Printer Friendly

Review editor's note.

I am pleased to present the 2004 Ninth Circuit Environmental Review. This Review begins with summaries of the significant environmental and natural resource decisions of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals between March 2004 and March 2005. These summaries are followed by two student Chapters, each discussing an important Ninth Circuit case.

Each of this year's Chapters discuss aspects of the Ninth Circuit's current treatment of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Mr. Shems Baker-Jud looks at the court's NEPA "range of alternatives" analysis in Westlands Water District v. United States Department of Interior. Mr. Baker-Jud analyzes the Ninth Circuit's disparate examination of agency actions according to whether a project is characterized as a conservation action. He argues that the preferential treatment the court affords a conservation action is in keeping with the spirit of NEPA. Mr. Gordon Howard examines the interaction of the Clean Water Act and NEPA in Save Our Sonoran v. Flowers. Mr. Howard argues that because NEPA and Clean Water Act jurisdiction is tenuous, the court should not have forced full federalization of a residential development.

The Review is produced by the Ninth Circuit Review Members who are selected from Environmental Law's writing competition for their outstanding essays. In addition to the traditional source-checking duties of first-year members, the Ninth Circuit Review Members produce both the case summaries and a Chapter scrutinizing a recent Ninth Circuit case. I would like to thank this year's members for their hard work and dedication; the Review would not be possible without their diligence.

This Review is intended as a useful resource for students and practioners who wish to keep informed of recent developments in Ninth Circuit environmental and natural resource jurisprudence. I hope that you find these summaries and Chapters to be an important and informative addition to your research.

CHRISTINA LEWIS

2004 NINTH CIRCUIT REVIEW EDITOR
COPYRIGHT 2005 Lewis & Clark Northwestern School of Law
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2005, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Lewis, Christina
Publication:Environmental Law
Date:Jun 22, 2005
Words:308
Previous Article:2004 Ninth Circuit Environmental Review.
Next Article:Case summaries.


Related Articles
REVIEW EDITOR'S NOTE.
Review editor's note.
Review editor's note.
Review editor's note.
2003 ninth circuit environmental review.
Review editor's note.
Defense ARJ executive editor.
2005 Ninth Circuit Environmental Review.
Review editor's note.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2014 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters