To the early humans that roamed the great planet earth, hunting was a necessity.[1] The quarry not only provided food, but also resources such as clothing and materials for tools deriving from bones, horns and hooves.[2] Soon, the human species began hunting not only for survival but also for sport.[3] This practice appeared in civilizations such as ancient Egypt, where it served as a marker of social status, as well as among the Assyrians, Babylonians, and later the ancient Greeks.[4] Over time, hunting for sport became deeply ingrained in human culture, taking on different meanings and purposes across societies and social classes.[5]

Today, in North America, hunting carries many different meanings.[6] The types of weaponry used have evolved throughout society.[7] While increased ethicality has always been the driving factor of weaponry evolution, one of these advances in particular has imposed immense environmental concerns.[8] Specifically, lead bullets have been a cause for alarm to certain segments of the wildlife population, giving the mantra “Free as a Bird,” a run for its money.[9]

The California condor is an impressive species that roams our great nation.[10] With a wingspan of 9.5 feet and weighing up to 25 pounds, this grand animal is North America’s largest bird.[11] These fascinating birds usually live to be 60 years old and possess the capability of roaming up to 150 miles a day.[12] Condors must consume between 75 and 150 carcasses annually to stay healthy.[13] Dr. Myra Finkelstein and her team found that even if less than 2% of those carcasses are contaminated with lead, a condor still faces a 50% probability of ingesting tainted meat.[14]

The biggest threat to condors today is lead poisoning.[15] When a firearm using lead ammunition is discharged, the bullet often shatters into numerous tiny fragments upon impact, spreading beyond the initial wound.[16] Scavengers like condors may consume these contaminated remains and unknowingly ingest the lead.[17]

As of July 1, 2019, the use of nonlead ammunition is mandatory for taking any wildlife with a firearm throughout California.[18] This requirement stems from Assembly Bill 711, signed into law in October 2013, which directed the California Fish and Game Commission to implement regulations gradually phasing in the nonlead ammunition mandate, culminating in full compliance by July 1, 2019.[19]

These Condors were on the mere brink of extinction in the mid 1980s.[20] Nonetheless, due to tireless efforts from hunters, ranchers, biologists and many other organizations, there are over 600 alive currently.[21] Despite, being critically endangered, efforts from all realms are ensuring these birds strive towards a strong and healthy population.[22]

Hunters play a vital role in conservation.[23] By choosing non-lead ammunition, they continue a strong tradition of safeguarding wildlife and preserving entire ecosystems.[24]

[1] Britannica Editors, hunting, Britannica (Mar. 5, 2026), https://www.britannica.com/sports/hunting-sport.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id. Humans can be seen hunting for sport, to preserve tradition, or solely to put food on the table. Id.

[7] Wes Littlefiled, A Brief History of North American Hunting told through Tools & Tactics, All Outdoors (Dec. 23, 2024), https://www.alloutdoor.com/2024/12/23/brief-history-north-american-hunting/.

[8] California Condors, National Park Service, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/condors/threats.htm (last visited Mar. 2, 2026).

[9] Id.; Lynyrd Skynrd, Free Bird, on Pronounced ‘Lĕh-‘nérd ‘Skin-‘nérd (Apple Music, MCA Recs. Mar. 2, 2026).

[10] Supra, note 8.

[11] California Condor, National Park Service, https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/california-condor.htm (last visited Mar. 2, 2026).

[12] Id.

[13] Mary Bates, Ph.D., Lead poisoning still threatens endangered California Condor, AAAS (July 23, 2012), https://www.aaas.org/membership/qualia/lead-poisoning-still-threatens-endangered-california-condor.

[14] Id.

[15] Supra, note 8.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Assem. Bill. 711, 2013-2014 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2013).

[19] Id.

[20] Understanding and Managing Condors, National Park Service, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/condors/understandingcondors.htm (last visited Mar. 2, 2026).

[21] Id.

[22] Id.

[23] Supra, note 8.

[24] Id.

The post Lead and Legacy: Protecting Wildlife in the Age of Modern Hunting first appeared on JOULE.

On March 13, 2026, President Trump invoked the emergency powers of the Defense Production Act (“DPA”) to boost select oil operations off of California’s southern coast.[1] This executive order comes merely ten days after the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) issued an opinion that any such executive order under the DPA would preempt contrary state law, including permitting or compliance requirements.[2]

The DPA is a Cold War-era law that grants the President a set of broad powers to guide domestic industry in support of national defense.[3] “National defense” as defined in the DPA has been expanded by Congress to include terrorist attacks, natural hazards or disasters, and domestic preparedness and response, in addition to traditional military features.[4]

The DPA offers a set of authorities to the President to support national defense. Among others, the DPA allows the President to require persons and businesses to set aside private responsibilities in favor of prioritizing government contracts.[5] The DPA also provides that the President may incentivize the expansion of production and supply in support of bolstering the industrial base.[6] In his March 13^th executive order, President Trump amended previous presidential delegations under the DPA to include the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Commerce to act and exercise certain authorities in the name of preparedness.[7] The March 13^th executive order also clarifies that in the case of a declared national energy emergency, agency heads with delegated authority, such as the Secretary of Energy, may act without presidential approval.[8]

President Trump’s invocation of the DPA occurs less than a month after the U.S. conducted a series of airstrikes on Iranian leadership and military assets.[9] As a result of the attacks, Iran has blocked the Strait of Hormuz.[10] Blocking the Strait has serious global energy implications as nearly 20% of the world’s oil passes through the Strait, making it one of the world’s busiest oil transportation corridors.[11]

With an estimated 20 million barrels a day being prevented from international usage through the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, President Trump and his administration turn to the DPA to support the national defense.[12] On March 13^th, 2026, the Secretary of Energy compelled Sable Offshore Corporation (“Sable”) to resume production at its Santa Ynez Unit off the southern coast of California.[13] The directive comes in an effort to address supply disruptions and shortages caused by the Strait of Hormuz’s blockage.[14]

California officials have raised concerns and objections to President Trump’s employment of the DPA, including from Governor Gavin Newsom.[15] Gov. Newsom points out that this particular use of the DPA overrides California law and an existing federal court order.[16] It is also recognized that Sable has been named in a series of charges, inquiries, and injunctions related to its practices.[17]

President Trump’s use of the DPA to compel private oil production by preempting state laws is a developing issue. Although the long-term effects are so far unknown, the general suggestion of the President’s use of the DPA is that its scope may be wider than its previous use indicates.[18] The ability to displace existing private contracts and state laws in favor of government production for reasons related to national defense is one that is likely to be heavily debated in the coming months.

