1 Case law and legal standing How law is used to enforce regulations Government or quasi-governmental bodies are often at fault for actions against the environment. In these cases, it becomes necessary for courts to enforce action.  This is also true if the government fails to act against individual or corporate action

2 Importance of enforcement Many governments have strict regulations, but if they are not enforced they become counter- productive. True of USSR, many parts of the EU

3 Definitions of legal standing The right to present a case to the courts. This right is not automatic. Generally, a person or group must first show that they have been harmed significantly by an action.  Even then, actions by the government are often exempt from litigation. Basic definition given by Administrative Procedures Act ( U.S.C. S702)

4 Organizational interests Sierra Club v Morton (1972) Expanded standing to include exclusion of enjoyment by members of an organization  Important for environmental law  Interest groups will have more political power and resources than individuals, and collective harm is easier to show.  NEPA establishes certain criteria for standing that differ from non-environmental issues.

5 Four basic criteria for standing Statutory “zone of interest” Person or group must have suffered an “injury in fact” Show that agency action is the cause of harm Show that judicial action will correct the problem.

6 Case of Mono Lake Interesting for the clash of politics, science, regulations, and courts. Hopeful example for those who would like to see science have a positive influence on politics-as-usual.

7 Case against DWP LA had already established water rights for the Owens Valley Further water withdrawals were made upstream of Mono Lake, and outlet-less saline lake north of Owens Valley Resulting withdrawals reduced the water volume and surface area of lake

8 Question: who were the stakeholders? Who would be harmed by such an action? Who might have legal standing to claim damages? Were any laws broken that would strengthen a case against DWP?  Endangered Species Act  Clean Air Act/Clean Water Act

9 Water was lawfully given What constitutes a “reasonable and beneficial” use of water?  Whose values weigh more heavily?  At what time scale? For how long do people have to deal with administrative solutions? Are lawful permits and licenses limited by a notion of ‘public trust’?

10 How was this issue decided? Agenda setting:  Problems of Mono Lake were isolated until brought to the attention of the state by environmental groups Information regarding ecological data made available by undergraduate researchers from UC-Davis  They were the first to document declines in gull and shrimp populations.

11 Legal arguments Public trust argument made by a law student, inspired by undergrad research he did on the topic.  Picked up ‘pro bono’ by a SF law firm Public Trust  Government stewardship of public ‘goods’ that no one has the right to except for government itself  Water rights are therefore conditional

12 Other considerations of Mono Is prohibiting water withdrawals from Mono Basin a taking of property from DWP?  What is the difference between taking and regulation? Is public trust the same as eminent domain?  At what point is government regulation too much? (continue)

13 Property and regulation Three-part test described in Buck  Physical invasion of property  Does not produce widespread public benefit  Restricts a reasonable rate of return on land Examples of land use planning  Greenbelts with farmland  Restriction of industrial or commercial uses