CAFO Odors and the Ghost of William Aldred

Posted on July 10, 2018 by Susan Cooke

The number and size of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) have increased in recent years.  These operations keep large numbers of animals in a confined space and provide them with feed from offsite sources prior to their slaughter.  While generally viewed as cost efficient, CAFOs raise concerns about animal welfare and about their environmental impacts and effect on the health and quality of life for those living or working nearby.  Such concerns include the foul odors associated with the substantial quantities of animal waste that are generated, especially where such waste is discharged into pits and then flushed into open air lagoons.  The sludge in those lagoons sinks to the bottom and is periodically removed for land application and the liquid waste remaining at the top is sprayed as fertilizer onto adjacent fields.

The anaerobic reaction that occurs during pit and lagoon storage of the waste over an extended time period is the primary generator of such odor, the primary constituents being ammonia and hydrogen sulfide.  Anaerobic digesters and other technologies can be employed to reduce odor generation, with some also producing gases for fuel.  However, the costs of installing and operating such equipment can be substantial, and there are no specific requirements at the federal level mandating odor control or limiting ammonia or hydrogen sulfide emissions from CAFO operations.  Indeed, even the reporting of animal waste air emissions under the federal Superfund law and under EPCRA (as interpreted by EPA) is precluded under the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method (FARM) Act signed into law by Congress in March 2018

While there is little regulation at the federal level, some states have imposed limits on hydrogen sulfide.  For example, California has a one hour average standard and Minnesota has a 30 minute standard for H2S.  In addition, a few states have instituted odor standards covering some CAFOs, including Colorado’s odor standard, which is based on an odor dilution factor, for swine CAFOs above a certain size (i.e., the odor must be eliminated by a specified amount of dilution).  While most local ordinances covering odors enjoin nuisances in general, some have adopted a dilution factor standard that is generally applicable, such as the ordinance adopted in Denver, Colorado and that adopted in South St. Paul, Minnesota.

Even where CAFOs are singled out for specific regulation by state, the dilution factor standard is not often used, probably because it is in essence subjective in nature and thus quite different from most environmental emission standards.  Instead, states have generally adopted a management plan approach coupled with registration and periodic inspections.  For example, the environmental regulations covering odor control at CAFOs in North Carolina, which has a number of swine CAFOs in the southeastern portion of the state, do not include a specific standard covering odor.  Instead, those regulations impose setback requirements and provide for state agency inspections, and they empower that agency to require preparation and modification of a best management plan if it determines that odor control is necessary.

Given the absence of a specific standard for judging CAFO emissions, some neighbors of CAFO operations have brought tort suits for nuisance to address odor concerns.  In one case decided this past April, a jury awarded $50 million in compensatory and punitive damages to 10 neighbors of a North Carolina hog farm.  The plaintiffs claimed that the truck noise associated with farm operations and the odor associated with lagoon storage of waste from its 4700 hogs and the spraying of lagoon liquid onto nearby fields created a nuisance.

Although the federal court reduced recovery to $3.25 million under punitive damage limits imposed under the North Carolina Right to Farm Law, agribusiness interests raised strong concerns about the damage award and within weeks the North Carolina legislature had passed amendments to the state Right to Farm Law to further restrict tort recovery for alleged nuisances from agricultural and forestry operations.  Although those amendments (in Senate Bill 711) were vetoed by Governor Roy Cooper on June 25, the veto was overridden by both houses before their month-end adjournment.

The amendments, which are similar to statutory language already enacted in Missouri for facilities engaged in crop and animal production, would limit compensation to property located within one half mile of the alleged source of a nuisance at an agricultural or forestry operation.  In addition, the suit would have to be filed within one year of the operation’s establishment or of a fundamental change (which wouldn’t include, among other things, a change in ownership or size) to that operation, with compensatory damages limited to a reduction in fair market value of the plaintiff’s property for a permanent nuisance and to diminution in fair rental value for a temporary nuisance.  While punitive damages are already capped at a specified multiple of compensatory damages, the amendments would limit them to instances where, during the previous three years, the operation had been the subject of a criminal conviction or civil enforcement action or of regulatory action taken by the state or federal government pursuant to a notice of violation.