[1] James M. Auslander et al., New DOJ OLC Opinion Authorizes Broad Use of the Defense Production Act to Preempt State Law and Displace Consent Decree Obligations, Nat’l Law Review, Mar. 14, 2026, https://natlawreview.com/article/new-doj-olc-opinion-authorizes-broad-use-defense-production-act-preempt-state-law.

[2]  Id. This opinion came in response to a question from the Department of Energy about a company with a major oilfield off the coast of California that is being barred from production by California laws. Id.

[3] Alexandra G. Neenan, The Defense Production Act of 1950: History, Authorities, and Considerations for Congress, Congress.Gov, Oct. 6, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R43767.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Adjusting Certain Delegations Under the Defense Production Act (Trump EO Tracker), Akin Gump, Mar. 13, 2026, https://www.akingump.com/en/insights/blogs/trump-executive-order-tracker/adjusting-certain-delegations-under-the-defense-production-act.

[8] Id.

[9] Iran’s War With Israel and the United States, Council on Foreign Relations, last updated Mar. 13, 2026, https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/confrontation-between-united-states-and-iran.

[10] Id.

[11] Gavin Butler et al., Strait of Hormuz: What happens if Iran shuts global oil corridor?, BBC, Mar. 12 2026, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c78n6p09pzno.

[12] Chuck McCutcheon, Trump seeks to tap California offshore oil, Axios, Mar. 13, 2026, https://www.axios.com/2026/03/13/trump-oil-california-iran-war.

[13] US energy secretary directs oil company to restore operations off California, AP News, Mar. 14, 2026, https://apnews.com/article/california-oil-sable-offshore-trump-13a76a0651d759bc5236bbb54ad2c13a.

[14] Id.

[15] Chuck McCutcheon, supra note 12.

[16] Id.

[17] Id. Sable “faces a criminal prosecution by a local district attorney, a federal securities inquiry, two court injunctions and findings by county officials of a pattern of noncompliance[.]” Id.

[18] James M. Auslander et al., supra note 1.

The post President Trump Turns to the Defense Production Act to Address Oil Shortage Following Conflict with Iran first appeared on JOULE.

Nearly one-third of the 1.8-billion-acre American landscape is currently held in fee by the Federal Government; this ownership exists primarily as a massive sprawl across Alaska and the Greater West.[1] Hidden in the underground beneath this land sits an array of valuable resources in the form of energy minerals such as coal, oil shale, oil, as well as gas and soft-rock minerals such as phosphate, potassium, sodium, sulfur, and native asphalt on onshore public land.[2]

To facilitate the development and extraction of these valuable resources, over 100 years ago Congress enacted the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, establishing a framework that has governed federal subsurface rights for over a century.[3] Of its many effects, the Mineral Leasing Act permits the Federal Government to retain the ownership of the mineral deposit found in certain Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Federal Land but grants Profit à Prendre[4] for the mineral values to a private for a specified amount of time while receiving a royalty on the occurring production.[5] The government conducts these operations through the allocation of leases by BLM through a competitive bidding scheme where “the highest bidder” must also pay at least 12.5% royalty for such extractions.[6]

Now, finding passage under the Trump Administration, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 (One Big Beautiful Bill) seeks to alter the Mineral Leasing Act in three-distinct ways found in Section 4.02, 4.03, and 4.04 of The One Big Beautiful Bill.[7] Despite their differences, in general, this legislation represents a stark departure from the historical application of the Mineral Leasing Act by restricting the historically provided broad discretion to pause or cancel with strict quotas and mandates.[8]

For instance, under Section 4.02, The One Big Beautiful Bill restores the Mineral Leasing Act to its prior status by repealing royalty rate increases and noncompetitive leasing bans enacted under Inflation Reeducation Act of 2022.[9] The One Big Beautiful Bill also reforms Section 17 of the Mineral Leasing Act to mandate that federal lands believed to contain oil or gas deposits be available for leasing within 18 months of an expression of interest,[10] while the Secretary of the Interior is now required to conduct at least four oil and gas lease sales annually in nine designated western states and Alaska.[11]

Section 4.03 of the One Big Beautiful Bill moreover, intensifies federal coal extraction by amending Section 7(a) of the Mineral Leasing Act regarding royalty rates.[12] These amended rates apply post-hoc to any lease issued under Section 2 of the Mineral Leasing Act that remains active.[13] Additionally, One Big Beautiful Bill provides a credit to lessees for the difference between advance royalties paid under the old law prior to the bill.[14] The Secretary is also compelled to make 4,000,000 additional acres of federal land available for coal leasing, notwithstanding prior restrictions under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.[15]

Finally, Section 4.04 briefly touches on the Mineral Leasing Act by maintaining a financial connection to the Mineral Leasing Act by applying its established revenue-sharing standards to new renewable energy projects.[16]

While mentioned only briefly in the grand scale of the One Big Beautiful Bill, the amendments to the Mineral Leasing Act represent a drastic shift in the American legal landscape for public lands. By restricting historically broad discretion to pause or cancel lease sales, the One Big Beautiful Bill effectively transitions federal land management from a policy of conservation-based flexibility to one of production output mandates.

[1] Gary A. Campbell, Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, EBSCO Knowledge Advantage (2025), https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/mineral-leasing-act-1920;  History of the BLM: Yesterday and Today, Bureau of Land Mgmt., https://web.archive.org/web/20141127214504/http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/info/about_blm/history.print.html (last visited Feb. 19, 2026).

[2] Gary A. Campbell, Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, EBSCO Knowledge Advantage (2025), https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/mineral-leasing-act-1920.

[3] Id.

