Confluence of the Colorado and Little Colorado Rivers within Grand Canyon Photo Credit: Rachel Ellis

Designating a river under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is a powerful defense against unwanted dams and diversions鈥搃t is the only designation that prevents new dams and diversions on designated rivers. The problem is that since Tribes were largely omitted from the 1968 Act, they were not given the power to designate or manage Wild and Scenic rivers, even on their own lands. That management power currently defaults to the National Park Service, even when a designated river is on tribal lands. To say that this is a disincentive for Tribes to utilize the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to protect their rivers is an understatement.

And that鈥檚 not all. As the Table below shows, Tribes don鈥檛 even have some of the powers that have been given to states and private parties under the Act, such as the ability to petition the Secretary of Interior to give Wild and Scenic protections to state-protected rivers, or the ability to receive funding and technical assistance, which both private parties and states can. Co-management/co-stewardship agreements and cooperative agreements are also not explicitly authorized for Tribes in the Act, which is a potential disincentive for federal agencies to explore such agreements with willing, interested, and knowledgeable Tribes.

Entities and their Authorizations in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968

	Tribes	States	Private Parties
May Petition Interior for Designation?	No	Yes 16 U.S.C. 搂 1273(a)(ii)	No
Study Participation Required?	No	Yes 16 U.S.C. 搂 1276(c)	No
Cooperative Agreements Explicitly Authorized?	No*	Yes 16 U.S.C. 搂 1281(e)	Yes 16 U.S.C. 搂 1282(b)(1)
May Receive Funding and Technical Assistance?	No	Yes 16 U.S.C. 搂 1282	Yes 16 U.S.C. 搂 1282(b)(1)
Protection from Land Acquisition?	Yes** 16 U.S.C. 搂 1277(a)(1)	Yes 16 U.S.C. 搂 1277(a)(1),(b),(c)	Yes 16 U.S.C. 搂 1277(b),(c),(g)

*Note that section 10(e) of the WSRA [16 U.S.C. 搂 1281(e)] has been used to authorize cooperative agreements with tribes, although tribes are not explicitly mentioned in the statute. This has led to an underutilization of cooperative agreements with tribes.

**Under the legacy language of the WSRA, tribes are only protected from land acquisition if they are managing rivers in ways that do not conflict with the Act. Our amendments suggest striking this outdated and inappropriate legacy language.

As sovereign nations, Tribes should at least have the power that states and NGOs have regarding river designations. Tribes should be able to manage Wild and Scenic Rivers on their lands, ask the Secretary of Interior to include rivers protected by Tribes under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, be formally authorized to engage in co-stewardship agreements with federal agencies, and have the ability to receive funding and technical assistance when managing rivers on their lands.

Correcting the omission of Tribes in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act remains long overdue. We heard from both legal scholars and tribal communities that creating a well-researched, draft proposal鈥攚hich you can download here鈥攚ould be the best way to begin an informed conversation. This is in no way intended to be a finished product, but meant to engage Tribes, advocates, and legal thinkers in what might be possible, and in turn help us make that a reality.

Lamar River Valley, Montana Photo Credit: Mike Fiebig

We also realize that proposing to amend a bedrock natural resources law is no small undertaking, and not without some risks. The structure of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act makes amending the Act easier and less risky than amending other similar laws. Currently, each new river designation is added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System through an amendment to the original Act, which means that a new Wild and Scenic designation by a Tribe that includes these proposed amendments would be all that would be necessary to implement them. Furthermore, the Concept Paper proposes extending existing authorities to Tribes through the addition of new sections in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, not changes to existing protections that have been settled law for over 50 years.

In this way, and with your help, we not only propose to retain the protections that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act has afforded outstanding free-flowing rivers across the county for the last half century, but to expand the ability for Tribes to utilize those same protections to safeguard free-flowing rivers of cultural and ecological importance into the future. Now is the time to address the omission of Tribes in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and other bedrock natural resources laws. Doing so would be a measure of restorative justice, while also benefiting Tribes and all life which depends on rivers.

Please download and read the Concept Paper and Draft Model Legislation, and let us know what you think. We look forward to hearing from you.

Click HERE to download a PDF of the Concept Paper and Draft Model Legislation. Please send feedback, questions, and comments to info@tribalwildandscenic.org or through our website www.tribalwildandscenic.org.

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Amendments Project was founded in 2021 by American Rivers, the Grand Canyon Trust, and the Getches-Wilkinson Center in response to Indigenous advocates seeking a tool to protect culturally and ecologically important rivers on Tribal lands from FERC-licensed hydropower projects. More input from Tribes, river advocates, and legal scholars is being sought for the next phase of this project.

Off

Traditional

White