{"title":"Arkansas Project v. Shaw: The Need for State Permitting Agency Liability under the Endangered Species Act","authors":"Caitlin Brown","doi":"10.15779/Z382867","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z382867","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45532,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Law Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67382949","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This Article asks whether the public trust doctrine should be applied to stop the construction of a multistory commercial building that will tower over the tree line of Palisades Interstate Park. The building, which received a variance from a local New Jersey zoning commission, will ruin views of the Park, particularly from scenic overlooks across the Hudson River in New York, like the Metropolitan Museum’s Cloisters and the George Washington Bridge. To make this argument, the author draws on the work of renowned public trust scholars, Professors Joseph Sax and Carol Rose, among others. Based on the doctrine’s adaptability to modern conditions, she finds a sufficient bridge from traditional uses of the doctrine to justify concluding that the proposed building’s interference with scenic views of the Park is an alienation of a trust resource in breach of the doctrine.
这篇文章询问公共信托原则是否应该适用于停止多层商业建筑的建设，该建筑将耸立在帕利塞德斯州际公园的树木线上。这座建筑获得了新泽西州当地一个分区委员会的许可，它将破坏公园的景观，尤其是从纽约哈德逊河对岸的风景中，比如大都会博物馆的修道院和乔治华盛顿大桥(George Washington Bridge)。为了提出这一论点，作者引用了著名的公共信托学者的研究成果，其中包括约瑟夫·萨克斯教授和卡罗尔·罗斯教授。基于该原则对现代条件的适应性，她找到了一个充分的桥梁，从该原则的传统用途中证明，拟议的建筑对公园风景的干扰是违反原则的信托资源的异化。
{"title":"Is Using the Public Trust Doctrine to Protect Public Parkland from Visual Pollution Justifiable Doctrinal Creep","authors":"Hope M. Babcock","doi":"10.15779/Z382C2Q","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z382C2Q","url":null,"abstract":"This Article asks whether the public trust doctrine should be applied to stop the construction of a multistory commercial building that will tower over the tree line of Palisades Interstate Park. The building, which received a variance from a local New Jersey zoning commission, will ruin views of the Park, particularly from scenic overlooks across the Hudson River in New York, like the Metropolitan Museum’s Cloisters and the George Washington Bridge. To make this argument, the author draws on the work of renowned public trust scholars, Professors Joseph Sax and Carol Rose, among others. Based on the doctrine’s adaptability to modern conditions, she finds a sufficient bridge from traditional uses of the doctrine to justify concluding that the proposed building’s interference with scenic views of the Park is an alienation of a trust resource in breach of the doctrine.","PeriodicalId":45532,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Law Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67383241","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Laundering Fish in the Global Undercurrents: Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing and Transnational Organized Crime","authors":"Anastasia Telesetsky","doi":"10.15779/Z38656G","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38656G","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45532,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Law Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67410567","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Three decades of study have revealed dozens of examples of natural systems crossing biophysical thresholds (or “tipping points”) as a result of human-induced stressors, dramatically altering ecosystem function and services. Environmental management that avoids or reverses such tipping points could prevent severe social, economic, and environmental impacts. Here, we attempt to demonstrate the desirability of, and opportunities for, environmental management using thresholds under U.S. federal law. We find that conceptually, tipping points can and do guide some regulatory decisions. However, explicitly focusing a larger set of environmental rules on avoiding
{"title":"How Not to Fall Off a Cliff, or, Using Tipping Points to Improve Environmental Management","authors":"R. Kelly, Ashley L. Erickson, L. Mease","doi":"10.15779/Z38FP1H","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38FP1H","url":null,"abstract":"Three decades of study have revealed dozens of examples of natural systems crossing biophysical thresholds (or “tipping points”) as a result of human-induced stressors, dramatically altering ecosystem function and services. Environmental management that avoids or reverses such tipping points could prevent severe social, economic, and environmental impacts. Here, we attempt to demonstrate the desirability of, and opportunities for, environmental management using thresholds under U.S. federal law. We find that conceptually, tipping points can and do guide some regulatory decisions. However, explicitly focusing a larger set of environmental rules on avoiding","PeriodicalId":45532,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Law Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67468284","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Throughout the world, governments require land protection in exchange for development permits. Unfortunately, oftentimes scant attention has been paid to these land protection programs after development. Agencies and permit applicants agree on mitigation rules, but there appears to be little follow-up. When we do not know where conservation is occurring and cannot determine the rules of mitigation projects, the likelihood that they will be successful or enforced diminishes. I journeyed to California in search of answers by tracing four mitigation plans associated with the Federal Endangered Species Act. While I anticipated some difficulties, the tale is more alarming than expected. The government entities involved struggled to locate and understand the permits themselves, let alone the details of the compensatory mitigation projects. A common land protection tool in this context is the conservation easement. These exacted conservation easements exchange public goods for private gain. Attempting to locate and understand these mitigation easements revealed pervasive problems with tracking mitigation in the United States. The federal agencies had trouble finding and understanding records. The county offices charged with recording property restrictions often had inadequate records of land use restrictions. These challenges exacerbate the accountability and enforceability concerns already associated with mitigation programs. Such uncertainty calls into question this method of environmental conservation. This Article highlights pressing concerns with our current mitigation paradigm and calls for reform of federal programs through promulgating new regulations and updating agency guidance. Furthermore, this project calls upon citizens and researchers to turn their eyes to mitigation programs generally and to question whether such programs truly compensate for the environmental harms they facilitate.