[4] Will Chen, Profit à Prendre, LAWPROF (2026), https://lawprof.co/property-law/legal-definitions/profit-a-prendre/ (last visited Feb. 19, 2026) (defining a profit à prendre as a right to take products of nature, such as minerals or timber, from another’s land).

[5] Gary A. Campbell, Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, EBSCO Knowledge Advantage (2025), https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/mineral-leasing-act-1920.

[6] Id.; History of the BLM: Yesterday and Today, Bureau of Land Mgmt., https://web.archive.org/web/20141127214504/http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/info/about_blm/history.print.html (last visited Feb. 19, 2026).

[7] One Big Beautiful Bill Act (2025): An Analysis §§ 4.02–4.04.

[8] 30 U.S.C. § 226, amended by One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Pub. L. No. 119-21, § 50102(b) (2025).

[9] One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025, Pub. L. No. 119-21, § 50101, 139 Stat. 145 (2025); Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-169, 136 Stat. d1818 (2022).

[10] 30 U.S.C. § 226, amended by Pub. L. No. 119-21, § 50101(d) (2025).

[11] One Big Beautiful Bill Act (2025): An Analysis § 4.02 (Matthew Bender & Co. ed., LexisNexis 2025).

[12] One Big Beautiful Bill Act (2025): An Analysis § 4.03 (Matthew Bender & Co. ed., LexisNexis 2025); citing 30 U.S.C. § 207(a), amended by One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Pub. L. No. 119-21, § 50202(a) (2025).

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] One Big Beautiful Bill Act (2025): An Analysis § 4.04 (Matthew Bender & Co. ed., LexisNexis 2025) (providing 25% of renewable energy revenue is paid to the state and 25% to the county where the project is located);

The post The Intersection of The One Big Beautiful Bill of 2025 & The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 first appeared on JOULE.

Noise pollution belongs in environmental law because Congress itself treated uncontrolled noise as a threat to “health and welfare,” not a private annoyance.[1] The Noise Control Act declares a national policy of an environment “free from noise that jeopardizes” health and welfare, placing noise in the same conceptual category as other regulated pollutants.
That framing matters because nuisance law is typically bilateral and retrospective, focused on individualized interference, while environmental law is built to manage population-level risk and cumulative burdens.[2]

NEPA’s implementing regulations define the “human environment” comprehensively as the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment, which is broad enough to capture chronic community noise exposure.[3] CEQ’s definition of “effects” expressly includes “aesthetic” and “health” effects and recognizes “disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental justice concerns,” which is the analytic posture noise impacts often require.[4]

Treating noise as merely “nuisance” also misdescribes the harm, because public-health authorities describe environmental noise as a driver of sleep disturbance, cardiovascular risk (including ischemic heart disease and hypertension), hearing impairment, tinnitus, and cognitive impairment.[5] WHO guidance also provides specific threshold-oriented recommendations (e.g., night-noise guidance expressed in dB(A)), underscoring that the harm is measurable and regulable rather than purely subjective.[6]

The environmental-law stakes of noise are about to rise because data center development is accelerating, driven in part by AI and cloud growth.[7] DOE’s announcement of the 2024 LBNL report states that U.S. data center load growth has “tripled over the past decade” and is projected to “double or triple by 2028,” which implies many new or expanded facilities and associated infrastructure.[8] The International Energy Agency likewise projects global data center electricity consumption to grow rapidly through 2030, reflecting the scale of new buildout.[9]
While energy and water impacts get the headlines, the day-to-day community friction often starts with noise because data centers are continuous industrial operations (cooling and air-handling equipment runs around the clock).

On the decibel question, there is no single “average” for every design and siting condition, but industry sources converge on a consistent internal range around server areas.
Sensear’s data center noise infographic reports an “average noise level” of about 92 dB(A) around server areas, with levels reaching up to 96 dB(A) within server racks.[10]
TechTarget similarly reports that noise levels can reach 96 dBA inside a data center, attributing that figure to C&C Technology Group.[11] For worker-health context, OSHA explains that exposure over 85 dB can damage hearing, which helps translate these internal figures into a recognized risk threshold.[12] External/community-relevant noise often comes from rooftop or yard equipment, cooling towers, air handling units, chillers, and generators, rather than the server rack itself.

One acoustics-focused overview states that data center cooling towers can generate noise “up to 85 dBA” and that rooftop air handling units may generate 85–100 dBA each (depending on size and configuration). Likewise, the air-cooled chillers, cooling towers, air handling units, and internal server fans can produce noise levels “up to 100 dBAs,” and notes that much of this equipment is located outside where sound can propagate into surrounding areas.[13]

Recent litigation shows noise is already being pleaded as an environmental harm tied to data centers, not merely a neighbor-to-neighbor nuisance. In Miles Crosby & Jennifer Singleton v. Colleton County (S.C. Ct. Com. Pl., filed Jan. 9, 2026), the complaint alleges that a proposed data center campus threatens plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their property due to, among other impacts, “noise … air and water pollution” and “light” impacts.[14] The pleading also states, as a general matter, that “Data centers produce noise,” linking the alleged harm to a category of land use with recurring environmental effects rather than a one-off private interference. That same complaint frames the impacts in environmental terms, noise, impervious surfaces affecting water quality, habitat loss, and traffic, illustrating how data center opposition is being litigated as a package of cumulative community burdens.

[1] Noise Control Act of 1972, Pub. L. No. 92-574, § 2(a), 86 Stat. 1234, 1234 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 4901(a)).

[2] Council on Envtl. Quality, Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 40 C.F.R. § 1508.1(k) (2023) (definition of “human environment”).

[3] 40 C.F.R. § 1508.1(g) (definition of “effects,” including health and environmental justice considerations).

[4] Council on Envtl. Quality, Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act (1997), https://ceq.doe.gov.

[5] World Health Organization, Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region 1–3 (2018), https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789289053563.

[6] World Health Organization, Night Noise Guidelines for Europe 108–09 (2009), https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789289041737.

[7] U.S. Dep’t of Energy, DOE Announces Report on United States Data Center Energy Use (Dec. 2024), https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-announces-report-united-states-data-center-energy-use.

