Anthropogenic effects are causing significant environmental degradation, and regardless of actions taken to mitigate further changes, humans and animals will have to live with these impacts (IPCC 2019). Rapid population growth in coastal regions, saltwater intrusion (SWI), lowering water quality, and increased presence of toxic materials are degrading coastal resiliency. An important and popular coastal region for the United States is the state of Florida, and it is also an area extremely vulnerable to aspects of climate change such as sea-level rise (SLR) (Noss 2011). This project analyzes how the state is currently experiencing the direct and indirect impacts of toxic materials on the state’s people, environment, and economy. It will do so through analysis of the performance of federal legislation created with the intent to protect human and environmental health, quantification of current rates of using toxic chemicals and potential pollution, as well as quantifying effects of both anthropogenic and natural toxic materials on Florida’s housing market. It was anticipated that legislation such as the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to ensure strict enforcement of drinking water standards and the Emergency Planning Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) to prevent toxic pollution would be present in the vulnerable region. Also that natural phenomenon such as the harmful algal blooms significantly degrade the housing market through decreasing income through tourism and lowering housing prices in coastal neighborhoods. This project found that the SDWA is not being enforced, EPCRA data shows a huge risk to potential exposures from large storms, and that algal blooms are significant to housing prices in the state. Using these scientific findings to improve policy and appropriately communicating complex scientific topics to the public is extremely important. Doing so will enable a higher level of coastal resiliency as communities continue attempt to mitigate climate change, but also learn to understand current impacts and better live in a degrading environment.

La question de la responsabilité de l’État sans faute du fait des engagements internationaux devant le juge administratif français est soumise aux évolutions jurisprudentielles. En 2011, le Conseil d’État a consacré la responsabilité de l’État sans faute des coutumes internationales. Cette consécration a provoqué un débat sur l’assimilation entre la responsabilité du fait des lois et la responsabilité du fait des conventions internationales. Pour le comprendre, il faut se tourner vers le passé: le régime de responsabilité du fait des conventions internationales inauguré avec l’arrêt Compagnie générale d’énergie radioélectrique. En 1966, le Conseil d’État a dépassé la problématique de la théorie des actes de gouvernement et a constitué un régime de responsabilité fondé sur le principe d’égalité devant les charges publiques. La règle de réparation est destinée à réparer non pas les dommages résultant directement de la convention, mais ceux causés par son application. Elle ne concerne que les dommages anormaux et spéciaux. Ce régime de responsabilité a été accepté dans des termes proches du régime de la responsabilité du fait des lois. Aujourd’hui, et avec l’évolution jurisprudentielle, une dissociation s’opère entre la responsabilité du fait des engagements internationaux et la responsabilité du fait des lois. Il semble possible de consacrer l’indépendance du régime de la responsabilité du fait des engagements internationaux de celui des lois. / The question of the state’s responsibility towards international engagements is subject to jurisprudential evolutions. In 2011, the Counsel of the State dedicated the responsibility without fault due to the international customs. These dedications provoked a debate about the founded assimilation between the responsibility of the acts of laws and the responsibility due to the international conventions. Concerning this, one must turn to the past: the system of responsibility based on the occurrences of international conventions inaugurated with the stop of the company of radio electric energy. In 1966, the Counsel of the State overtook the problem of the theory of government act and constituted a system of responsibility based on the principle of equality before the public charges. The rule of reparation is not destined to repair the damages directly resulting from the convention, but those caused by its application. It only concerns the abnormal and particular damages. This state of responsibility was accepted under the close terms of the system of responsibility on the acts of laws.Today and with the jurisprudential evolution, a disassociation operates between the responsibility of actions on international engagements and the responsibility of the acts of law. It seems possible to sanction independence from the system of responsibility of actions of international engagements and that of law.