The Moon Is Ours: How the Outer Space Treaty Protects Humanity’s Collective Interests in Celestial Bodies

By Kacie Smith

On September 6, 2026, President Donald Trump shared an image of the moon on his Truth Social account, with image text that stated, “THE MOON IS OURS,” followed by an American flag emoji.[1] From there, coverage of the post spread across multiple social media platforms,[2] and some online news websites published articles with titles implying that the President’s social media post indicated a decisive shift in United States space policy.[3] That is unlikely to be the case. Many of these news sources correctly named the Outer Space Treaty (OST) as the legal foundation protecting the moon from U.S. ownership.[4] A closer inspection of the OST and the body of associated international space law reveals what rights the U.S. has with respect to fair use and exploration of the moon and other celestial bodies.

The OST is the first of five U.N. international space treaties that aim to secure international cooperation in peaceful space exploration and the preservation of space as a resource for the benefit of all people.[5] The OST, also known in long form as the “Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,”[6] is based on a United Nations declaration from 1962.[7] The OST was put before the U.N. Legal Subcommittee for review, revision, and approval in 1966.[8] Then, in 1967, the OST entered into force backed by the three most influential spacefaring nations[9] of that era: Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. As of January 1, 2026, a total of 118 countries have ratified, accepted, or otherwise formally bound themselves to the OST[10] as “States Parties”[11] to this treaty. These States’ activities involving the moon, space, and other celestial bodies are subject to the OST. The U.S. was an instrumental force in the development of this treaty[12] and remains voluntarily bound today.[13]

The verbiage of the OST very clearly states that signatory States cannot lay claims of sovereignty on celestial bodies, including the moon.[14] This rather neatly dismisses the claim of outright U.S. ownership of the moon that is currently making the rounds on social media. That said, under the OST, the U.S. and other States still have rights to access and use the moon for certain purposes—regardless of ownership status of the moon itself. For example, under Article I of the OST the States are free to explore and access all areas of celestial bodies including the moon and free to conduct scientific investigations in those areas.[15] Article IV restricts military establishment or weapons testing on the moon but allows for military personnel to be present for scientific research.[16] Article VI imposes responsibility on States for the actions of any non-governmental entities that perform any activities in outer space, including on celestial bodies.[17] A broad reading of Article VIII allows for States to build structures on the moon, and retain ownership of the structures, without assuming any ownership of the celestial body beneath the structure.[18] Further, Article XII states that any facilities or installations on the moon are required to be open to visits from representatives of other States Parties, which cuts both against and in favor of State development on celestial bodies.[19] Clearly, because the U.S. is a State Party to the OST, the U.S. and any other non-governmental entities that appropriately fall under U.S. responsibility have meaningful access to the moon for peaceful purposes, even without a claim of U.S. sovereignty on the moon.

There are four other U.N. treaties relating to outer space activities: the Rescue Agreement,[20] the Liability Convention,[21] the Registration Convention,[22] and the Moon Agreement.[23] Interestingly, of the five international space treaties that fall under the U.N. purview, there is only one treaty that the U.S. has neither signed nor ratified: the Moon Agreement.[24]

The Moon Agreement (MA) attempts to further define and restrict allowable State activities on celestial bodies within our solar system, expanding on the foundation set by the OST and the other three U.N. treaties.[25] Where the OST makes no mention of the exploitation of celestial resources or the preservation of existing celestial environments, the MA specifically names these concerns.[26] Other key additions under the MA include reporting requirements for State activities[27] and scientific discoveries,[28] and limitations on the construction of manned and unmanned stations.[29] The MA also proposes the establishment of an “international regime” to oversee safe development of the moon and to manage resources rationally and equitably.[30] Thematically, the MA strongly emphasizes the need to protect the interests of future generations, and discourages the destruction of natural celestial environments. [31] Where the OST promotes even-handed access to celestial resources for all States, the MA attempts to erect guardrails to prevent a tragedy of the commons that may result from self-serving State activities otherwise permissible under the OST alone. The U.S. is not alone in resisting the restrictions proposed by the MA: of the 118 countries that ratified the OST, only 16 have also ratified the MA.[32]

Ultimately, the U.S. remains bound to the OST, and consequently cannot lay claims of sovereignty on the moon or on any other celestial bodies as defined in the OST, regardless of U.S. status under the MA. The OST continues to promote equal access internationally to outer space and celestial bodies and, for “the benefit of all peoples,”[33] the moon is ours

[1] Image posted by Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Truth Social (Sep. 6, 2026), https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/117225384741591978 (on file with author).

[2] Video posted by Daily Mail (@dailymail), Instagram (Sep. 7, 2026), https://www.instagram.com/reel/Dc_BbUnDxNQ/ (on file with author).

[3] Chrys Brent Deiparine, ‘Something is Very Wrong with the President’: Donald Trump Declares ‘The Moon is Ours’ in AI Post, MSN (Sep. 7, 2026), https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/something-is-very-wrong-with-the-president-donald-trump-declares-the-moon-is-ours-in-ai-post/ar-AA2bKYnQ (on file with author).

[4] See Nikki McCann Ramirez, Donald Trump Spent the Weekend Cosplaying as a Supervillain on Truth Social, Rolling Stone, Sep. 7, 2026, https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/donald-trump-weekend-cosplaying-supervillain-truth-social-1235622402/ (on file with author) (“The Moon is — to be clear — universal property belonging to all mankind and no individual nation. The United States signed a treaty agreeing to this in 1967.”).

[5] International Space Law Explained, United Nations: Peace and Security, https://www.un.org/en/peace-and-security/international-space-law-explained (on file with author) (last visited Sep. 26, 2026).

[6] Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, U.N. Off. for Outer Space Affs., https://www.unoosa.org/unoosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html (on file with author) (last visited Sep. 26, 2026).

[7] G.A. Res. 2222 (XXI), annex, Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Dec. 19, 1966).https://www.unoosa.org/unoosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/outerspacetreaty.html.

[8] U.N. Off. for Outer Space Aff., Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, https://www.unoosa.org/unoosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html (last visited Sep. 26, 2026).

[9] G.A. Res. 2222 (XXI), annex, Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Dec. 19, 1966). https://www.unoosa.org/unoosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/outerspacetreaty.html; International Space Law Explained, https://www.un.org/en/peace-and-security/international-space-law-explained (last visited Sep. 26, 2026).

[10] Comm. On the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, Status of International Agreements relating to activities in outer space as at 1 January 2026, Legal Subcomm. on Its Sixty-Fifth Session, U.N. Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/2026/CRP.9/Rev.1 (2026).

[11] G.A. Res. 2222 (XXI), annex, Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Dec. 19, 1966). https://www.unoosa.org/unoosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/outerspacetreaty.html.

[12] G.A. Res. 1348 (XIII), Question of the Peaceful Use of Outer Space, (Dec. 13, 1958), https://www.unoosa.org/unoosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/outerspacetreaty.html; U.S. Dep’t of State, Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies at Narrative, https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/isn/5181.htm#treaty (last visited Sep. 26, 2026).

[13] Comm. On the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, Status of International Agreements relating to activities in outer space as at 1 January 2026, Legal Subcomm. on Its Sixty-Fifth Session, U.N. Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/2026/CRP.9/Rev.1 (2026).

[14] G.A. Res. 2222 (XXI), annex, Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies at Art. II, (Dec. 19, 1966) https://www.unoosa.org/unoosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/outerspacetreaty.html.

[15] Id. at Art. I.

[16] Id. at Art. IV.

[17] Id. at Art. VI.

[18] Id. at Art. VIII.

[19] Id. at Art. XII.

[20] See generally U.N. Off. for Outer Space Aff., Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space, https://www.unoosa.org/unoosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introrescueagreement.html (last visited Sep. 26, 2026).

[21] See generally U.N. Off. for Outer Space Aff., Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introliability-convention.html (last visited Sep. 26, 2026).

[22] See generally U.N. Off. for Outer Space Aff., Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, https://www.unoosa.org/unoosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introregistration-convention.html (last visited Sep. 26, 2026).

[23] See generally U.N. Off. for Outer Space Aff., Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/intromoon-agreement.html (last visited Sep. 26, 2026).

[24] There are sixteen total agreements: five U.N. treaties and eleven other agreements. The U.S. has ratified four of the five U.N. treaties and ratified five of the eleven other agreements. See Comm. On the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, Status of International Agreements relating to activities in outer space as at 1 January 2026, Legal Subcomm. on Its Sixty-Fifth Session, U.N. Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/2026/CRP.9/Rev.1 (2026).

[25] G.A. Res. 34/68, annex, Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, (Dec. 5, 1979), https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/moon-agreement.html.

[26] Id. at Art. 7.

[27] Id. at Art. 5.

[28] Id. at Art. 6.

[29] Id. at Art. 9, Art. 10.

[30] Id. at Art. 11.

[31] Id. at Art. 4.

[32] The Philippines did not ratify the OST and therefore was not included in the original count of 118 countries. For this reason, the Philippines is excluded from this analysis even though they ratified the MA. Comm. On the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, Status of International Agreements relating to activities in outer space as at 1 January 2026, Legal Subcomm. on Its Sixty-Fifth Session, U.N. Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/2026/CRP.9/Rev.1 (2026).

[33] G.A. Res. 2222 (XXI), annex, Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, (Dec. 19, 1966) https://www.unoosa.org/unoosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/outerspacetreaty.html.

Healing the Kennebec: A Once-in-a-Generation Chance for America’s Wild Atlantic Salmon

By Emily Dwight and Kirt Mayland
Photographs by Josh Duplechian

A Once in a Lifetime Opportunity

After decades of failure in trying to make fish passage work at multiple dams, there could finally be a real solution for saving wild Atlantic salmon in America. While they once returned in the hundreds of thousands to every major coastal river north of the Housatonic River in Connecticut, wild Atlantic salmon in the United States have declined to the point where the remaining populations in Maine are listed as endangered and protected under the Endangered Species Act.[1] On September 15, 2025, The Nature Conservancy signed a historic $168 million purchase agreement for the four dams on the lower Kennebec River,[2] which represents more than just an ambitious restoration project for wild Atlantic salmon.

The planned purchase and removal is also a recognition that some problems cannot be engineered around, and now there is the potential for a once-in-a-generation opportunity to correct 100-year-old mistakes. The pattern on the Kennebec has been depressingly familiar. Good people with good intentions have tried again and again to thread an impossible needle: keeping four dams operating while somehow shepherding endangered salmon and other fish past them to their spawning grounds. The results speak for themselves. After nearly three decades under a 1998 settlement agreement that promised “rapid restoration” of fish runs, [3]  there has been neither rapid progress nor meaningful restoration.[4]

The Nature Conservancy’s agreement with Brookfield could change the equation entirely. For the first time, people are not trying to jerry-rig a solution around the problem—they’re addressing it directly. And the timing couldn’t be more critical.  Returning populations of wild Atlantic salmon in the northeastern United States have plummeted to less than 1% of their historic levels, with the only remaining wild populations restricted to a few rivers in Maine, and still threatened by existing dams.[5]  The numerous attempts at multi-dam fish passage have never worked for the anadromous fish – ultimately causing repeated stress and resulting in high mortalities.

