Review editor's note.

I am pleased to present the 2005 Ninth Circuit Environmental Law Review. This section contains summaries of pertinent Environmental and Natural Resources cases decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals approximately between March 2005 and March 2006. These summaries are intended to serve as a tool to assist practitioners in their research as well as a reference for those looking to keep abreast of recent environmental and natural resources issues decided by the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit Review also includes two chapters discussing two important Ninth Circuit decisions discussed in the summaries. Ms. Anna Stasch uses the Ninth Circuit's decision not to apply the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) to a military base conveyed by the U.S. Military to the Filipino government in ARC Ecology v. United States Department of the Air Force as a touchstone to explore the presumption against applying domestic environmental law to American actors potentially responsible for environmental harm abroad. Ms. Stasch discusses strategies for practitioners attempting to overcome the presumption including an analysis of how anti-trust law has become widely applied to American companies acting extraterritorially, and the possibility of environmental plaintiffs borrowing legal theories concerning domestic harm to bring a successful claim's against defendants acting outside of the United States. In addition, Ms. Sherry Bosse discusses the Ninth Circuit's decision in Defenders of Wildlife v. EPA that section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) grants additional power to federal agencies to protect endangered species beyond their governing statutes, even if they do not otherwise have discretion to consider species in the action. Ms. Bosse criticizes the Ninth Circuit's classification of the EPA's power to transfer National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting authority under the Clean Water Act as a discretionary decision, thus triggering section 7. Ms. Bosse further explores the jurisprudential split in the circuits concerning how much, if any, additional authority the ESA grants agencies to prioritize species protection, concluding that the Ninth Circuit's holding vests unduly broad authority in federal agencies unsupported in other jurisdictions or by the statutory language.

The Environmental Law Members participating in the Ninth Circuit Review are selected from our annual writing competition for their outstanding essays. Throughout the year these students have written case summaries and comments focused on recent Ninth Circuit case law in addition to their normal source checking duties. I would like to express my utmost gratitude to this year's Ninth Circuit Members for their diligence, dedication, and positive attitude while facing a grueling schedule. This section is truly a result of their hard work.

JON TUCKER

2005 NINTH CIRCUIT REVIEW EDITOR