[8] Lawrence Berkeley Nat’l Lab., United States Data Center Energy Usage Report (2024), https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/articles/united-states-data-center-energy-usage-report.

[9] International Energy Agency, Electricity 2024: Analysis and Forecast to 2026 (2024), https://www.iea.org/reports/electricity-2024.

[10] Sensear, Data Center Noise Levels Infographic, https://www.sensear.com/markets/data-centers/noise-levels-infographic.

[11] George Crump, How Loud Is a Data Center?, TechTarget, https://www.techtarget.com/searchdatacenter/tip/How-loud-is-a-data-center.

[12] Occupational Safety & Health Admin., Occupational Noise Exposure, https://www.osha.gov/noise.

[13] DataCenterKnowledge, Managing Noise Pollution in Data Centers, https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/design/managing-noise-pollution-data-centers.

[14] Complaint, Miles Crosby & Jennifer Singleton v. Colleton County, No. ___ (S.C. Ct. Com. Pl. filed Jan. 9, 2026).

The post When the Hum Never Stops: Noise Pollution, Data Centers, and the Limits of Nuisance Law first appeared on JOULE.

The growing concern over bison and the population control of the species has become an increasing issue in the state of Montana.[1] Citizens of Montana and governmental agencies have been engaged in a constant debate over how to address the issue in a manner that protects the coveted species while also respecting the welfare and lifestyle of Montana ranchers and indigenous tribes.[2]

There are a plethora of issues that surround this dispute; the two most prevalent in this case are the concern that bison will contaminate the livestock, specifically cattle, with a disease known as brucellosis, and that indigenous tribes are having their right to hunt the bison stripped away.[3] Brucellosis is a bacterial disease that is highly prevalent in bison, and if introduced to domestic cattle, can cause the cattle to abort their calf and can significantly reduce their milk production.[4] If even one cow in a rancher’s herd tests positive for brucellosis, it can create a huge financial burden for the rancher.[5] In 2016, it was found that a rancher would spend upwards of $150,000 quarantining their herd in response to a singular positive case of brucellosis.[6]

Moreover, tribes inhabiting areas within Montana have asserted their treaty rights to harvest and hunt bison on forest lands controlled by the United States Forest Service.[7] However, these tribes have only received a fraction of what they were promised.[8] These tribes have only been given the ability to hunt in a 40-acre radius instead of the 3 million acres they were promised.[9] Furthermore, these 40 acres are heavily populated with state hunters and private property owners, which makes it even harder for the tribes to exercise their given rights.[10]

In the months of November and December of 2025, these issues were further brought to the center of attention by the group Neighbors against Bison Slaughter.[11] The group was created by property owner Bonnie Lynn (“Lynn”), who claimed that the United States National Park Service and United States Forest Service had abandoned their duties in managing the Yellowstone bison population.[12] Lynn and the Neighbors against Bison Slaughter addressed their concerns in a lawsuit against the federal government by stating that the agencies’ lack of control over the bison population posed a danger to hunters and property owners, while also violating a multitude of federal laws.[13]

The federal law that the Neighbors against Bison Slaughter are most concerned about is that these federal agencies allow tribal members to hunt and kill bison on public land, and close to private property.[14] To address these issues, the group is asking the court for a court order that would compel these federal agencies to complete a supplemental environmental impact statement with the goal of generating an alternative plan to address the issue of bison management.[15]

The group is stating that a new environmental impact statement is needed because 72 new circumstances of brucellosis have arisen and exist since the federal agencies last conducted an environmental impact statement in 2000.[16] Moreover, the group claims that the federal agencies have still not analyzed a plan to manage the bison in a way that is satisfactory with the treaty obligations owed to the indigenous tribes and the Montana ranchers.[17] The Neighbors against Bison Slaughter are concerned that the indigenous tribes are hunting bison on public land that is dangerously close to Montana residents’ private property, and state that an alternative solution is needed.[18]

However, despite these serious allegations and concerns, the federal government is arguing that this case is moot and has already been decided.[19] The federal government argues that this litigation has been ongoing since 2019 and was officially closed in 2024.[20] The federal government states that the Neighbors against Bison Slaughter brought this same suit in 2019 and that the US District Judge denied the group’s preliminary injunction motion and stated that there were no alleged harms that were likely and irreparable.[21] However, once again, the group filed suit in 2020, and in July 2024, the court dismissed the suit and directed the matter to be closed.[22] The federal government states that the group has not asserted any new information or allegations that were not addressed in these previous proceedings, and therefore has no standing to reopen this six-year-old dispute.[23]

Additionally, the federal agencies are not standing alone in their support of stopping any litigation that the Neighbors against Bison Slaughter are looking to reopen. The indigenous tribes that inhabit the lands surrounding the Yellowstone National Park in Montana are in support of the government’s actions.[24] The tribes state that the action that the Neighbors against Bison Slaughter are suggesting the government take will further limit the tribes’ access to hunt bison and to the treaty obligations they were promised.[25] The tribes have stated that the federal agencies’ current and future bison management plans will create an increase in tribal hunting opportunities and will help further honor their original treaty rights.[26]

However, despite these arguments, the court has not yet decided on whether the litigation is to move forward, and the 6-year-old case is to be reopened. However, depending on how the court decides on this issue, it could create monumental changes and repercussions for either side.

[1] Chris Smith, The Future of Bison in Montana?, Wildlife Mgmt. Inst. (June 2018), https://wildlifemanagement.institute/outdoor-news-bulletin/june-2018/future-bison-montana.

[2] Crystal Owns, Decade-Old Mont. Bison Dispute Spurs Call for Legal Clarity, Law360 (Nov. 17, 2025), https://www.law360.com/articles/2411907/decade-old-mont-bison-dispute-spurs-call-for-legal-clarity.

[3] See Yellowstone Bison, Western Watersheds Project (last visited Dec. 23, 2025), https://www.westernwatersheds.org/issues/species/bison/.; Owns, supra note 2.

[4] Yellowstone Bison, supra note 3.

