Environmental Law, Hard Work, and Whooping Cranes with Patrick Parenteau

Welcome back to Environmental Professionals Radio, Connecting the Environmental Professionals Community Through Conversation, with your hosts Laura Thorne and Nic Frederick! 

On today’s episode, we talk with Patrick Parenteau, Professor of Law Emeritus at Vermont Law and Graduate School, about Environmental Law, Hard Work, and Whooping Cranes.  Read his full bio below.

Thank you to Vermont Law and Graduate School for sponsoring. "Vermont Law and Graduate School is one of the top environmental law schools in the U.S. and is nationally renowned in climate change law, restorative justice, criminal law, and clinical education." Learn more at www.vermontlaw.edu

Help us continue to create great content! If you’d like to sponsor a future episode hit the support podcast button or visit www.environmentalprofessionalsradio.com/sponsor-form 

Please be sure to ✔️subscribe, ⭐rate and ✍review. 

This podcast is produced by the National Association of Environmental Professions (NAEP). Check out all the NAEP has to offer at NAEP.org.

Connect with Patrick Parenteau at https://www.vermontlaw.edu/faculty/parenteau-pat

Guest Bio:

Patrick A. Parenteau is Emeritus Professor of Law and Senior Fellow for Climate Policy in the Environmental Law Center at Vermont Law School. He previously served as Director of the Environmental Law Center and was the founding director of the EAC (formerly the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic) in 2004.

Professor Parenteau has an extensive background in environmental and natural resources law. His previous positions include Vice President for Conservation with the National Wildlife Federation in Washington, DC (1976-1984); Regional Counsel to the New England Regional Office of the EPA in Boston (1984-1987); Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (1987-1989); and Senior Counsel with the Perkins Coie law firm in Portland, Oregon (1989-1993).

Professor Parenteau has been involved in drafting, litigating, implementing, teaching, and writing about environmental law and policy for over three decades. His current focus is on confronting the profound challenges of climate change through his teaching, publishing, public speaking and litigation.

Professor Parenteau is a Fulbright US Scholar and a Fellow in the American College of Environmental Lawyers. In 2005 he received the National Wildlife Federation’s Conservation Achievement Award in recognition of his contributions to wildlife conservation and environmental education. In 2016 he received the Kerry Rydberg Award for excellence in public interest environmental law.

Professor Parenteau holds a B.S. from Regis University, a J.D. from Creighton University, and an LLM in Environmental Law from the George Washington U.

Music Credits
Intro: Givin Me Eyes by Grace Mesa
Outro: Never Ending Soul Groove by Mattijs Muller

Transcript

Hello and welcome to EPR your favorite environmental enthusiasts, Nick and Laura. On today's episode, Laura and I discuss what it means to find your passion.

We talked to Pat Parenteau about environmental law, hard work, and whooping cranes. And finally, speaking of whooping cranes they are the tallest bird in North America at around 5 ft tall. Their trachea is also around 5 ft long as it coils into their sternum. Gross. Why is that gross? I don't know. It just feels creepy to me. I don't like a trachea coiling. That that's what. I wrote this, that's why I'm even grossing myself out, but that allows them to make their distinctive call, which is actually worth listening to. It does, it's quite intense. 

Anyway, you do an impersonation? You're Mr. I if I was a bird, yeah. But, uh, in 1941, there were only 21 birds left, 15 migrants, species in the Midwest, and 6 permanent residents in Louisiana. We did lose the ones in Louisiana, however, there are now about 440 wild whooping cranes that travel between Canada and Texas based on a captive breeding program that has kept them alive, which is really cool. I don't think we've talked about this but shout out to All Aboutbirds.org. That is the Cornell Labs, uh, really beautiful website. If you are ever, ever doing any work where you need to learn about a bird for your projects, that's where you go. I'm just saying, unsolicited advice there. Awesome. I do want to point out that you just read Texas as the Midwest, so. Oh yeah, right, for the record, is gonna kill me. They mostly go over the Midwest, OK, Texas is just where they end up. OK, OK, that's that's what happens. They start in Canada, they go to Nebraska, and then they end up in Texas. The script says Texas should say. Ah, yeah, I went off book. That's never a good idea. 

Hit that music.

Today's episode is sponsored by Vermont Law and Graduate School, whose mission statement is to educate students in a diverse community that fosters personal growth and that enables them to attain outstanding professional skills and high ethical values with which to serve as lawyers and environmental and other professions in increasingly technological and interdependent global society. Check them out at Vermontlaw.edu. 

Also, NAEP's 2025 annual conference and training symposium will occur April 28th to May 1st in Charleston, South Carolina. Enthusiastic environmental professionals from across the country gather to share the opportunity to learn about new projects, share technical knowledge, network with other industry professionals, and engage with leaders in environmental technologies and practice. Learn more about it at www.NAEP.org.

Let's get to our segment. Maybe it helps to record that actually. Oh my gosh. That should also be the start. No, I was, I was talking about the discussion that we had with Pat about finding your passion, where it's both things you're good at and things you enjoy, and marrying those two things, because that's what creates passion. Um, you know, I don't know if we want to keep going on that or do something different. Yeah, no, I'm happy to keep going on that. I mean, like we discussed previously, it's like for me when I'm career coaching young people, they kind of want to know like how I find my passion, and they're like searching for their passion. In my experience, you know, it's not something that you find, it finds you, so. Through your experiences and while you are following what you're good at and you're building on your talents and you're just doing what you enjoy, it will find you, but sometimes it doesn't find you in like the thing that you love. It finds you, you know, your cousin gets a rare form of cancer and all of a sudden you want your passion becomes Curing that or environmentally maybe you visit somewhere and you see like, oh my gosh, I had no idea this was happening here, you know, degradation or pollution or something in a certain area and all of a sudden you are, you know, like Tiffany Duong, she's in Tenerife like all the time, that's her passion. So she's a great example of combining your passion with your talent, but all she did was follow what she was interested in and then she found Teller, or rather it found her, you know, so for me, that's how we really go about it. It's so funny you say that because Tiffany was the first person I thought of when we were talking about that. I was like, oh yeah, it's like Tiffany's story, going from being a lawyer to all the efficacy that she does now and just being like, well, I wasn't really happy and now I am. You know, it almost sounds that simple, but, but she wasn't sitting at her desk going, hm, what's my passion. She just kept following what she was interested in and it found her, you know. I mean, I think like, you know, we've talked a little bit about my story too, how I figured it out, you know, I, and it was a challenge for me because, you know, I was good at math and I was good at writing, right? It's just kind of like, oh, you're a smart kid, so you're good at math, you should go to an engineering school and I was like, yeah, OK, I'll do that. Why not? And it ends up being like, oh yeah, but I don't really enjoy math. It doesn't, I actually found that out like my first semester, I was like, oh, I do not like this. I don't care about this. I'd much rather, you know, go have fun than go to vector geometry of all things. So I learned that one really quickly, but then I, I was really good at writing and I didn't. realized I didn't enjoy it until much later, because it was like not quite as bad, and I could, you know, I liked finding solutions through words, that was really fun, but it wasn't, you know, quite like, honestly, like hosting a podcast or meeting someone. new, you know, that's the stuff that really got me really excited. So, you know, yeah, that's a perfect example because it's like, just because you are good at something doesn't mean it should be what you're doing.

