Advertise on podcast: Environmentally Speaking

Clarice brings Marisa a hot take from Denmark. Researchers at Aarhus University are testing whether the open water between offshore wind turbines, which is now treated as a mostly unusable zone, could be used to grow seaweed. The article describes it as a reuse story. The seaweed could help absorb nutrient pollution (nitrogen and phosphorus, the drivers of harmful algal blooms), and it could be sold as a food crop, such as sugar kelp. Marisa hears a warning in that framing. Rhode Island and Virginia fishermen were told they could keep fishing between turbines, with about one nautical mile of spacing. So if Denmark treats those areas as unfit for regular vessel traffic, what does that say about the promises made here? From there the conversation widens: Is the space between turbines becoming the ocean's version of Route 66, a corridor we're scrambling to find a use for? Does every leftover space have to become production space, or could rewilding be an option? Why do we accept cell antennas on rooftops but resist solar panels there, and push energy infrastructure into deserts and open ocean instead? Marisa's central point: "NIMBY" is only ever used as an insult, and it's now used to shut down legitimate conservation objections. If every objection is written off as NIMBYism, the ocean gets industrialized, and people will eventually ask where the conservationists were. Mentioned in this episode Article on the Aarhus University seaweed farming project: [LINK — needed from Clarice] Contact Questions or want to keep the conversation going? Desautel Browning Law: 401-477-0023 | desautelbrowning.com

Hosts: Marisa Desautel and Clarice Parsons What happens when courts stop deferring to agency expertise? In this episode of Environmentally Speaking, hosts Marisa Desautel and Clarice Parsons unpack the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Chevron deference and what it means for environmental law today. Marisa explains how Chevron shaped administrative law for nearly four decades before being replaced by the Loper Bright standard, while Clarice brings the perspective of a mediator to the discussion, exploring how these legal changes may influence dispute resolution and settlement strategies. Together, they compare what they’re seeing in federal practice versus state practice, discuss why environmental agencies are facing greater uncertainty, and examine whether the shift away from agency deference will fundamentally change how environmental disputes are resolved. Clarice also revisits last week’s discussion on mediation confidentiality, sharing insights from a recent conversation with an environmental law mediator about why confidentiality works differently when public agencies are involved. This is Part 1 of a two-part series on Chevron and administrative law. In the next episode, Marisa and Clarice will discuss the more recent Chevron-related case and its broader implications. Understanding Chevron deference and why it became a foundational principle of administrative law How Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo changed judicial review of agency decisions The role of scientific expertise in environmental regulation Why federal agencies are experiencing greater legal uncertainty How Rhode Island and Massachusetts courts have responded so far The importance of exhausting administrative remedies—and whether that doctrine may evolve Why more environmental disputes may be resolved through settlement rather than litigation The growing role of mediation and arbitration in environmental conflicts Clarifying confidentiality in public-sector environmental mediation Chevron deference required courts to give weight to reasonable agency interpretations supported by the administrative record. The Loper Bright decision eliminated that federal standard, placing greater responsibility on judges to interpret agency authority. Federal environmental litigation has become more uncertain, encouraging earlier settlement discussions. Many state courts have not yet seen the same practical shift. The long-term effects on environmental regulation and administrative law are still developing. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo Have a question or topic suggestion for a future episode? Connect with Desautel Browning through their website or follow the firm on LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, and X.

In this episode of Environmentally Speaking, Marisa Desautel and Clarice Parsons explore attorney-client confidentiality and how it applies across the many types of clients encountered in environmental law practice. Marisa explains the differences between representing individuals, municipalities, state agencies, nonprofits, and other organizations, and discusses a key legal question: when the client is a group, who does the attorney actually represent? The conversation covers attorney-client privilege, legal ethics, executive sessions, public transparency requirements, municipal boards, and the challenges of balancing confidentiality with accountability in government settings. Marisa also explains when privilege applies, how it can be waived, and why not every conversation with an attorney is automatically protected. Clarice contributes insights from the mediation world, highlighting similarities between legal confidentiality and mediation agreements, including common exceptions and reporting requirements. Topics Covered: Attorney-client confidentiality Environmental and municipal law Organizational versus individual clients Planning boards and zoning boards State agencies and local government Executive sessions and open meetings laws Attorney-client privilege and waiver Mediation confidentiality Legal ethics and professional responsibility Join Marisa and Clarice for an engaging discussion on one of the most important—and often misunderstood—principles in legal practice.

