����

A look inside the editorial process that transformed two days of dialogue into Volume 36, Issue 2 of the Colorado Environmental Law Journal

After a five-year pandemic-induced hiatus, the Martz Symposium on Public Lands returned to the University of Colorado Law School this��past October with renewed vigor and urgency. Now, just months later, we're proud to share how those conversations made their way into the��. Many thanks to our authors, S. James Anaya, Matt Dietz, Alison Flint, Travis Belote, Monte Mils, Martin Nie, and Sarah Matsumoto, for their excellent work throughout the process.

Yet the process of turning conversations into law review articles is no simple feat. The transition from symposium presentations to law review articles presents unique editorial challenges. Read on for an assuredly riveting “behind the scenes” look on what happened in the Journal suite over the last six months to make it all happen.

From Spoken Word to Scholarly Articles

First up is tracking down your authors. This usually begins as a “call for submissions” and, if the conference’s listserv doesn’t heed the call, can often end as a “please, please, please write something for us.” Fortunately for yours truly, the 2024 Martz Symposium’s panelists and moderators—Mills, Flint, Matsumoto, and Anaya, to be specific—promptly offered up their ideas and commitments.

Once the authors are selected, the waiting game begins because, unlike the usual process where we selected pre-written articles, symposium selections will be written after the fact (i.e., the event), and generally on the subject the author presented on. Again, trepidation set in as the first-draft December deadline grew nearer; again, our authors came through.

Bear with me here because it’s about to get really interesting. The editing process is as follows: two rounds of substantive edits, onto cite checks and then a copy edit / page proof finish. The latter two rounds are where law journals across the country win their notoriety. Imagine the most monotonous task you do daily, multiply its monotony by five, then find a rule to cite for why you do it. And then do that task several hundred times over the course of a month. That’s our bread and butter, baby.

Jokes aside, these editorial rounds are what allow for law review articles to be relied upon when writing the law—be it legislators or judges. Without a swarm of staff writers and editors to do that sort of rigorous fact checking, the articles’ value to the legal field would be greatly diminished.

Bridging Academia and Practice

Nevertheless, the value in this issue’s contents was apparent from the get-go. We were very fortunate to work with an esteemed group of authors covering a breadth of practice areas. Take it from my very own editor’s note:

Issue 2 opens with S. James Anaya's incisive and experiential analysis of the International Council on Mining and Metals' 2024 Position Statement on Indigenous Peoples, examining how the world's largest mining companies are grappling with their responsibilities toward Indigenous communities. Matt Dietz, Alison Flint, and Travis Belote of the Wilderness Society then present a compelling argument for the role of landscape intactness in the BLM’s multiple-use and sustained-yield mandate, tactfully striking that elusive literary balance between law and science. Professors Monte Mills and Martin Nie then offer up the first comprehensive framework for integrating tribal co-stewardship into federal public lands planning processes by addressing a critical, inequitable gap in the current planning approaches. Colorado Law’s very own Sarah Matsumoto rounds out the articles selection in the Pacific Northwest with an Oregonian exposé on the tension between legitimate wildfire management and its exploitation by industry.

The symposium issue doesn't just feature the distinguished speakers—it also showcases the Journal's student editors' own scholarship. Here’s me again, too lazy to paraphrase:

The Journal’s lead production editor, Lara Andenoro, kicks off the student notes with a weighty analysis of Held v. Montana and how state constitutional environmental rights provisions can serve as powerful tools for climate litigation. Next up is managing editor, Aidan Bodeo-Lomicky’s investigation into the Rice's whale—the world's most endangered baleen whale—illustrating the complex intersection of environmental protection and political change. Tying a bow on Volume 36 is lead notes editor, Mason Liddell, and his comparative analysis of the Lake Erie Bill of Rights and Happy the Elephant case, revealing the challenges facing rights-based environmental and animal advocacy.

Publication in a Changing Landscape

Perhaps the most challenging aspect of the editorial process was the rapidly changing political landscape. The Journal's commitment to publishing timely, relevant scholarship meant that articles required constant updates as policies shifted. This was particularly evident in pieces dealing with federal land management, where, as anyone who reads GWC blog posts knows, there has been some regulatory change afoot over the last six months.

Still, the team's dedication to accuracy and timeliness and the authors’ hard work in keeping us up to date meant that what began as symposium presentations slowly but surely evolved into forward-looking scholarship that remains relevant even as the political landscape continues to shift.

A Labor of Love

The Martz Symposium issue represents more than just a collection of articles—it's a testament to the power of bringing together diverse voices to address our most pressing environmental challenges. From the distinguished speakers who trusted the Journal with their ideas to the student editors who worked tirelessly to bring those ideas to print, Volume 36, Issue 2 stands as a collaborative achievement and capstone on the return of the Martz Symposium.

���Ƿ�,��

Volume 36, Issue 2 of the Colorado Environmental Law Journal is now available at��. Recordings of the symposium presentations can be found on the