The Math Never Added Up

Let’s start with what should have been obvious all along: these four dams—Lockwood, Hydro-Kennebec, Shawmut, and Weston—have a combined generation capacity of approximately 43 megawatts.[6]  Collectively hat represents less than half of one percent of Maine’s total electricity generation, and just six percent of its hydroelectric capacity.[7]

To put this in perspective: Maine has added nearly 2,000 megawatts of solar capacity in recent years and is projected to add another 75- megawatts over the next five years.[8] The entire output of these four dams could be replaced by roughly 250 megawatts of solar paired with battery storage—a technology that is becoming increasingly more cost-effective due to federal tax credits which cover 30-50% of construction costs[9]and which were untouched by the One Big Beautiful Bill.[10]

Meanwhile, these dams rate at the bottom of the energy density scale, inflicting disproportionate environmental damage compared to their meager power contribution, adversely affecting up to 800 miles of river and stream habitat. They sit towards the bottom of the river, in the worst possible location, blocking access to the Sandy River watershed, which contains ideal Atlantic salmon spawning and rearing habitat. The dams are the biological equivalent of a stuck turnstile every few miles on the only road to town.

If hydropower were truly essential in this location (it’s not), another single, properly designed dam with modern and efficient turbines located higher up the river could potentially generate as much power without obliterating salmon populations.  For instance, the Harris Station (aka Indian Pond) Dam, the uppermost hydroelectric dam on the Kennebec, has a capacity of approximately 85 MW,[11] nearly double the capacity of these four dams combined, and if it were upgraded with more powerful turbines, it could potentially produce more.  The decision to build these four dams over a century ago reflected the narrow focus on power generation at the time. The impacts of dams on biological communities in riverine and riparian ecosystems played little role in the decision to construct dams in the early 1900s.[12] These four dams were also constructed long before major federal environmental legislation was passed in the early 1970s, which would have required review of their ecological impacts. The biological needs of migratory fish were overlooked at the time to further the objective of water storage and power generation.[13]

Learning from Failure—And From Success

The failure rates of fish passage for Atlantic salmon, American shad, river herring, and other species on other northeast rivers such as the Susquehanna, Connecticut, and Merrimack tell a sobering story. Multi-dam fish passage systems have utterly failed to restore populations on these rivers despite decades of effort and millions in investment. According to a 2012 study, less than 3 percent of American shad made it past the dams in these rivers to their spawning reaches.[14]  On the Susquehanna, passage efficiency through four dams has often been near zero, with only 8 out of over 10,000 shad making it past the fourth dam in 2014.[15] Similarly, on the Kennebec, the Lockwood fish lift passed just 5 American shad in 2022—out of thousands attempting the journey.[16]

_{Current Trap, Truck, and Release Operations from the Lockwood Dam Fish Lift to the Sandy River}

With an Atlantic salmon run down to 54, the restoration program on the Connecticut and its 5 dams with passage facilities was shut down in 2012, and the program on the Merrimack was abandoned as a failure in 2013.[17]

Salmon can experience weeks of delay at dams with fish passage trying to pass upstream, preventing them from spawning multiple times — a critical factor for population recovery.[18]  Downstream migration for their juveniles is often similarly unsuccessful. If the dams were to remain, even with the passage and performance standards proposed in the federal relicensing filings, the Kennebec Coalition estimated that more than 10 percent of juvenile salmon (smolts) would die swimming downstream. The Coalition further estimated that the same four projects would prevent roughly 15 percent of the returning adults from returning to their spawning habitat.  Even if everything worked perfectly – “if all the wildly optimistic performance standards were met” – there would still be a combined ‘take’ of more than one fifth of each generation of Kennebec River Atlantic salmon, before accounting for natural mortality.[19]

The best available science tells us why: dams don’t just block fish—they fundamentally impact biodiversity and alter river ecosystems.  They create warm man-made lakes that alter the natural flow of the rivers, favoring “pond” species over native, fluvial species, and invite predation by river birds and land mammals.  Destruction cannot be mitigated, only removed. For that reason, from California to New Jersey, 27 states removed 108 dams in 2024[20] as they considered the dams antiquated solutions to both adding new hydroelectric energy generation facilities and restoring fish populations.

Many of these efforts have been successful. Recent results on Oregon’s and California’s Klamath River show what is possible when restoration is chosen over half-measures. Within weeks of removing the final dam in October 2024, over 6,000 Chinook salmon returned to newly accessible habitat—areas they hadn’t reached in over a century.[21]

The news gets even better. In October 2025, monitoring crews confirmed that fall Chinook salmon have made it all the way into the Williamson and Sprague rivers above Upper Klamath Lake— traveling nearly 300 miles upstream for the first time in over 115 years. Scientists have already documented dramatic improvements in water quality, with river temperatures self-moderating, and toxic algae blooms that acted as “heat batteries” in the rivers and reservoirs either shrinking or nearly disappearing. Damon Goodman, Mount Shasta-Klamath regional director for California Trout commented “[t]he rivers seem to come alive almost instantly after dam removal, and fish returned in greater numbers than I expected and maybe anyone expected.”[22]

For the Klamath Tribes, whose members hadn’t witnessed salmon in their ancestral waters for generations, the return has been deeply moving. Tribal Chair William Ray Jr. described their return as “mixed feelings for many tribal members, both rejoicing and a blessing. But also, a certain amount of remorse—all those elders and all those generations that didn’t get to see this happen.” [23]

Closer to home, the Penobscot River’s dam removals sparked an immediate explosion in river herring populations,[24] creating new recreational fishing opportunities and demonstrating that dam removal can coexist with continued hydropower production upstream.

The Kennebec has been called “the Klamath of the East” for good reason. This is a river where removal of aging dams could potentially unlock tremendous ecological and economic potential—and the Klamath’s stunning success shows this isn’t wishful thinking, it is proven science.

What This Deal Makes Possible

The Nature Conservancy’s agreement could change everything. For the first time, there is a realistic path to restoring over 800 miles of pristine spawning habitat, most of it in the Sandy River watershed,[25] arguably the best Atlantic salmon habitat on the East Coast.

The Sandy River represents nearly half of all salmon habitat in the Merrymeeting Bay watershed, and it produces the highest percentage of wild, naturally-reared Atlantic salmon in the country.[26]  But this isn’t just about salmon. The environmental and economic benefits would cascade throughout the region by restoring commercial fisheries, enhancing recreation, restoring ecosystems, and increasing property values.

Restored Commercial Fisheries

Aside from the benefits to Atlantic salmon, other fish such as American shad, river herring, and American eels could potentially return to historical abundance. Maine’s juvenile eel fishery, already worth nearly $20 million annually, despite limited upstream access, is second in value to only the lobster industry.[27] With dam removal, it could expand dramatically. American shad once numbered in the millions in these waters; their return would support valuable fisheries throughout their range.

Ecosystem Restoration

As a result of removing dams on the Penobscot River, approximately 3 million river herring returned.[28]  River herring provide crucial nutrients and forage for healthy watersheds and coastal fisheries—their restoration could help rebuild groundfish populations like cod and halibut that Maine’s fishing communities depend on.[29] The return of marine-derived nutrients from ocean-going fish benefits the entire watershed, from aquatic insects to the birds and wildlife that feed on them.[30] A free-flowing Kennebec could also provide resiliency against the effects of climate change, allowing nature and species that rely on the river to adjust and even thrive unimpeded by engineered obstructions or fixes.

Enhanced Recreation and Increased Property Values

A free-flowing river from the Sandy River to the Gulf of Maine could transform roughly 30 miles of slow, warm water stalled behind the dams and lead to better conditions for recreational kayaking, canoeing, and fishing. After 1999, when Edwards Dam near Augusta was removed, recreational fishing opportunities appeared immediately[31] and continue to thrive today. The Kennebec could become a destination for anglers, paddlers, and wildlife enthusiasts from across the country, generating substantial tourism revenue for riverside communities.

Further, studies show that free-flowing rivers can increase nearby property values. Flowing rivers with active rapids can be more attractive to live by than the stagnant lakes created by and next to hydropower dams. The removal of the Edwards Dam demonstrated this reality, showing a positive effect on riparian property values after dam removal.[32]

Balancing Communities, Energy and Conservation

The Sappi Somerset Mill in Skowhegan, ME, employs 780 people and recently completed a $500 million upgrade. Local municipalities worry about lost tax revenue which may total up to $500,000 annually with the dams’ removal.[33] These are legitimate concerns that deserve serious attention and serious solutions, not dismissal.

The Nature Conservancy has committed to finding solutions that protect both the mill and the river. The newly formed Kennebec River Restoration Trust will work with Sappi and local communities over the next five to ten years to develop plans that meet everyone’s needs.[34] This measured approach provides time for careful planning and community engagement—not the rushed decisions that some fear.

This approach mirrors the successful Penobscot River restoration, where the removal of the Great Works Dam fully funded necessary adjustments to industrial and municipal infrastructure. No mill jobs were lost, no mills closed, and the river dramatically recovered.[35] The same model could work on the Kennebec.

As for energy concerns, the numbers simply do not support claims about a loss in grid reliability. At less than 1% of Maine’s total electricity generation, these dams are nearly irrelevant to the state’s energy security. ISO New England has consistently demonstrated that the grid can absorb the retirement of much larger generation sources. With Maine’s massive solar buildout underway adding capacity equivalent to these four dams combined, coupled with robust regional transmission, the loss of 43 megawatts shouldn’t even register on the grid reliability radar.

Importantly, Brookfield remains committed to operating its dams higher up the Kennebec watershed[36] continuing to produce clean hydropower for Maine while allowing the lower river to be restored. This isn’t a choice between renewable energy and river restoration, it’s a rebalancing that achieves both objectives.

Why This Time Is Different

The timing could not be more urgent. Atlantic salmon in the Gulf of Maine are at the brink of extinction, with returning fish hovering near historic lows.[37] The Merrymeeting Bay region is the only salmon recovery area where wild populations are increasing — almost entirely because of the Kennebec.[38] However, that growth cannot continue with these four dams in place. The Kennebec, along with the Penobscot, offer some of the last, best hopes for recovery of wild Atlantic salmon populations in the United States.[39]   What makes this agreement fundamentally different from past attempts is its honesty. The agreement recognizes that continued hydropower operation and effective fish restoration on these four dams are incompatible goals. The previous path, which has been the norm for nearly 30 years—was heading toward yet another expensive compromise[40] resulting in multimillion dollar fish passage facilities that science tells us won’t work, condemning another generation to watch salmon disappear while pretending the problem is being solved.

Dam owners and agencies have tried the engineering approach, built fish lifts and studied bypass reaches, held countless meetings and produced thousands of pages of documents. Decades and millions of dollars were spent and wasted. And after all that effort, the results were a failure, just as similar efforts failed on the Connecticut, the Merrimack, and the Susquehanna.

The Nature Conservancy’s approach embraces what decades of failure have taught us. Rather than demanding immediate action, it provides time for careful planning and community engagement. Rather than forcing a choice between jobs and fish, it seeks solutions that strengthen both the economy and ecology. Rather than another Band-Aid on a broken system, it can offer genuine healing.

This is about correcting mistakes our predecessors made 100 years ago based on the knowledge, technology, and priorities of their time. They should not be blamed for building these dams when the nation needed electricity and did not fully understand river ecology. But we know better today. We know these four dams are poorly placed. We know their energy contribution is negligible and easily replaced.  We know they’re destroying irreplaceable wild salmon populations and decimating other valuable fisheries. And we also know that threats from climate change make protecting resilient natural systems more important than ever.

Maine’s Moment to Lead

Like the Klamath, this is a river where removal of aging dams could unlock tremendous ecological potential. Like the Klamath, this is about righting historic wrongs and restoring connections between rivers and the sea. Like the Klamath, this requires courage to choose restoration over the status quo.

