Mark Squillace

Colorado River states cheered this month when President Trump signed swiftly passed legislation ratifying a drought plan for the waterway. But they could be in for a legal fight. . . Some question whether the DCP should have qualified for another review under NEPA, or at least a supplemental assessment. "It is almost certainly true that the 2007 EIS is not adequate to flesh out the current impacts and alternatives for addressing the Colorado River drought," said Mark Squillace, of the University of Colorado Law School.

Guest commentary: On April 16, 2019, Governor Jared Polis signed into law SB19-181, a bill that reforms oil and gas regulation in Colorado in several important ways. It’s a remarkable achievement for House Speaker KC Becker and other supporters who bent but did not break in the face of strong opposition from the oil and gas industry. And it is notable too because it comes on the heels of the defeat of Proposition 112, which would have required that any new oil and natural gas development be located at least 2,500 feet from any occupied structures or other “vulnerable” areas. This last phrase might well explain the Proposition’s defeat, since vulnerable areas were defined broadly to include such ubiquitous land features as irrigation canals and intermittent streams. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC or Commission) estimated that 85% of the non-federal land subject to the law would have been off-limits to development if Prop 112 had passed.

Professors Sarah Krakoff and Mark Squillace each submitted law professor amicus briefs challenging the Trump administration's actions to shrink Bears Ears National Monument and Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument, respectively.