The legitimate reach of the environmental revolution

Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy

Volumn 37, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 13-22

  Blais, Lynn E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84897911584     PISSN: 01934872     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (69)

1. Jerry L. Anderson, Essay: The Environmental Revolution at Twenty-Five, 26 RUTGERS L. J. 395, 396 (1995).
2. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Pub. L. No. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852
3. (codified as amended at 42 U. S. C. §§ 4321-4370f (2006)).
4. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1676 (1970);
5. see Karen Wanderscheid, The Environmental Protection Agency's "Major Emitting Facility" Definition and Its Effect on Ethanol Facilities: A Review of the Amended Rule and Its Potential Pitfalls and Successes in South Dakota, 53 S. D. L. REV. 548, 551-54 (2008) (highlighting the various amendments to the Clean Air Act along with their respective contributions to its present structure).
6. Clean Air Act of 1963, Pub. L. No. 88-206, 77 Stat. 392
7. (codified as amended at 42 U. S. C. §§ 7401-7671q (2006)).
8. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-549, 104 Stat 2399 (1990).
9. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. No. 92-500, 86 Stat. 816 (1972).
10. Water Pollution Control Act, Pub. L. No. 80-845, 62 Stat. 1155 (1948)
11. (codified as amended at 33 U. S. C. §§ 1251-1387 (2006)).
12. Endangered Species Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884
13. (codified as amended at 16 U. S. C. §§ 1531-1544 (2006)).
14. See United States v. Ashland Oil & Transp. Co., 504 F.2d 1317, 1326 (6th Cir. 1974) (citing a Supreme Court case involving a fire on the Schuylkill River in Philadelphia and taking judicial notice of many instances of the Rouge River in Dearborn, Michigan, and the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio repeatedly catching fire in the prior ten years);
15. Jonathan H. Adler, Fables of the Cuyahoga: Reconstructing a History of Environmental Protection, 14 FORDHAM ENVTL. L. J. 89, 93 (2002).
16. See, e.g., Ashland Oil & Transp. Co., 504 F.2d at 1326.
17. Arnold W. Reitze, Jr., Wastes, Water, and Wishful Thinking: The Battle of Lake Erie, 20 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 5, 7-10 (1968) (quoting Hearings on Water Quality Criteria for the Rocky Cuyahoga, Chagrin, and Grand River Basins and their Tributaries Before the Ohio Water Pollution Control Board (1968) (statement of George Harlow, Director, Lake Erie Office, Federal Water Pollution Control Board).
18. See N. Brian Winchester, Emerging Global Environmental Governance, 16 IND. J. GLOBAL LEGAL STUD. 7, 9 (2009).
19. Andrew P. Morriss & Roger E. Meiners, Property Rights, Pesticides, & Public Health: Explaining the Paradox of Modern Pesticide Policy, 14 FORDHAM ENVTL. L. J. 1, 23-24 (2002).
20. RACHEL L. CARSON, SILENT SPRING (1962).
21. See Derek Redmond, Importing Death as a Part of Free Trade: An Argument for a Prohibition on the Importation of Foods Containing the Residue of Banned Pesticides, 27 WM. & MARY ENVTL. L. & POL'Y REV. 231, 231-35 (2002).
22. See, e.g., Richard A. Epstein, The Proper Scope of the Commerce Power, 73 VA. L. REV. 1387, 1443-55 (1987) (describing and lamenting the expansion of federal power under the Commerce Clause after the New Deal);
23. Elizabeth C. Price, Constitutional Fidelity and the Commerce Clause: A Reply to Professor Ackerman, 48 SYRACUSE L. REV. 139, 167 (1998).
24. Cass R. Sunstein, Standing and the Privatization of Public Law, 88 COLUM. L. REV. 1432, 1434 (1988);
25. see also Daniel E. Ho & Erica L. Ross, Did Liberal Justices Invent the Standing Doctrine? An Empirical Study of the Evolution of Standing, 1921-2006, 62 STAN. L. REV. 591 (2010).
26. See generally Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U. S. 497 (2007);
27. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555 (1992);
28. Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737 (1984);
29. Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464 (1982).
30. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-604, §§ 107-108, 84 Stat. 1676, 1678-79
31. (codified at 42 U. S. C. §§ 7407-08 (2006)).
32. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. No. 92-500, § 101, 86 Stat. 816, 816
33. (codified at 33 U. S. C. § 1251 (a) (1) (2008)).
34. Endangered Species Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-205, § 9, 87 Stat. 844, 893
35. (codified at 16 U. S. C. § 1538 (a) (1) (B) (2008)).
36. TVA v. Hill, 437 U. S. 153 (1978).
37. See 42 U. S. C. § 7604 (Clean Air Act);
38. 33 U. S. C. § 1365 (Clean Water Act);
39. 16 U. S. C. § 1540 (g) (Endangered Species Act).
