The case for the national environmental legacy act

Beyond Environmental Law: Policy Proposals for a Better Environmental Future

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 3-36

  Flournoy, Alyson C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925622467     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511802591.002     Document Type: Chapter

References (68)

1. Alyson C. Flournoy, Heather Halter & Christina Storz, Harnessing the Power of Information to Protect our Public Natural Resource Legacy, 86 Tex. L. Rev. 1575, 1575–77 (2008).
2. Ryan Feinberg, Alyson C. Flournoy, Margaret Clune Giblin, Heather Halter & Christina Storz, The Future of Environmental Protection: The Case for a National Environmental Legacy Act: A Center for Progressive Reform Report 3–4, available at http://www.progressivereform.org/articles.
3. NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service Report on the Status of the U.S. Fisheries for 2006, available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/domes fish/StatusoFisheries/2006/2006RTCFinal Report.pdf;
4. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis 2–5 (2005), available at http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document. 354.aspx.pdf;
5. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems And Human Well-Being: Wetlands and Water Synthesis 2–10 (2005), available at http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.358.aspx.pdf;
6. Energy Info. Admin., U.S. DOE, Energy in the United States: 1635–2000, Energy Outlook as of 2001, available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/eh/frame.html;
7. Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of theAmericanWest, 162–257 (George Wuerthner and Mollie Matteson eds., 2002).
8. Alyson C. Flournoy, Margaret Giblin & Matt Schudtz, Squandering PublicResources: ACenter for Progressive Reform Report (Sept. 2007), available at (http://www.progressivereform.org/articles/Squndering Public Resources.pdf);
9. Alyson C. Flournoy, Protecting a Natural Resource Legacy While Promoting Resilience: Can It Be Done? 87 Neb. L. Rev. 1008, 1011–16 (2009).
10. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Norton, 542 U.S. 55 (2004)
11. Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and L. Hunter Lovins coined the phrase “natural capital” to capture this idea in their groundbreaking book, Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution (1999). See id. at 2–6, 148–69.
12. Terri Cullin, Fiscally Fit: Making Sense of Retirement Plans, Wall St. J., Sept. 13, 2007, available at http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118952742492823919.html;
13. Financial Planning Association, 20 Keys to Being a Smarter Investor 3, available at http://www.fpanet.org.
14. Bryan G. Norton, Sustainability: A Philosophy of Adaptive Ecosystem Management, ch. 8 (2005).
15. Bjorn Lomborg, The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World 159 (2003) (claiming that future generations will be able to allocate more resources toward conservation, thereby raising living standards);
16. C.S. Holling, Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems, 4 Ann. Rev. Ecology & Systematics 1 (1973).
17. Lance Gunderson, Resilience, Flexibility and Adaptive Management: Antidotes for Spurious Certitude? 3 Conservation Ecology 7 (Winter 1999), available at http://consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art7.
18. James L. Connaughton, Keynote Address: Modernizing the National Environmental Policy Act: Back to the Future, 12 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 1 (2003);
19. Council on Envtl. Quality, The National Environmental Policy Act: A Study of Its Effectiveness after Twenty-Five Years (1997), available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/nepa25fn.pdf [hereinafter NEPA at Twenty-Five].
20. Dinah Bear, Some Modest Suggestions for Improving Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act, 43 Nat. Resources J. 931 (2003);
21. Lynton K. Caldwell, Beyond NEPA: Future Significance of the National Environmental Policy Act, 22 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 203 (1998);