In this episode of Environmentally Speaking, hosts Marisa Desautel and Clarice Parsons unpack one of the most misunderstood aspects of environmental and municipal permitting: site control, property interests, and why some projects fail before they even truly begin. What started as a social media reel and a “hot take” quickly turned into a deeper conversation about accountability in zoning and permitting. Marisa explains why permitting delays and denials are not always the fault of municipalities or regulatory agencies — and how applicants often overlook critical foundational requirements before submitting a project. Using real-world examples from environmental law and Rhode Island permitting processes, the episode explores: What “site custody and control” actually means Why property ownership and consent matter in permitting How easements, rights-of-way, condo associations, and shared property interests can complicate approvals The role of municipal boards and state agencies like DEM What happens when objections are filed against an application Why agencies often require disputes to be resolved in court before moving forward Clarice brings the perspective of someone outside the legal world, asking the questions many property owners, developers, and applicants may not think to ask until it’s too late. Together, she and Marisa break down the legal concepts in a practical and approachable way. If you’ve ever wondered why projects stall, why permits get denied, or how zoning and environmental approvals really work behind the scenes, this episode offers an informative look into the process — and the importance of doing your homework before filing an application. Have a reel or environmental topic you’d like discussed on the podcast? Reach out and let the hosts know what you’d like covered in a future episode. Hosted by: Marisa Desautel & Clarice Parsons Happy Memorial Day weekend, and thanks for listening to Environmentally Speaking!

In this week’s episode of Environmentally Speaking, Marisa and Clarice dive into the unexpected environmental recovery happening in and around the Chernobyl exclusion zone nearly 40 years after the nuclear disaster. The conversation explores recent research showing that wetlands, peatlands, microbes, and even wildlife are not only returning to the region, but in some cases appear to be thriving despite ongoing radioactive contamination. The hosts discuss the critical role wetlands play as natural filtration systems, carbon sinks, and biodiversity hubs — and why these ecosystems may be central to the area’s long-term recovery. They also unpack fascinating early-stage studies examining how bacteria and microbiomes within the Chernobyl wetlands may be adapting to, or surviving despite, ionizing radiation exposure. Along the way, the episode touches on ecosystem resilience, nature-based restoration, the cultural fascination surrounding Chernobyl, and the surprising ways the planet continues to adapt in extreme conditions. Plus: mutant daisies, bog body science, and an important reminder that nature is often far more resilient than we expect. If you have expertise in microbiology, recombinant DNA, radiation impacts, or ecosystem restoration, the hosts would love to hear from you — and maybe even have you join the podcast for a future episode.

Podcast: Environmentally Speaking Host: Marisa Desautel Guest/Co-host: Clarice Parsons In this episode of Environmentally Speaking, Marissa Desautels and Clarice Parsons unpack a recent article raising concerns about the removal of climate change content from a scientific reference manual intended for judges. What starts as a reaction to a strange and troubling article quickly becomes a larger conversation about climate science denial, the role of expertise in the courtroom, and how recent changes in judicial deference may shift scientific decision-making away from agencies and toward judges. The conversation explores the legal, political, and practical consequences of sidelining climate science in judicial and regulatory spaces. Marissa and Clarice question whether static reference materials can ever substitute for expert testimony, especially in fields like climate science that evolve rapidly. They also connect the issue to the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision, arguing that reducing deference to agencies may not eliminate bias, but instead transfer power to judges who may lack technical expertise. What the judges’ reference manual on scientific evidence appears to be Why removing climate change material from that manual is so concerning How the issue relates to the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision Why agency expertise still matters in environmental decision-making The limits of judges and reference manuals in evaluating evolving science How climate denial continues to shape policy and public discourse Why symbolic climate commitments often fall short of meaningful action A broader question: what can actually be done when consensus is no longer realistic? Email: [email protected] Phone: 401-477-0023 Website: desautelbrowning.com Reference:  https://earth.org/political-attack-scientists-condemn-removal-of-climate-chapter-from-us-judges-reference-manual/

Podcast: Environmentally Speaking Host: Marisa Desautel Guest/Co-host: Clarice Parsons In this episode of Environmentally Speaking, Marisa Desautel and Clarice Parsons unpack the federal EPA’s rescission of the 2009 “endangerment finding,” a policy determination that has shaped greenhouse gas regulation for the past 16 years. They break down what the finding is, why its rollback matters, and how recent shifts in judicial thinking about agency authority may have opened the door to broader deregulatory action. The conversation explores the legal, environmental, and practical consequences of the rescission, from weakened climate oversight to uncertainty for industries and regulators. Marisa also reflects on how state programs, corporate compliance, and everyday consumer experiences, like start-stop car technology, may be affected by changing federal policy. What the EPA’s “endangerment finding” actually is Why the February 12 rescission is such a major development How the Clean Air Act has been used to regulate greenhouse gases The legal backdrop of recent Supreme Court limits on agency power Why rescinding non-statutory policy findings may be easier than undoing formal regulations The risks of deregulation for climate policy, air quality, and public health What this could mean for future agency rollbacks beyond the EPA A real-world example: start-stop technology in newer vehicles The endangerment finding was a 2009 EPA scientific determination that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, giving the agency a basis to regulate emissions from sources like cars and trucks. Because the finding was not written into statute or formalized as a regulation, Marisa explains that it may have been especially vulnerable to rescission. The episode frames the rollback as part of a broader legal and political shift, especially after recent Supreme Court decisions limiting how much discretion federal agencies can exercise without explicit statutory authority. Marisa argues that the rescission is environmentally harmful and warns that it could signal wider efforts to dismantle non-statutory federal programs across agencies. The discussion also highlights uncertainty: litigation could reverse the move, industries may face inconsistent compliance expectations, and states may need to reassess how their own programs interact with federal changes. Email: [email protected] Phone: 401-477-0023 Website: desautelbrowning.com Reference: President Trump and Administrator Zeldin Deliver Single Largest Deregulatory Action in U.S. History | US EPA