You know, many of us are talented at multiple things, but it doesn't mean that's the thing we're going to do for a whole life. And sometimes maybe the thing that you love doing as soon as you start getting paid for it, now you hate it. Because you only enjoyed it when you were doing it for fun. Yeah. And I honestly, I also think we have this. You just made me think of this like. Sometimes you think passion is always one thing forever, and that's it. And that's just not how life is. Like your life is in chapters, you know, and sometimes you are more passionate about something when you're younger, and that changes when you get older and people talk about how the changes they have when they have kids, and that's a very big, big life change for a lot of people. But you know, there's lots of examples of that even in your career, like, Writing well helped me get to finding joy in, you know, like marketing and meeting people and that kind of thing. But like, I really, you know, it's like I hated writing. I wasn't like, oh, this is terrible, I'll never do this again. That was mad. But for writing, it was like, oh, this is fine, I'm good at it and I know how to do it and why am I not super excited about all this? Oh, cause it's not really what I like. And then, then it snowballs, you know, it changes. I like that too. It's not static. We aren't static. People just aren't that way. Yeah, and you touched on, you know, a lot of times, career coaches and different people, they want to say, oh, let's do a personality test or a skills test, and if you're good at this, oh, you're so good at that, that's what you should be doing. It's not the right answer. You know, if you're good at something and you like it, yeah, keep doing it, but just because you're good at math doesn't mean that you have to force yourself into a career that is surrounded by that. Yeah, and I would say like, and you know, not all personality tests are created equal, they're not always like, if they don't have a discussion around them, then they're almost worthless, right?

Like I remember one I took that was like, it was actually helpful in a way, and it was saying that, you know, you'd be good at teaching, marketing or journalism, right? I said those are kind of like the three areas that would fit based on your personality would fit and it's like, well, I don't want to be a teacher and I don't want to be a journalist, so I guess that leaves me with marketing, right? And it's not quite that simple, and I think the people that were helping mentor me helped me see through like, what does all this noise mean? And so like, was it like I was not mad about it, but it is also not like what really drove me to change the way I was doing my career. Yeah. Yeah, and the other problem is, whatever age you're at, you haven't tried everything, so you don't know based on the things you're good at so far, if that's what you should be doing going forward, really keep doing what you are, you know, as Pat said, like, follow what you're interested in, your talents, and marry that with your passion when you find it, and then that's when you've hit the sweet spot. 

Yeah, I like to tell people it's like when, you know, you're 21 years old. You have seen movies, enough movies or enough culture, you've taken in shows, TV shows, whatever it is, whatever your medium is, you take enough of it in to know these are the kinds of things I like. Oh, I like horror movies, oh, I like, you know, action or whatever it is, you have 1520 years of experience with that, and then you turn 21 and of course this is the first time you've ever had alcohol, right, because no one drinks underage and um you're like, OK, what kind of wine do I like? And you're at 0, you know, you have no idea, and the only way for you to figure that out is, uh, surprise, surprise, to try them. No, I mean, I can't tell you what you like. I think that you're this kind of person. I think you probably like this one. Yeah, yeah, but you know what, that's great, but no. But you're exactly right. That's what ends up happening. People go to a career coach, or they go to a friend or they go to, you know, a mentor and they say, Well, all right, well, tell me what you've done before in the past, and we'll figure out what you're gonna do in your future from there. But like you exactly said, I haven't had a chance to taste all the different flavors. Right. I might not even know they exist. I know you're like, uh, you know, a career baby, you know, it's like talk about this in comedy all the time, like you're 0 to 1 in comedy is the same thing as being a newborn. You don't even know what you're doing. You let alone understanding that you can see and hear, right, and take in information. It's just, you can't do it, you can't get that experience without doing it, without putting yourself out there. Exactly. But I think Pat has a lot to say. This is a long interview, so let's get to it. Perfect. 

Hello and welcome back to EPR. 

Today we have Patrick Parenteau with us. Pat is an emeritus professor of law and senior fellow for climate policy at Vermont Law School with over 3 decades of experience in environmental law and policy. He brings with him a wealth of knowledge, and we are very excited to dive into his insights on climate challenges and sustainability. 

Hey Pat, how are you doing? I'm doing good, thanks. Yeah, it's a pleasure to have you here. It really is. We're really excited to dive into all of our fun law topics, but of course, we're in January and we wanna know, are you a New Year's resolution person?

No, because past practice has demonstrated failure. So I set myself up for more failure. Yeah, that's so great. And actually, Laura and I were talking about this the other day, and we're the same. We just, it's like, it's one of those things where I know it's great and people love doing it, but I, I like to set up the year a little differently so that I don't immediately regret failing. I, I, I know where the improvements are needed. I just need to stick with it, not just for one month or even one year, right? Exactly. 