Such limits on monetary recovery for nuisance may encourage plaintiffs to seek injunctive relief to abate odors from CAFO operations.  And tort suits for nuisance animal odors have a long history, as evidenced by William Aldred’s Case dating back to 1610 where the Court of King’s Bench held that Mr. Aldred, whose house was situated within 30 feet of a later constructed hog sty, had a right to obtain abatement of the foul odor emanating from that hog sty.

In recent years the injunction remedy in a nuisance action has sometimes been disfavored, as illustrated in the Boomer v. Atlantic Cement decision where monetary damages were awarded rather than injunctive relief for operation of a cement plant.  There the court weighed the (lower) cost of compensatory damages versus the (significantly higher) cost associated with installing abatement equipment or requiring plant shutdown.  However, it now appears that determining “entitlements” under an economic efficiency analysis, such as that described in the oft-cited Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral, is undergoing more critical academic scrutiny.

Moreover, animal welfare advocates, as well as those concerned about environmental justice or greenhouse gas emissions, and perhaps even property rights advocates, may add their own voices in support of the injunctive remedy option for stopping or curtailing CAFO operations.  If so, then the right of a landowner to quiet (and unscented) enjoyment of his or her property through an injunction, as enunciated by the King’s Bench more than 400 years ago, may prove to be the most effective remedy for those seeking to curtail CAFO odor emissions.

“To Count or Not to Count, That is the Question”

Posted on June 28, 2018 by Jeff Civins

“To count or not to count”--greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions--was a question facing both the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) and the US Forest Service (“USFS”), in deciding whether to lease 13 parcels of federal mineral estate in Santa Fe National Forest in New Mexico for oil and gas production, and the federal district court in New Mexico, on an appeal of those agencies’ joint determination to lease those parcels.  The appeal, filed by plaintiff citizen groups, in San Juan Citizens Alliance v. United States Bureau of Land Management, No. 16-cv-376-MCA-JHR, D. NM (June 14, 2018), asserted a number of violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) based on, among other things, the agencies’ alleged failure to take a hard look at direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of oil and gas leasing.  The GHG emissions in question related to those that would result not from the production of oil and gas from the leases, but rather from the consumption of that production--and the resulting climate change impacts of those emissions.  The court answered yes to the question of whether to count those emissions, but its determination raised another question--what difference would or should counting those GHG emissions make.

Operating under a memorandum of understanding, the USFS and BLM jointly manage oil and gas leasing on federal forest land, with the USFS regulating the surface and the BLM, the subsurface.  The USFS identifies specific lands to be offered for lease; the BLM provides a reasonably foreseeable development scenario.  If the UFS consents to leasing, it may include conditions; BLM may then issue competitive leases.  The leases here were issued after protracted administrative proceedings, which included the USFS’s preparation of an environmental impact statement and supplement that supported the permitting of oil and gas leasing and which culminated in the BLM’s issuance of a Decision Record and Environmental Assessment approving the parcels for lease, which “tiered to” the USFS environmental studies.

Plaintiffs argued that the agencies “failed to take a hard look at direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of oil and gas leasing” before making an irretrievable commitment of resources.  Regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality, at 40 CFR Part 1500, define the pertinent terms.

Direct effects” are “caused by the action and occur at the same time and place” while “indirect effects” are effects that “are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.” A “cumulative impact,” on the other hand, is an “impact on the environment [that] results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency … or person undertakes such other actions.” “Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.” 

BLM’s Decision Record explained that the agency was evaluating only GHG emissions associated with exploration and production of oil and gas (estimated to be 0.0018% of the US’s total GHG emissions), because the environmental impacts of GHG emissions from consumption of that oil and gas, e.g., refining and consumer-vehicle combustion, were not direct effects and neither were they indirect effects because production was not a proximate cause of GHG emissions resulting from consumption.  BLM argued, however, that emissions from consumption were accounted for in the cumulative effects analysis. 

