Natural Resources and Natural Law Part II: The Public Trust Doctrine

Natural Resources and Natural Law Part I: Prior Appropriation analyzed claims by some western ranchers, grounded in natural law, that they have property rights in grazing resources on federal public lands through prior appropriation. Those individuals advocated their position in part through civil disobedience and armed standoffs with federal officials. They also asserted that their duty to obey theistic natural law overrode any duty to obey the Nation’s positive law. Similar claims that individual religious beliefs override positive law have been made recently regarding a range of other controversial issues, such as same-sex marriage, public insurance for birth control, and the right to bear arms. Prior appropriation doctrine is consistent with secular natural law theory. Existing positive law, however, accepts prior appropriation for western water rights but rejects its application to grazing rights on federal public lands, for reasons consistent with secular natural law. Natural law doctrine allows citizens to advocate for change but requires them to respect the positive law of the societies in which they live. Separation of church and state also bars natural law claims based on religious doctrine unless those principles are also adopted in secular positive law. This sequel addresses claims from the opposite side of the political-environmental spectrum, that natural law provides one justification for the public trust doctrine, and that courts should enforce an atmospheric public trust to redress catastrophic global climate change. Although some religious groups have embraced environmental agendas supported by religious doctrine, public trust claims are secular in origin. Just as natural law provides support for prior appropriation, it supports the idea that some resources, such as water, wildlife, and air, should be held in common rather than made available for private ownership. From this perspective, the two doctrines merge into a single issue of resource allocation. Which resources are best made available for appropriation as private property, and which are best left in common? Natural law theory helps to explain the liberty and welfare goals that inform those choices. Positive law embraces the public trust doctrine with respect to some natural resources, and does not preclude its applicability to the atmosphere or other common resources.

Look to Windward: The Michigan Environmental Protection Act and the Case for Atmospheric Trust Litigation in the Mitten State

Failure to address climate change or even slow the growth of carbon emissions has led to innovation in the methods activists are using to push decisionmakers away from disaster. In the United States, climate activists frustrated by decades of legislative and executive inaction have turned to the courts to force the hand of the state. In their most recent iteration, climate cases have focused on the public trust doctrine, the notion that governments hold their jurisdictions’ natural resources in trust for the public. Plaintiffs have argued that the atmosphere is part of the public trust and that governments have a duty to protect it. These types of lawsuits, known as Atmospheric Trust Litigation, have foundered on the shoals of courts wary of exceeding their powers, whether granted by Article III or state constitutions. The trouble in many cases, including Juliana v. United States, has been standing. Courts balk at declaring that any one actor has the power to affect climate change. Since they usually think one actor can’t fix the climate, redressability is out the window. Even if courts get past redressability, they believe the scale of any potential relief is just beyond the ability of a court to order. The number of lawsuits that have been filed suggests that that reasonable minds can differ, but most judges have found plaintiffs do not have standing before clearing the cases off their dockets. This Note contends that at least one state remains fertile ground for an atmospheric trust lawsuit. Michigan’s 1963 Constitution implies that the atmosphere is within the public trust, and the Michigan Environmental Protection Act, passed to carry out the state’s constitutional duties towards the natural world, does away with most, if not all, of the standing issues that have stymied climate cases across the nation. Motions, briefs, and equitable relief are not the only way to avoid the onset of what could be the greatest calamity in the history of humanity, but in Michigan, at least, Atmospheric Trust Litigation may well be what breaks and rolls back the carbon tide.

The Rise and Fall of Clean Air Act Climate Policy

The Clean Air Act has proven to be one of the most successful and durable statutes in American law. After the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, there was great hope that the Act could be brought to bear on climate change, the most pressing current environmental challenge of our time. Massachusetts was fêted as the most important environmental case ever decided, and, upon it, the Environmental Protection Agency under President Obama built a sweeping program of greenhouse gas regulations, aimed first at emissions from road vehicles, and later at fossil fuel power plants. It was the most ambitious federal climate policy in American history. Now, twelve years after Massachusetts was decided, that program is in ruins, largely repealed or weakened by the climate-skeptic Trump administration. Massachusetts has not provided a foundation for durable climate policy. The roots of the Clean Air Act’s climate policy failures lie not just in changes in political leadership, but also in a Supreme Court majority increasingly skeptical of not just climate regulation but of the administrative state in general. This and other barriers will persist regardless of who occupies the White House. This article explores why climate regulation under the Clean Air Act has been so much more fragile than other regulations under the statute, which actors bear responsibility for its failures, and what prospects remain for future federal climate policy.