The Nature Conservancy’s purchase agreement offers something Maine hasn’t had before: a realistic path forward that acknowledges the limits of technology and embraces the power of restoration. It provides the funding, the timeline, and the commitment to do this right—to work with communities, protect jobs, and restore the river.

Standing on the banks of the Kennebec today, one can imagine two futures. In one, dam owners and agencies continue trying to engineer around problems created 100 years ago, watching salmon populations dwindle while debating the minutiae of fish passage designs that will probably never work. In the other scenario, the state embraces restoration creating a world-class river that drives economic growth, supports thriving fisheries, honors Indigenous connections to these waters, and becomes a source of pride for everyone.

[1] NOAA Fisheries, “Atlantic Salmon (Protected): In the Spotlight.  Last updated June 20, 2025.  ”https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/atlantic-salmon-protected/spotlight

[2] The Nature Conservancy. “The Nature Conservancy and Brookfield Reach Deal for Four Lower Kennebec River Dams.” Newsroom. Published September 23, 2025. Accessed March 12, 2026. https://www.nature.org/en-us/newsroom/kennebec-river-restoration/.

[3] Friends of Merrymeeting Bay. “Lower Kennebec River Comprehensive Hydropower Settlement Accord and Related Findings (PDF).” Filed May 28, 1998.  https://cybrary.fomb.org/pages/19880526_Lower%20Kennebec%20River%20Comprehensive%20Hydropower%20Settlement%20Accord.pdf.

[4] Maine Department of Marine Resources. “Sea-Run Fisheries: Trap Count Statistics.” https://www.maine.gov/dmr/sites/maine.gov.dmr/files/docs/trapcounts2021.pdf.

[5] NOAA Fisheries, “Atlantic Salmon (Protected): In the Spotlight.

[6] Sharma, Shaleish and Waldman, John. City University of New York. “2012 Study on Fish Passage (CUNY Academic Works).” https://academicworks.cuny.edu/qc_pubs/574/.

[7] Maine Department of Marine Resources. “Final Amendment (page 30).” December 2020. https://www.maine.gov/dmr/sites/maine.gov.dmr/files/docs/Final%20Amendment_12_22.pdf#page=30.

[8] Solar Energy Industries Association. “Maine State Solar Policy.” Updated March 2026.  https://www.seia.org/state-solar-policy/maine-solar.

[9] Latham & Watkins. “One Big Beautiful Bill: New Law Disrupts Clean Energy Investment.” July 8, 2025. https://www.lw.com/en/insights/one-big-beautiful-bill-new-law-disrupts-clean-energy-investment.

[10] U.S. Congress. “H.R. 1 — 119th Congress: Bill Text.” Enacted July 4, 2025. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text.

[11] The Dead River. “The Legacy of Harris Station Dam: Opening the Gates at the Head of the Gorge.” https://thedeadriver.com/the-legacy-of-harris-station-dam/#:~:text=Initial%20nameplate%20(1954%E2%80%931955)%3A,Black%2DStart%2C%20Plain%20%26%20Simple.

[12] Dorning, Sarah. Journal of Science Policy & Governance, Volume 12, Issue 1. “Dorning (2018) Article (PDF).” February 2018. https://www.sciencepolicyjournal.org/uploads/5/4/3/4/5434385/dorning_2018_jspg.pdf.

[13] Liermann, Catherine, et. al. BioScience, Volume 62, no. 6. “Implications of Dam Obstruction for Global Freshwater Fish Diversity.” June 2012. https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/document/2020/Oct/07354626533.pdf.

[14] Waldman, John. Yale Environment 360. “Blocked Migration: Fish Ladders on U.S. Dams Are Not Effective.” April 4, 2013. https://e360.yale.edu/features/blocked_migration_fish_ladders_on_us_dams_are_not_effective.

[15] Waldman, John, et. al. The New York Times. “Let the Susquehanna River Run Wild.” September 7, 2014. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/opinion/let-the-susquehanna-river-run-wild.html.

[16] McCormick, Sean. CentralMaine.com. “The Kennebec River belongs to all Mainers, not just Brookfield.” October 25, 2022.  https://www.centralmaine.com/2022/10/25/maine-compass-the-kennebec-river-belongs-to-all-mainers-not-just-brookfield/.

[17] Purnell, Ross. Fly Fisherman. “Raising Athletes: We Have to Do Something Different for Atlantic Salmon.” May 5, 2015. https://www.flyfisherman.com/editorial/atlantic-salmon-hatchery/152070.

[18] Rubenstein, Sarah. University of Maine. “Energetic Impacts of Passage Delays in Migrating Adult Atlantic Salmon.” August 20, 2021. https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4511&context=etd.

[19] Kennebec Coalition’s and Conservation Law Foundation’s Joint Comments in Response to Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Shawmut Hydroelectric project, Lockwood Hydroelectric Project, Hydro-Kennebec Hydroelectric Project, and Weston Hydroelectric Project: Project nos. 2322-069, 2322-071, 2325-100, 2574-092, and 2611-091.

[20] American Rivers. “Big Year for Dam Removals in 2024.” March 4, 2025. https://www.americanrivers.org/2025/03/big-year-for-dam-removals-in-2024/.

[21] Gunderson, Jeff. ASCE Civil Engineering Source. “Benefits Flow Quickly as Historic Dam Removal Restores Klamath River.” February 13, 2025. https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/civil-engineering-source/article/2025/02/13/benefits-flow-as-historic-dam-removal-restores-klamath-river.

[22] Burns, Jes, et. al. OPB. “Salmon Clear Last Klamath Dams, Reaching Williamson and Sprague Rivers.” October 17, 2025. https://www.opb.org/article/2025/10/17/salmon-clear-klamath-dams/.

[23] Burns, Jes. OPB. “Klamath River Temperatures Changed Dramatically After Dam Removal. That’s Helping Salmon Swim Farther Upstream.” October 28, 2025. https://www.opb.org/article/2025/10/28/klamath-river-temperatures-dam-removal-salmon-upstream/.

[24] Giegar, Olivia. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. “An Open Penobscot.” May 3, 2023. https://www.fws.gov/story/2023-05/open-penobscot.

[25] The Nature Conservancy. “Restoring Balance to the Kennebec River.” https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/where-we-work/united-states/maine/kennebec/.

[26] NOAA. “Biological Valuation of Atlantic Salmon Habitat in the Gulf of Maine DPS (ESA).” 2009. https://cybrary.fomb.org/ESA/20090000_NOOA_Bio_val_Atlantic_salmon_habitat_GOM_Distinct_Population_Segment.pdf.

[27] Christle, Michele. Down East Magazine. “The Upstream Battle to Preserve Maine’s Lucrative Elver Fishery.” October 2024. https://downeast.com/land-wildlife/the-upstream-battle-to-preserve-maines-lucrative-elver-fishery/.

[28] Geiger, Olivia.  “U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. “Who gives a dam about river herring?

Removing dams has returned 3 million migratory fish to the Penobscot River; here’s why that matters.” May 3, 2023. https://www.fws.gov/story/2023-05/open-penobscot.

 

[29] Maine Department of Marine Resources. “River Herring (Alewife) Fact Sheet.” Accessed March 14, 2026. https://www.maine.gov/dmr/fisheries/sea-run-fisheries/programs-and-projects/river-herring-alewife-fact-sheet.

 

[30] U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Recovery Plan for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar). Final Plan for the 2009 ESA Listing. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/s3/dam-migration/final_recovery_plan2.pdf.

[31] Natural Resources Council of Maine. “Edwards Dam and Kennebec River Restoration.” https://www.nrcm.org/programs/waters/kennebec-restoration/.

[32] Lewis, Lynne Y., Curtis Bohlen, and Sarah Wilson. “Dams, Dam Removal, and River Restoration: A Hedonic Property Value Analysis.” Contemporary Economic Policy Volume 26, no. 2 (2008): 175–186. https://damremoval.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Lewis-et-al.-2008-Dams-dam-removal-and-river-restoration-A-hedonic-property-value-analysis.pdf.

[33] Gartner, Emmett. “Historic Sale of Dams Clears the Way for Salmon to Return to the Kennebec River.” The Maine Monitor. Published September 23, 2025. https://themainemonitor.org/dams-sale-salmon-return-kennebec-river/.

[34] The Nature Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy and Brookfield Reach Deal

[35] Bennett, Nick. Testimony in Opposition to LD 1979, An Act To Sustain Good‑paying Jobs in the Forest Products Industry by Ensuring Consistency between Comprehensive River Resource Management Plans and State Water Quality Standards. Testimony before the Maine Legislature’s Environment and Natural Resources Committee. Natural Resources Council of Maine. February 28, 2022.
https://legislature.maine.gov/testimony/resources/ENR20220228Bennett132904920283725357.pdf.

[36] The Nature Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy and Brookfield Reach Deal

[37] Atlantic Salmon Commission (U.S.). “Annual Report of the U.S. Atlantic Salmon Assessment Committee.” Report No. 35, 2022 Activities. 2023. https://doi.org/10.25923/skxm-wk46.

[38] NOAA Fisheries. “Collaborative Management Strategy for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic Salmon: 2023 Report of 2022 Activities.” https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/s3/2023-08/2023CMSAnnualReporton2022activities-GARFO.pdf.

[39] Lohan, Tara. “Our Last, Best Chance to Save Atlantic Salmon.” The Revelator. Published April 5, 2021. https://therevelator.org/kennebec-atlantic-salmon/.

[40] Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. “Final Environmental Impact Statement for Amendment of Licenses to Incorporate an Interim Species Protection Plan for the Shawmut Project et al., under P‑2322 et al.” February 28, 2025.
https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_number=20250228-3002.

2025. Ferguson, Laura.  Tufts Now.  “The Gulf of Maine Is Warming Faster Than Pretty Much Anywhere Else.” Tufts University, July 31, 2025. https://now.tufts.edu/2025/07/31/gulf-maine-warming-faster-pretty-much-anywhere-else

 

The Jones Act: Turbulent Times for American Energy Policy
By Aidan Sitler

Congress enacted the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 in the aftermath of World War One.[1] The Jones Act is found in section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, and it includes protectionist provisions regarding the shipment of goods between U.S. domestic points.[2] The Jones Act requires that merchandise “transported by water within the United States,” be shipped on vessels owned, operated and built by Americans.[3] The Act was codified in part “to ensure a ready supply of ships and mariners in case of war . . . .”[4] It was also enacted to stimulate the American shipping industry and to create more domestic jobs throughout the shipping supply chain.[5] Although Congress originally passed the Act to protect American interests, today it harms the American energy industry and curbs the growth of domestic energy independence.

Currently, the United States relies heavily on the fossil fuel industry for its domestic electricity generation.[6] More than 50% of the U.S. energy generation comes from coal or gas plants.[7] Despite the sustained reliance on fossil fuels, renewable energies have grown from less than 5% of U.S. energy generation fifteen years ago, to over 20% in 2024.[8] Renewables rose at an unprecedented rate as new technology advanced and allowed for greater production and implementation from wind and solar alike.[9] Despite the growth of the renewable sector, offshore wind developments have stalled while utility-scale solar and onshore wind projects continue to flourish.[10]

As of 2021, only two offshore wind facilities were operating in the U.S., with a modest combined total of seven turbines.[11] Together the two wind facilities generate 42 megawatts of electricity capacity.[12] The current generating capacity of offshore wind is minor compared to the U.S grid’s 1300-gigawatt nameplate capacity.[13] This means that the offshore wind facilities presently provide less than one percent of the entire electricity for U.S. grid.[14] But the US Department of Energy estimates that offshore wind has the potential to produce three times the electrical capacity of the current U.S. grid.[15] This potential energy output would help the U.S. transition from carbon-emitting coal and gas plants to a complete clean-energy-sustained grid. Offshore wind development would also help create more stable domestic resources for America’s electricity production.