In this episode of Environmentally Speaking, environmental attorney Marisa Desautel and co-host Clarice Parsons sit down with Rhode Island State Senator Alana DiMario (District 36) to discuss how environmental policy is shaped, implemented, and funded at the state level. Senator DiMario shares her journey from mental health counselor to legislator and explains why climate change, coastal resiliency, and waste reduction are urgent priorities for her coastal district, including Narragansett, North Kingstown, and Block Island. The conversation covers what happens after a bill passes, the importance of follow-through, and how state agencies, municipalities, and the public all play a role in turning environmental legislation into real-world action. Topics covered include: Rhode Island’s part-time legislature and environmental policymaking Climate change impacts on coastal communities Greenhouse gas reduction under the Act on Climate Textile recycling and landfill diversion efforts The role of education, data, and agency coordination Funding challenges and creative solutions for climate initiatives How residents can get involved in environmental advocacy

In this episode of Environmentally Speaking, Marisa Desautel and co-host Clarice Parsons are joined by Rhode Island State Senator Alana DiMario to discuss how environmental policy is developed and carried out at the state level. Senator DiMario shares her background and explains why climate change, coastal resiliency, and waste reduction are critical issues for her coastal district. Topics covered include: Rhode Island’s part-time legislature and environmental policymaking Climate change impacts on coastal communities Greenhouse gas reduction under the Act on Climate What happens after a bill becomes law Textile recycling and landfill diversion efforts The role of EC4 and challenges in funding climate initiatives How residents can get involved in environmental advocacy

In this episode of Environmentally Speaking, Marissa Desautel and co-host Clarice Parsons discuss recent federal changes to environmental policy and growing challenges to public participation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). They examine lawsuits against the Bureau of Land Management, new federal permitting legislation, and concerns about how faster approvals may weaken environmental review—particularly for offshore wind projects. Topics covered include: Changes to public notice and comment under NEPA Lawsuits challenging federal agency policy shifts Federal permitting reform and the “Speed Act” Environmental review concerns for offshore wind Why public participation still matters

In this episode of Environmentally Speaking, environmental attorney Marisa Desautel and co-host Clarice Parsons unpack the concept of Marine Spatial Planning (MSP)—a legal and policy framework designed to organize human activities in the ocean while balancing conservation and economic growth. Topics covered include: How Marine Spatial Planning mirrors land-use zoning principles The role of federal and state policy in shaping offshore wind projects Why stakeholder engagement is critical yet often overlooked The tension between private profit and public interest in ocean use Understanding “knock-on effects” and cumulative environmental impacts Lessons from the United Kingdom’s approach to marine management The future of collaborative planning for U.S. coastal waters Whether you’re an attorney, policymaker, or coastal advocate, this episode offers insight into the legal tools and policy discussions shaping the next generation of ocean management.

In this episode of Environmentally Speaking, environmental attorney Marisa Desautel and co-host Clarice Parsons dive into how Rhode Island’s coastal municipalities are adapting to climate change and rising sea levels through updated zoning and land-use ordinances. Topics covered include: The growing urgency of coastal resilience planning in Rhode Island Steps towns are taking to revise municipal ordinances for future development Challenges of balancing due process vs. emergency action The concept of “retreat”—when rebuilding in flood-prone areas no longer makes sense Protecting natural defenses such as wetlands and conservation easements Legal and policy questions about redevelopment after disasters Human behavior during disasters and the formation of “stay-behind” communities Whether you’re a homeowner, planner, or environmental professional, this conversation offers insight into the legal and practical measures shaping the state’s coastal future.

This week on Environmentally Speaking, Marisa and Clarice dive into a timely and critical topic—Rhode Island's first-ever buyback program for flood-prone homes along the Pocasset River. With increased flooding due to climate change and rising sea levels, federal and local agencies are stepping in with a solution: offering homeowners fair market value to relocate away from flood-risk zones. But with limited funding and over 100 vulnerable properties, is this just a drop in the bucket? In this episode: Why this program is launching now How the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is involved The impact on communities in Cranston and Johnston Whether homeowners are getting a fair deal Questions about long-term funding and flood prevention 🔗 Have you or someone you know received a letter about the buyback? Reach out to us!

In this episode of Environmentally Speaking, environmental attorney Marisa Desautel and co-host Clarice Parsons discuss Rhode Island’s first state-funded coastal resiliency study, a result of the recently passed Act on Coasts (2024). Topics covered include: What is a resiliency study and why it matters Current threats to Rhode Island’s coastline The newly appointed Chief Resilience Officer and their responsibilities Community involvement and state planning timelines Legal implications and potential next steps International approaches to coastal erosion This episode explores the legal, environmental, and policy challenges involved in climate adaptation and coastal planning for Rhode Island and beyond.

Clarice and Kerin sit down to discuss today's political climate and the way it is impacting land use in New England. Kerin discusses the question: "What happens when politics and special interests get involved in our zoning and land use process?"