{"title":"Keeping Track of Conservation","authors":"Jessica Owley","doi":"10.15779/Z38SV8R","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38SV8R","url":null,"abstract":"Throughout the world, governments require land protection in exchange for development permits. Unfortunately, oftentimes scant attention has been paid to these land protection programs after development. Agencies and permit applicants agree on mitigation rules, but there appears to be little follow-up. When we do not know where conservation is occurring and cannot determine the rules of mitigation projects, the likelihood that they will be successful or enforced diminishes. I journeyed to California in search of answers by tracing four mitigation plans associated with the Federal Endangered Species Act. While I anticipated some difficulties, the tale is more alarming than expected. The government entities involved struggled to locate and understand the permits themselves, let alone the details of the compensatory mitigation projects. A common land protection tool in this context is the conservation easement. These exacted conservation easements exchange public goods for private gain. Attempting to locate and understand these mitigation easements revealed pervasive problems with tracking mitigation in the United States. The federal agencies had trouble finding and understanding records. The county offices charged with recording property restrictions often had inadequate records of land use restrictions. These challenges exacerbate the accountability and enforceability concerns already associated with mitigation programs. Such uncertainty calls into question this method of environmental conservation. This Article highlights pressing concerns with our current mitigation paradigm and calls for reform of federal programs through promulgating new regulations and updating agency guidance. Furthermore, this project calls upon citizens and researchers to turn their eyes to mitigation programs generally and to question whether such programs truly compensate for the environmental harms they facilitate.","PeriodicalId":45532,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Law Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67553049","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Climate change is a growing threat to biodiversity, particularly in hotspots such as tropical forests and coral reefs. At the same time, deforestation is a major source of carbon emissions. The REDD effort is an attempt to make positive use of this connection. But negative impacts are also possible, such as the destruction of tropical forests as an indirect result of U.S. corn ethanol production. More generally, biodiversity and climate change both raise issues about the legality and effectiveness of bottom-up actions in the absence of global agreement.Finally, climate change and biodiversity threats both have links to the global food system. Sustainable aquaculture can reduce pressures on wild fish stocks. Conversion to agricultural use is a major threat to wild lands that store large amounts of carbon and harbor immense biodiversity. Increased crop yields, dietary changes, and population control can reduce those pressures, with both biodiversity and climate benefits.
{"title":"Separated at Birth? Addressing the Twin Crises of Biodiversity and Climate Change","authors":"D. Farber","doi":"10.15779/Z38N28N","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38N28N","url":null,"abstract":"Climate change is a growing threat to biodiversity, particularly in hotspots such as tropical forests and coral reefs. At the same time, deforestation is a major source of carbon emissions. The REDD effort is an attempt to make positive use of this connection. But negative impacts are also possible, such as the destruction of tropical forests as an indirect result of U.S. corn ethanol production. More generally, biodiversity and climate change both raise issues about the legality and effectiveness of bottom-up actions in the absence of global agreement.Finally, climate change and biodiversity threats both have links to the global food system. Sustainable aquaculture can reduce pressures on wild fish stocks. Conversion to agricultural use is a major threat to wild lands that store large amounts of carbon and harbor immense biodiversity. Increased crop yields, dietary changes, and population control can reduce those pressures, with both biodiversity and climate benefits.","PeriodicalId":45532,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Law Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67511181","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
For a shining second, the landmark Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency seemed to signal a new era for climate change litigation in the federal courts. Unfortunately, the prospects of such litigation in the years since the decision have become far bleaker. The recent Ninth Circuit decision in Washington Environmental Council v. Bellon is merely the latest in a string of federal court decisions that have reduced the Massachusetts v. EPA precedent to near irrelevancy. It is now clearly established that Article III standing, a necessary prerequisite to any claim in federal court, will not be granted to private plaintiffs seeking relief for climate change related harms by filing claims against greenhouse gas emitters or regulatory agencies that refuse to take action. As a result, private climate change plaintiffs must rely on alternative avenues to have their claims heard in court. This Note highlights the importance of private plaintiffs in the history of environmental law and argues that the Washington Environmental Council v. Bellon decision was overbroad. In the wake of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, this Note suggests that private climate change plaintiffs who find themselves shut out of federal courts should consider seeking relief through the state court system.
