VJEL Newsroom

Announcing VJEL’s 2024 White River Writing Competition Winners

By VJEL

April 25, 2024

 

The Vermont Journal of Environmental Law (VJEL) is pleased to announce the two winners of the 2024 Notes Competition. This year’s first-place winner is Kari Millstein, with her Note “NEPA’s Requirements are Inadequate to Protect Remote Alaska Native Communities from Exploitation by Resource Extraction Companies” and this year’s second-place winner is Caroline Smith, with her Note “Hands off My Grass: Potential Fifth Amendment Takings Challenges to Cannabis Regulations in California.” Both Kari’s and Caroline’s winning Notes will be featured in the upcoming Volume 26 of The Vermont Journal of Environmental Law during the 2024-2025 publication cycle.

 

The VJEL Notes Competition is held annually that VJEL Staff Editors participate in. As part of VJEL requirements, each Staff Editor writes a scholarly Note on a novel environmental law topic throughout their first year on the journal with feedback and guidance from Notes Editors, and optionally, with a faculty advisor to satisfy the Vermont Law and Graduate School Advanced Writing Requirement. After Staff Editors submit their final draft, the Notes Editors select Notes to move to the next step and receive a second grade from the VJEL Executive Board. The Board then decides a winner who is offered a publication offer with VJEL, and at their discretion, additional Notes may receive publication offers.

 

Meet the 2024 First-Place Winner: Kari Millstein

Kari Millstein is a 2L dual Juris Doctorate and Masters of Restorative Justice candidate, graduating in May 2025, and is the incoming VJEL Volume 26 Senior Managing Editor. After graduation, Kari plans to return to her home state of Alaska and pursue interests in environmental justice, criminal justice reform, tribal sovereignty, and climate resilience. Kari also holds a Bachelor of Arts in anthropology from Willamette University in Salem, Oregon, and enjoys travel and outdoor activities.

 

NEPA’s Requirements are Inadequate to Protect Remote Alaska Native Communities from Exploitation by Resource Extraction Companies

 

Kari’s Note criticizes the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the environmental impact statement process through the lens of ConocoPhillips’ new oil drilling project on the North Slope of Alaska called the Willow Project. By examining several distinct ways in which the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) failed to use this environmental legislation to protect the small Alaska Native village that exists near the proposed site, this Note illustrates the need for new solutions.

 

Kari first details that resource extraction projects pose a serious danger of increased sexual exploitation of Indigenous women. Though the BLM is aware of this problem, NEPA does not require it to include the issue in its analysis of potential impacts to the community. She then argues that while NEPA requires public participation in the process of approving the project, the opportunities for participation are performative and designed to allow the project to move forward, rather than creating any real collaboration. Further, no part of the process is enforceable against ConocoPhillips or the BLM, so even if those organizations fail to fulfil the commitments made in the environmental impact statement, there is no penalty. Finally, NEPA is national legislation, so it is up to the implementing agency to tailor its approach to the area. Kari emphasizes that in Alaska, there are many unique factors that complicate environmental projects that went largely unacknowledged through the approval process for the Willow Project.

Meet the 2024 Second-Place Winner: Caroline Smith

Caroline Smith is a 3L accelerated Juris Doctorate candidate from northern Kentucky, graduating in May 2024. After graduation, Caroline plans to move to Alaska to begin her legal career. Caroline also holds a bachelor’s degree in political science and history from Florida State University.

 

Hands off My Grass: Potential Fifth Amendment Takings Challenges to Cannabis Regulations in California

 

Caroline’s Note explores the potential takings challenges under a Fifth Amendment regulatory takings theory to the cannabis industry in California, first by walking through potential challenges that may arise; detailing current California cannabis, relevant environmental law, and regulatory takings law; to applying that law to potential claims against cannabis regulations; and finishing with recommendations to avoid potential takings challenges by incorporating holistic regulation of all associated industries.

 

Cannabis is a controversial industry, imbued with government regulation that heavily criminalized cannabis as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), outlawing any potential medical or recreational use—often with hefty penalties. Despite this overbearing federal regulation, States did not necessarily follow in suit, and instead legalized cannabis at varying degrees, and after a push from States, the federal government finally gave way, by providing guidance to the Attorney General to prohibit the Department of Justice from interfering with state medical cannabis schemes. Despite this, there is still no permanent scheme to protect recreational use or all sectors of the cannabis industry.

 

While California has a reputation of being cannabis-friendly and among some of the first states to legalize it for both medical and recreational use, cannabis regulations in California localities nonetheless pose the risk of regulatory takings challenges because of economic burdens that other industry counterparts need not bear. Examples of these regulations include requiring cultivators to have at least 20 percent of their energy demand supplied by on-site renewable energy; purchase 100 percent renewable energy from a local utility; and for indoor cultivators, to source their energy from a choice of either on-grid renewable energy, on-site net-zero renewable energy sources, or purchase off-site carbon offsets for any non-renewable usage. Caroline walks through unique jurisprudence that other states have not yet faced, as well as general rulings from the United States Supreme Court on deciding how a court could strike down these regulations as a regulatory taking under the Fifth Amendment of the federal Constitution. Caroline finally concludes by offering recommendations to California localities to incorporate various changes to their regulations to avoid a takings challenge, such as adjusting the renewable energy requirement to be more flexible or taking a holistic approach to regulation so that other similar industries are all regulated the same.

 

VJEL would like to thank all the Staff Editors for their dedication in writing their Notes on a wide variety of topics. There were many strong submissions, and VJEL had a difficult decision in deciding winners. Nonetheless, VJEL is grateful for their contributions to creating rigorous, exemplary, and accessible work to the environmental law field.