[5] Brian Yablonski, Addressing Brucellosis Will Help Ranchers and Wildlife, Perc (Nov. 2, 2020), https://www.perc.org/2020/11/02/addressing-brucellosis-will-help-ranchers-and-wildlife/.

[6] Id.

[7] Nick Mott & Taylar Dawn Stagner, Treaty rights, bison and the country’s most controversial hunt, High Country New (Jul. 1, 2023), https://www.hcn.org/issues/55-7/indigenous-affairs-hunting-treaty-rights-bison-and-the-countrys-most-controversial-hunt/.

[8] Id.

[9] Owns, supra note 2.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Crystal Owens, Feds Fight to Reopen Years-Old Montana Bison Dispute, Law360 (Dec. 10, 2025), https://www.law360.com/environmental/articles/2419549/feds-fight-bid-to-reopen-years-old-montana-bison-dispute-.

[17] Id.

[18] Neighbors Against Bison Slaughter v. Natl. Park Serv., 2021 WL 717094, at *1 (D. Mont. Feb. 5, 2021).

[19] Id.

[20] Owens, supra note 16.

[21] Id.

[22] Id.

[23] Id.

[24] Jay Petrequin & Chamois Andersen, Tribes, Conservation Groups Move to Defend Yellowstone Bison Plan in Court, Defs. of Wildlife (Feb. 24, 2025), https://defenders.org/newsroom/tribes-conservation-groups-move-defend-yellowstone-bison-plan-court.

[25] Id.

[26] Id.

The post From the Yellowstone National Park to the Courtroom: The Legal Battle over the Controversial Issue of Bison Management first appeared on JOULE.

On October 31, 2025, Pennsylvania Attorney General Dave Sunday announced that he has filed criminal charges against Seneca Resources, LLC (“Seneca”), citing violations of state environmental laws.[1] Seneca is a large natural gas company that has produced and provided energy to several counties in the Appalachian Basin for over 100 years.[2] Its wells are considered some of the largest water producers in Pennsylvania.[3] Yet, a Seneca employee noted that most of the business is focused on managing the water, describing the company as “always being seven days away from disaster.”[4]

Three separate criminal complaints were filed by the state Office of Attorney General following the recommendation of two statewide grand juries.[5] The complaints allege improper waste management practices and policies, leading to pollution incidents across eight counties.[6] So far, Seneca has been charged with 72 counts of violations of the Solid Waste Management Act and at least 42 counts of violations of the Clean Streams Law.[7] The Solid Waste Management Act is a Pennsylvania law that “provides for the planning and regulation of solid waste storage, collection, transportation, processing treatment and disposal.”[8] The Clean Streams Law is another Pennsylvania law that was created to “regulate the discharge of sewage, industrial waste or any substance, which causes or contributes to pollution.”[9] The Attorney General specifically aimed to address Seneca’s “continued inaction and lack of response to warnings and orders from state agencies.”[10]

One set of charges against Seneca involves the company’s disposal methods in the Pennsylvania counties of Lycoming, Tioga, Potter, Clearfield, Elk, McKean, Jefferson, and Cameron.[11] These set of charges claim that Seneca violated the Solid Waste Management Act by permitting the dumping of well cellar fluids onto the grounds of those counties.[12] According to the complaint, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) directly warned Seneca that its operations were not in compliance with Pennsylvania law, but those warnings were disregarded or disputed.[13]

Another set of charges involves water contamination in Cameron County using the county’s well pad.[14] The charges stem from a ruptured pipeline in Cameron County that discharged wastewater from fracking operations into the waters and on the ground of Cameron County.[15] These offense violated both the Solid Waste Management Act and the Clean Streams Act, and it was noted that Seneca’s unlawful conduct continued after the DEP warned it to stop.[16] This rupture soon affected the private water wells of residents in the area that use well water for drinking.[17] Seneca responded quickly to the spill and even supplied a family living downslope from the well pad with a freshwater tank.[18] However, the complaints allege that Seneca then began injecting wastewater into unconventional gas wells on a well pad to dispose of the wastewater.[19] Officials have said that this practice was designed to aid in reducing waste volume rather than following environmental procedures that were approved by the DEP.[20] Although the DEP told Seneca in writing to stop this practice until further investigation could be done, the company ignored those instructions and continued its flushing practices.[21] Seneca’s actions in Cameron County ultimately spread more contaminants into the surface waters and ground water in the area.[22]

Attorney General David Sunday made it clear that “every Pennsylvanian has a constitutional right to pure water,” which is why he filed charges for violations of those rights.[23] He also referenced the Cameron County incident, stating that such outcomes will not be tolerated.[24] The case against Seneca is being prosecuted by Chief Deputy Attorney General Rebecca Franz and hearings are scheduled for December 10, 2025.[25]

[1] AttorneyGeneral.gov, https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/taking-action/attorney-general-sunday-announces-charges-against-seneca-resources-for-natural-gas-companys-illegal-waste-dumping-across-northern-pa/ (last visited Nov. 18, 2025).

[2] National Fuel, https://www.nationalfuel.com/integrated-upstream-gathering/ (last visited Nov. 18, 2025).

[3] Marcie Schellhammer, Seneca Resources Charged in Cameron County for Wastewater Dumping, Olean Times Herald (Oct. 31, 2025), https://www.oleantimesherald.com/2025/10/31/seneca-resources-charged-in-cameron-county-for-wastewater-dumping/.

[4] Id.

[5] AttorneyGeneral.gov, supra note 1. See also, The Progress, https://www.theprogressnews.com/news/local/ag-announces-charges-against-seneca-resources/article_9fcc9d58-d51f-45d7-8d13-5b9ebe5ae891.html (last visited Nov. 18, 2025).

[6] Susan Phillips, Pa. Attorney General Files Criminal Charge Against Fracking Company, Whyy (Oct. 31, 2025), https://whyy.org/articles/pennsylvania-attorney-general-fracking-criminal-charge/.

[7] Id.

[8] Department of Environmental Protection, https://www.pa.gov/agencies/dep/programs-and-services/waste-programs/statutes-and-regulations (last visited Nov. 19, 2025).

