The United States needs better stormwater management practices.[1] Non-point source pollution – diffuse discharge of polluted runoff into waterways – is the “largest single source” of water pollution.[2] Climate change, poor drainage systems, and overdevelopment without stormwater control threaten downstream communities.[3] Inadequate funding contributes to the lack of stormwater policies and leads to flooding and reductions in water quality.[4] EPA estimates that nationwide wastewater treatment facilities need $388 billion over the next twenty years to adapt for climate change.[5] Stormwater utilities and local governments find financing stormwater management difficult because collecting money to pay for public benefits usually constitutes a tax.[6] Legislatures, not local stormwater utilities, have the power to levy taxes.[7] Because courts consider water pollution and flood control a public benefit, creating a nuanced fee structure to pay for stormwater management is crucial to withstanding a legal challenge of the fee.[8] The solution is to charge for stormwater management by implementing a parcel-based billing system with bill-credit options. This is the most equitable way local governments can charge fees for the stormwater service because the fee is particularized and semi-voluntary.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s monumental ruling in Terry v. Ohio[1] permanently shifted Fourth Amendment jurisprudence in a significant way.[2] Instead of analyzing whether an officer’s warrantless seizure of a person was obtained with or without probable cause, Terry expanded an officer’s discretion by allowing officers to conduct warrantless stops and searches of a person based off reasonable suspicion.[3]
Imagine you are twenty-one years old, in college, and without a steady job. You go to Rite Aid and find a lipstick you really love. It’s only a lipstick. It could not get you into that much trouble if you stuffed it into your pocket and walked out, right? After attempting to steal the lipstick, you are charged with theft pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 2575. This is a minor offense. In the grand scheme, this seems like a small deal, so why not plead guilty rather than go through the process of a trial? Accompanying that guilty plea are collateral consequences. These are the same collateral consequences that accompany all other misdemeanor crimes and some felonies. These consequences could have life-long repercussions.
That the inhabitants of the English Colonies in North America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following Rights: ….That they are entitled to life, liberty, & property, and they have never ceded to any sovereign power whatever, a right to dispose of either without their consent.[1]
The crisis in Flint, Michigan last year was a wake-up call for many in the world of environmental enforcement. So many things went wrong. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality bent the rules to save some money.[1] The EPA waited far too long to get involved because under the Safe Drinking Water Act, states are “primary enforcers.”[2] Finally, even the citizens who were affected by the unsafe water had little recourse because their ability to initiate and win in a citizen suit is so limited by agency discretion.[3] All of these factors contributed to the devastation that happened over a period of several months during which the people of Flint, the majority of whom are African-American, drank water that contained severely high amounts of lead and other dangerous substances.[4] Several people died as a result, and many more suffered brain damage and other illnesses from drinking water that their government claimed was safe.[5]
During its 2012-2013 term, the Supreme Court heard and decided three cases about takings; in each case the Court held in favor of the landowner.[1]Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management District, 133 S. Ct. 2586 (2013), was the most influential of them all. This opinion left scholars concerned about its implications on future takings cases.[2] Indeed, Vermont Law School professors, Sean Nolan and John Echeverria both predicted that the Koontz decision would undermine efforts by local governments to regulate land use in a way that benefits communities’ environment and economies the most.[3]
The federal government owns a huge swath of this country, fully half of the American west.[1] The question of how to manage all this land, especially which parts, if any, to permanently protect, has always been controversial. Today, about one-sixth of federal lands are designated as Wilderness areas,[2] the most protective public land designation available.[3] Many more acres remain controversial, proposed for Wilderness or other designations.
To achieve great success in renewable energy and help tackle climate change, policymakers need to identify how international trade and investment law is both promoting and inhibiting state policies.[1] This Note explores one trade and investment agreement: the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the European Union (EU) and the United States. Critics of TTIP argue the EU’s proposed Energy Chapter for TTIP undermines renewable energy regimes.[2] The proposal calls for (1) non-discriminatory access to transmission systems at (2) cost-reflective tariffs.[3] However, renewable energy policies give preference to renewables—thus discriminating between types of energy—and often subsidize renewable energy sources, which skews prices.[4] TTIP skeptics believe the Energy Chapter proposal guarantees that states with renewable energy regimes will violate TTIP.[5] If a state violates TTIP, an investor could seek compensation under a claim of indirect expropriation.[6] To claim indirectexpropriation, the investor would invoke TTIP’s investor state dispute settlement (ISDS) provision—another controversial element of TTIP.[7] The investor would challenge the state legislation that rendered the investment moot.[8] Critics claim these ISDS challenges undermine democratic principles and give investors too much influence over state legislation.[9]
Science is progressing at an unprecedented rate.[1] The scientific field is introducing revolutionary new concepts, methodologies, and products that are unlike previously patented innovations. In particular, the legal community is scrambling to play catch-up and grapple with the patentability of biotechnology.[2]
In 1976, with “Title IX” written on their naked torsos, the women of the Yale rowing team marched in to the administration building to demand equality.[1] They cited deep and vast gender-based disparities in athletics, and an atmosphere of gender-based hostility towards women in athletics at the university.[2] They presented a letter to the school, recited by future two-time Olympian Chris Ernst, as she and her 19 female teammates stood naked, in protest in front of their administrators.[3] The letter read in part: “These are the bodies Yale is exploiting. We have come here today to make clear how unprotected we are, to show graphically what we are being exposed to….”[4]
Submissions The Vermont Law Review continually seeks articles, commentaries, essays, and book reviews on any subject concerning recent developments in state, federal, Native American, or international law.