40. 42 U. S. C. § 7604.
41. See, e.g., Rebecca M. Bratspies, Human Rights and Environmental Regulation, 19 N. Y. U. ENVTL. L. J. 225, 264 (2012) (describing the role of citizen suits in enhancing enforcement of environmental law when the state will not or cannot enforce);
42. cf. Pamela S. Karlan, Forward, Democracy and Disdain, 126 HARV. L. REV. 1, 27 (2012) (making the same point about the attorney's fees provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).
43. See, e.g., Solid Waste Agency v. U. S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 531 U. S. 159, 172-74 (2001) (declining to defer to the Corps' broad interpretation of its jurisdiction over intrastate wetlands because it would raise serious constitutional questions under the Commerce Clause).
44. See, e.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 551, 560-62 (1992).
45. See Will Reisinger et al., Environmental Enforcement and the Limits of Cooperative Federalism: Will Courts Allow Citizen Suits to Pick Up the Slack?, 20 DUKE ENVTL. L. & POL'Y F. 1, 42 (2010).
46. See, e.g., Daniel C. Esty, Revitalizing Environmental Federalism, 95 MICH. L. REV. 570, 573 (1996) (noting that "the central reason for environmental regulation is to mitigate the impact of market failures that emerge from uninternalized externalities").
47. See Richard L. Revesz, Rehabilitating Interstate Competition: Rethinking the "Race-to-the-Bottom" Rationale for Federal Environmental Regulation, 67 N. Y. U. L. REV. 1210, 1233-35 (1992) (arguing that competition among the States for industry will not necessarily lead to increasing pollution).
48. Press Release, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service State Agencies Release 2012 Annual Report for Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Population (Apr. 12, 2013), available at http://www.fws.gov/ mountainprairie/pressrel/2013/40122013-annual-wolf-report.html.
49. Robert V. Percival, Environmental Federalism: Historical Roots and Contemporary Models, 54 MD. L. REV. 1141, 1174 (1995) (noting that "[t]he Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, RCRA, and the Safe Drinking Water Act all require EPA to establish minimum national standards that can be implemented and administered by states subject to federal supervision").
50. 42 U. S. C. § 7410 (a) (2006).
51. See also Ann E. Carlson, Iterative Federalism and Climate Change, 103 NW. U. L. REV. 1097, 1108 (2009) (discussing the role of the States in implementing the NAAQS).
52. See Erin Ryan, Negotiating Federalism, 52 B. C. L. REV. 1, 45-47 (2011) (describing Habitat Conservation Plans and Incidental Take Permits).
53. 42 U. S. C. § 7411 (2006).
54. Compare 33 U. S. C. § 1317 (a) (2006)
55. with 33 U. S. C. § 1342 (2006).
56. Compare 33 U. S. C. § 1311 (2006)
57. with 33 U. S. C. § 1344 (a) (2006).
58. 16 U. S. C. § 1538 (a) (1) (B) (2006).
59. U. S. CONST. amend. V.
60. See RICHARD A. EPSTEIN, TAKINGS: PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN 35-62 (1985).
61. See, e.g., ROBERT H. BORK, THE TEMPTING OF AMERICA: THE POLITICAL SEDUCTION OF THE LAW 39-60 (1990) (examining the countermajoritarian difficulty in constitutional interpretation).
62. See, e.g., Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U. S. 469 (2005).
63. Penn. Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S. 104, 123 (1978)
64. (quoting Armstrong v. United States, 364 U. S. 40, 49 (1960)).
65. See Katrina Fischer Kuh, When Government Intrudes: Regulating Individual Behaviors that Harm the Environment, 61 DUKE L. J. 1111, 1141-43 (2012) (describing takings-based opposition to the Section 404 permitting requirements).
66. See Bruce Babbitt, The Endangered Species Act and "Takings": A Call for Innovation Within the Terms of the Act, 24 ENVTL. L. 355 (1994) (discussing the arguments in favor of compensation for land use limitations imposed by the Endangered Species Act and proposing a more measured solution). (Pubitemid 24797178)
67. 16 U. S. C. § 1538 (a) (1) (2006) (prohibiting the taking of any species "within the United States" that are listed as endangered pursuant to the Endangered Species Act);
68. see also TVA v. Hill, 437 U. S. 153, 184 (1978) ("The plain intent of Congress in enacting this statute was to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost.").
69. This hypothetical is intended to invoke the Lucas Court's reference to "the corporate owner of a nuclear generating plant [who] is directed to remove all improvements from its land upon discovery that the plant sits astride an earthquake fault." Lucas v. S. C. Coastal Council, 505 U. S. 1003, 1029 (1992). Just as that directive would not constitute a compensable taking, neither does the Endangered Species Act's prohibition on "taking" a protected species that is found on private property.