The Decision Record explained:

The very small increase in [GHG] emissions that could result from approval of the action alternatives would not produce climate change impacts that differ from the No Action Alternative. This is because climate change is a global process that is impacted by the sum total of [GHG] emissions in the Earth’s atmosphere. The incremental contribution to global [GHG] from the proposed action cannot be translated into effects on climate change globally or in the area of this site-specific action. It is currently not feasible to predict with certainty the net impacts from the proposed action on global or regional climate.

The Air Resources Technical Report discusses the relationship of past, present and future predicted emissions to climate change and the limitations in predicting local and regional impacts related to emissions. It is currently not feasible to know with certainty the net impacts from particular emissions associated with activities on public lands.

The Air Resources Technical Report noted that the BLM did not have the ability to associate an action’s contribution in a localized area to impacts on global climate change,” but may do so in the future when “climate models improve in their sensitivity and predictive capacity.” 

In its review of the agencies’ record, the court noted “neither the Record Decision nor its tiered or incorporated documents estimate the potential greenhouse gas emissions from consumption of the oil and gas produced by wells developed on the leases, nor do they discuss the potential impacts of such emissions. “  The court concluded that the failure to estimate the amount of GHG emissions resulting from consumption of the oil and gas produced as a result of development of wells on the leased areas was arbitrary and required that BLM reanalyze the potential impact of such greenhouse gases on climate change in light of the recalculated amount of emissions in order to comply with NEPA.

For that reason, the court remanded the case to the BLM to address this error and to consider whether, based on that reanalysis, its mitigation analysis needed to be revised as well.  The court reasoned that GHG emissions from the consumption of oil and gas were an indirect effect that BLM should have considered, citing Sierra Club v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 867 F.3d 1357, 1374 (D.C. Cir. 2017), and found that BLM also did not adequately consider the cumulative effects of those emissions, together with other emissions.

The question raised by this case, and Sierra Club v. FERC, which the court cites, is how helpful the analysis of indirect and cumulative effects will be to the agency in its decision-making and could or should that analysis result in the selection of a different alternative or in requirements to mitigate. As a practical matter, given the global nature of the concern posed by GHG emissions and the relatively small contribution of the activity under review, is there an expectation that an agency will make meaningful changes in its decision-making as a result of any required reanalysis? So perhaps the question should be not whether to count or not to count, but rather, “What difference would or should counting make?”And, perhaps an even more salient question is, as a policy matter, should concerns posed by GHG emissions be better addressed through legislation and rulemaking rather than by imposing constraints on an ad hoc basis?

Places

Posted on June 20, 2018 by Jonathan Z. Cannon

On vacation on Sanibel Island, FL, three hour’s drive from the central Florida town I grew up in, I’m thinking about place.  When I vacationed here as a child, Sanibel was a sleepy island, with primitive bungalows for tourists, insatiable hordes of mosquitoes, mephitic drinking water, and glorious shell beaches, refreshed daily by the tides. Like most of Florida’s West Coast, Sanibel has undergone a sea change since then, transformed into a high-end resort community with luxury accommodations and expensive homes – and, yes, points of public access to the beach. There’re fewer good shells, because so many more people are hunting them.

A visitor from the early days might say the island had been spoiled, but in fact people who cared about Sanibel and its sister island, Captiva, worked to protect it even as it morphed under intense development pressure. The local land trust, the Sanibel-Captiva Conservation Foundation (SCCF), begun in 1967 with the first flush of the modern environmental movement, is the largest private landowner on the islands and manages over 1200 acres of conservation lands on Sanibel and another 600 on Captiva. That’s in addition to the conservation lands managed by the State of Florida and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which include the 6400-acre J. Ding Darling Wildlife Refuge. Established in 1945, through the efforts of J.N. “Ding” Darling, a Pulitzer-prize winning political cartoonist and conservationist who kept a winter home on Captiva, the refuge protects a part of “the largest undeveloped mangrove ecosystem in the United States” and “spectacular migratory bird populations.”