What a Difference a State Makes: California’s Authority to Regulate Motor Vehicle Emissions Under the Clean Air Act and the Future of State Autonomy

Air pollutants from motor vehicles constitute one of the leading sources of local and global air degradation with serious consequences for human health and the overall stability of Earth’s climate. Under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), for over fifty years, the state of California has served as a national “laboratory” for the testing of technological solutions and regulatory approaches to improve air quality. On September 19, 2019, the Trump Administration revoked California’s authority to set more stringent pollution emission standards. The revocation of California’s authority frustrates ambitious initiatives undertaken in California and in other states to reduce local air pollution and mitigate the effects of climate change from mobile sources. This Article argues that the reasons offered by the Administration to justify its rollback of California’s authority are not persuasive. They do not find support in the history and longstanding interpretation of the CAA, in the Environmental Protection Agency’s implementation practice, or in the regulated industry, and, coupled with halting the rise in federal fuel economy standards, constitute unsound policy at a crucial moment for greenhouse gas emissions mitigation. In addition, this Article advances the idea that instead of aiming to suppress California’s experimentation with zero emissions vehicles, current and future Administrations should embrace new ways to cooperate with California and a growing number of states that have begun thinking creatively about reforming the transportation sector. By building on a flexible and multilevel model of governance, grounded on forms of cooperative federalism that leverage state innovation and regulatory expertise, the federal government together with the states will ensure a more competitive future for America.

Implementing NEPA in the Age of Climate Change

The national government has a crucial role to play in combating climate change, yet federal projects continue to constitute a major source of United States greenhouse gas emissions. Under the National Environmental Policy Act, agencies must consider the environmental impacts of major federal actions before they can move forward. But agencies frequently downplay or ignore the climate change impacts of their projects in NEPA analyses, citing a slew of technical difficulties and uncertainties. This Article analyzes a suite of the most common analytical failures on the part of agencies with respect to climate change: failure to account for a project’s downstream and upstream greenhouse gas emissions; failure to acknowledge a project’s effect on the country’s energy mix; and failure to consider a reasonable social cost of carbon. After summarizing current regulatory practice and case law on each topic, this Article finds that despite protestations that accounting for such impacts is infeasible, agencies already possess many of the tools needed to assess such impacts, and indeed, some agencies already use these tools to do so. Furthermore, courts are increasingly holding agencies accountable for a full and fair assessment of climate change effects in NEPA analysis. This Article aims to highlight best practices so that agency offices can learn from one another, fulfill NEPA’s mandate, and begin to provide leadership in the fight against climate change.

Litigating for the Homeland: An Indian Treaty Framework to Climate Litigation in the Wake of Juliana

Climate change is an increasingly pressing issue on the world stage. The federal government, however, has largely declined to address any problems stemming from the effects of climate change, and litigation attempting to force the federal government to take action, as highlighted by Juliana v. United States, has largely failed. This Note presents the case for a class of plaintiffs more likely to succeed than youth plaintiffs in Juliana—federally recognized Indian tribes. Treaties between the United States and Indian nations are independent substantive sources of law that create enforceable obligations on the federal government. The United States maintains a trust relationship with federal Indian tribes, and that relationship obliges a duty of protection upon the federal government. This Note argues that those obligations may support climate change claims under the theory that the government, by failing to address climate change, has failed its duty of protection under its treaties.

Protection of Vulnerable Communities: A Case of Coal-Ash Disaster in Puerto Rico

The connection between the environment and human rights is not a surprising one. The enjoyment of human rights depends on a person’s ability to live free from interference and to have his or her rights protected. The interdependence of human rights and the protection of the environment is manifested in the full and effective enjoyment of the right to a healthy environment. This article argues that in order to protect vulnerable persons and communities facing environmental harm, a human rights framework—specifically the right to a healthy environment—must be applied. A human rights approach complements environmental justice work, recognizing that individuals and communities affected by environmental harm are rights-holders entitled to protection. Such communities are left out of important decisions about their environment and the effect of environmental harm in their lives. Individuals most vulnerable to environmental harm are often members of poor, rural, and disenfranchised communities. The destruction of the environment disproportionately affects these communities, preventing them from accessing basic natural resources, clean water and sanitation, adequate housing, food security, and access to health and medical assistance. Additionally, intersecting forms of discrimination exacerbate exclusion and marginalization. A human rights approach to environmental justice emphasizes the need to protect affected communities and holds the State responsible for recognizing their vulnerability and providing heightened protection. This article seeks to show that while the human right to a healthy environment has not been widely recognized, a robust juridical framework enables environmental justice advocates and affected communities to vindicate the rights of vulnerable communities. The case study of coal-ash contamination in Puerto Rico and the harms suffered by affected communities there anchors the argument for why advocates should use a human rights framework to protect the rights of the most vulnerable. The case of Puerto Rico is illustrative of so many poor, disenfranchised, and vulnerable communities around the world, affected by environmental harm and in need of a human rights-based framework.