22. Paul J. Culhane, NEPA’s Impacts on Federal Agencies, Anticipated and Unanticipated, 20 Envtl. L. 681 (1990);
23. Mary H. O’Brien, NEPA as It Was Meant to Be; NCAP v. Block, Herbicides, and Region 6 Forest Service, 20 Envtl. L. 735 (1990);
24. Stark Ackerman, Observations on the Transformation of the Forest Service: The Effects of the National Environmental Policy Act on U.S. Forest Service Decision Making, 20 Envtl. L. 703 (1990);
25. Bradley C. Karkkainen, Toward a Smarter NEPA: Monitoring and Managing Government’s Environmental Performance, 102 Colum. L. Rev. 903, 906 (2002).
26. Matthew Bender & Co., 4–9 Treatise on Environmental Law § 9.08 (2007) (describing NEPA’s spillover effect, causing state governments to consider the environmental impacts of their actions through “little NEPAs”);
27. Oliver A. Houck, The Secret Opinions of the United States Supreme Court on Leading Cases in Environmental Law, Never Before Published! 65 U. Colo. L. Rev. 459, 469–70 (1994) Lynton Keith Caldwell, TheNational Environmental Policy Act:An Agenda for the Future (1998);
28. NEPA at Twenty-Five;Oliver Houck, Is That All? A Review of the National Environmental Policy Act: An Agenda for the Future, 11 Duke Envtl. L & Policy F. 173, 178–79 (2000);
29. Nicholas Yost, NEPA’s Promise – Partially Fulfilled, 20 Envtl. L. 533 (1990).
30. Strycker’s Bay Neighborhood Council, Inc. v. Karlen, 444 U.S. 223 (1980) (holding that NEPA merely requires that agencies consider the environmental consequences of their proposed actions);
31. Karkkainen S, supra note 30, at 903 (2002) (arguing that allowing adaptive management techniques would streamline the NEPA process).
32. Oliver Houck, Unfinished Stories, 73 U. Colo. L. Rev. 867 (2002) (naming Scenic Hudson Pres. Conference v. Fed. Power Comm’n, Sierra Club v. Morton, and other cases where heightened public awareness has affected agency decisions)
33. Daniel R. Mandelker, NEPA Law and Litigation 2d § 11:3 (2007) (stating that the threat of interminable delays and litigation under NEPA has caused the cancelation of many projects);
34. William Buzbee, The Regulatory Fragmentation Continuum, Westway and the Challenges of Regional Growth, 340–41 (2005) (arguing that, in cases of major land-use actions, federal, state, and local levels of government all become involved, and cases often have underlying motivations).
35. Matthew J. Lindstrom, Procedures without Purpose: The Withering Away of the National Environmental Policy Act’s Substantive Law, 20 J. Land Resources & Envtl. L. 245-264 (2000) (claiming that courts have been ambivalent to the practical significance of NEPA’s substantive provisions)
36. Oliver A. Houck, supra note 37 (stating that NEPA lacks teeth);
37. Harvey Bartlett, Is NEPA Substantive Review Extinct, orMerelyHibernating? 13 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 411 (2000) (arguing that while NEPA’s substantive force is not in use, it has the potential to be revived).
38. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 332-351 (1989) (stating that “NEPA merely prohibits uninformed – rather than unwise – agency action.”).
39. John C. Dernbach, Sustainable Development as a Framework for National Governance, 49 Case W. Res. 1, 31 (1998).
40. Sid Shapiro &Rena Steinzor, Capture, Accountability, and Regulatory Metrics, 86 Tex. L. Rev. 1741, 1769 (2008).
41. Ahjond S. Garmestani, Craig R. Allen & Heriberto Cabezas, Panarchy, Adaptive Management and Governance: Policy Options for Building Resilience, 87 Neb. L. Rev.1036 (2009).
42. David M. Driesen, Is Cost-Benefit Analysis Neutral? 77 U. Colo. L. Rev. 335, 339– 42 (2006).
43. Holly Doremus, Precaution, Science and Learning While Doing in Natural Resource Management, 82 Wash. L. Rev. 547 (2007).
44. Daniel C. Esty, Environmental Protection in the Information Age, 79 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 115-197 (2004);
45. Howard A. Latin, The “Significance” of Toxic Health Risks: An Essay on Legal Decisionmaking under Uncertainty, 10 Ecology L.Q. 339 (1982);
46. John S. Applegate, The Perils of Unreasonable Risk: Information, Regulatory Policy, and Toxic Substances Control, 91 Colum. L. Rev. 261 (1991).