So how did you get started? Like how did you end up at Vermont Law? How did you get into all this? Oh my goodness, that really is a long story. I'll shorten it up. You know, I grew up in Nebraska, in Omaha, and my relatives own farms, so I spent a lot of time. Both on farms and also in a culture in, in those days of hunting and fishing. So I was outdoors all the time and interacting with nature, and I just got bitten, you know, I mean, I was imprinted early on with love of all things natural. So, out of that, once I was, you know, in law school and trying to figure out what I was gonna do with my life, and with my mother's encouragement, she was the one who really sort of, you know, gave me a love for wildlife. I ended up at the National Wildlife Federation. Oh yeah. In the 1970s, about 1974, and uh, I was lucky enough to, to get hired finally. And, you know, I was there at the birth of environmental law. A lot of the statutes, of course, that were being adopted, but also all the early case law, you know, the litigation, and I was involved in a lot of that. So it's pretty exciting time. And from there, You know, I was in DC for about 8 years, but then I went to the Environmental Protection Agency. I was the regional council, which means the sort of general counsel of the New England region in the 80s at a time when, of course, we were cleaning up Superfund sites, cleaning up Boston Harbor. So, a lot of that kind of work. And then I was the Environmental commissioner in Vermont for a few years with, uh, Governor Madeline Coonan. Then I was in private practice for a while, and then Finally back to uh Vermont Law School, which is now Vermont Law and Graduate School. And uh so for 30 years, I've basically been in, in academia, but as you can tell, my career spans just about every point on the compass with, with regard to environmental law. 

Yeah, does that give you kind of a unique perspective on what's been changing because we've been going through quite a wild time for environmental law. Oh yeah. Yeah. I mean, I've, I've seen a lot of things turned upside down, frankly, from what we thought environmental law was going to do and be, I mean, a lot of things that have happened, of course, even though there were signs of climate change, you know, even as early as I remember meetings in 1978 in the Carter administration, which is a given our tribute to the late Jimmy Carter, who was, by the way, a terrific president. I, I met with him in the last wing a few times on the Alaska Lands Bill and other things. Super fun, for example. So, you know, I mean, a lot of the things that we were sort of anticipating, like climate change, they weren't really in sharp focus, and certainly we weren't anticipating things like forever chemicals. We had no idea of the vast expanse and and the impact of plastic. Pollution around the world. So, in one sense, although we thought we had a handle on environmental problems, we obviously didn't. And that's really the lesson, I guess, that I've learned is, is that you never know what's coming, and you just have to be prepared for anything. Not to say that we're really prepared for some of these major challenges in the way that we should be, but I certainly have learned that our understanding of not only the natural world itself, And how ecosystems work. But what the human impact is on all of that, you know, humility, I guess is what comes out of it is we really don't know an awful lot about the way we're interacting with the natural world. 

Put it like that. Well, OK, so that's a lot. First of all, I wanted a little bit more about how your mother influenced you to have a love for nature. Nebraska. I just, I grew up in Florida and Nebraska would be a whole different world to me as a childhood. So I want to hear about that. Yeah, I mean, well, she made me a member of Ranger Rick, the National Wildlife Federation magazine, right? The children's magazine, which has won all kinds of awards. I've even written a couple of articles finally for Ranger Rick. No, I mean, because I was in a male culture, the expectation of a male at about 12 years old was to take a shotgun to the field and shoot something. That, that was your rite of passage, seriously. Yeah. And so one day when I was out with my uncle, Rudy, hunting along the Platte River in Nebraska, I saw this incredible bird, uh, all white, with a red cap, black tip on its wings, and I'd never seen anything like it in my life. Well, it turned out it was a whooping crane. You know, an endangered species still endangered. At that time, I'm talking about all the way back into the early 60s, maybe late 50s even. There were maybe 30 or 40 birds in that wild flock that came down through the Platte River. So what an extraordinary thing. Even though I didn't know what it was. It was extraordinary in, in all ways. And I think that imprinted on me as well. So when I finally got my law license and started practicing law, I actually started off in legal services, representing clients and every kind of matter you could think of. I always had my eye on how can I get myself into this environmental movement. 

I graduated from Creighton Law School in Omaha, Nebraska, my hometown, because it was cheap. It was easy to get a degree. I didn't have to go into debt. And I got a lot of practical experience, you know, in that process. But the environmental movement, the legal community at that time was dominated by Harvard and, well, not Harvard, but Yale. In particular, Virginia, Penn, places like that, right? Ivy Leagues type schools. And a kid from Omaha from Creighton University had a hard time breaking in, frankly. And it was really Oliver Hau at the National Wildlife Federation, who was the general counsel who gave me my shot, gave me my chance to show myself. And, you know, I did. So, good for me, right? Yeah. Yeah, and I, I know we wanna definitely uh get some career advice from you because I know it's a really big challenge to try to find those places, but like, uh, you mentioned whipping cranes and I know we're going to talk about it a little bit more, so I just, I just didn't want to like run away from it because one of the coolest things I ever got to do was a GIS modeling software that I kind of developed with our GIS person to find habitat that they like. It was super cool. So I don't know, like those birds are beautiful and they really do span the length of, you know, they have a really long, long trackway. So like when you actually helped win a lawsuit to protect them, can you talk? Yeah, yeah, I mean, that's the wonderful kind of thing about a career like mine where I was, was inspired by seeing this bird in my youth. And then many years later, I had the opportunity to to bring a lawsuit to protect the Platte River. 

First of all, we had to get Secretary Andris, Cecil Andris was Secretary of Interior, to designate a section of the Platte River as critical habitat for the whooping crane, because it is migratory habitat. It's not breeding and it's not wintering habitat. You're right. Their range is 3000 miles from the Arctic Circle to the Gulf Coast of Texas. So the Platte River is right in the middle. And so when these birds are are migrating back in the spring, the plat becomes a a key element of their, not only their survival, but they get so much protein. From the invertebrates, the mussels and the clams and so forth in the river, and, and the grain in the fields along the river, they build up their reserves to the point where breeding can be successful when they hit the Arctic, which is frozen still by the time they get there. So there's no food available, right? So, as I'm sort of describing, I had to learn an awful lot about natural history, the biology of the crane, even though I also had to learn a lot about the environmental laws that applied, including the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. So the case I brought, you know, alleged all three of those laws, and we challenged a big coal-fired power plant. 

