aqualance诉美国垦务局:对公众隐瞒信息的影响

IF 0.3 4区 社会学 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Ecology Law Quarterly Pub Date : 2017-01-01 DOI:10.15779/Z38S756K2M
T. Wetzel
{"title":"aqualance诉美国垦务局:对公众隐瞒信息的影响","authors":"T. Wetzel","doi":"10.15779/Z38S756K2M","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In AquAlliance v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the United States Bureau of Reclamation’s (Bureau) decision to withhold information about the construction and location of water wells from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.1 However, the court did not overturn the District Court’s ruling required the agency to disclose the names and addresses of various water transfer program participants.2 The data withheld in these FOIA requests, including a groundwater well’s location, construction, and depth, help the public assess the environmental impacts associated with water transfer programs utilizing groundwater substitution. By withholding this information, the Bureau did not allow the public to independently assess the cumulative impacts of a proposed water transfer program, nor verify the Bureau’s environmental impact findings in the project’s National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) documents. Without this information, concerned citizens have two options: (1) accept the agency’s explanation regarding why this information is unnecessary to assess the environmental impacts, or (2) legally challenge the agency for using an inadequate model in its Environmental Assessment (EA), without any guarantee that the environmental effects will be considered.","PeriodicalId":45532,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Law Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"AquAlliance v. United States Bureau of Reclamation: The Impact of Withholding Information from the Public\",\"authors\":\"T. Wetzel\",\"doi\":\"10.15779/Z38S756K2M\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In AquAlliance v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the United States Bureau of Reclamation’s (Bureau) decision to withhold information about the construction and location of water wells from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.1 However, the court did not overturn the District Court’s ruling required the agency to disclose the names and addresses of various water transfer program participants.2 The data withheld in these FOIA requests, including a groundwater well’s location, construction, and depth, help the public assess the environmental impacts associated with water transfer programs utilizing groundwater substitution. By withholding this information, the Bureau did not allow the public to independently assess the cumulative impacts of a proposed water transfer program, nor verify the Bureau’s environmental impact findings in the project’s National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) documents. Without this information, concerned citizens have two options: (1) accept the agency’s explanation regarding why this information is unnecessary to assess the environmental impacts, or (2) legally challenge the agency for using an inadequate model in its Environmental Assessment (EA), without any guarantee that the environmental effects will be considered.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45532,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecology Law Quarterly\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecology Law Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38S756K2M\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecology Law Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38S756K2M","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在AquAlliance诉美国垦务局案中,美国哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院维持了美国垦务局(局)的决定,即对《信息自由法》(FOIA)的要求隐瞒有关水井建设和位置的信息然而,法院并没有推翻地方法院要求该机构披露各种调水计划参与者的姓名和地址的裁决这些《信息自由法》要求保留的数据,包括地下水井的位置、建设和深度,有助于公众评估利用地下水替代的调水项目对环境的影响。通过隐瞒这些信息,环保局不允许公众独立评估拟议的调水计划的累积影响,也不核实该局在该项目的《国家环境保护法》(NEPA)文件中的环境影响调查结果。如果没有这些信息,关心的公民有两个选择:(1)接受机构关于为什么这些信息对于评估环境影响是不必要的解释,或者(2)在法律上质疑机构在其环境评估(EA)中使用了不适当的模型,而没有任何保证将考虑环境影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
AquAlliance v. United States Bureau of Reclamation: The Impact of Withholding Information from the Public
In AquAlliance v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the United States Bureau of Reclamation’s (Bureau) decision to withhold information about the construction and location of water wells from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.1 However, the court did not overturn the District Court’s ruling required the agency to disclose the names and addresses of various water transfer program participants.2 The data withheld in these FOIA requests, including a groundwater well’s location, construction, and depth, help the public assess the environmental impacts associated with water transfer programs utilizing groundwater substitution. By withholding this information, the Bureau did not allow the public to independently assess the cumulative impacts of a proposed water transfer program, nor verify the Bureau’s environmental impact findings in the project’s National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) documents. Without this information, concerned citizens have two options: (1) accept the agency’s explanation regarding why this information is unnecessary to assess the environmental impacts, or (2) legally challenge the agency for using an inadequate model in its Environmental Assessment (EA), without any guarantee that the environmental effects will be considered.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Ecology Law Quarterly"s primary function is to produce two high quality journals: a quarterly print version and a more frequent, cutting-edge online journal, Ecology Law Currents. UC Berkeley School of Law students manage every aspect of ELQ, from communicating with authors to editing articles to publishing the journals. In addition to featuring work by leading environmental law scholars, ELQ encourages student writing and publishes student pieces.
期刊最新文献
Finding Elegance in Unexpected Places Carbon Dioxide Removal after Paris Vindicating Public Environmental Interest: Defining the Role of Enviornmental Public Interest Litigation in China Opening Reflection: The Elegance of International Law Navigating the Judicialization of International Law in Troubled Waters: Some Reflections on a Generation of International Lawyers
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1