Environmental Law

1
Environmental Law

• Chapter 18

2
Resource LawWater

• Surface Water Law
• Navigable streams are treated as community
  property
• Individual ownership not allowed
• Water rights are allowed
• Riparian Doctrine who ever owns land adjacent
  to a stream has a right to use that water more
  applicable to humid eastern U.S.
• Doctrine of Prior Appropriation first user of
  the water has top priority more applicable to
  arid western U.S.

3
Figure 18.1 Distribution of underlying principles
of surface-water law
4
Resource LawWater

• Groundwater Law
• More complex than surface water law
• Rule of Capture (English Rule)
• Property owners have the right to extract all the
  groundwater from under their property
• Lateral movement of ground water is ignored
• Rule of Reasonable Use (American Rule)
• Property owners are limited to extract ground
  water for beneficial use in connection with the
  land above. Extraction of ground water should
  not be so great that it deprives a neighbor of
  their ground water
• Issues have been argued about what constitutes
  beneficial use
• Problems with invisibility of ground water has
  created numerous legal conflicts

5
Figure 18.2 Distribution of underlying principles
of groundwater law
6
Resource LawMineral and Fuel

• In U.S. original laws were meant to encourage the
  exploitation of natural resources
• 1872 Mining Law
• Granted mineral rights, and often land title, to
  anyone locating a mineral deposit on federal land
  and would invest some time and a little money in
  the claim
• Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 and Mineral Leasing
  Act for Acquired Lands of 1947 restricted the
  previous land giveaway.
• Treatment for certain commodities such as oil,
  gas, coal, potash, and phosphate deposits became
  restricted
• Mine reclamation not seriously addressed until
  1977

7
Figure 18.3 Federal land ownership
8
Resource LawMineral and Fuel

• Mine Reclamation
• Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
  1977 applied to coal only
• Intended to restore farmland and ground water
  flow once mining ceased
• Several states have enacted their own laws
  regulating mining within their boundaries
• No state has received financial returns form
  mineral extraction on federal lands
• However, states must contend with a variety of
  pollution problems that mining has produced

9
International Resource Disputes

• Mineral claims at sea have often become issues of
  serious dispute
• Traditional 3 mile (5 km) territorial limits
  proved unsatisfactory as modern technology allows
  for deeper exploitation of many commodities
• 200 mile territorial limits were established but
  many small closely packed countries did not
  benefit

10
International Resource Disputes

• Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the
  Sea (1982)
• Established a 12 mile territorial limit plus
  various navigational, fishing, and other rights
• Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs)
• Established a 200 nautical mile exclusive mineral
  rights use zone
• A provision could allow a country to claim more
  continental shelf/ocean floor and extend their EEZ

11
Figure 18.4 Exclusive Economic Zone of the
United States
12
Figure 18.5 Possible mineral and rock resources
in EEZ of the United States
13
International Resource Disputes

• Antarctica has been claimed by many countries
  because of their respective exploration
  activities or geographic proximity
• Treaty of 1961 set aside all territorial claims
  by the signing countries other have signed on
  subsequently
• Convention for the Regulation of Antarctic
  Mineral Resources Activities (CRAMRA) in 1988
  established restrictive controls on Antarctica
  mineral exploration and extraction
• CRAMRA not fully accepted by U.S.
• U.S. passes Antarctic Protection Act of 1990 and
  encourages others to sign on
• U.S. EPA issues Environmental Impact Statement
  (EIS) rules on non-government activities such as
  scientific study and tourism in Antarctica

14
Figure 18.6 Land Claims in Antarctica prior to
the 1961 treaty
15
Pollution and Its Control

• Do we have a right to a clean environment?
• Criminal Law requires legislation by Federal
  and State government
• Civil Law not so restrictive it has been the
  best route to seek justice in many cases

16
Water Pollution

• Refuse Act of 1899 prohibited dumping or
  discharge of refuse in navigable water
• Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956
  focused on municipal waste treatment
• Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 and Clean
  Water Act of 1977 addressed spills and chemical
  pollutants
• Subsequent legislative actions have modified many
  provisions of these laws but few major
  improvements, or overhauls, have occurred

17
Table 18.1
18
Air Pollution

• Clean Air Act of 1963 empowered federal
  agencies to undertake air pollution control
  efforts
• Amended in 1965 to allow national regulation of
  motor vehicle emissions
• Air Quality Act of 1965
• required air quality standards on known harmful
  effects of several air pollutants
• Goal was to protect and enhance the quality of
  the Nations air resources so as to promote the
  public health and welfare and the productive
  capacity of its population
• Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 is more
  restrictive than previous act