在一个闪亮的瞬间，最高法院在马萨诸塞州诉环境保护局(Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency)一案中做出的具有里程碑意义的裁决，似乎标志着联邦法院气候变化诉讼进入了一个新时代。不幸的是，自判决以来，此类诉讼的前景已变得暗淡得多。最近第九巡回法院对华盛顿环境委员会诉贝隆案的判决，只不过是一系列联邦法院判决中最新的一个，这些判决将马萨诸塞州诉环保署案的先例降低到近乎无关紧要的程度。现在已经明确的是，作为在联邦法院提出任何索赔的必要先决条件的第三条立场，将不会被授予私人原告，他们通过向拒绝采取行动的温室气体排放者或监管机构提出索赔，寻求气候变化相关损害的救济。因此，私人气候变化原告必须依靠其他途径在法庭上听取他们的诉求。本说明强调了私人原告在环境法历史上的重要性，并认为华盛顿环境委员会诉贝隆案的裁决过于宽泛。在第九巡回法院的裁决之后，本说明建议，发现自己被联邦法院拒之门外的私人气候变化原告应该考虑通过州法院系统寻求救济。
{"title":"State Court Solutions: Finding Standing for Private Climate Change Plaintiffs in the Wake of Washington Environmental Council v. Bellon","authors":"N. Somasundaram","doi":"10.15779/Z38FC5R","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38FC5R","url":null,"abstract":"For a shining second, the landmark Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency seemed to signal a new era for climate change litigation in the federal courts. Unfortunately, the prospects of such litigation in the years since the decision have become far bleaker. The recent Ninth Circuit decision in Washington Environmental Council v. Bellon is merely the latest in a string of federal court decisions that have reduced the Massachusetts v. EPA precedent to near irrelevancy. It is now clearly established that Article III standing, a necessary prerequisite to any claim in federal court, will not be granted to private plaintiffs seeking relief for climate change related harms by filing claims against greenhouse gas emitters or regulatory agencies that refuse to take action. As a result, private climate change plaintiffs must rely on alternative avenues to have their claims heard in court. This Note highlights the importance of private plaintiffs in the history of environmental law and argues that the Washington Environmental Council v. Bellon decision was overbroad. In the wake of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, this Note suggests that private climate change plaintiffs who find themselves shut out of federal courts should consider seeking relief through the state court system.","PeriodicalId":45532,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Law Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67466499","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Cleaning Up Jurisdiction: Congressional Intent of Clean Air Act Section 307(b)","authors":"Kevin O. Leske","doi":"10.15779/Z38XP1B","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38XP1B","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45532,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Law Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67586372","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the past few years, a number of lawsuits have argued that the public trust doctrine (PTD) requires state and federal agencies to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.1 The nonprofit Our Children‘s Trust is the primary organizer of such suits, called ―atmospheric trust litigation,‖ and has organized actions in all fifty states with teenagers as plaintiffs.2 On June 5, 2014, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the dismissal of one such suit, Alec L. ex rel. Loorz v. McCarthy.3 Finding that the PTD is entirely a matter of state law, the court held it lacked federal subject matter jurisdiction.4 The plaintiffs in Alec L., a coalition of teenagers and two nonprofits, WildEarth Guardians and Kids vs. Global Warming, filed suit against the heads of various federal agencies.5 Their suit sought declaratory and injunctive relief establishing the atmosphere as a resource managed in the public trust, which would create a fiduciary duty in the federal government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.6 The Supreme Court denied certiorari on December 8, 2014, allowing the D.C. Circuit‘s dismissal to stand.7 Still, although Alec L. failed to establish any federal PTD rights, the
在过去的几年里，许多诉讼都认为公共信托原则(PTD)要求州和联邦机构监管温室气体排放非营利组织“我们的儿童信托”是此类诉讼的主要组织者，被称为“大气信托诉讼”，并在所有50个州组织了以青少年为原告的诉讼2014年6月5日，华盛顿特区巡回法院驳回了Alec L. ex rel. Loorz v. mccarthy一案法院认定PTD完全是州法律的问题，认为它缺乏联邦主体管辖权由青少年和两个非营利组织组成的联盟“野生地球守护者”和“儿童与全球变暖”的原告亚历克·L.对多个联邦机构的负责人提起了诉讼他们的诉讼寻求宣告和禁令救济，将大气作为一种公共信托管理的资源，这将在联邦政府中产生减少温室气体排放的受托责任最高法院于2014年12月8日驳回了调卷令，允许华盛顿特区巡回法院驳回上诉然而，尽管亚历克·l没能建立任何联邦PTD权利