[9] 3 Rivers Wet Weather, https://www.3riverswetweather.org/about-wet-weather-issue/wet-weather-regulations/state (last visited Nov. 19, 2025).

[10] AttorneyGeneral.gov, supra note 5. See also, The Progress, supra note 5.

[11] Schellhammer, supra note 3.

[12] Id.

[13] Gavin Fish, Seneca Resources Faces 114 Criminal Charges for Illegal Waste Disposal Throughout Region, Explore Jefferson (Oct. 31, 2025), https://www.explorejeffersonpa.com/state-news/2025/10/31/seneca-resources-faces-114-criminal-charges-for-illegal-waste-disposal-throughout-region-169964/.

[14] Schellhammer, supra note 9.

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] AttorneyGeneral.gov, supra note 8. See also, The Progress, supra note 8.

[20] Id.

[21] Schellhammer, supra note 12.

[22] Id.

[23] AttorneyGeneral.gov, supra note 17. See also, The Progress, supra note 17.

[24] Id.

[25] Schellhammer, supra note 19.

The post Natural Gas Company Faces Criminal Charges for Violations of Environmental Acts first appeared on JOULE.

In early September, a major victory for Pittsburgh’s waterways occurred upon Styropek’s settlement with Three Rivers Waterkeeper, Penn Environment, and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DPE).[1] After small plastic pellets infiltrated the water and banks of both Raccoon Creek and the Ohio River in 2022, environmentalists became concerned on account of the harm the plastic pellets cause to the river’s ecosystems.[2]

Historically, the water quality in Pittsburgh’s rivers suffered due to domestic and industrial pollution.[3] In a city situated by numerous bodies of water, such extensive pollution greatly impacted locals.[4] Despite its environmental shortcomings of the past, Pittsburgh has made great strides in cleaning its local bodies of water.[5] Although these efforts are ongoing, environmental groups, like Three Rivers Waterkeeper, help maintain clean waters in Pittsburgh.[6]

An emerging threat to the quality of Pittsburgh’s waters are nurdles.[7] Nurdles are a small, spherical plastic pollutant.[8] While nurdles’ appearances may vary, their presence in the water and surrounding sediment are always alarming. The frequency with which the nurdles are harvested from the water and banks of Pittsburgh bodies of water, indicates the severity of the problem.[9] While patrolling the Racoon Creek and the surrounding waterways, numerous nurdles were found in the water, as well as throughout the soil.[10] The Styropek facility has the capacity to produce 124,000 tons of nurdles.[11] Not only does the plastic not degrade in the rivers, but it also attracts other chemicals.[12] Additionally, it can be a significant threat to the wildlife if consumed.[13]

While monitoring the Ohio River for nurdles in 2022 and 2023, Three Rivers Waterkeeper representatives found numerous nurdles in the water and on the banks.[14] Further investigations conducted by DEP confirmed the presence of the nurdles throughout Styropek’s plant in October 2022.[15] Moreover, in December 2022 numerous plastic pellets were found downstream from the plant.[16] Although the initial discovery was made while observing a different company’s newly constructed plant, it was ultimately discovered the nurdles were finding their way into the Ohio River from Styropek’s wastewater pipe.[17]  The DEP also found that pellets traversed the Styropek’s site ultimately entering Racoon Creek from a stormwater outfall.[18]

While DEP sought to enforce state environmental law[19], PennEnvironment, Inc. and Three Rivers Waterkeeper filed a complaint in the United States District Court in the Western District of Pennsylvania.[20] The plaintiffs initiated the action stating that Styropek, USA and its subsidiary BVPV Styrenics LLC continually violated the Clean Water Act by dispersing nurdles throughout Raccoon Creek and the Ohio River.[21] Although the DEP was not an initial party to the lawsuit, it did file a motion to intervene on August 19, 2025, which was granted by the court.[22]

Although the lawsuit was initiated in December 2023, the parties began discussing settlement in May 2024.[23] Between May 2024 and July 2025, a total of eight motions were granted to allow the parties to consider whether settlement was possible.[24] While the final Motion to Stay was granted on July 30, 2025[25], the parties did not file a joint Motion to Approve Consent Judgement for the settlement until September 3, 2025.[26]

There were two major components to the settlement agreement.[27] The first condition imposed upon Styropek requires substantial efforts to cease continued pollution including improvements to the plant’s filter systems and more stringent monitoring.[28] However, the financial portion of the settlement was more significant than the necessary efforts to better guard against pollution from the plant.[29] Not only will Styropek pay $100,000 in civil penalties, it also must contribute $2.5 million to improvements in Racoon Creek and the Ohio River.[30] Specifically, $2 million will be used to research nurdles presence in Racoon Creek and for any necessary clean up measures in the water and along the banks under the guidance of DEP.[31]  The remaining $500,000 coupled with any remaining funds from the $2 million following remediation, will “restore, preserve, and protect water quality in the Raccoon Creek watershed” by creating the Raccoon Creek Benefit Fund.[32]

While this settlement agreement is particularly advantageous to the environmental longevity of the Raccoon Creek and Ohio River watersheds, before the court may enter the suggested settlement, it must be reviewed for a 45-day period by the U.S. Department of Justice.[33] Although the 45-day period has not concluded, this proposed settlement is already generating excitement about new methods to prevent pollution in Pittsburgh waters and beyond.[34]

[1] Julie Grant, Plastic manufacture agrees to $2.6 million settlement for pollution in Ohio River tributary, 90.5 WESA (Sept. 5, 2025), https://www.wesa.fm/environment-energy/2025-09-05/styropek-plastic-pollution-settlement-raccoon-creek-ohio-river-nurdles.

[2] Id.

[3] Joel A. Tarr & Terry F. Yosie, Devastation and Renewal: An Environmental History of Pittsburgh and Its Region 64 (Joel A. Tarr, 2003) https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt6wrc59.7?seq=1.

[4] Id.

[5] Maria Wheeler-Dubas, #bioPGH: Rolling Down the Rivers, Phipps Conservatory (May 20, 2021), https://www.phipps.conservatory.org/blog/detail/biopgh-rolling-down-the-rivers.