19
Figure 18.7 a
20
Figure 18.7 b
21
Waste Disposal

• Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 and Resource
  Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976
• Intended to help state and local governments deal
  with disposal of municipal solid wastes
• EPA monitors the compliance with these acts
• RCRA amended in 1984 - imposed new requirements
  on landfills and disposal sites banned disposal
  of toxic liquid waste at a landfill
• RCRA re-authorization of 1992 failed additional
  regulation for broader pollution controls and
  mining waste are needed
• Funding for identified toxic waste sites is
  needed to continue the work that the superfund
  program began

22
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

• Established in 1970 - responsible for
  establishment and enforcement of air and water
  quality standards requires testing and
  regulation of toxic chemical substances entering
  the environment
• Enforcement activities often limited by budgetary
  restrictions and political factors

23
Figure 18.8
24
International Initiatives

• U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification of 1996
  addressed localized problems found around the
  world
• U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change
  recognizes the role of CO2 and other greenhouse
  gases in global warming
• Encourages nations to report their CO2 emissions
• Encourages developed nations to assist developing
  nations to address increasing dumping of CO2 into
  the atmosphere

25
Figure 18.9
26
International Initiatives

• Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the
  Ozone Layer (of 1987)
• An attempt to have all nations recognize the need
  for international commitments to pollution
  control for everyone's benefit
• This effort represent a new movement, based on a
  precautionary principle, that international law
  and diplomacy must work to correct serious
  environmental problems
• Kyoto Protocol of 1997 an attempt to have
  industrialize nations agree to reduce
  greenhouse-gas emissions 5.2 below 1990 levels
  by 2008-2012
• U.S. expressed concerns over the economic impact
  of such a move and did not agree to these
  standards

27
International Initiatives

• The U.N. has recognized, in the various protocols
  and attempts at creating international
  environmental law, that we all share the global
  environment
• Some nations contribute more to the various
  problems than do others
• The countries that create more of the harmful
  emissions can better afford to work to reduce
  their emissions and to assist the developing
  countries to reduce their emissions

28
Cost-Benefit Analysis

• Our attempts to legislate economic treatments, or
  use of technology, resulted in more conflicts and
  enforcement problems
• Laws and legislation create a myriad of legal
  maneuver room so companies, countries, and
  individuals can escape their respective
  responsibility
• we lack the economic technology
• the science isnt clear
• It is too expensive
• there will be not benefit if we use this
  technology
• this clause will allow us to avoid our
  responsibility
• And other excuses
• In some cases it is cheaper to pay the fine than
  to correct the problem

29
Figure 18.10 Components of EPAs risk-assessment
process for potential health hazards
30
Cost-Benefit AnalysisFederal Government

• President Reagans Executive Order 12291 (in
  1981) allowed the following
• A (pollution control) regulation may be put forth
  only if the potential benefits to society
  outweigh the potential cost
• This in effect weakened such legislation as the
  Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act

31
Laws Relating to Geologic Hazards

• Laws, or zoning ordinances, restricting
  construction or establishing construction
  standards related to known geologic hazards have
  been opposed
• Investment concerns
• Development concerns
• Lack of understanding by the general public
• Construction controls and restrictive building
  standards in earthquake prone areas have
  experienced success
• Many California earthquakes, since the Long Beach
  earthquake of 1933 nearly destroyed that city,
  have not destroyed as much property as they could
  have
• San Fernando 1971
• Loma Prieta - 1989
• Northridge 1994

32
Figure 18.11 Effects of improving building codes
for earthquake resistance
33
Not All Hazard Responses Work

• Too many issues left to local officials to decide
  what is an acceptable risk for their
  communities
• Some laws apply only to new construction and
  allow schools to be built on flood plains or in
  seismically active areas
• Some legislation passes the fiscal risk on to all
  tax payers through federally funded insurance
  programs

34
(No Transcript)
35
Figure 18.12 Hazard-mitigation legislation
36
Figure 18.13
37
Figure 18.14
38
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

• NEPA enacted in 1969 and established
  environmental protection - an important national
  priority
• Established the Council on Environmental Quality
  in the Executive Office of the President
• Established the requirements for Environmental
  Impact Statements (EIS)
• Applies only to federal projects
• many states have adopted EIS procedures and rules
  also

39
Environmental Impact Statements

• NEPA specifies that an EIS should include
• A description of the proposed action, its
  purpose, and why it is needed
• A discussion of various alternatives (including
  the proposed action)
• An indication of the environment to be affected
  and the environmental consequences anticipated
• List of preparers of the statement and those
  agencies, organizations, or persons to whom
  copies of the statement are being sent

40
Figure 18.15 Number of EISs
41
Figure 18.16 Distribution of EIS filings with
EPA in 1994
42
Figure 18.17 the Trans-Alaska pipeline
43
Figures 18.18 a and b Route of the Trans-Alaska
pipeline and proposed alternative means for
transport of the oil