Actually, in Wyoming, that was gonna take river water out of the Laramie River, which feeds into the Platte River, right? And so, our argument was, you know, there was no consideration of the downstream effects of taking more water out of the river. The biologists were concerned that the Platte River was transforming from an open 1 mile wide and 1 inch deep, as the pioneers used to describe it, river with sandbars in the middle, which is what the cranes needed to roost at night to protect them from predators, into a braided channel of heavily forested river, and that created inhospitable habitat for the cranes. And so, our argument was, you know, there'd been so much water taken out of the river. That going forward, there had to be a non net loss policy established or principle established, and we were able to do that in this lawsuit against this power plant, and we settled the case after I won an injunction stopping construction by creating a trust fund for the whooping crane. And it's gone through several iterations of names. It's now just called the Platte River Trust, which is appropriate, because it, it's protecting a whole suite of, of species. This is one of the, as Roger Tory Peterson, the famous birder, described it, it's the eighth wonder of the world for birdwatchers. It's, it's extraordinary. In addition to the whooping craze, you've got the stopover. Area for the sandhill cranes, 500,000 sandhill cranes come into that river in March every year. Plus all kinds of other ducks and geese and migratory birds. It's an extraordinary resource. So as you can tell, there's a hint of pride here. I can, I can go there now and visit it and know that I, I had a very significant hand. In conserving that habitat. And it changed the way the river was being managed, our lawsuit. The the Fish and Wildlife Service after our lawsuit began reviewing every individual project to take water out of the river and saying, you're going to have to offset whatever consumptive use you want to make of this river. It's at that point, that breaking point. And that rule of no net loss has, has stood the test of time. 

Wow. Oh, that's fantastic. That's really cool, and I, I love that. When you talk about it, you, you're describing how you're using your law knowledge, and then you also have to learn biology and habitat and restoration and all these different things. And circling back to career advice, having done this for so long and being in the academia world, what's changed? You said in the beginning, someone gave you a shot and you stood up to that. What advice do you have or has it changed much? Is it still the same? Get your shot, get someone to vouch for you and show up. Yeah, I think it is the same. These are immutable principles of if you want to break into a field where you don't have necessarily the obvious credentials, academic credentials, even, you know, I would say. Intellectual, you know, at least the way that a large portion of society, let's say, or the employment market would view credentials. If you don't, on paper, if you don't look like what they're necessarily looking for, your challenge is to be insistent. 

I mean, I, I liked what Kamala Harris had to say about women advancing in a male dominated society, which is still male dominated. And, you know, you knock on the door politely, and then if that doesn't open, you kick the door down, and I'll leave out the majority. Only she can deliver that one. I felt the same way. It was like, I am gonna prove myself and I'm gonna be persistent. I can't be obnoxious about it, right? But I am going to insist that you give me an opportunity to show you what I can do. And then when you're presented with that opportunity, you better kill it, right? You gotta, you gotta overwork it. You've got to just assume that. You've got to go beyond the expectation. You got to do more than just meet the expectation. You really have to dazzle the people that you're trying to impress by working, by just sheer hard work. So, I was able to do that. 

And I tell my students, you can always do that. It may take years for you to finally find the job that you really want. Don't worry about that. Get a job. Start building a record of accomplishment and hard work and getting along with people. Do all the basic things that you need to be recognized and respected, and it will come. You just have to believe that even if you don't get the job you want of your dreams right out of law school, it will come if you're patient and hardworking enough. You've got to believe that anyway. Yes. And I, I love that you said that. That is, as a career coach, I'm saying this all the time and I feel like they're looking at me wanting something more, and I would say that's it. They want their dream job right out of the gate. And, uh, you know, the reality is you probably might get what you think is your dream job, and it might not be. And then you have to just keep going and keep proving yourself because then you're only gonna get so far. So I love that. Yeah, I, I could, I could see Laura's face smiling as you were talking. Yeah, it's, it's not for any particular brilliance. It's just, you know, it's probably what, if you were lucky enough to have a, have a mother like I did, she was very good at saying, I don't want to hear about whining. I don't wanna hear excuses. I just want to see performance, you know, I just wanna see you do well and never take anything for granted. 

Nobody owes you anything. Uh, you're gonna have to earn it every day, not just one day or two days a week. You're gonna have to earn it every day. And if it isn't working out, go do something else. So there it is, you know, just like my dad. Yeah, actually, I don't know why you made me think of it like growing up, like one of the things we would hear when we make mistakes, right? My dad would always ask the question, we'd say, I don't know. And then as soon as it came out of our mouths, we knew the next thing he would say is, I don't think, I don't know answers. Mhm. You're gonna have to think about why this happened because we have to learn from our mistakes. You don't get to sit there and say, I don't know. That's right. And if you're not making mistakes, you're not working hard enough. 

Rights are good, but you have to you have to learn from them and correct them. Yeah. All right, well, I think we can end the episode now. We've got all the information I need. Um, I do wanna ask though to another career related question because like this is when I get asked a lot as well, is, does it matter what school or program I take? And since you've been on both sides of that coin, having gone to school in Nebraska, like you said, somewhere in Omaha that people are like, what does, what school is that? And spent so much time at Vermont Law. What is your take on that? Yeah, you know, I get that question an awful lot from our very best students who've been admitted to higher ranked law schools than ours, right? And I'm always very honest with them. I say, you need to go to the program. That will give you the best shot, the best opportunity to do what you really want to do. I mean, and I, of course, I'm assuming they, they know what they wanna do and sometimes they don't, and we have to talk about that as well. But they generally have an idea of what they wanna do, right? And, and they want to make a difference, right? So, you know, that comes down to some really granular analysis. For example, not just what is in the curriculum, but what's in the syllabi. 