As interests of global security and resource scarcity continue to shape energy policy, America can focus on expanding domestic energy production. Right now, the U.S. still relies heavily on the global supply chain for imports of natural gas.[16] Canadian pipelines and large shipments of liquefied natural gas primarily accomplish this.[17] As global conflicts such as Russia’s war in Ukraine continue, resource availability and stability can impact the global supply chain and harm America’s economic interests.[18] To limit exposure to the instability of the global supply chain, and to reduce the amount of carbon emissions, offshore wind facility materials should be waived from the Jones Act to help increase America’s energy independence.

An offshore wind facility can take anywhere from seven to eleven years to become fully operational.[19] In contrast, an onshore wind facility can be completed in about half the time.[20] The obstacles facing offshore wind facility developments are both the nature of where they are built, and the current regulations which add additional time and cost constraints to the process. While not much can change the difficult nature of building wind facilities in the ocean, the regulations that impede the building process can be altered. A major regulatory obstacle for offshore wind facilities is the Jones Act. Because the Jones Act requires American made ships to transport merchandise in U.S. waters, the development of offshore wind facilities falls under this category.[21]

The wind facilities are subject to the Jones Act because the pieces of the turbines are shipped from the U.S. port to the point of installation off the U.S. coast.[22] Because companies ship goods between two U.S. points, they are required to adhere to the guidelines of the Jones Act. The primary problem wind production facilities have when conforming to the Jones Act is that there is not an adequate supply of capable U.S. vessels.[23] The U.S. lacks the proper ships to ferry the parts and cranes needed for the construction process.[24] The construction process requires massive parts of the turbine to be hauled off the ship by an onboard crane, and U.S. vessels equipped for this process number in the single digits.[25] Companies now ship turbine related goods from Canadian ports to circumvent falling under the Jones Act.[26] This workaround adds to the total project costs and development time.[27]

Instead of requiring companies to add project time, shipping costs, and increased dealings with foreign ports, the Jones Act should be waived to advance U.S. energy expansion. In the past, the Jones Act has been waived for vessels transporting goods to help Americans during natural disasters.[28] The Department of Homeland Security has the authority to issue waivers for merchandise.[29] In this case, Homeland Security should waive offshore wind merchandise from the Jones Act provisions to help increase America’s energy independence. This waiver would allow a quicker production timeline of offshore wind facilities, and greater growth towards U.S. energy independence. The Act was originally enacted to protect American interests yet is now acting as an obstacle to U.S. energy independence. It would be within the spirit of the Act to help create more American energy security and independence through the growth and development of U.S. owned wind facilities.

[1] Merchant Marine Act of 1920, Pub. L. No. 66-261, 41 Stat. 988 (1920). See also Will Kenton, Understanding the Jones Act: Key Facts, History, and Economic Impact, Investopedia (Aug. 27, 2025), https://www.investopedia.com/terms/j/jonesact.asp.

[2] Kenton, supra note 1.

[3] The Essential Guide To The Jones Act, K&L GATES (Oct. 9, 2025), https://www.klgates.com/The-Essential-Guide-to-the-Jones-Act.

[4] Whither the Wind? The Jones Act and Evolving Impact on the U.S. Offshore Energy Industry, Vedder (Dec. 18, 2024), https://www.vedderprice.com/whither-the-wind-the-jones-act-and-its-evolving-impact-on-the-us-offshore-wind-energy-industry.

[5] Kenton, supra note 1.

[6] Electricity Explained, U.S. Energy Info. Admin. (July 16, 2024), https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us-generation-capacity-and-sales.php.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Teresa R. Christopher et al., The Road to 30 Gigawatts: Key Actions To Scale an Offshore Wind Industry in the United States, CAP (Mar. 14, 2022), https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-road-to-30-gigawatts-key-actions-to-scale-an-offshore-wind-industry-in-the-united-states/.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] Electricity Explained, U.S. Energy Info. Admin. (July 16, 2024), https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us-generation-capacity-and-sales.php.

[14] Id.

[15] Forging the Pathway: Offshore Wind’s Role in U.S. Energy Transformation, U.S. Dep’t of Energy (June 12, 2024), https://www.energy.gov/technologytransitions/articles/forging-pathway-offshore-winds-role-us-energy-transformation.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Russia’s natural gas and coal exports have been decreasing and shifting towards Asia, U.S. Energy Info. Admin. (Sept. 3, 2025),  https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=66044.

[19] Construction of an offshore wind plant, Iberdrola (2025), https://www.iberdrola.com/about-us/our-activity/offshore-wind-energy/offshore-wind-park-construction.

[20] Id.

[21] Whither the Wind?, supra note 4.

[22] Id.

[23] Id.

[24] Id.

[25] John Engel, U.S. offshore wind supply chain: By the numbers, FACTOR THIS (Mar. 29, 2022), https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/wind-power/offshore/u-s-offshore-wind-supply-chain-by-the-numbers/.

[26] Whither the Wind?, supra note 4.

[27] Id.

[28] Id.

[29] Id.

 

Rights of Nature as an Alienating Step Towards Better Environmental Laws
By Brett Davis

Humanity continues failing to adequately protect world’s ecosystems despite years stewarding for the environment.[1] This failure poses devastating consequences to individuals, societies, and the world.[2] Nothing here is new; humankind has been aware of the cost of neglecting nature for thousands of years.[3] But this awareness has an anthropocentric tint in the modern age, which has informed environmental responses. To combat environmental failures that human-centered approaches bring, the “Rights of Nature” movement has emerged.[4] The movement attempts to redefine environmentalism to make nature a key player.[5] This blog will explore this attempt and provide a Marxist critique of a rights-centered approach to environmental law.

The Rights of Nature movement seeks to end the reductive view that nature is a mere sum of its parts.[6] The old Enlightenment view establishes humans as the environment’s master.[7] This mastery, paired with the idea of the wholly rational human, guided the law to treat nature as a tool for human needs.[8] During the late 20th century, industrial nations began adopting a stewardship approach, placing humans as nature’s protectors.[9] While more environmentally conscious, stewardship has still failed to protect Earth’s ecosystems.[10] The problem is that humans are still the masters of nature, and stewardship still reduces nature to human-defined values. Thus, the Rights of Nature focuses on establishing rights for nature itself¾rights that are defendable in court.[11]

Defendable rights take a legally human form. Recently, New Zealand’s Taranaki Maunga (or Mount Taranaki) was recognized as a legal person.[12] Taranaki joins a list of natural features with personhood in the New Zealand, a world leader in the Rights of Nature.[13] The hope is personhood will help to conserve and restore traditional Māori uses.[14] Members of Māori iwi will be “the face and voice” of Taranaki Maunga and will oversee the rights, powers, duties, responsibilities, and liabilities of the mountain.[15] Using a group of trustees representing a natural personhood is a common approach under the Rights of Nature.[16]

The personhood these trustees protect is one Marxism has long critiqued. Marx critiqued rights as separating individuals from their community.[17] The purely Marxist understanding is that the bourgeoisie favored individual rights undermine the proletariat’s interests in a unified class.[18] Now, modern theorists have expanded the alienating effect of individualism to anti-colonialism, feminism, and more.[19] The root issue of all these movements is clear: rights alienate people and deny the intersectionality arising from human issues.

Rights of Nature are no different than these human rights¾rights alienate nature from itself. Rights establish each actor in a system as distinct, manageable, and understandable. Each piece of nature may receive personhood and subsequent rights,[20] but nature is not a series of distinct persons. This tension, between nature’s reality and right’s unreality, poses serious strains on the framework’s solvency. How do a river’s rights relate to those of a migratory species that occasionally calls the river home? Both entities are simply together in nature. Enlightenment rationalism does not clearly apply to such interconnected systems. Nature does not prioritize one part of itself over another. Proscribing rights to nature creates environmental components as competitive agents in a larger rights system.

In the competitive system, rights act as “trumps,” some rights taking priority over others.[21] A priority of rights leads to balancing, an already contentious point in environmental policymaking.[22] Any current American political issue—freedom of speech, privacy, pro-choice, racial and wealth inequality—highlights the impasse of people’s rights against each other and the state. Nature’s components will just be a new agent in the constant balancing of rights.

This balancing goes to Marx’s concern.[23] How does nature, a collective, integral, and abstract entity, compete with individual rights? How can a river assert a right over the people who use the river for their livelihoods? This is the same problem. No person functions absent of nature, and nature is not complete absent people. Nature’s rights create a nonexistent antagonism: what is best for nature is contrary to what is best for people. And this conflict is the very goal of Rights for Nature, to create a system for nature to “fight” for itself.[24]

The Rights of Nature aim for conflict in the current system, contrasting the utopian ends of Marxism. Supplying nature with the right to defend itself allows for a better functioning status quo. Namely, personhood allows environmental claims a way around typically difficult standing challenges.[25] Additionally, Rights of Nature can help quell the anthropocentric views on the environment prevalent in the West.[26]  In these ways, the movement is a steppingstone to better evaluating nature’s importance. But a steppingstone is not an end.

We must ask whether a system of rights that has led to such devastating environmental catastrophes is the system that will truly be able to represent nature. Rights fix nature into the enlightenment system; it does not radically redefine how we approach problems. We live in a world where human rights abuses are still ubiquitous, even in democratic societies.[27] The Marxist critique is one way to explain these failures, and how the Rights of Nature might fall into the same historical struggle. But understanding rights power to alienate right holders underscores the frameworks shortcomings in uniting and caring for nature. The Rights of Nature do not supply the ends for environmental response but are simply a possibly misguided step towards equitable ends.

[1] Sandra Díaz, et al. The Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, XIV (Eduardo S. Brondízio et al. eds, IPBES, 2019).

[2] Id.

[3] Ryan Weyler, A Brief History of Environmentalism, GREENPEACE, (Jan. 5, 2018) https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/11658/a-brief-history-of-environmentalism/.

[4] Karen Bradshaw, Identifying Contemporary Rights of Nature, 95 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1439, 1446 (2022).

[5] See id.

[6] Niels Hoek, et al., Implementing Rights of Nature: An EU Natureship to Address Anthropocentrism in Environmental Law, 19 Utrecht L. Rev. 72, 74 (2023).

[7] Id. at 75.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Díaz supra note 1 at XIV.

[11] Hoek, et al. supra note 6 at 75.

[12] Charlotte Graham-McLay, A New Zealand mountain is granted personhood, recognizing it as scared for Māori, AP (Jan. 31, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/mountain-zealand-personhood-maori-taranak-590fca0f3d648cc0bf86d970782e954c.

[13] Id. (joining Te Urewera Forest and Whanganui River).

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Hoek, et al. supra note 6 at 75.

[17] Karl Marx, On the Jewish Question (1844), https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/ (last visited Oct. 12, 2025).

[18] Id.

