In this blog, 2L staffer Emma Carlo explains how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently attempting to rescind newly implemented drinking water regulations regarding chemicals known as PFAs. Carlo argues that this deregulation action is indicative of corporate favoritism and proves that water utility companies and the EPA believe the $800 million implementation cost is too expensive to protect the public and the environment. Carlo explains that EPA is acting contrary to its intended purpose, as this deregulation will allow continued exposure to these chemicals for more than 70 million people, despite the high likelihood of adverse health effects from low exposure to PFAS.
Water Wars: Colorado River Crisis Fueled by Climate Change
In this blog, 2L staffer Kalista Thomas focuses on the issues surrounding the lowering levels of water in the Colorado River and how these lowering levels are exacerbated by climate change. Thomas argues how the United States needs to continue to be a member in the Paris Agreement and gives an outline of how the Paris Agreement helps countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
There’s Not a Snake in My Boot! Discussing Agency Overreach in the Designation of Critical Habits Under the Endangered Species Act
In this blog, 3L Senior Staffer Erica Joan Radermacher discusses the recent case of Skipper v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in which the court in the Southern District of Alabama ruled for private landowners. Radermacher argues that the abuse of agency power to designate thousands of acres of private lands as critical habitat after only a singular sighting of the black pinesnake on the land in the recent past is an example of government overreach at its most egregious.
Myth, Legend, or Protected Species: The Legality of Hunting Bigfoot in Kentucky
Whether or not you believe Bigfoot is real, in this blog, 3L staffer Lauren Repa explores the legality of hunting the elusive creature. Repa explains how various states have implemented laws that forbid the hunting and killing of Bigfoot. She demonstrates whether hunting the creature would be worth the trouble with the Kentucky State Government.
The Sun May Be Setting Over Kentucky’s Solar Energy Potential
In this blog, 3L staffer Sam Hilgeman examines the impact that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will have on solar energy in the Bluegrass State. He argues that the removal of the residential solar credit will have long-term detrimental impacts to the state's residential solar energy market unless state legislators can provide their own incentive.
A Clear View or a Clouded Future? Kentucky’s Legal Haze Over Air Pollution
In this blog, 3L staffer Dylan Diedrich examines Kentucky's State Improvement Plan to address regional haze in class 1 areas covered by the Clean Air Act, specifically Mammoth Cave National Park. Diedrich takes the position that Kentucky's State Improvement Plan fails to adequately address the issue of haze. By failing to target appropriate pollution generators, the air haze around Mammoth Cave will fail to improve.
Who Owns the Water?
The way lawmakers define and regulate water ownership will determine the future of farming, cities, and ecosystems. In this blog, 2L staffer Keyera Jackson argues that if lawmakers fail to modernize Kentucky’s water laws, the next drought won’t just dry up streams; it could erode the fairness that water law was meant to protect.
Algal Amendment: Is Enough Being Done About Harmful Algal Blooms?
Going through all the important changes likely to come from the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2025, which intends to address harmful algal blooms, 2L staffer Nathan McCoy appraises whether it is effective in its goals. McCoy eventually concludes a finding that the amendment does indeed address the challenges of harmful algal blooms to the extent it could be considered to have fulfilled its purpose.
The Real Cost of Ending the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
In this blog, 3L Staffer Chasity Peters argues that the EPA’s proposal to eliminate greenhouse gas reporting requirements under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program will cost the American people far more than the agency suggests will be saved by ending the requirement due to the increasing costs of climate change.