Of the courses in the curriculum, and who's teaching them, and what have they done in their career, not just publishing law review articles, but be more demanding than that. I mean, maybe that's enough for you to go to the, you know, if you get admitted to Harvard, you're probably gonna go to Harvard without even thinking about it, right? But there's a limited number of people that are going to Harvard and Yale. So, you really have to, I tell people, you have to do some of your own analysis. You have to ask yourself, what do you want? What do you see now and, and understand it'll change as your career path, and then go and research, you know, if, if you've been admitted to more than one school, if you've only been admitted to one, that answers your question. But if you've got choices, I guess what I'm getting at is, you need to take it upon yourself to do some more research to figure out what's the best fit. You know, and it, part of it is the location and culture. 

Part of it is how big is the school that you're talking about. If you're a law school in a huge university, you know, that's one experience. And if the most of the students in that law school that you're looking at are looking for careers in the private sector, in law firms in that location, well, that will tell you the way the curriculum is designed and aimed. And maybe that's for you, and maybe it's not. So, you know, it's a multi-factor kind of analysis. It takes a matrix chart of pros and cons, and, and then trade-offs, you know, you don't get everything. I mean, the students who come to Vermont Law School now VLLGS were, as we were proud to say, in a town with no stop light. Well, OK, you know, that works for some people. It doesn't work for a lot of people. We've had experiences of, of students who have not come to visit the campus, and I always stress that they, they must do that and come in, in December, not just in the summer, right? Right? Um, but in addition, I say, yeah, we, we've had examples of students who've driven, because they didn't visit, driven into town, out of town, and out because they just didn't understand how, how remote. And rural, this was gonna be. As I say, it works for a lot of people, obviously, we're still around after almost 15 years. Um, but it doesn't work for everybody. So, you know, figure out what you want and what, you know, and also kind of think about what am I good at? You know, there's, there's this, this tension between follow your passion. And follow your talent, right? And my answer to that is, well, it's not either or. You've got combine both. You gotta really figure out what you're passionate about, so that you'll work really hard to achieve what you need to do. 

But then you also have to ask yourself, and I've had to ask myself this, you know, pretty bluntly, what are you good at? Which means also, what are you not good at? Right? So there you go. Love it. That's all great. And then before we jump into the projects that you're working on, let's just do a, you know, what are the benefits of coming to Vermont Law School? And it's, I mean, I can only imagine that it being in a remote location and focus on environmental law, that's Great alignment for most people. I'm sure there's still the, the occasional student that's like, Where's the party? There's plenty of parties. I'm told. But let's to the program a little bit. What's it like working there? Yeah, well, I mean, the proof of the pudding is what our graduates are doing. And when I look around at, you know, who's the leading edge in public interest law and corporate law, private sector, government sector, public interest sector, all the sectors. I see our graduates in key positions everywhere. 

I see them bringing lawsuits to force stronger action on climate change or challenging fossil fuel infrastructure that's taking us in the wrong direction and demanding closer analysis of the impacts of that and alternatives to that. But I also see Our graduates in key positions in government, in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in the Department of Energy. I see them in the Attorney General's offices across the country in the state capacity and in state environmental organizations. In fact, in our own state of Vermont. You know, 3 of my graduates are the key people in the Attorney General's office doing environmental cases, and almost all of the lawyers in the Agency of Natural Resources are VLGS graduates. So that's the proof of the pudding, I think of our program is what, what are our graduates doing? And are they in leadership positions to make a difference? And of course, I'm biased, but my answer is they're doing an awful lot. And Yeah, we're remote, but you know what, the graduates of the law school are incredibly bonded. I mean, in part because you're stuck out in, in, you know, in the, in the boondocks, so to speak, uh, in winter time. 

And, you know, you're more or less forced to get along. I mean, it wouldn't work very well if we were always, you know, at war with one another, and we're not. I mean, there's, there's certainly spirited disagreements and debates. And that's great, but I think you come away from 3 years, and now, of course, there's different programs that shorten that up. But, you know, the basic program of 3 years, not only with a terrific education that evidence shows it puts you in position to get the jobs you want. But you also develop this network of, you know, community of lawyers, and we also have a policy experts that are non-lawyers that are, you know, aren't pursuing the law degree. That's one of the unique things about our program. We started the, the Masters of Law program for non-JD students in 1978. So we've been around a long time. And so you have this community of professionals, a mix of lawyers and non-lawyers, but all doing environmental work. Of course, our graduates do other work as well, but right now we're talking environmental work. And they help one another. 

I see this because I'm on listserves that pose questions and a lot of the people on these list serves of, of environmental lawyers I'm talking about now are VLS grads, and they recognize each other, and they not only respond on the listserve in a formal way, the social network way, but they get together independently, offline. And help one another. And that's something, of course, we, we preach is nobody does this work alone. Nobody who's gonna be successful can do it as a solo, not environmental work anyway. So that's another aspect I think of our program is, is it builds these long-term relationships. Among the graduates that it carries well beyond the 3 years they're at the law school, with people helping one another with dealing with problems, looking for opportunities to be promoted and grow, and move. When you look at what's the point of Vermont Law School, I keep using that term because that's what I'm familiar with. It really is more than just getting a license to practice law; it's really making a difference in the world. And the understanding that goes with that is, is that you need a lot of help to do that.

You need to be able to figure out how do I put together coalitions of interests and reach out to other sources of support that you may not immediately recognize. And that's communication, and that's community building and organizing. So it's more than just reading and learning the law, it's really trying to figure out How do I make a difference in a society that's facing some really profound challenges? Challenges that are gonna be very difficult to overcome, but for which the opportunity to do that work and to see progress is its own reward. Yeah, there are other rewards, financial and But that idea of doing something that makes you feel fulfilled, that makes you feel important, that, that's an, uh, you know, an incredibly valuable thing that you get from our education. We really do say Vermont environmental law is not a neutral value. It is value laden, and not to say that there aren't sometimes values in conflict. But, you know, sorting out what your values are and what the values of others are, and figuring out how do you deal with that? How do you accommodate competing values. Those are all parts of our educational program. It's a lot more than just reading cases handed down by the Supreme Court. Yeah, well, I mean, that's actually kind of a nice segue into talking about a lot of environmental law, um, and how it's coming along. 

