Land use regulation: The weak link in environmental protection

Washington Law Review

Volumn 82, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 651-666

  Dan Tarlock, A ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 36749002144     PISSN: 00430617     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (23)

1. A discussion of the role of federal and state lands in environmental protection is beyond the scope of this brief essay.
2. In re Water Use Permit Applications for Interim Instream Flow Standard Amendments, and Petitions for Water Reservations for the Waiahole Ditch, 9 P.3d 409, 492-95 (Haw. 2000).
3. See generally Eric T. Freyfogle, THE LAND WE SHARE: PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE COMMON GOOD (2003).
4. Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 627 (2001).
5. 43 U.S.C. § 4331 et seq. (2006).
6. See generally Todd Gitlin, THE SIXTIES: YEARS OF HOPE, DAYS OF RAGE (1987).
7. Stewart L. Udall, THE QUIET CRISIS (with an introduction by John F. Kennedy) (1963).
8. 16 U.S.C §§ 1131-1136(2)(c) and 16 U.S.C. § 1131(c) (2006) (defining wilderness as an area "where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man.").
9. See generally Michael J. McCloskey (then Chairman of the Sierra Club), Changing Views of What the Wilderness System Is All About, 76 DENVER L. REV. 369 (1999) (discussing differences between the "natural" and ecological views of the function of the national wilderness system).
10. Richard N. L. Andrews, MANAGING THE ENVIRONMENT, MANAGING OURSELVES: A HISTORY OF AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY 202 (1999).
11. 260 U.S. 393 (1922).
12. Richard J. Lazarus, Thirty Years of Environmental Protection Law in the Supreme Court, 19 PACE ENVTL. L. REV. 619, 637 (2002)
13. Fred Bosselman, David Callies, and David Banta, THE TAKING ISSUE 238-83 (1973).
14. Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, National Land Use Policy: Background Papers on Past and Pending Legislation and the Roles of the Executive Branch, Congress and the States in Land Use Planning and Policy, 92nd Cong., 2d Sess. (1972).
15. Id. § 203(3)(A). There is no constitutional constraint on federal regulation of land use related to interstate commerce.
16. See Hodel v. Indiana, 481 U.S. 704 (1987). However, the current Supreme Court has invoked interference with state land control as a justification for a presumption that Congress has not authorized a regulation. Solid Waste Mgmt. Agency of N. Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 531 U.S. 159 (2001) (Section 404 of Clean Water Act construed to exclude regulation of isolated wetlands because of doubts about Congress's power to do so under Commerce Clause).
17. MODEL LAND DEV. CODE § 7-204 (1976).
18. 16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq. (2006).
19. New Jersey v. Delaware (Orig. 134 Report of Special Master, Apr. 16, 2007), available at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/SpecMastRpt/ SpecMastRpt.html. (Coastal Zone Management Act permits Delaware to deny LNG terminal in its portion of bed of Delaware River).
20. The criteria include a showing of no practical alternatives, and this may require an inquiry into the availability of alternative locations under local land use plans and regulations for the activity.
21. 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1)(B) (1973).
22. Babbit v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys for a Great Or., 515 U.S. 687, 696-708 (1995).
23. See generally, e.g., Robert B. McKinistry, Jr. et al, BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION HANDBOOK (Environmental Law Institute 2006).