Part II provides an overview of the practical and theoretical context that led to AB 42 and the landscape into which the new law enters. This Part presents a brief survey of current thinking surrounding public land and its management, explores the particulars of AB 42, and provides a survey of SF Bay Area state park units and nonprofits that are likely to be affected by AB 42.

Part III explores some of the possible pitfalls of AB 42. Part IV suggests ways in which the law might be improved and contends that partnerships with private nonprofits, on their own, will never be sufficient to sustain California’s state parks. Part V looks beyond AB 42 toward other solutions for California’s state park funding. Finally, the Conclusion urges the reader to closely monitor the successes and failures of AB 42 to better inform decisions to renew, repeal, or amend the law, and to reaffirm California’s commitment to an outstanding state parks system.

Continuing the tradition of living in small quarters is no simple task in the modern era. How and where we live is not determined by us alone but by zoning rules and building codes, which require that certain standards for habitability and safety be met. These rules ensure that people live in safe conditions removed from industrial and commercial areas. But these same rules also present challenges for those who want to live in small houses that do not fall directly within the parameters set by California’s Building Code and zoning laws.

With the advent of micro-housing—dwellings generally smaller than 300 square feet—California’s Building Code, and to some extent zoning laws, create a range problems for those who want compact, environmentally conscious living because, although dwellings smaller than 300 square feet are not explicitly prohibited, they do not meet minimum size requirements. Micro-housing built as second units could be a primary source of new housing in California, but the Building Code stands in the way. This new housing would not produce more sprawl because it could be built within existing communities close to job and urban centers served by public transportation. Micro-housing reduces sprawl because the distances people travel between work and home in their cars is shorter, and cars are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change. In 2012, nearly one-third of energy-related emissions in the United States came from transportation. But before California can benefit socially and environmentally from micro-housing, these small homes must become less difficult to build.

Environmental issues include both anthropogenic sources and naturally occurring phenomena. The problem is that, for some buyers, sellers and professionals, obtaining accurate data is difficult. Many know there are issues, but they are unable to get straight-forward, manageable information. Some do not want to know of the issues, and others are overwhelmed. Complicating the matter for everyone is the reality that the laws related to disclosure and duties to prevent or mitigate harm vary significantly by jurisdiction, creating unpredictable rights and duties that range from caveat emptor to duties of reasonable inquiry. Consistency between jurisdictions is of greater importance than ever because of the mobility of the population. Even with guidance and reports from the EPA, the tools available to the majority of individuals seeking to make this most significant purchase, the real estate market does not address the health and safety risks caused by environmental degradation.

Given this deficit in information, we propose a voluntary checklist to alert consumers, owners, and professionals of environmental issues that can impose significant costs for health care, remediation, and property devaluation. Knowledge of the issues should reduce disputes, and, over time, consumers may demand properties that are safer, with economic variables that are better quantified. That in turn should encourage sellers, builders and producers to satisfy the expectations of the consuming public with greener and more sustainable housing.

As might be expected when an important, severely endangered coastal natural resource located in a highly urbanized urban area is at stake, protecting the Ballona Wetlands has been fraught with controversy. But, unexpectedly, each of the major players has, over time, experienced reversals of position—and of fortune—not commonly encountered.

This is a cautionary tale, but it offers hope for the future. When the State formulates its Ballona Wetlands restoration plan, the promise of revitalization to a natural, healthy coastal wetlands ecosystem may finally be realized.

Part III evaluates the EPA’s narrow scope in determining to reregister brodifacoum, focusing on the EPA’s decision to allow the FWS unregulated use of this highly toxic pesticide for island eradications. Additionally, Part III examines the FWS’s ability to manage and carry out island eradications. Part IV discusses viable alternatives and improvements to the FWS’s management of island eradications that are available for implementation in the proposed eradication on the Farallon Islands. Finally, this Comment concludes that the faultless birds should not bear the burden of a solution to a problem created by humankind. The FWS should utilize the suggested alternatives and mitigation measures to reduce the risk of non-target poisoning of the birds of the Farallon Islands.

Part II will relate the history of the region and the water districts within it. It will also detail the geology of the region, the discovery of selenium, and the disastrous effects of selenium that led to wildlife destruction at Kesterson Reservoir. Finally, this Part will establish why drainage is difficult but vital for agriculture on the Westside. Part III will outline the complications facing drainage implementation on the Westside following the closure of Kesterson Reservoir. It will discuss the legal issues implicated by the Clean Water Act and the TMDL for the lower San Joaquin River. Further, it will explain the legal history of the cases that charged Reclamation with drainage responsibilities and ordered Reclamation to fulfill its duties under the San Luis Act.

Part IV profiles the Grassland Area Farmers and Westlands Water District. It describes the GAF’s long-term drainage plan and establishes why it should be encouraged and continued. It contrasts the GAF’s actions with Westlands’ inaction and suggests that Westlands should take control over its drainage problem as the GAF has done. Finally, Part V establishes the necessity of continued delay in the enforcement of the TMDL for the GAF’s drainage, the need for an amendment of the Basin Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins, and the benefits of a legislative amendment to the San Luis Act. The Comment concludes by suggesting that while there is no perfect outcome for the agricultural issues on the Westside, amendments to the Basin Plan and the San Luis Act will create a fair and practical solution that will reward the GAF for its affirmative action and not allow Westlands to reap similar benefits through inaction.

Part II of this Article explores the idea of plastic bag ordinances as an icon for a greater movement. Part III discusses types of plastic bag ordinances and briefly examines the most notable locations that have pursued each type. Part IV discusses how the plastic bag industry has used CEQA to defeat and delay local plastic bag ordinances in California. Part V examines the Manhattan Beach decision in detail and discusses what effect the decision may have on similar ordinances going forward. The Article concludes by discussing the social climate when the court decided the Manhattan Beach case, including legislation introduced at state and local levels, mobilization of advocacy groups focusing on plastic pollution, and concurrent litigation.

Part II of this Article analyzes the holding and ramifications of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in AEP. Part III analyzes the holding and ramifications of the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision in Steadfast. Part IV synthesizes the ramifications of these two decisions and predicts that climate change litigation remains viable, both on the underlying claim and related coverage issues. Thus, rather than take the steam out of climate change litigation, the AEP and Steadfast decisions simply send this litigation back to the states.

The Article concludes that the Yellowstone River Compact dispute, and like disputes throughout the West, cannot be fully resolved without a new regulatory process for CBM development that prospectively addresses harms to water rights. Ultimately, this interstate dispute provides a rare and critical lens for all prior appropriation states grappling with how to adapt traditional appropriative rights principles to the emerging use of CBM development.

This Article takes a careful look at this decision. It begins with an introduction to the physical setting, focusing on the Tongue and Powder sub-basins within the Yellowstone basin. It discusses Montana’s arguments why the Compact precludes improved irrigation efficiency that increases consumption and the Special Master’s rejection of those arguments. Next, the Article looks at the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion. Finally, it offers some observations triggered by this litigation, critiques the doctrine of recapture in western water law, and supports the Court’s embrace of water use efficiency over protection of the status quo. We begin with a look at the Yellowstone River basin.