We all live in places, vacation in places; we care about them –their people and their nature. There are over 1300 active land trusts in the United States, most of them local or regional. These organizations protect and manage over 56 million conservation acres largely though private donations.  Local governments protect additional land through easement acquisition programs, open space zoning, and protections for ecologically sensitive areas. These actions go on largely under the radar of the divisive politics that infects national environmental and natural resource policy. There are still conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats in these local settings, but they are joined by a common interest in their place – the qualities that make that place worth living in for everyone.  This common commitment is more elusive at larger geographic scales, where red and blue segregate along lines of rural/urban, coast and heartland.

The power of place to mobilize action to protect and defend is no panacea for environmental ills. Rootedness in place can cause people to overlook the larger consequences of their actions, as in NIMBY cases. It also may fail to be an effective motivator for addressing issues at larger scales, such as climate change. But there’s evidence that politically diverse communities that are seeing the effects of global change, such as cities and counties in Southern Florida, are moving toward meaningful climate change policies – with both adaptation and mitigation components. A common threat to “home” might help lift even climate change into the realm of common commitment.

Big Tribal Victory in Culvert Case, Big Implications for Taxpayers

Posted on June 13, 2018 by Rick Glick

On June 11, the Supreme Court issued a one-sentence order affirming the Ninth Circuit’s 2016 judgment in United States v. State of Washington. In that case, the government sued Washington on behalf of several Indian tribes, asserting that culverts constructed by the state over decades blocked salmon runs for which the tribes held treaty fishing rights. The Court of Appeals ordered Washington to repair or replace the offending culverts. The Supreme Court split 4-4, with Justice Kennedy recusing himself, which allows the Ninth Circuit ruling to stand.

The ruling is a major victory for Indian treaty rights. The historical tradeoff for acceding to white settlement throughout the West was preservation of hunting and fishing rights dating from time immemorial. These rights were to ensure tribal sustenance and to preserve religious and cultural practices. The Court of Appeals held that inherent in fishing rights is a duty to maintain viable salmon habitat and migration corridors.

The justice for the tribes in the outcome cannot be denied. However, compliance with the ruling carries an enormous price tag, in the many billions of dollars. Further, culverts aren’t the only sources of degradation of salmon habitat. Settlement of the West entailed construction of hundreds of dams and other stream obstructions. More than a century of agriculture, mining and industrial activities have denuded riparian zones, straightened meandering streams, filled spawning gravels with sediments, and added nutrients and other pollutants to waterways. Most, if not all, streams listed by Western states as water quality impaired under Clean Water Act section 303(d), are on the list for temperature, suspended solids, dissolved oxygen and other pollutants related to development.

A great deal of litigation and regulatory activity is ongoing to address these concerns, but does the U.S. v. Washington case add the potential for accelerated court mandated corrections? How will state and local government budgets cope with aggressive timelines for compliance? Will the Administration and Congress step up to help?

The latter question raises justice issues of its own. Washington argued that the culverts it installed were in accordance with federal designs. In a statement, state Attorney General Bob Ferguson said, "It is unfortunate that Washington state taxpayers will be shouldering all the responsibility for the federal government's faulty culvert design."

Interestingly, other Washington State officials do not appear to share AG Ferguson’s sense of outrage. As reported in the New York Times, Gov. Jay Inslee and Public Lands Commissioner Hilary Franz did not support petitioning the Supreme Court for review: "For some time now I've hoped that instead of litigation we could focus together on our ongoing work to restore salmon habitat," Inslee said. Franz added, "It is time to stop fighting over who should do what." And indeed, the state has been actively working on the culverts.

The courts were not moved by Ferguson’s argument that the federal government is to blame for bad culvert design. Still, it does seem that the issue of salmon habitat restoration is not for Washington State to resolve by itself, but is a national problem resulting in significant part from national policies, and thus requires a national solution.