[19] See generally Vasuki Nesiah, The Ground Beneath Her Feet: “Third World” Feminisms, 4 J. Int’l Women’s Stud. 30 (2003); Kimberle Crenshaw, Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color, 43 Stan. L. Rev. 1241 (1991); Makau Mutua, Savages, Victims, and Saviors: The Metaphor of Human Rights, 42 Harv. Int’l L. J. 201 (2001).

[20] Graham-McLay supra note 12.

[21] Mauricio Guim & Michael A. Livermore, Where Nature’s Rights Go Wrong, 107 Va. L. Rev. 1347, 1370 (2021).

[22] Id. at 1370-74.

[23] See Marx supra note 17.

[24] See Bradshaw supra note 4 at 1449.

[25] See Marisa Martin & James Landman, Standing: Who Can Sue to Protect the Environment?, Insights on Law & Society, Vol. 19 2020, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/insights-on-law-and-society/volume-19/insights-vol–19—issue-1/standing–who-can-sue-to-protect-the-environment-/ (discussing standing issues in environmental law).

[26] See Bradshaw supra note 4 at 1449.

[27] See generally Human Rights Watch, World Report 2024: Events of 2023 (2024).

Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage: Coming to an Oil Field Near You!
By Jules Mule

In Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas, the Supreme Court held that only parties to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) licensing proceedings are entitled to judicial review of the licensing decision.[1] This case comes to the Court after respondents Texas and Fasken Land and Minerals challenged the NRC’s statutory authority to license a private-off-site-spent-nuclear-fuel-storage-facility in West Texas. However, the Court did not decide the case on the merits. Instead, it simply held that Texas and Fasken were not parties to the NRC’s licensing proceedings and are not entitled to judicial review. The Court should not have awarded the NRC undue control over judicial review of its licensing proceedings. More importantly, the Court should not have left such a significant regulatory question open for future litigation.

The United States began commercial nuclear power production in the 1950s after the enactment of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA).[2] Nuclear reactors use enriched uranium to generate electricity and create waste known as spent nuclear fuel (SNF). Originally, SNF was reprocessed to extract weapons-grade plutonium for warheads. Eventually, nuclear proliferation concerns in the 1970s led President Ford to halt commercial reprocessing. However, continual generation without reprocessing meant many reactors were already approaching maximum capacity for on-site SNF storage by the 80s. Congress then enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) which designated Yucca Mountain, Nevada as the nation’s single, permanent SNF repository. Public backlash, however, has killed nearly all federal support. SNF is still mostly stored on-site, but this is unsustainable, as many nuclear reactors are quickly approaching the end of their lifecycles. Now private, off-site storage is gaining federal support.

In 2018, Interim Storage Partners (ISP) applied for a license with the NRC to develop an  SNF storage facility in West Texas.[3] Fasken Land and Minerals (Fasken) operates oil and gas wells in West Texas and petitioned to intervene in the licensing proceedings.[4] The NRC denied the petition because Fasken failed “to show that a genuine dispute exists.”[5] Fasken challenged the denial in the D.C. Circuit, but the court upheld the NRC’s decision.[6] Fasken did not petition the Supreme Court for certiorari, and the NRC license proceedings continued.[7] In 2020, the NRC issued a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) and awaited public comments.[8] Among the many commenters were Fasken and a government agency representing the state of Texas.[9] Both raised environmental and public safety concerns, which the NRC considered in their final EIS.[10] The NRC then granted ISP the license to develop the storage facility in 2021.[11]

Following this, Texas and Fasken sued the NRC in the Fifth Circuit.[12] They claimed the NRC lacked the statutory authority to license private off-site SNF storage facilities.[13] The Fifth Circuit agreed, and vacated ISP’s license.[14] The NRC petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari, and the Court granted cert in 2024.[15]

In a 6–3 opinion delivered by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court held that Texas and Fasken were not entitled to judicial review under the Hobbs Act.[16] The Court reasoned that neither met the AEA’s requirement to qualify as “part[ies] aggrieved” to the proceedings.[17] The one and only requirement is that the NRC must grant a prior petition to intervene the proceedings.[18] If the NRC denies the petition, as in this case, the would-be intervenors cannot seek judicial review in court.[19] Texas did not petition to intervene, and Fasken’s petition was denied and subsequently dispatched by the D.C. Circuit.[20] Therefore, neither was entitled to judicial review on the proceedings. The Fifth Circuit’s decision was reversed and remanded without a ruling on the merits.[21] However, the Court did offer five pages of commentary suggesting the NRC does have statutory authority to license private-storage facilities under the AEA.[22]

Regarding the jurisdictional issue, the Court should have held that Texas and Fasken were entitled to judicial review. Under the Hobbs Act, a “party aggrieved” by a licensing order is entitled to judicial review of the proceedings.[23] The Court relied on § 2239 of the AEA to determine who qualifies as a party to NRC licensing proceedings: “In any proceeding . . . for the granting . . . of any license . . . the Commission shall grant a hearing upon request of any person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding, and shall admit any such person as a party to such proceeding.”[24] The Court narrowly interpreted this language to mean that party status is only awarded if the NRC grants the hearing.[25] The NRC codified this interpretation, and the strict criteria for admittance, in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f).[26] However, the more obvious interpretation is that both granting the hearing and awarding party status are separately at the NRC’s discretion. Nevertheless, the Court upheld the NRC’s stricter interpretation, citing only to a 1990 D.C. Circuit case for support.[27]

The case is not very supportive. The issue centers around how § 2.309(f) interacts with an older late-filing rule.[28] Further, the circuit court relies on the now defunct Chevron deference.[29] Ultimately, the Court’s unjustifiably narrow reading of the AEA lends the NRC too much control over judicial review. Left unchecked, the agency can simply deny anyone that requests a hearing and remain unobstructed on the licensing proceedings. As the dissent put it: “Allowing agencies to decide who can challenge their work in court is like letting the fox guard the henhouse.”[30]

Accordingly, the Court should have decided this case on the merits. The dissent offered am alternative method to achieving party status under the Hobbs Act (i.e. commenting on an EIS).[31] Regardless of the method used, the open question is more worthy of discussion: Does the NRC have the statutory authority to license private SNF storage facilities? The Court could not stay silent on the matter after all, delivering five pages of unauthoritative dicta.[32] Oddly enough, the Court again based its argument on a less-than-supportive D.C. Circuit case it claims upheld NRC regulations.[33] In 1980, the NRC promulgated regulations under the AEA that allow it to license private off-site storage facilities.[34] And in 2004, the D.C. Circuit in Bullcreek v. NRC conceded that “the AEA does not specifically refer to the storage or disposal of spent nuclear fuel. . . .”[35] Rather, the authority is implicit, predicated on the decades of historical deference to the NRC.[36]

Unable to point towards any explicit authority in the AEA, the D.C. Circuit and this Court both resort to an even earlier case: Pacific Gas & Electric Company v State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission (PG&E).[37] Unfortunately, the most authoritative quote in the entire case is mere recognition: “the NRC has promulgated detailed regulations governing storage and disposal away from the reactor.”[38] The regulations were unchallenged; the case was about licensing reactors, not storage facilities. Even together, these two cases hardly amount to a substantial judgment on the statutory authority of the NRC’s private storage licensing practices. In Bullcreek, the petitioner “conceded at oral argument [that] the NRC had authority under the AEA to regulate private away-from-reactor storage facilities.”[39] And in PG&E, the Court made no mention of private vs. federally-owned storage facilities. It’s likely that the recently enacted NWPA that would soon establish a permanent federally-owned storage site was fresh on the Court’s mind. While recognition of the NRC’s authority over private storage facilities under the AEA is longstanding, the authority is implicit at best and has never been directly challenged. Avoiding judgment on the merits keeps the question open to future litigation and enables unnecessary confusion in the nuclear industry.

Regardless, the Court’s lengthy dicta suggests it would likely uphold the NRC’s statutory authority in any future challenge. Ultimately, the NRC is the obvious choice for regulating private storage. Congress should simply revise the AEA to match the NRC’s existing regulations.

[1] NRC v. Texas, 605 U.S. 665 (2025).

[2] See 42 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq.

[3] NRC, 605 U.S. at 672.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.; 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f).

[6] NRC, 605 U.S. at 673; Don’t Waste Mich. v. NRC, No. 21-1048, 2023 WL 395030 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 25, 2023).

[7] NRC v. Texas, 605 U.S. 665 (2025).

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] NRC v. Texas, 605 U.S. 665 (2025).

[14] Id. at 673–74.

[15] Id. at 674.

[16] Id. at 676-77; 28 U.S.C. § 2344.

[17] Id.

[18] Id.; 42 U.S.C. § 2239(1)(A).

[19] NRC v. Texas, 605 U.S. 665 (2025).

[20] Id. at 678–79.

[21] Id. at 690.

[22] Id. at 683–88.

[23] 28 U.S.C. § 2341.

[24] 42 U.S.C. § 2239(1)(A).

[25] NRC v. Texas, 605 U.S 665, 676 (2025).

[26] 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f).

[27] NRC, 605 U.S. at 678; Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, 920 F.2d 50, 51-56 (D.C. Cir. 1990).

[28] Union of Concerned Scientists, 920 F.2d at 53 (“UCS does not contend that the heightened pleading requirement, standing alone, would be illegal”).

[29] Id. at 54; Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 US 837 (1984), overruled by Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024).

[30] NRC v. Texas, 605 U.S. 665, 711 (2025) (Gorsuch, J., dissenting).

[31] Id. at 707-10.

[32] Id. at 683–88.

[33] Id. at 685; Bullcreek v. NRC, 359 F.3d 536, 537–38, 541–43 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

[34] 10 C.F.R. § 72.

[35] Bullcreek, 359 F.3d at 538.

[36] Id. (“[T]he NRC has promulgated detailed regulations governing storage and disposal away from the reactor.”); NRC v. Texas, 605 U.S. 665, 683 (2025).

[37] Pac. Gas & Elec. V. St. Energy Resources Conserv., 461 U.S. 190 (1983); NRC, 605 U.S. at 683-84; Bullcreek, 359 F.3d at 538.

[38] Pac. Gas & Elec., 461 U.S. at 217.

[39] Bullcreek, 359 F.3d at 542.

A Critique of the Louisiana v. Biden Decision
By Max Oechsner

            A coalition of Republican-led states and oil and gas industry groups was handed a win in the latest legal battle over drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).[1] The ruling in Louisiana v. Biden will allow renewed drilling in the OCS, the offshore land surrounding the continental United States.[2] The ruling, however, overly relied on former presidents’ actions and misinterpreted the act that governs the OCS. Not only was it poorly decided, but the ruling will have irreversible consequences on the climate crisis.

Background on the Controversy

            The OCS is roughly comprised of the submerged lands off the coast of the continental United States.[3] President Biden, at the very end of his term, withdrew the OCS from potential oil and gas leasing.[4] The President did this through two Withdrawal Memoranda (hereinafter memoranda), one addressing the coast of Alaska, and the other addressing the East Coast, West Coast, and the Gulf of Mexico.[5] Biden’s memoranda stated that the withdrawal was “for a period of time without specific expiration.”[6] The plaintiffs, comprised of Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, and Mississippi, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Gulf Energy Alliance, quickly filed suit.[7]

The plaintiffs filed suit in federal court three days before Trump took office.[8] They challenged the memoranda under the U.S. Constitution and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA).[9] The plaintiffs argued that § 12(a) of OCSLA violated the U.S. Constitution, therefore making the memoranda unlawful.[10] They also argued the memoranda were unlawful because they exceeded the scope of the President’s authority under § 12(a).[11]

The day that Trump took office, he issued an executive order that rescinded the memoranda.[12] A month later, a coalition of environmental groups filed suit to challenge his rescission order.[13] The challenge to Trump’s order is still awaiting a decision. Meanwhile, the Louisiana District Court decided the Biden case.[14] In this ruling, the Court first sidestepped the question of whether OCSLA is constitutional by giving deference to Congress.[15] The Court then ruled that President Biden exceeded his authority under OCSLA.[16]

The Flaws in the Court’s Decision

            The Biden court had several flaws in its analysis. Its decision rested primarily on two strains of reasoning: how former presidents have used § 12(a) of OCSLA and the text of § 12(a) itself. The court also failed to properly consider the context of § 12(a).

