Columbia Journal of Environmental Law

The Destruction of the Climate Spending State

2026-02-02T23:33:22+00:00

The Biden Administration bet big on spending laws to forward its
climate policies, creating a novel “climate spending state” in a field
previously approached primarily through regulation. But the second
Trump Administration, building on an aggressive theory of Presidential
power, with support from bicameral Congressional majorities and a
sympathetic Supreme Court, has dismantled the climate spending state
with startling ease and speed. Although degradation of the federal
workforce and legislative alterations to the tax code have played their
part, it is the Trump Administration’s refusal to administer the spending
laws enacted by prior Congresses that has had the most disruptive and
immediate impact, and which has suddenly brought the obscure law of
federal appropriations to the forefront of national legal consciousness. A
detailed analysis of the ongoing destruction of the climate spending state
reveals a sophisticated strategy of Presidential impoundment,
administrative unilateralism, aggressive litigation, and Executive
influence over Congress’s spending power, in a manner never before seen
in the United States. The radical transformation of legal norms in
budgetary processes has implications far beyond climate law, to the very
fabric of the U.S. constitutional order.

Collaborative Climate Change Adaptation: A Case Study of Army Corps Coastal Protection Projects

2026-02-02T23:34:44+00:00

As the climate warms, governments in the U.S. are attempting to
increase the resilience of populations and physical environments to the
impacts of higher temperatures. This article analyzes the efforts of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers to design and build coastal protection
infrastructure, such as seawalls, storm surge barriers, and nature-based
approaches, as an example of intergovernmental collaboration to adapt
to climate change. The Army Corps’ unique model of project development
requires it to study and construct projects with a non-federal sponsor that
is typically a state or local government. The article makes three main
points about the Army Corps’ nascent efforts to address increased risks of
coastal flooding. First, it emphasizes that major urban areas along the
eastern and southern seaboards, such as Boston, Miami-Dade, and New
York City, are seeking to use the Army Corps to build coastal protection
infrastructure to mitigate flood risks that are increasing with climate
change. Second, the article characterizes the Corps’ coastal protection
projects as a decentralized form of inter-jurisdictional collaboration to
adapt to climate change. Third, the article argues that the decentralized
development of coastal protection on a project-by-project basis should be
complemented by periodic regional- or national-level analyses of coastal
flood risks. Looking closely at actual efforts to adapt highlights the
importance of considering whether adaptation should be undertaken in a
more decentralized or centralized manner as the need to adapt to warming
temperatures increases.

Charging Ahead or Drying Up? Lithium Extraction vs Colorado River Stewardship

2026-02-02T23:35:33+00:00

This note explores conflicts between water allocations from the
Colorado River and lithium mining in the Western United States. It focuses
on how the Colorado River 2026 Plan and its proposed water allocation
alternatives will disrupt environmental impact statements (EISs) and
litigation around lithium mining in the Western United States. The note
proposes that, not only is acknowledgment of the foreseeable changes to
water management necessary to reduce litigation, but also that it is
unlawfully arbitrary and capricious for the EISs to ignore, with no
rationale, the environmental impacts lithium extraction projects will
inflict under foreseeable water management changes. Alternatively, to
avoid the litigation necessary to correct EISs, the Bureau of Reclamation
should create and adopt an alternative plan that would protect the water
rights of users, like lithium operations, who contribute to combatting the
climate crisis.

Protecting Nature in a “Legal in Nature” Seventh Amendment Framework: Reimagining EPA Enforcement Post-Jarkesy

2026-02-02T23:36:48+00:00

In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, the Supreme Court
held that defendants accused of securities fraud were entitled to jury trials
under the Seventh Amendment, and that the SEC could not adjudicate
these cases before their expert administrative law judges.Worryingly, this
case implicates the Environmental Protection Agency, whose enforcement
strategy similarly relies on internal adjudication. This Note proposes
various legal and policy solutions that mitigate the impacts of Jarkesy to
preserve the critical work of the EPA in protecting the health, safety, and
environment of the American public. First, the EPA can attempt to
distinguish itself from the SEC through the public rights exception, and
through the statutory language that empowers its enforcement. Second,
the EPA can emphasis non-traditional forms of environmental redress that
do not involve penalties that implicate the Seventh Amendment. Finally,
the EPA can engage with state actors to fill in potential gaps in federal
enforcement. While the current Supreme Court seems determined to
declaw administrative agencies, alternative means remain for the EPA.