[6] Three Rivers Waterkeeper, About Us, Three Rivers Waterkeeper, https://www.threeriverswaterkeeper.org/about-us (last visited Oct. 10, 2025).

[7] Three Rivers Waterkeeper, 2024 State of Our Waters, Three Rivers Waterkeeper (July 31, 2025), https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zgtinHL9gmBzX5NroBGMSRWjdqXwEABy/view.

[8] Id.

[9]  Id.

[10] Complaint at 16-17, PennEnvironment, Inc. et al v. BVPV Styrenics, LLC et al, 2:23-CV-2067.

[11] Id. at 11.

[12] Julie Grant, Plastic manufacture agrees to $2.6 million settlement for pollution in Ohio River tributary, 90.5 WESA (Sept. 5, 2025), https://www.wesa.fm/environment-energy/2025-09-05/styropek-plastic-pollution-settlement-raccoon-creek-ohio-river-nurdles.

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] Department of Environmental Protection, Shapiro Administration Requires Plastic Manufacturer to Pay $2.6 Million for Environmental Pollution in Beaver County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (Sept. 3, 2025), https://www.pa.gov/agencies/dep/newsroom/2025-09-03-shapiro-administration-requires-plastic-manufacturer-to-pay-2-6-million-for-environmental-pollution-in-beaver-county.

[16] Id.

[17] Julie Grant, Plastic manufacture agrees to $2.6 million settlement for pollution in Ohio River tributary, 90.5 WESA (Sept. 5, 2025), https://www.wesa.fm/environment-energy/2025-09-05/styropek-plastic-pollution-settlement-raccoon-creek-ohio-river-nurdles.

[18] Department of Environmental Protection, Shapiro Administration Requires Plastic Manufacturer to Pay $2.6 Million for Environmental Pollution in Beaver County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (Sept. 3, 2025), https://www.pa.gov/agencies/dep/newsroom/2025-09-03-shapiro-administration-requires-plastic-manufacturer-to-pay-2-6-million-for-environmental-pollution-in-beaver-county.

[19] Id.

[20] Complaint at 1, PennEnvironment, Inc. et al v. BVPV Styrenics, LLC et al, 2:23-CV-2067.

[21] Id.

[22] Docket Proceedings at 35-36, PennEnvironment, Inc. et al v. BVPV Styrenics, LLC et al, 2:23-CV-2067.

[23] Id. at 15.  

[24] Id. at 15-29.

[25] Id. at 29.

[26] Id. at 37.

[27] Department of Environmental Protection, Shapiro Administration Requires Plastic Manufacturer to Pay $2.6 Million for Environmental Pollution in Beaver County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (Sept. 3, 2025), https://www.pa.gov/agencies/dep/newsroom/2025-09-03-shapiro-administration-requires-plastic-manufacturer-to-pay-2-6-million-for-environmental-pollution-in-beaver-county.

[28] Id.

[29] Id.

[30] Id.

[31] Id.

[32] Id.

[33] Department of Environmental Protection, Shapiro Administration Requires Plastic Manufacturer to Pay $2.6 Million for Environmental Pollution in Beaver County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (Sept. 3, 2025), https://www.pa.gov/agencies/dep/newsroom/2025-09-03-shapiro-administration-requires-plastic-manufacturer-to-pay-2-6-million-for-environmental-pollution-in-beaver-county.

[34] PennEnvironment, “This PA settlement could set the standard for prevent tiny plastic pellet pollution,” PennEnvironment, (Sept. 24, 2025), https://environmentamerica.org/pennsylvania/updates/this-pa-settlement-could-set-the-standard-for-preventing-tiny-plastic-pellet-pollution/.

The post No More Nurdles: Significant Settlement Agreement to Fund Clean Up Measures in Pittsburgh Waters first appeared on JOULE.

United States forests are beloved by millions of people and provide an excellent opportunity for visitors to enjoy nature. However, our forests have also become a dangerous force of destruction. The western U.S. has endured deadly wildfires for centuries. When settlers first moved into the western United States and the industry expanded in these new western territories, settlers found themselves faced with the challenges of these wildfires.[ii] To combat these wildfires, the National Forest Service instituted a policy of fire suppression.[iii] The purpose of this policy was simple: prevention of fires and quick suppression of fires.[iv] This was the policy of the United States since the 1910s.[v] One of the main aspects of this policy was to oppose the practice of routine intentional burnings to prevent the spread of new wildfires. While this may seem practical, it had the unintended consequence of harming the forest.[vi]

Proper forest management is a pivotal policy in ensuring that large scale wildfires do not grow to the violent levels that we have seen in recent years. When failing to properly manage a forest, the forest begins to grow more fuel for fires.[vii] Fallen trees, dry leaves, and smaller brush all contribute to worsening these wildfires. Without proper measures, this kindling remains in the forests and is fuel for enriching massive fires. The density of the forests may also be to blame.[viii] The fire suppression efforts that were practiced for centuries did not allow nature to run its course when fires started. As a result, smaller trees that would have been burned by fires were able to grow and create much denser forests.[ix] These denser forests then allowed fires to run more rampant as the closely packed trees made it easier for the for the fires to spread.[x]

In 2018, California saw some of the worst wildfires in its history.[xi]  The “Camp Fire” became known as the deadliest wildfire in the state’s history, claiming 87 lives. [xii] While the result of centuries of poor forest management was not the only cause of the fire, it did play a very impactful role.[xiii] As a response to these fires, California created the California Wildfire & Forest Resilience Task Force and passed Proposition 4 allocating $1.5 billion to wildfire resilience in November 2024.[xiv] As part of its efforts, the California Wildfire & Forest Resilience Task Force began issuing prescribed burns to the state’s forests once again, retracting the centuries old practice of fire suppression.[xv] In October and November of 2024, 914 acres of the Calaveras Big Trees State Park were treated with prescribed burns.[xvi] As a result, these 914 acres will be better fit to fight off wildfires in the future and, should a wildfire start, prevent the mass spread of wildfires as were seen in 2018.