47. IPCC, Scientific Assessment of Climate change – Report ofWorking Group I (1990), available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/reports.htm;
48. Office of the Press Secretary, President’s Statement on Climate Change (July 13, 2001), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/07/20010713– 2.html (announcing various projects aimed to reduce the uncertainty surrounding the science of climate change).
49. John S. Applegate, The Taming of the Precautionary Principle, 27 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol’yRev. 13 (2002) (defining precautionary principle to embody principles that anthropogenic harm to human health and the environment be avoided or minimized through anticipatory).
50. Cass R. Sunstein, Beyond the Precautionary Principle, 151 U. Penn. L. Rev. 1003 (2003) (arguing that, in its strongest form, the precautionary principle fails to offer any guidance on the proper course of action).
51. Wendy E. Wagner, Commons Ignorance: The Failure of Environmental Law to Produce Needed Information on Health and the Environment, 53 Duke L.J. 1619, 1741–42 (2004).
52. Bradley C. Karkkainen, Logjams and Baselines: Tackling Information Deficits in Environmental Regulation, 86 Tex. L. Rev. 1409, 1427–34 (2009).
53. H. Resources Comm. Nat’l Envtl. Pol’y Act Task Force, Field Hearing, The Role of NEPA in the States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Alaska, Spokane, Wash., April 23, 2005, available at http://www. wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/Testimony-Anderson-NEPA-20050423.pdf
54. Karkkainen S., supra note 30, at 925–32.
55. Holly Doremus, Precaution, Science and Learning While Doing in Natural Resource Management, 82 Wash. L.Rev. 547, 549–50 (advocating an approach that is precautionary and incorporates adaptive learning);
56. Holly Doremus, Nature, Knowledge and Profit: The Yellowstone Bioprospecting Controversy and the Core Purposes of America’s National Parks, 26 Ecology L.Q. 401, 437–43 (1999);
57. Rob Fischman, The Significance of National Wildlife Refuges in the Development of U.S. Conservation Policy, 21 J. Land Use & Envtl. L. 1 (2005).
58. Richard L. Stroup, Privatizing Public Lands: Market Solutions to Economic and Environmental Problems, 19 Pub. Land & Resources L. Rev. 79 (1998) (advocating privatization to improve environmental quality);
59. James Huffman, Environmental Protection and the Politics of Property Rights: The Public Interest in Private Property Rights, 50 Okla. L. Rev. 377-378 (1997) (arguing that privatization of scarce resources is necessary to protect the resources and people’s enjoyment of them).
60. Amy Sinden, The Tragedy of the Commons and the Myth of a Private Property Solution, 78 U. Colo. L. Rev. 533 (2007).
61. Mark Sagoff, The Economy of the Earth 63–65 (1988)
62. JamesGustave Speth, The Bridge at the Edge of theWorld 58–60 (2008).
63. Joshua Frank, Natural Selection, Rational Economic Behavior, and Alternative Outcomes of the Evolutionary Process, 32 J. Socio-Economics 601–22 (2003) (arguing that the inefficient practice of pursuing short-term profitability at the expense of long-term growth is prevalent in the United States and other developed nations);
64. James R. Repetti, Corporate Governance and Stockholder Abdication: Missing Factors in Tax Policy Analysis, 67 NotreDame L.Rev. 971, 980–83 (1992) (arguing that “management has an economic incentive to focus on the short-term” and will do so without stockholder oversight).
65. Ray Anderson, Mid-CourseCorrection: Toward a Sustainable Enterprise: The Interface Model (1999);
66. Paul Hawken, The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability (1993);
67. Douglas A. Kysar, Fish Tales, in Resources for the Future, Reforming Regulatory Impact Analysis 200–02 (Winston Harrington, Lisa Heinzerling & Richard D. Morganstern eds., 2009)
68. David Driesen, The Economic Dynamics of Environmental Law: Cost-Benefit Analysis, Emissions Trading, and Priority-Setting, 31 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 501, 504–06 (2004) (arguing that cost-benefit analysis is ineffective because of the difficulty of quantifying the costs of even well-understood dangers);