Like we've talked a little bit when we had the folks working on Seven County come and talk to us about that case. I know it's something you've been following as well. So we have, we have an understanding of like what the, the basic issues are in the case itself. How do you see the outcome of that case playing out? Yeah, I listened to the oral argument, and it's pretty clear they're going to overturn the Ninth Circuit. Yeah. And the question is, what are they gonna do beyond that? And here's some background that that NEA has been in the Supreme Court 15 times. This is the 16th case involving NEPA. And here's the bad news from the standpoint of Nipah practitioners, it's lost every time. And, and I anticipate another loss in 7 counties. The question is, what exactly will the court decide and what rationale will it use to support its decision? The issue has to do with consideration of indirect effects. This is an 80, as you know, an 80 mile rail line in the Uinta Basin of Utah to connect the oil deposits, which are called waxy crude oil, something I'd never heard of before, to the markets and the refineries on the Gulf Coast. 

And the issue is, the DC Circuit held, I know you understand this but let me just set it up. That they faulted the analysis of the, of the Surface Transportation Board in two respects. One, they said you can't just look at the NSTB, which is what its acronym is, didn't just look at the 80 miles, but they said, in terms of looking upstream. At the impacts of the wells that are producing this oil product, you limited your analysis in ways that were arbitrary and capricious. You should have done a harder analysis of where are the wells going to go, what are some of the environmental impacts of of well and extraction, and that would include air, water, and land impacts and wildlife. And then when they look downstream, The court said, you didn't go far enough in analyzing the impacts of refining the oil at the refineries in Texas and Louisiana. Even though it wasn't clear which refinery the oil was going to go to, we, it was clear that they were gonna go to those refineries in those areas. So, here's what I would say, that the court is definitely gonna say that the DC Circuit was too demanding. Uh, of what STB was required to do under NEPA. 

I don't think the court is gonna go so far as what the petitioners are arguing, which is that if an agency doesn't have authority, Over impacts that are indirect impacts of the agency's action approving this 80 mile rail line. That doesn't necessarily mean the agency doesn't have the responsibility and the authority to consider impacts that are subject to the jurisdiction and authority of other agencies. I don't think they're going to go that far. If the court does go that far, That would be a significant blow to the way that NEPA analysis has been done over the 50 plus years that NEPA's been on the books. And I say this as someone who cut their teeth litigating NEPA cases in the 70s. So, I've been with this statute for a very long time. And so, what I'm looking to see is, will the court come up with a more nuanced rule that says when you're looking at indirect impacts, yes, there are limits. On how far agencies have to go and in what detail they have to go. And remoteness and time and distance from the immediate action that the agency is approving do come into play, but there isn't a bright line about that. The, the term is reasonably foreseeable, and that term necessarily includes some ambiguity and case by case analysis. So, I'll be happy.

If the court says, I think the DC Circuit overstepped its bounds here, and should have accepted what the STB had done as good enough, at least, right? I can live with that. If they go further and start cutting back on authorities' obligations to look at these indirect effects in, in what I would consider to be artificial ways, that would be a bad outcome to me. So, like uh is the concern then that like indirect effects as a whole will always be loopholed out, oh, we don't have to do that anymore because there's another agency that could have some responsibility. Yeah, it's that other agency was responsibility piece that that's problematic because it is artificial. I mean, you know, STB has to weigh. The costs and benefits. There's, their organic statute requires this public interest determination, right? So the point is, in weighing benefits, you have to, you know, the benefits of the extraction of the oil and putting it into the market are obvious. They're economic, they're significant. They're an energy supply, that's significant. So then the question is, what are the costs? 

And when you come to the cost, if you artificially limit What you're gonna consider as cost by limiting the geographic scope or the temporal scope of an action. You are not considering fully the costs, the reasonably foreseeable costs. Here's another example. Suppose the action in question involved a cancer-causing chemical for which the latency period is 30 years, right? Does that mean because it's a remote impact, you don't have to consider it? Well, obviously not. That would be irrational. Right. So, and the same would be with distance. Well, OK, I mean, distance is a factor, but if you knew, for example, that 80% of this oil is going to, what is it? The Port Arthur refinery in Texas. You know this from contracts, you know this from the record, OK? You know that most of the oil is going to be refined at this particular refinery, based on the facts, based on the record. Then why shouldn't you analyze at least understand what the air quality impacts because we know refineries have very significant air quality impacts, and these are environmental justice communities. We know that they're black communities, Hispanic communities, low-income communities around these refineries, we know they're already suffering from bad air, right? So why wouldn't you take into account. The fact that by permitting this rail line, you are gonna be increasing the exposure of these people to these pollutants. You see what I mean? So to me, as an environmental professional, And an advocate of public health protection, environmental protection in general, I'm gonna argue you should be considering that and weighing that. 

Now, if you decide that the benefits outweigh those impacts because the risks are too speculative or not that significant, whatever, whatever your analysis concludes. Nipa doesn't say you, you can't approve the rail line. It just says, understand what you're doing, look before you leave. So that's my way of looking at this particular question. Oh man, I really could ask you like 1000 more questions on just that. I know. Yeah, I have only scratched the surface. I'd admit that. I know there's I always have like a curiosity about like, cause you know, that I think that's very fair to say that there's lots of different ways that this can be interpreted and lots of different things that can happen, but you know, like, maybe this means we just need to have you back and talk more about that specifically, but Um, you know, just for the sake of time, I know we have other things we want to talk to you about too. So like one of those, it's, it's kind of related to this case, and we haven't talked, we've mentioned this a little, we haven't talked a ton about it, but the Marin case about CEQ's authority to offer guidance under NEPA.

Can you kind of walk us through that as well, because it's also a really important surprising thing I think that happened and how important it will be, I think is kind of maybe still up for discussion but walk us through what it is and how you see it impacting environmental review. Yeah, so that, that was a thunderbolt. So the Marin Audubon Society versus Federal Aviation Administration, this case has to do with tourist flights over national parks. And FAA, which is, frankly, footnote, sort of notorious for skirting NEPA and not being, let's put it this way, NEPA is not their favorite statute, I'll put it that way. Um, they decided to treat this what you would call a uh approval or action. of allowing these overflights over the national parks as a categorical exclusion under NEPA. So, they said we're not even going to do an environmental assessment. We're not going to do any environmental review at all. 