The court first erred in its analysis of the text of § 12(a). Section 12(a) provides that “the President of the United States may, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the outer Continental Shelf.”[17] The court read the text as “encouraging an ongoing duty to revisit and amend regulations.”[18] In support of this reading, the court reasons that “it is generally accepted that in the absence of a specific statutory limitation, an [executive actor] has the inherent authority to reconsider its decisions.”[19] However, the text only grants the power of withdrawal.[20] It does not grant the power to rescind a withdrawal.[21] When a statute does not grant the president a power, the president cannot exercise that power.[22] The Supreme Court, in Youngstown Sheet v. Sawyer, clarified this critical rule of constitutional law:

It is one thing to draw an intention of Congress from general language and to say that Congress would have explicitly written what is inferred, where Congress has not addressed itself to a specific situation.  It is quite impossible, however, when Congress did specifically address itself to a problem, as Congress did to that of seizure, to find secreted in the interstices of legislation the very grant of power which Congress consciously withheld.[23]

The application of this rule gives the president power to withdraw land, but not to rescind it. Therefore, the president should not be required to specify the future time at which a subsequent president may reconsider the withdrawal.

The court also errs in its reasoning that “presidential interpretations of their limited authority under § 12(a) support a [limited] reading.”[24] However, courts should not use presidential decisions as persuasive or binding authority.[25] Therefore, the court should not have looked to how earlier presidents seem to have interpreted OCSLA.

Finally, the context of § 12(a) was not adequately considered. In 2019, the Alaska District Court decided nearly the same issue in League of Conservation Voters v. Trump.[26] In that case, several environmental groups challenged Trump’s executive order rescinding an Obama-era withdrawal of the OCS.[27] Therefore, the court decided an inverse issue: whether the president had the authority under § 12(a) of the OCSLA to rescind a withdrawal. In their decision, the court took into consideration the context of OCSLA.[28] A major point in the analysis focused on the contrast between § 8 and § 12.[29] They interpreted § 8 to be “promoting leasing” and § 12 to be “entirely protective.”[30] Ultimately, they found that OCSLA did not give a president the power to rescind a withdrawal.[31] Therefore, the contrast in the structure lends to the idea that § 12 only grants protective withdrawal power.

Conclusion

            The decision in Louisiana v. Biden represents a significant misreading of both the text and the intent of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. By grounding its reasoning in the practices of past presidents and stretching the language of § 12(a), the court undermined the intent of Congress. The ruling not only weakens the President’s ability to safeguard ecologically vital offshore lands, but it also opens the door to unchecked executive reversals that erode the stability of environmental governance. Ultimately, Louisiana v. Biden stands as a cautionary example of judicial overreach—one that prioritizes political expediency and economic interests over statutory fidelity and the urgent need to confront the climate crisis.

[1] Lauren Berg, Biden-Era Drilling Ban Memos Overstepped Law, Judge Says, LAW360, (Oct. 3, 2025, 10:36 PM) https://www.law360.com/environmental/articles/2395998/biden-era-drilling-ban-memos-overstepped-law-judge-says.

[2] Louisiana v. Biden, No. 2-25-CV-00071, 2025 WL 2808502, at 1 (W.D. La. Oct. 2, 2025).

[3] Outer Continental Shelf, Bureau of Ocean Energy Mgmt. (last visited Oct. 11, 2025), https://www.boem.gov/oil-gas-energy/leasing/outer-continental-shelf.

[4] Louisiana v. Biden, 2025 WL (2025).

[5] Id. (citing 90 C.F.R. § 6739 (2025); 90 C.F.R. § 6743 (2025)).

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] Id. (citing 90 C.F.R. § 8237 (2025)).

[13] Id. (citing N. Alaska Envtl. Ctr. v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-38, doc. 1 (D. Alaska Feb. 19, 2025).

[14] Id. at 2.

[15] Id. at 4.

[16] Id. at 6.

[17] 43 U.S.C. § 1341 (1953).

[18] Louisiana v. Biden, 2025 WL (2025) at 6.

[19] Id. (quoting Macktal v. Chao, 286 F.3d 822, 825–26 (5th Cir. 2002)).

[20] 43 U.S.C. § 1341 (1953).

[21] Id.

[22] Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 609 (1952).

[23] Id.

[24] Louisiana v. Biden, 2025 WL (2025) at 6.

[25] Sawyer, 343 U.S. at 604 (“No authority that has since been given to the President can by any fair process of statutory construction be deemed to withdraw the restriction or change the will of Congress as expressed by a body of enactments.”).

[26] League of Conservation Voters v. Trump, 363 F. Supp. 3d 1013, 1025 (D. Alaska 2019), vacated and remanded sub nom. League of Conservation Voters v. Biden, 843 F. App’x 937 (9th Cir. 2021).

[27] Id.

[28] Id.

[29] Id.

[30] Id.

[31] Id. at 1029.

Housing vs. Sustainability: Vermont Governor Passes Executive Order 06-25, Easing Building Energy Efficiency Standards
By Diamond McAllister

Vermont Governor Phil Scott issued Executive Order 06-25 (EO) on September 17, 2025.[1] EO 06-25 is titled “Promoting Housing Construction and Rehabilitation.”[2] It aims to improve housing access in Vermont by streamlining development, supporting affordability, incentivizing developers, coordinating state agencies, and reducing regulatory barriers.[3] Meanwhile, Vermont’s environmental goals, codified at 10 V.S.A. § 578, require the state to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.[4] Governor Scott’s EO highlights the tension between Vermont’s statutory climate commitments and the state’s efforts to accelerate housing development.[5] This tension raises questions about whether easing energy efficiency standards undermines Vermont’s legally binding environmental goals.[6]  The EO marks a clear departure from the state’s codified mission to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

I. Stated Purpose of the Executive Order

According to the 2024 Vermont Housing Needs Assessment, Vermont faces a longstanding housing deficit.[7] Most Vermont homes remain unaffordable to the majority of Vermonters.[8] The Governor spends over three pages of the EO justifying prioritizing rapid housing expansion over strict energy efficiency standards as a response to this housing issue.[9] The Governor cites strict energy efficiency rules as slowing the pace of housing development. [10] Specifically, he claims that the 2024 building energy efficiency standards increase construction costs and make housing less affordable for Vermonters.[11]

For several years, Vermont has faced a pressing housing shortage, with the Governor estimating Vermont needs 40,000 new homes by 2030 to adequately meet the state’s housing needs.[12] Vermont is not on track to meet this demand.[13] The EO streamlines permitting, accelerates project approval, and suspends heightened energy efficiency standards in an attempt to address the shortage.[14] However, by acting while the General Assembly is out of session, the Governor demonstrates tensions between urgent housing needs and statutory commitments.

The Governor listed the housing crisis, failed attempts to address it, and the need for accelerated executive action as the rationale for the EO.[15] He acknowledges legislative efforts to address Vermont’s housing crisis but notes that they have been insufficient.[16] Thus, he argues that the executive branch must use its authority to tackle the state’s critical housing shortage.[17] He calls this approach accelerated executive action.[18] This urgency operates within a broader legal framework that binds Vermont to ambitious climate goals.

II. Vermont’s Climate Framework and Energy Efficiency Standards

The Vermont Global Warming Solutions Act of 2020 (GWSA), codified at 10 V.S.A. § 578, establishes Vermont’s climate goals as legally binding mandates.[19] The statute obligates Vermont to reduce greenhouse gas pollution 26% below 2005 levels by 2025.[20] It also requires emissions to reduce a further 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% by 2050.[21] The GWSA aims to help Vermonters prepare for negative climate change effects.[22] Increasing energy efficiency across sectors plays a crucial role in reaching climate goals because improved energy efficiency reduces emissions.[23] Specifically, “[i]ncreased energy efficiency can reduce industrial carbon emissions by up to 34% in many sectors.”[24]  

The EO’s reinstatement of the 2020 energy efficiency standards rolls back prior efficiency requirements.[25] It shifts the focus from long-term energy efficiency to immediate housing expansion.[26] Efficiency Vermont (a nonprofit focused on transitioning Vermont to cleaner and more affordable energy solutions) has demonstrated key differences between the 2020 and 2024 residential building energy efficiency standards.[27] Among these substantial differences are heavier insulation requirements, stricter energy efficiency standards, required electric vehicle charging provisions, solar-ready zone requirements, mandatory airtightness testing, and more stringent overall performance requirements.[28] The 2020 energy efficiency standard reinstatement thus lowers Vermont’s energy efficiency requirements.[29] The reinstatement sets the stage for expanding housing at the expense of energy efficiency.

III. Expansion of Housing vs. Energy Efficiency

EO 06-25 embodies a deliberate trade-off between two objectives: promoting faster housing development and risking slower progress on energy efficiency.[30] This trade-off is evident throughout the EO, particularly in its framing of the 2024 residential building energy efficiency standards as “regulatory barriers.”[31] The EO reinstates the 2020 standards, giving builders the option to choose between the 2020 and 2024 standards.[32]

Conclusion

Will this rollback prevent Vermont from achieving its codified greenhouse gas reduction goals? The answer is still unclear. The EO, however, marks a clear departure from the state’s mission under the GWSA to reduce emissions. The question now is whether Vermont can expand housing and maintain strong energy standards at the same time. Ultimately, the state must balance its immediate housing needs with its long-term, legally binding climate commitments.

[1] Vt. Exec. Order No. 06-25, Promoting Housing Construction and Rehabilitation (Vt. Sept. 17, 2025) https://governor.vermont.gov/sites/scott/files/documents/EO%2006-25%20Promoting%20Housing%20Construction%20and%20Rehabilitation.pdf.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10 § 578(a) (2023).

[5] Vt. Exec. Order No. 06-25, supra note 1.

[6] V.S.A. 10 § 578(a).

[7] Vermont Hous. Fin. Agency, Vermont Housing Needs Assessment: 2025–2029, at 16 (June 2024), https://vhfa.org/sites/default/files/publications/VT-HNA-2025.pdf.

[8] VHFA, Vermont Housing Needs Assessment, at 81.

[9] Vt. Exec. Order No. 06-25, supra note 1.

[10] Vt. Exec. Order No. 06-25, supra note 1.

[11] Id.

[12] VHFA, Vermont Housing Needs Assessment, at 16; Governor Phil Scott, Not Done Yet: More Work Ahead on Vermont’s Housing Crisis, Off. of Governor Phil Scott (Aug. 14, 2025), https://governor.vermont.gov/governor-scotts-blog/not-done-yet-more-work-ahead-vermonts-housing-crisis.

[13] Id.

[14] Vt. Exec. Order No. 06-25, supra note 1.