Common Sense Species Mitigation Policy Shouldn’t Be Reversed By Trump DOI

Posted on March 29, 2018 by Melinda E. Taylor

Depending on one’s political persuasion, the Endangered Species Act is either a glaring example of federal overreach or a critical safety net for scores of plants and animals that are at risk of extinction. Its impact is felt across the country in regulations that protect the spotted owl and salmon in the Pacific Northwest, the red-cockaded woodpecker in the Southeast, the Mojave Desert tortoise in the Southwest, and the whooping crane on the Gulf Coast. 

Thanks to the act, over 220 species have avoided extinction and remain in the wild, including the bald eagle, brown pelican, American alligator, peregrine falcon, and northern right whale.

When Richard Nixon signed the law in 1973, few expected it to be as controversial as it eventually became. It was passed by Congress with little opposition, but by the 1990s, the Wise Use movement and extractive industries like forestry, mining, and oil and gas were bristling at the land use restrictions that accompanied federal decisions to list endangered species, while at the same time, environmental groups were filing lawsuits to force the federal government to use the law even more aggressively.

To varying degrees, the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations each adopted policies designed to reduce the conflicts between the warring sides and make it more appealing for private landowners to protect rare species. Those efforts were important, because 75% of endangered species occur on private land. Without the cooperation of landowners, their chances of rebounding were slim.

Because of incentive-based policies, over 130 conservation “banks” have been established on private lands to protect 70+ species, including the Florida panther, golden-cheeked warbler, American burying beetle, and gopher tortoise. Private investors, as well as ranchers, farmers, and forest owners, have invested millions of dollars in land management practices that help rare species in return for the right to sell “credits” to companies that destroy the species’ habitat elsewhere. Regulated industries benefit from a streamlined permitting process.

The Obama Administration crafted policies to clarify and improve the incentives. It also worked with states, ranchers, industries, and conservation groups to formulate ambitious, large-scale conservation plans intended to preclude the need for federal protection altogether and give more flexibility to state governments. Unfortunately, the Trump Administration appears determined to undermine these efforts.   

On March 28, 2017 President Trump signed an Executive Order on Energy and Climate Change that reversed key parts of the Obama Administration’s agenda. The intent was to unleash fossil fuel development, especially on public lands, by relaxing environmental requirements applicable to oil, gas, and coal that were supposedly holding the industry back.

Among the several actions that the executive order rescinded was a relatively obscure Presidential Memorandum dated November 3, 2015 titled “Mitigating Impacts on Natural Resources from Development and Encouraging Related Private Investment.”  Unlike the other actions rescinded by the order (Power Sector Carbon Pollution Standards, Climate Change and National Security, and Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change), the 2015 Obama Memorandum did not address climate change or energy development.

Rather, it directed federal agencies to formulate policies that would encourage private investment in natural resource conservation, a goal that should be appealing to conservatives and liberals alike.

The 2015 Obama Presidential Memorandum had ordered agencies to refine their species mitigation programs, including conservation banking, to ensure they produced measurable outcomes. It required an increased level of transparency and consistency for the regulated industries and landowners. It was designed to level the playing field among conservation bankers and other providers of species mitigation. In short, it was intended to create conditions in which the free market could work efficiently for endangered species. It is hard to imagine a rational justification for abandoning this common sense policy; like a number of other environmental decisions by the Trump Administration, this one appears to be driven by the notion that, regardless of the merits, if the previous administration put the policy in place, it must be reversed.

The Endangered Species Act has become highly politicized, despite the fact that polls show a core of strong, unwavering public support for the law. Republicans in Congress have introduced dozens of bills in the last year that would undermine its protections. A far better approach, a win-win for private landowners and industry, would be to fine-tune the tools developed by previous administrations to harness the power of the marketplace and the willingness of private landowners to protect the nation’s natural heritage.

LAND CONSERVATION AND THE NEW TAX LAW

Posted on March 20, 2018 by Philip Tabas

The sweeping tax law enacted last December changes the U.S. tax code in ways that affect individuals, businesses, corporations, and tax-exempt entities. The law, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), enacts comprehensive tax reform and was crafted and passed by Congress along party lines. What will it mean for charitable giving and particularly for land conservation?