Wildfires can be a very dangerous and deadly force. Without proper forest management policies, the force of these fires can become even more dangerous. However, with proper forest management policies, our forests can once again become a haven for recreation without the impending threat of a new record-breaking wildfire.

[i] Forest History Society, U.S. Forest Service Fire Suppression, Forest History Society, (Last visited Oct. 30, 2025), https://foresthistory.org/research-explore/us-forest-service-history/policy-and-law/fire-u-s-forest-service/u-s-forest-service-fire-suppression/

[ii] Id.

[iii] Id.

[iv] Id.

[v] Id.

[vi] Id.

[vii] Center for Biological Diversity, Fire and Forest Management, Center for Biological Diversity, (Last visited Oct. 30, 2025), https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/forests/ecosystem_restoration/fire-and-forest-management.html#

[viii] Id.

[ix] Id.

[x] Id.

[xi] American Forests, Camp Fire, American Forests, (Last visited Oct. 30, 2025), https://www.americanforests.org/project/camp-fire/

[xii] Id.

[xiii] Id.

[xiv] California Wildfire & Forest Resilience Task Force, California Passes Proposition 4- Providing $1.5 Billion for Wildfire Resilience, California Wildfire & Forest Resilience Task Force, (Nov. 5, 2024), https://wildfiretaskforce.org/california-passes-proposition-4-providing-1-5-billion-for-wildfire-resilience/

[xv] California Wildfire & Forest Resilience Task Force, CA State Parks and Partners Treat Over 900 Acres with Beneficial Fire, California Wildfire & Resilience Task Force, (Last visited Oct. 30, 2025), https://wildfiretaskforce.org/ca-state-parks-and-partners-treat-over-900-acres-with-beneficial-fire/

[xvi] Id.

The post Fighting Fire With Fire: How Forest Management Policies Can Create Safer Forests first appeared on JOULE.

Although the pipeline is up and running now, the project was met with serious backlash from environmental groups and caused the construction to be pushed back several years, from its original projected start in 2018[5], its first application to FERC in 2015, and its initial proposal in 2014.[6] To be allowed to construct, Mountain Valley needed permits and authorization from FERC, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.[7] Specifically, the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia caused a hold up because the proposed pipeline was to cut across the forest and onto the Appalachian trail. Water quality certification was another hurdle, and is required under the Clean Water Act, ensures construction of an interstate natural gas pipeline will not violate water quality standards.[8]

The pipeline was given the greenlight in 2023, when the Biden Administration ratified the Fiscal Responsibility Act, giving the Mountain Valley Pipeline the permits and authorizations necessary for construction.[9] Senator Joe Manchin was in the news for including the approval in the debt ceiling, and the caveat that legal challenges to the pipeline would be under the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.[10] Then, in July 2023, the Supreme Court allowed an emergency application from the pipeline’s developer to construct after the Fourth Circuit granted a motion to stop the construction.[11]

The Mountain Valley Pipeline’s economic impact on West Virginia and Virginia is immense. The Mountain Valley Pipeline contributed about $82 million West Virginia’s economy, and $49 million to Virginia’s. To own the land rights for the pipeline’s installation, Mountain Valley paid over $80 million to West Virginia landowners to acquire their rights. Over 5,000 jobs between Virginia and West Virginia were created in constructing the pipeline. Finally, perhaps to assuage concerned environmentalists, Mountain Valley contributed to conservation efforts: $15 million to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation; $19.5 million to the Appalachian Trail Conservancy; and $3.85 million to the Virginia Association of Soil and Water.[12]

Mountain Valley Pipeline is not finished. In 2020, the Southgate Project was proposed, which would build the pipeline about 74 more miles into North Carolina. FERC is still reviewing this expansion, which is a slow process, and would include permits such as a water quality certification.[13] The Department of Wetlands in North Carolina will be holding a hearing as to the implications the pipeline will have on local water sources where comments from the public will be taken.[14]

Mountain Valley’s website assures, “the proposed route [to the Southgate expansion] has been designed to avoid sensitive or protected areas where feasible.”[15] The last successful proposal and construction to the pipeline took over ten years in total. Whether the Southgate expansion will follow that pattern or be ushered into reality faster remains to be seen.

———————————————

[1] Mountain Valley Pipeline, MountainValleyPipeline, https://mountainvalleypipeline.info/, (Last visited Sept. 24, 20205).

[2] Reuters, US natural gas pipeline Mountain Valley prepares for start-up, Reuters, (June 12, 2024), https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/mountain-valley-gets-regulators-approval-us-natural-gas-pipeline-2024-06-12/#:~:text=June%2012%20(Reuters)%20%2D%20U.S.,from%20a%20U.S.%20energy%20regulator.

[3] Colby Ezell, What is a Dekatherm? Natural Gas Units Explained, P3 Cost Analysts, (June 30, 2021), https://www.costanalysts.com/dekatherm-dth/.

[4] Id. at 2.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Mountain Valley Pipeline: Past the Finish Line, Congress.gov, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IN12032, (Last visited Sept. 24, 2025).

[8] What is CWA Section 401? EPA, https://www.epa.gov/cwa-401/overview-cwa-section-401-certification, (Last visited Sept. 24, 2025).

[9] Id. at 7.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] Economic Benefits, Mountain Valley Pipeline, https://www.mountainvalleypipeline.info/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/MVP-Economic-Environmental-Beneifts-March-2021-FINAL2.pdf (Last visited Sept. 24, 2025).

[13] Mountain Valley Pipeline, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, https://www.deq.nc.gov/news/key-issues/natural-gas-pipeline-projects/mountain-valley-pipeline, (Last visited Sept. 24, 2025).

[14]  Water Resources, North Carolina Environmental Quality, https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=3862957&dbid=0&repo=WaterResources&cr=1, (Last visited Sept. 24, 2025).

[15] Overview, MVP Southgate, https://www.mvpsouthgate.com/overview/#:~:text=The%20proposed%20route%20also%20has,minimize%20the%20overall%20environmental%20footprint, (Last visited Sept. 24, 2025).

The post An Overview of the Mountain Valley Pipeline and its Possible Expansion first appeared on JOULE.