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] V.S.A. 10 § 578(a); see 2020 Vt. Acts & Resolves No. 153 (2020), https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2020/Docs/ACTS/ACT153/ACT153%20As%20Enacted.pdf.

[20] V.S.A. 10 § 578(a).

[21] Id.

[22] 2020 Act 153, § 591(b)(1).

[23] Energy Efficiency Reduces Industrial Carbon Emissions, Energy Star, https://www.energystar.gov/industrial_plants/decarbonizing_industry/energy_efficiency_reduces_industrial_carbon_emissions (last visited Oct. 11, 2025).

[24] Id.

[25] Vt. Exec. Order No. 06-25, supra note 1.

[26] Id.

[27] Efficiency Vermont, About Us: We Transform the Way Vermonters Use Energy–For A Better Life, https://www.efficiencyvermont.com/about?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=21344841498&gbraid=0AAAAADrAuceQQk4RJvgjKR3Z9eRkb5iGU&gclid=CjwKCAjwup3HBhAAEiwA7euZuuVam1rwDtYQzsbNgJqstjeF420yuDHdjRwreyqZVWIo56cePDV3kBoCJV4QAvD_BwE (last visited Oct. 11, 2025); Steve Spatz, 2024 RBES Overview – Substantial Changes From 2020 & How to Comply, Efficiency Vermont (Feb, 23, 2024), https://www.efficiencyvermont.com/Media/Default/docs/trade-partners/code-support/rbes-2024-substantial-changes-training.pdf.

[28] See Spatz, 2024 RBES Overview.

[29] Id.

[30] Vt. Exec. Order No. 06-25, supra note 1.

[31] Id.

[32] Id.

Preserving Our Playground: The Significance of State Stewardship
By Maddy Barney

Land conservation is a consistent bipartisan priority in America.[1] Conservation brings ideologies together because of widespread historical support for maintaining public lands for all to enjoy.[2] Outdoor recreationists represent important stakeholders in land conservation by consistently using public lands.[3] Outdoor recreation and land conservation go hand in hand.[4] “Protecting . . . [and] defending public lands is especially important to the outdoor recreation community.”[5] Almost a third of the nation’s land is held by the United States’ government entities and most public land is managed for “conservation, recreation, and education.”[6] Given the influence the government exercises over public lands, it is of critical importance that lands open for recreation are managed and created intentionally.[7] Balancing dual goals of public recreation and conservation can raise substantial challenges, but successful projects bring generational benefits.[8]

I. Challenges Balancing Outdoor Recreation and Land Conservation

Although land conservation directly supports outdoor recreation, projects must incorporate sustainable goals to prevent disrupting the delicate environmental balance.[9] Land conserved for outdoor recreation can raise several challenges.[10] There is limited public awareness on the conflict between conservation and recreation—especially when introducing high volumes of people into outdoor spaces.[11] Visitors to protected areas can degrade local “vegetation, soil, water, wildlife, and cultural resources.”[12] Negative effects vary by site and activity.[13] Effects from recreationists are “not readily apparent to the individual” but are considered by land managers daily.[14]

Land managers must overcome significant hurdles governing conserved areas and balancing diverse interests.[15] Land managers face a lack of funding, threats of energy development leases, overcrowding, and climate change impacts.[16] Generally, ecological data that guides informed decision making is lacking.[17] The lack of necessary data makes it especially difficult for public agencies to defend their management decisions under scrutiny.[18] Lastly, public agencies have limited resources to manage public lands, with 75% of land managers citing inadequate funding.[19] Conservation management challenges due to a lack of resources were exacerbated this year given the federal government’s mass firing of park employees and continual attacks on land conservation.[20]

II. Who’s making land conservation decisions anyway?

The federal government has long prioritized land conservation.[21] Conservation stems back to “colonial-era policies” focused on extraction rather than protection.[22] Additionally, “conservation areas were historically established as ways to rid land of its indigenous inhabitants.”[23] Western expansion and the early establishment of national parks put land into the hands of the centralized government.[24] As extraction continued, conservation concerns arose, and President Roosevelt created the U.S. Forest Service, which established 230 million acres of public land.[25] The public’s awareness of environmental concerns steadily grew, making space for the first Earth Day in 1970.[26] During this pro-conservation period, President Reagan’s terms “marked a growing polarization” in American politics. But still, public land protection remained a bipartisan goal.[27] Congress continued enacting widely supported conservation legislation and started adjusting management practices to better meet modern protection objectives, including recreation and biodiversity.[28] President Trump, despite approving the passage of the Great American Outdoors Act, attempts to change the public lands rhetoric and threatens the classification of “conservation” as a valid land use.[29]

When the federal government threatens public lands, states must take action.[30] States can continue preserving conservation areas despite federal priorities straying.[31] Luckily, local municipalities majorly control land use decisions anyway.[32] States delegate authority to individual municipalities through enacting legislation “that empowers land use decision making to individual towns or cities.”[33] Since the seminal case Euclid, zoning has evolved from regulating the construction and location of buildings to involve more attenuated goals such as land conservation, sustainable development, and affordable housing developments.[34] States and their municipalities are in strong positions to set specific conservation goals that best serve the health, safety, and welfare of its residents through outdoor recreation.[35] Despite federal reform to conservation, there are opportunities to effectively conserve land at the local level. Outdoor recreation represents but one strategy opening the door to new and improved state-led conservation projects.[36]

III. Vermont’s Model State Conservation Project

A special conservation project is coming to fruition in Vermont, aligning the interests of outdoor recreationists and conservationists alike. Vermont is implementing ne of the largest conservation projects in the Northeast to date—the “Velomont.”[37] The Velomont is a huge trail connection project designed to improve local land conservation and encourage outdoor recreation.[38] The Green Mountain State’s expansive conservation project “will represent the largest hut-supported trail network in the U.S.” and conserve 214,000 unprotected acres of land.[39] The Velomont represents a massive collaboration between nonprofit organizations, state agencies, and private landowners.[40] This is not just a concept—the vision arose in 2016 and official planning began in 2023.[41] The “Velomont Vision Plan” lays out numerous goals that guide decision making on the statewide effort.[42]

The Velomont project is a model for intentional land conservation.[43] The Velomont addresses concerns from competing interests while outlining the benefits of such a massive project.[44] Outdoor recreation was a primary motivator of the Velomont. The ancillary motivators of protecting migratory wildlife corridors, boosting economic activity in small rural towns, and promoting public health are just as significant for the State of Vermont.[45] Additionally, this trail connection project creates a contiguous tract of conserved land the length of the state.[46] Generally, the distribution of conserved land is a result of convenience rather than strategic planning.[47] The Velomont represents a methodical approach to conservation that will benefit future generations of people and biodiversity.[48] States should follow Vermont’s lead by intentionally linking outdoor recreation with land use to create new opportunities for recreation and ecological protection in contiguous strips of conserved land. The Velomont Vision Plan even lays out the process for state organizations to develop similar projects.[49]

IV. Why Should States Follow Vermont’s Lead?

Despite challenges with local land conservation and federal cuts to conservation initiatives, it remains a valid interest to prioritize. Outdoor recreation is a primary use of public lands and a major contributor to the U.S. economy.[50] Public lands are the foundation of America’s $1.2 trillion outdoor recreation industry, which “accounted for 2.2 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product” in 2017.[51] Despite numerous economic benefits accompanying outdoor recreation, conservation efforts also encourage healthy populations and environments.[52] The current American reality, however, is that “less than half of people in the United States live within half a mile of a park.”[53] Inequitable access to public lands can be addressed through local and state initiatives. A well-designed, accessible conservation area offers endless benefits.[54] Individuals recreating outdoors experience lower cortisol levels, healthier heart functions, decreased likelihood of developing depression, and a closer connection to the community.[55] In addition to health benefits, green spaces have been shown to encourage social interaction in communal spaces.[56]

In 2024, 81 million people recreated on public lands.[57] The millions of people visiting public lands contributed to the local economy and connected with the community.[58] Outdoor enthusiasts may not align themselves on issues pertaining to how land is used, but all agree that access to conserved land is a necessity.[59] The ultimate goal of protecting everyone’s right to recreate on public lands requires collective action. Conservation issues can result in alignment because American land conservation is an “inherently bipartisan issue.”[60]

Conclusion

State conservation projects are crucial to protect public lands during this period in American politics. Conservation projects can receive widespread support among voters.[61] Outdoor recreation is an excellent strategy to advocate for conserving tracts of land.[62] Recreationists are rallying for threats to America’s public lands—public comments on recission of the roadless rule alone, which protect remaining truly wild places, reached 625,749.[63] The latest attack on public lands comes from President Trump’s attempt to de-recognize conservation as a valid land use.[64] Dissembling an inherently American ideal of protecting wild places for current and future generations is an issue that abridges ideological divides.[65] Hunters, fishers, mountain-bikers, hikers, and off-roaders all share a common interest in maintaining access to conserved areas despite ideological disagreements.

Moving forward, state legislators should genuinely consider similar projects to the Velomont that blend outdoor recreation and land conservation intentionally. There are efficient strategies to manage land conservation that states can utilize to minimize negative impacts to the environment.[66] Indigenous communities have extensive knowledge of “wildlife migration patterns, seasonal changes, and ecosystem balance” to develop community centered conservation.[67] States can adopt “strict carrying capacities” on recreation areas to prevent overcrowding and erosion.[68] Land conserved for outdoor recreation must include community engagement and careful planning to protect access for current and future generations.[69]

[1] Sabirah Abdus-Sabur, The History of US Conservation, Dogwood All. (May 8, 2025), https://dogwoodalliance.org/2025/05/the-history-of-us-conservation/; Kate Wall, the nature of conservation is inherently bipartisan, IFAW (Dec. 15, 2020), https://www.ifaw.org/people/opinions/conservation-bipartisan.

[2] Kate Wall, the nature of conservation is inherently bipartisan, IFAW (Dec. 15, 2020), https://www.ifaw.org/people/opinions/conservation-bipartisan; John Leshy, American Public Lands: A Sketch of Their Political History and Future Challenges, 62 Nat. Res. J. 341, 343 (2022) (“Americans of all persuasions have come to agree on the importance of protecting [public] lands.”).

[3] Sarah L. Thomas & Sarah E. Reed, Entrenched ties between outdoor recreation and conservation pose challenges for sustainable land management, 14 Env’t Rsch. Letters, No. 11 (Nov. 14, 2019).

[4] Appalachian Mountain Club, Four Key Ties Between Conservation and Recreation, https://www.outdoors.org/resources/amc-outdoors/conservation-and-climate/four-key-ties-between-conservation-and-recreation/ (last visited Sept. 24, 2025).

[5] Adrian Ballinger & Sam Kieckhefer, Outdoor Alliance: Conservation Powered by Outdoor Recreation, The Duffle Shuffle Podcast (Sept. 24, 2025), https://www.duffelshufflepodcast.com/episodes/38-outdoor-alliance.

[6] John Leshy, American Public Lands: A Sketch of Their Political History and Future Challenges, 62 Nat. Res. J. 341, 341 (2022) (“[I]ndustrial uses like mining, drilling, and large-scale commercial logging take place on a relatively small proportion of Forest Service and BLM lands.”).

[7] Why Connectivity Matters to Wildlife—And People, WWF, https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/why-connectivity-matters-to-wildlife-and-people (last visited Oct. 9, 2025) (“protected areas in isolation aren’t enough”).

[8] Sarah L. Thomas & Sarah E. Reed, Entrenched ties between outdoor recreation and conservation pose challenges for sustainable land management, 14 Env’t Rsch. Letters, No. 11 (Nov. 14, 2019).