Here again, the court ruled, this is the DC Circuit ruled, no, there's clearly the potential at least for significant environmental impacts. You need to do at least an environmental assessment to determine whether a full-blown EIS is necessary. You may well conclude the impacts are not significant or you can mitigate them down to the level where they're not significant and issue of Fonzie, you know, a finding of no significant impact. Maybe that's, that's what you ultimately do, but you can't just shortchange the whole NEPA process right at, right at the outset. Nobody, oh, and I should to finish that off, the court cited the CEQ quality regulations under NEPA from 1978. They've been on the books that long, and they are binding on all agencies of the federal government. So the court cited the CEQ regulations, but the court also said You know, just looking at the plain text of the statute itself, Nipah itself, you can't just categorically say there's no impact here. 

You can't, you just can't do that. We know enough about, you know, the impacts of, of noise. And at least from these various helicopters and fixed wing engine planes that are flying people around so they can see into the canyons and so forth of the national parks. We know that has an impact, so you can't just categorically say, no, it's not significant. But the thunderbolt was, nobody argued in the case that the CEQ regulations were not binding. It was the court itself, sua sponte, as we like to say, that said out of the blue, without briefing or argument, CEQ doesn't have the authority to issue binding regulations, full stop. And that's a thunderbolt. You know, we've been living, as I said, we've been living with these regulations and there's been countless lawsuits involving these regulations over the last, what, 78 to today, 40 years. So now, Both parties, you know, the Biden administration, of course, is representing Federal Aviation Administration. And the Marin County Audubon Society have both petitioned the DC Circuit for a rehearing en banc for the full DC Circuit, which is still heavily dominated by Democratic appointees. 

There are some Trump appointees there and some other presidential appointees, but I think the DC Circuit can fairly be viewed as one of, if not perhaps the most progressive, liberal, whatever your term is, bench in the country. And my hunch is that the DC Circuit will take this up as a uh a rehearing en banc. So, that's the backdrop, but if, if that's literally true, if for whatever reason, either the DC Circuit en banc upholds the ruling of the panel, it was a 2 to 1 decision with Judge Srinivasan dissenting, a very long, strong dissent in the case. If the DC Circuit upholds it, or if, if it goes up further to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court upholds this ruling that CEQ lacks authority to issue binding regulations, that's going to have a huge, huge impact on the way NEPA has been understood and implemented over the years, and it connects with what happened in 2022 with the Fiscal Responsibility Act. I don't know if you've dealt with that on your program. You probably have. So, you know, that's the last time, or the most recent time, where Congress actually adopted very significant substantive changes, or at least procedural changes, but I would call them substantive changes to NEPA. 

That's the first time in like forever that Congress has done that. So now you have that law, which controls different aspects of NEPA. It controls the page limits, the time limits, it controls the scope. Of analysis of impacts, what's reasonably foreseeable. It designates lead agencies with more power than they've had before. It does a lot of, you know, really significant things that we're only now trying to sort out, and that CEQ is trying to sort out. So, if CEQ actually doesn't have the authority, To issue for the entire federal government a set of binding rules for how to interpret and apply NEPA, that means the default's gonna be every single individual agency is gonna have to do that, and they're gonna have to go through individual rulemakings to if they want to, and under Trump, they probably will be ordered to. Change the way they're doing NEPA reviews now. So, this case has very significant implications for the practical day to day implementation of what, you know, we've long called the Magna Carta, right, of environmental law, NEPA. Yeah. Yes. And before we jump topics. Um, we're getting close to time, but before we jump topics, um, as far as NEPA goes, you know, there's a lot of talk about efforts to fast track it and especially for reviews for fossil fuel projects. 

Do you see this playing out? Oh yeah, I mean, you know, President-elect Trump has vowed day one to do lots of things. I don't, he's gonna be a long day, busy day. Um, yeah, but certainly Trump has said, put it out there for public consumption. If you, whoever you are, individuals, companies want to invest at least a billion dollars in my energy dominance program, meaning fossil fuel expansion, oil and gas, onshore, offshore. He's even trying to revive the coal industry. Good luck with that. But he said, if you pledge to invest a billion dollars in my energy program, I will guarantee you fast track permitting approval, including NEPA. Now, he does not have the authority to do that as president, right? There's some things he can do, but here's the interesting thing about this DC decision on CEQ regulations, and I've commented on this in public. The knee-jerk reaction from some within the Trump ambit is, oh yeah, CEQ shouldn't have that authority. But wait a minute, if CEQ doesn't have that authority, then you are actually not going to be able to do some of the things you could do. As President-elect, by ordering CEQ, you know, CEQ right now, you know, So we're in a whipsaw kind of mode, aren't we? Because, so between Obama and Trump, you had a whipsaw with NEA and lots of environmental rules. And now between Biden and Trump revisited, you're gonna have another whipsaw. So the CEQ has been embarked during Biden's administration on reversing. Some of the changes that the first Trump administration did under NEPA, they didn't complete the job. They, they're doing it in phases, phase one and phase two, they're, they stopped, of course, because Biden's not gonna have a second term and because Congress adopted these changes to NEPA in what's called the fiscal responsibility. 

Some people call it the Builder Act. Of 22, right? So, the point is, if the Trump administration really agrees and maybe goes to court and supports a ruling that CEQ does not have this authority, that's gonna limit, in my view, What Trump might be able to do to moderating and changing and revising some of the NEPA procedures. We'll see how that plays out, but it's an interesting irony, I'll put it that way. Oh yeah, I like to explain it it's much easier to tell one agency to do something than to tell all of them to do something. Exactly, pretty much it, yeah, yeah. And so, one of our favorite questions to ask for the podcast, when we have people on is to talk about their shared experiences, right, the time that they've spent in the field, we usually call it the hashtag field notes, that's kind of our, our segment to talk about that. Now we know that you like to do hobbies, you know, birding and fly fishing and stuff like that. So do you have a memorable field story for us. 00 yeah, actually, that was quick. Yeah, no, I could have thought, here's a couple of vignettes from my past. 