{"title":"Alec L. and Federal Atmospheric Trust Litigation: Conceptual and Political Gains Amidst Legal Defeat?","authors":"Tim Kline","doi":"10.15779/Z38T29S","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38T29S","url":null,"abstract":"In the past few years, a number of lawsuits have argued that the public trust doctrine (PTD) requires state and federal agencies to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.1 The nonprofit Our Children‘s Trust is the primary organizer of such suits, called ―atmospheric trust litigation,‖ and has organized actions in all fifty states with teenagers as plaintiffs.2 On June 5, 2014, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the dismissal of one such suit, Alec L. ex rel. Loorz v. McCarthy.3 Finding that the PTD is entirely a matter of state law, the court held it lacked federal subject matter jurisdiction.4 The plaintiffs in Alec L., a coalition of teenagers and two nonprofits, WildEarth Guardians and Kids vs. Global Warming, filed suit against the heads of various federal agencies.5 Their suit sought declaratory and injunctive relief establishing the atmosphere as a resource managed in the public trust, which would create a fiduciary duty in the federal government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.6 The Supreme Court denied certiorari on December 8, 2014, allowing the D.C. Circuit‘s dismissal to stand.7 Still, although Alec L. failed to establish any federal PTD rights, the","PeriodicalId":45532,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Law Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67554346","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As the United States moves toward the increasing integration of renewable energy sources, an examination and analysis of the country‘s failure to develop its offshore wind resources is essential. Such a failure is incongruous with the United States‘ world-leading status in renewable energy innovation and is particularly troubling given the abundance of offshore wind resources along densely populated U.S. coastal states that lack other renewable energy alternatives. First, this Note will establish the importance of offshore wind as a renewable energy resource and examine major barriers to its development. Second, an examination of the Atlantic Wind Connection transmission project will demonstrate the important role offshore transmission may play in jumpstarting the U.S. offshore wind industry. Third, this Note will survey approaches adopted by other states and regions to develop transmission infrastructure to deliver disparate sources of renewable energy. Last, this Note will identify best practices from previous transmission approaches to identify where future offshore transmission projects would be most effective and identify the types of policies necessary to spur offshore wind energy development.
{"title":"The Offshore Grid: The Future of America's Offshore Wind Energy Potential","authors":"B. Fox","doi":"10.15779/Z384S1J","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z384S1J","url":null,"abstract":"As the United States moves toward the increasing integration of renewable energy sources, an examination and analysis of the country‘s failure to develop its offshore wind resources is essential. Such a failure is incongruous with the United States‘ world-leading status in renewable energy innovation and is particularly troubling given the abundance of offshore wind resources along densely populated U.S. coastal states that lack other renewable energy alternatives. First, this Note will establish the importance of offshore wind as a renewable energy resource and examine major barriers to its development. Second, an examination of the Atlantic Wind Connection transmission project will demonstrate the important role offshore transmission may play in jumpstarting the U.S. offshore wind industry. Third, this Note will survey approaches adopted by other states and regions to develop transmission infrastructure to deliver disparate sources of renewable energy. Last, this Note will identify best practices from previous transmission approaches to identify where future offshore transmission projects would be most effective and identify the types of policies necessary to spur offshore wind energy development.","PeriodicalId":45532,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Law Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67400719","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：