State Vehicle Electrification Mandates and Federal Preemption

By requiring that new vehicles sold after a certain date be electric, states can lower drivers’ vehicle operating costs, boost local employment, and lower electric rates. But there’s a widespread perception that states can’t take advantage of these opportunities because a state vehicle electrification mandate would be preempted by federal law. Not so. While the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) prohibits state regulations “relating to” the control of emissions in motor vehicles, and the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) prohibits state regulations “related to” fuel economy standards, there is a strong rationale for federal courts to reject preemption of state vehicle electrification mandates. The Supreme Court has indicated repeatedly that state laws regulating a product or process “upstream” that have an effect “downstream” are not preempted by the federal law. A state law conditioning construction of nuclear power plants on adequate means for storage and disposal of nuclear waste is not preempted by a federal law regulating nuclear plant safety, although its effect is to advance nuclear plant safety. A state ban on uranium mining is not preempted by a federal law on uranium milling and tailing safety, although its effect is to advance uranium milling and tailing safety. Similarly, a state law requiring that cars run on electricity should not be preempted by federal law on emissions and fuel economy standards, although its effect is to reduce emissions and improve fuel economy. Moreover, there is no conflict between a state vehicle electrification law and the purposes of the CAA and EPCA. The purpose of the Clean Air Act is to clean the air. The relevant purpose of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act is to reduce energy demand. Neither statute has a purpose of ensuring that new vehicles have at least some emissions, nor that they continue to use gasoline. This Article concludes that state vehicle electrification legislation should not be preempted. Neither the CAA nor the EPCA directly regulates how vehicles are powered. Neither statute explicitly prohibits states from mandating electrification of vehicles. And legal precedent limiting regulation of vehicles based on emissions or fuel economy standards has never addressed vehicle electrification mandates. Further, states have compelling reasons for vehicle electrification mandates that have nothing to do with regulating emissions or improving fuel economy standards. Such reasons may be sufficient to avoid preemption. The Supreme Court’s increasingly preemption-skeptical jurisprudence, as articulated in Virginia Uranium v. Warren, limits courts’ ability to scrutinize state motives in passing vehicle electrification statutes. Thus, although preemption cannot be dismissed as a concern, the stage has been set for state-based vehicle electrification mandates.

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act at 50: Overlooked Watershed Protection

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) marked its fiftieth anniversary in 2018 without much fanfare. The WSRA has been somewhat overshadowed by the Wilderness Act, which preceded it by four years, and by the National Environmental Policy Act and the pollution control statutes which followed in the 1970s. But the WSRA was a significant conservation achievement, has now extended its protections to over 200 rivers, and has the potential to provide watershed protection to many more in the future. This article explains the statute and its implementation over the last half-century as well as a number of challenges to fulfilling its laudable goals of protecting free-flowing rivers, their water quality, and their “outstandingly remarkable values.” We make a number of suggestions to the managing agencies and to Congress if the WSRA’s achievements over the next half-century are to match the last fifty years, including reviving congressional interest in study rivers, updating managing agencies’ river plans to focus on non-federal lands within river corridors, and ensuring that those river plans provide the watershed protection Congress envisioned when it included a significant amount of riparian land within WSRA river corridors. We also call for a new emphasis on rivers that should be studied for their restoration potential and for more states to take advantage of the statute’s unusual pathway for state-designated rivers to gain WSRA protections. A postscript briefly explains a recent congressional proposal to expand the WSRA system, and an appendix catalogues all 226 WSRA river segments designated during the statute’s first fifty years.

The Dormant Commerce Clause and State Clean Energy Legislation

This Note analyzes recent litigation concerning the constitutionality of state renewable portfolio standards (RPSs) and similar environmental legislation designed to promote clean energy. It begins with a discussion of the current state of both federal and state responses to climate change. From there, it analyzes several legal challenges to state RPSs and other climate-related laws that focus on potential violations of the dormant Commerce Clause. It concludes with a brief exploration of how these cases fit the history and purpose of the dormant Commerce Clause. The Note argues that a narrow view of the doctrine is consistent with the purpose of the dormant Commerce Clause, will reaffirm principles of federalism, will enable state innovation in the renewable energy field, and will make a positive contribution to efforts to mitigate climate change. By structuring statutes so as to draw a court’s attention to the ways in which their legislation fits within the purpose of the dormant Commerce Clause, states can give themselves more space to take aggressive action to promote clean energy and reduce the impacts of climate change.