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.; Roger L. Moore & Beverly L. Driver, Introduction to Outdoor Recreation: Providing and Managing Natural Resource Based Opportunities 209 (Venture Publishing 2005).

[12] Jeffery L. Marion, Impacts to Wildlife: Managing Visitors and Resources to Protect Wildlife, Interagency Visitor Use Mgmt. Council, Nat’l Park Serv. (March 2019).

[13] Roger L. Moore & Beverly L. Driver, Introduction to Outdoor Recreation: Providing and Managing Natural Resource Based Opportunities, 214 (Venture Publishing 2005); See Sierra Forest Legacy, Off-road Vehicles, https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/FC_FireForestEcology/TFH_OHV.php (last visited Oct. 10, 2025) (outlining substantial negative impacts from off-road vehicles).

[14] Sarah L. Thomas & Sarah E. Reed, Entrenched ties between outdoor recreation and conservation pose challenges for sustainable land management, 14 Env’t Rsch. Letters, No. 11 (Nov. 14, 2019).

[15] Id.

[16] The Wilderness Society, Current Issues in Public Lands Management in, Public Lands Curriculum (Sept. 13, 2022), https://www.wilderness.org/articles/article/public-lands-united-states-curriculum.

[17] Sarah L. Thomas & Sarah E. Reed, Entrenched ties between outdoor recreation and conservation pose challenges for sustainable land management, 14 Env’t Rsch. Letters, No.11 (Nov. 14, 2019).

[18] Id.

[19] Id.

[20] Matthew Daly, Trump’s firing of 1,000 national park workers raises concerns about maintenance and operating hours, AP News (Feb. 19, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/trump-national-park-firings-doge-grand-teton-baedee0a748a6374eafb6f95aac5dadc; Matthew Brown, Trump administration wants to cancel Biden-era rule that made conservation a ‘use’ of public land, AP News (Sept. 10, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/public-lands-conservation-drilling-burgum-5e08bfa715d692ad2ca5184504569748.

[21] See generally John Leshy, American Public Lands: A Sketch of Their Political History and Future Challenges, 62 Nat. Res. J. 341 (2022) (“[P]oliticians have time and time again joined hands regardless of political party to hold and protect more lands in U.S. ownership.”).

[22] Lucas Kaososi, The Human Cost of Conservation: Recognizing Indigenous Rights in Wildlife Protection, Cultural Survival (Mar. 3, 2025), https://www.culturalsurvival.org/news/human-cost-conservation-recognizing-indigenous-rights-wildlife-protection.

[23] Quinn Luthy, How Conservation Contributes to the Displacement of Indigenous People, Earth.org (Mar. 8, 2023), https://earth.org/conservation-indigenous-people/.

[24] Sabirah Abdus-Sabur, History of US Conservation, Dogwood All. (May 8, 2025), https://dogwoodalliance.org/2025/05/the-history-of-us-conservation/.

[25] Id.

[26] Id.

[27] John Leshy, American Public Lands: A Sketch of Their Political History and Future Challenges, 62 Nat. Res. J. 341, 352 (2022) (“Reagan signed legislation adding more than eight million acres to the national wilderness system, the largest addition in any single year since the Wilderness Act.”).

[28] Id. at 353.

[29] Great American Outdoors Act, Pub. L. No. 116-152, 134 Stat. 682 (2020) (establishing dedicated funds for use by National Parks and Public Lands); Great American Outdoors Act, U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, https://www.doi.gov/gaoa (last visited Oct. 10, 2025) (describing the Great American Outdoors Act as necessary to address overdue maintenance needs); Rescission of Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, 90 Fed. Reg. 43990 (Sept. 11, 2025) (to be codified at 43 C.F.R. pts. 1600, 6100).

[30] Matthew Brown, Trump administration wants to cancel Biden-era rule that made conservation a ‘use’ of public land, AP News (Sept. 10, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/public-lands-conservation-drilling-burgum-5e08bfa715d692ad2ca5184504569748.

[31] Id.

[32] Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 397 (1926) (upholding the validity of local land use decisions related to public health, safety, and welfare); Eliza Terziev, The sunny side of the street: Unveiling strides in zoning reform, reason Found. (June 24, 2024), https://reason.org/commentary/the-sunny-side-of-the-street-unveiling-strides-in-zoning-reform/.

[33] Euclid, 272 U.S. at 389–90.

[34] Eliza Terziev, The sunny side of the street: Unveiling strides in zoning reform, Reason Found. (June 24, 2024), https://reason.org/commentary/the-sunny-side-of-the-street-unveiling-strides-in-zoning-reform/; Carol A. Rolf, Zoning Laws, EBSCO (2023), https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/zoning-laws.

[35] Euclid, 272 U.S. at 387 (recognizing the flexibility of zoning to address community specific issues); American Trails, Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans (SCORPs) (Jan. 12, 2019), https://www.americantrails.org/resources/statewide-comprehensive-outdoor-recreation-plans-scorps-2 (stating SCORPs bring states funding from Land and Conservation Fund).

[36] Voters Give Overwhelming Approval to Land Conservation Measures, Tr. for Pub. Land (Nov. 3, 2010), https://www.tpl.org/media-room/voters-give-overwhelming-approval-land-conservation-measures (outlining high voter approval of conservation projects around the nation); Role of Parks and Recreation in Conservation, Nat’l Recreation and Park Ass’n, https://www.nrpa.org/our-work/Three-Pillars/role-of-parks-and-recreation-in-conservation/ (last visited Oct. 6, 2025).

[37] Charlie Reinertsen, Conservation Successes, New England Forestry Found., https://newenglandforestry.org/land-conservation/conservation-successes/ (last visited Oct. 6, 2025); Places We Protect, Ne. Wilderness Tr., https://newildernesstrust.org/places-we-protect/ (last visited Oct. 6, 2025).

[38] The Velomont, Vt. Huts and Trails, https://vermonthuts.org/the-velomont/ (last visited Sept. 30, 2025).

[39] Id.; What is a hut? Towards a definition, U.S. Hut All. (2015), https://www.hutalliance.org/library/2022/8/16/what-is-a-hut-towards-a-hut-definition (defining a hut as a range of shelter types used to support long distance walking, biking, or skiing).

[40] SE Group, Velomont Vision Plan 7 (June 2024).

[41] Id. at 6.

[42] Id. at 14.

[43] The Velomont Collective, supra note 40; The Velomont, Vt. Huts and Trails, https://vermonthuts.org/the-velomont/ (last visited Sept. 30, 2025).

[44] Velomont Trail and Vermont Huts: Outdoor Recreation Outcomes-Based Financing, Quantified Ventures, https://www.quantifiedventures.com/velomont-trail-and-vermont-huts (last visited Oct. 6, 2025).

[45] The Velomont Collective, supra note 40.

[46] Compass Vermont, U.S. Forest Service Approves 72-Miles for the Velomont Bike Trail in Vermont (Sept. 4, 2025), https://www.compassvermont.com/p/us-forest-service-approves-72-miles; L. Claire Powers et al., Reconnecting stranded public lands is a win-win for conservation and people, 270 Biological Conservation June 2022 at 109557 (connecting conserved land use projects benefit both wildlife and people).

[47] L. Claire Powers et al., supra note 46 (outlining the negative aspects of “checkerboarded” nature of private and public land parcels).

[48] The Velomont Collective, supra note 40.

[49] SE Group, Velomont Vision Plan, 102–110 (June 2024).

[50] U.S. Dep’t of Interior, America’s Public Lands Explained, (Jan. 31, 2023), https://www.doi.gov/blog/americas-public-lands-explained.

[51] Robert B. Keiter, The Emerging Law of Outdoor Recreation on the Public Lands, 51 Utah L. Fac. Scholarship 89, 91 (2021); The $1.2 Trillion Outdoor Recreation Economy Depends on Keeping Public Lands Public and Accessible, Outdoor Recreation Roundtable, (Apr. 4, 2025), https://recreationroundtable.org/news/the-1-2-trillion-outdoor-recreation-economy-depends-on-keeping-public-lands-public-and-accessible/ (“[outdoor industry supports] 5 million jobs, and [fuels] businesses in communities large and small, rural and urban”).

[52] Parks, Recreation, and Green Spaces, CDC (Jan. 31, 2025), https://www.cdc.gov/active-people-healthy-nation/php/tools/parks-rec.html (stating that people who have more access to green environments tend to be more physically active).

[53] Id.

[54] Id.; Mandi Taylor, Nurtured by Nature: Why Outdoor Recreation Matters, Unique Places to Save (Nov. 2024), https://uniqueplacestosave.org/news/nurtured-by-nature-outdoor-recreation-benefits.

[55] Taylor, supra note 54.

[56] Id.; Viniece Jennings & Omoshalewa Bamkole, The Relationship between Social Cohesion and Urban Green Space: An Avenue for Health Promotion, 16 Int. J. Env’t Res. Public Health 452 (2019).

[57] U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, Celebrating the power of public lands through tourism and community impact, Bureau of Land Mgmt. (May 5, 2025), https://www.blm.gov/blog/2025-05-05/celebrating-power-public-lands-through-tourism-and-community-impact.

[58] Id.

[59] Vast Majority of Americans Oppose Selling or Closing Public Lands, New Poll and Report Reveal, Tr. for Pub. Land (Apr. 16, 2025), https://www.tpl.org/media-room/vast-majority-of-americans-oppose-selling-or-closing-public-lands-new-poll-and-report-reveal (“74% oppose the closure of national public lands, and 71% oppose selling public lands to the highest bidder.”).

[60] Kate Wall, the nature of conservation is inherently bipartisan, ifaw (Dec. 15, 2020), https://www.ifaw.org/people/opinions/conservation-bipartisan.

[61] Voters Give Overwhelming Approval to Land Conservation Measures, Tr. for Pub. Land (Nov. 3, 2010), https://www.tpl.org/media-room/voters-give-overwhelming-approval-land-conservation-measures; Tr. for Pub. Land, supra note 59.

[62] Role of Parks and Recreation in Conservation, Nat’l Parks and Recreation Ass’n, https://www.nrpa.org/our-work/Three-Pillars/role-of-parks-and-recreation-in-conservation/ (last visited Oct. 6, 2025).

[63] See Rescission of Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, 90 Fed. Reg. 43990 (Sept. 11, 2025) (to be codified at 43 C.F.R. pts. 1600, 6100) (showing [number] public comments) (last visited Oct. 8, 2025).

[64] Matthew Brown, Trump administration wants to cancel Biden-era rule that made conservation a ‘use’ of public land, AP News (Sept. 10, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/public-lands-conservation-drilling-burgum-5e08bfa715d692ad2ca5184504569748.

[65] Tr. for Pub. Land, supra note 59; Kate Wall, supra note 60.

[66] Roger L. Moore & Beverly L. Driver, Introduction to Outdoor Recreation: Providing and Managing Natural Resource Based Opportunities 216 (2005).

[67] Lucas Kaososi, The Human Cost of Conservation: Recognizing Indigenous Rights in Wildlife Protection, Cultural Survival (Mar. 3, 2025), https://www.culturalsurvival.org/news/human-cost-conservation-recognizing-indigenous-rights-wildlife-protection.

[68] Moore & Driver, supra note 66 (introducing formula to calculate carrying capacity based on acreage, trail mileage, and vulnerability of the system).

[69] Id. at 217.