At one time, because of my work under the Endangered Species, I'm frankly, mostly known and recognized for my work under the Endangered Species Act. So, at one point, when I was still at National Wildlife Federation, I was invited to accompany biologists who were capturing. And banding peregrine falcons at Assateague National Seashore. And so this little vignette, I'll try to shorten it up. Picture this. We're there in, in the spring, and, no, this is in the fall, sorry. We're there sort of in October. And you drive down the beach with a, a dune buggy. I'm sitting, I'm sitting in the passenger seat. So there's, it's an open, you know, jeep-like thing, right? And I have a pigeon in my lap with a harness around it with slipknots, nylon slipknots. And I'm holding the pigeon, and the biologist is driving the jeep. He's got such eyesight, he can see the peregrine falcon above us, and it's way up there, right? He hits the horn to attract the birds, the peregrine's attention. I throw the pigeon up in the air, the peregrine comes down. You know what they stoop at, right? 200 miles an hour? Wham, smacks the pigeon dead on arrival. Into the beach, and then the peregrine comes down on the beach and walks up to the bird, and grabs, and when it grabs it, it gets hooked in the slipknots. So it tries to take off, but these pigeons are pretty good sized pigeons. Actually, falcons are pretty able to lift, you know, some of the prey they, they hit, right? But these birds are big enough that they can't. So we get out of the jeep and grab the bird delicately and band it. 

Now, of course, the that that time, the peregrine was listed as a threatened species. Now it's been recovered, and it's no longer listed under the federal law at all. But that was a fascinating experience, you know, you talk about field and coming in close contact. Holding a peregrine falcon in your hand, looking into their eyes. Oh man, that is a memorable experience. Cause you know, they are examining you and trying to figure out what you are. There's so much wisdom in those eyes. One last one, then I'll stop. Fast forward now, I'm appointed, get this, as special counsel to the Fish and Wildlife Service in the spotted owl, northern spotted owl God Squad proceedings, which is the Endangered Species Act exemption process. The Fish and Wildlife Service hired me. I was working at Perkins Coy Law Firm in Portland, Oregon, but because they knew about all my exploits under the Act, And because the Fish and Wildlife Service was in conflict with the Bureau of Land Management over timber sales in the Cascade Range of Oregon, they needed to go outside the Department of Interior and the Solicitor's office to hire their own lawyer. In fact, they had to get congressional authorization to hire me. So, I get hired, I do my, you know, uh, that's a long story in itself. I'll save you. But the vignette. Is the biologist once again took me to the old growth forest. 

Of course, I wanted to see, you know, you take me through the forest. Tell me why this is so important. Give me a, a lesson on the biology of the spotted owl. Why do they need a forest with a certain canopy closure and a certain breadth. Diameter of trees and certain age of trees, and certain structural features of an old. What makes an old growth forest? Is it just age or is it something, right? So they take me through this forest, then they surprise me because they said, sit down here under this tree and hold this mouse. Put your glove on first. And hold this mouse. I said, What? Yeah, just hold this mouse. And all of a sudden behind me, I hear the biologist hooting. And sure enough, I don't know how they staged this, to tell you the truth. I really don't. I thought maybe this was a pet owl, I didn't know. An owl on contract, I didn't know. But down, down from the canopy of the forest came a spotted owl, landed on my fist, grabbed the mouse, and flew away. So yeah, I love those stories. Thanks for all. Of course I would love to ask them, yeah. I remember like uh seeing a hawk. I had caught a squirrel and I looked at the hawk and it looked back at me like, what? want something? And it's like the falcon. I can totally picture them that same kind of way, like, what are you gonna do? Uh, I'm ready to go, you know, magnificent and beautiful and powerful and, you know, awe inspiring. Yeah. They're also a little bit mischievous in my experience. Oh. Oh, in New York, yeah, yeah, yeah. No, no, no, my friend. Well, I told you about the owls that I spent in Alaska before with my friend who lives up there. Yesterday, she sent me a post pictures of a bald eagle that had stolen a Frisbee from her dog. They yelling at us to get it back. Yeah, no, they like toys. Ravens in particular. 

We have the Vermont Institute of Natural Sciences has a, it's called a, a muse that they rehabilitate injured raptors, and the enclosure with the raven has more toys than your kids' bedroom. Trust me. There's like 15 toys in this little enclosure, and because they're just constantly in need of stimulation. Yeah, you know, it's cool. It's very cool. Yeah, they're so smart. Well, anyway, again, we could talk forever and we've already got about 10 topics for the next time you come on. So before we let you go, is there anything else that you would like to talk about? No, I just want everybody to stay the course and don't be discouraged by the fact that we're gonna have 4 really tough years. Uh, ahead of us, and we're not gonna be able to make the gains that we thought we could make, and we're gonna suffer some defeats, but it's a long game. There will be a brighter day ahead. And in addition to sort of resisting, which is, you know, what people are talking about, it is a time to reflect on, could we be doing the work that we're doing. Better? Could we be listening to people that are criticizing us in a way that can forge some ways forward? I'm not necessarily talking about negotiating compromises or or cutting back on our, our goals. I'm not talking about that so much as just, OK, so we didn't get the result, maybe some of us wanted in this election. And, you know, we could suffer some really significant losses, but you gotta be resilient. 

You gotta just stick with what you know is the right thing to do, or at least you're convinced or now it's the right thing to do. Don't give up, don't get unduly discouraged. Yeah, they'll be Some setbacks, you gotta just take those punches and get up and keep going. That's my message to people is, now more than ever, we need to stick with one another and keep fighting for the things that we know are important. Love that. Perfect. And finally, where can people get in touch with you? So, I'm at Parental at Vermontlaw.edu. You can find me there. You can find me online at, uh, Vermont Law and Graduate School, and I welcome people's comments, questions, and if I can be helpful to, to students, for example, that are out there looking or, or young professionals looking for career advice, I'm open to that. So, yeah, whatever. Awesome, love that. 

Thank you so much for being here. This is great. You're welcome. I enjoyed it. That's our show. Thank you, Pat, for joining us today. Please be sure to check us out each and every Friday. Don't forget to subscribe, rate, and review. See you, everybody. Bye.