Tax policy has long been an important incentive to foster land conservation in the US. Indeed, there is evidence to show that the tremendous growth of the land trust conservation community resulted largely from the enactment of the 1980 Federal tax deduction for conservation easements. The TCJA retains that deduction but alters the incentive to use it and other tax strategies for land conservation.

Here’s how:

The charitable deduction:  The TCJA retains the charitable deduction but increases the standard deduction while repealing and limiting many itemized deductions, all while reducing marginal tax rates for individuals, corporations, and certain pass-through business entities. The Act raises the percentage limit on cash donations for those who itemize deductions to 60% of adjusted gross income (AGI), up from the current 50% of AGI. Finally, the “Pease rule” limiting all itemized deductions, including but not limited to charitable deductions, by certain high-income earners is repealed. No specific changes were made to IRC section 170(h) regarding gifts of conservation easements or to the ‘enhanced’ tax deduction for gifts of conservation easements (designed to encourage conservation easement donations by enhancing the ability of “land rich, cash poor” taxpayers to claim a tax deduction for such gifts).

What are the implications?

These changes have given rise to significant speculation that the TCJA will reduce charitable giving in general and adversely impact the charitable sector, including land trusts and conservation organizations. Gifts of land or easements for conservation are likely to continue to be made but the changes in marginal tax rates may diminish the after-tax value of such gifts.

It is likely that higher income taxpayers will continue to have financial incentives to donate easements while taxpayers of more modest means could have the tax value of their easement gifts reduced; this might alter the types of land conservation and ecological outcomes that can be incentivized by easement donations.

Estate tax changes: The TCJA also doubled the credit against the estate, gift, and generation skipping transfer tax effectively eliminating many estates from being subject to tax, although this provision will only be in effect from 2018 through 2025. Consequently, the Act is likely to weaken the tax incentive to make charitable contributions at death, including gifts of land or conservation easements, at least during that period.

Real estate changes: The TCJA retains the like-kind exchange tax deferral for real property under current law, but repeals such treatment for exchanges of personal property. Thus, easements or land with conservation significance may continue to be exchanged for other like kind property enabling the landowner to defer the recognition of otherwise taxable gain.

Syndicated conservation easement transactions: Over the past few years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number and valuations involved in so-called syndicated conservation easements transactions. These arrangements essentially are tax shelters designed to generate profits to investors in pass-through entities from a charitable donation of a conservation easement typically at inflated appraised values. The IRS recently issued Notice 2017-10 describing these transactions as “listed transactions” and requiring disclosures by participants and material advisors involved in these transactions. 

While It remains to be seen whether anything in the new tax law will affect such tax shelter transactions, the reduction in the highest marginal individual income tax rates and a new deduction for partnerships, Subchapter S corporations, and sole proprietorships are likely to combine to mean that syndicated easement promoters will have to have more aggressive easement valuations to make the after-tax returns comparable to what they were under the old law. This may make it harder to find investors. Hence, buying into one of these tax shelters may not bring the tax savings it used to, but that may simply prompt promoters to rebut that with bigger write-offs.

The conservation community is working to address such syndicated easement transactions by advocating for a bill currently before Congress (S. 2436, Charitable Conservation Easement Program Integrity Act) which would directly target the abusive transactions while continuing to reward true philanthropy that helps to conserve farms, ranches, working forests, wetlands and wildlife habitat for future generations.

The Struggle Between Conservation and Exploitation in Napa Valley

Posted on March 8, 2018 by Ridgway Hall

Book Review

Your favorite wine regions? Napa Valley is probably somewhere on your list. Ever since at least 1976, when Napa chardonnay and cabernet sauvignon won a blind taste testing in Paris, Napa’s vineyards have been producing large quantities of these and other wines, and business has been booming. The number of wineries in the roughly 25-mile-long Napa Valley, once just a handful, is now over 400. This is because the climate, soil and weather are uniquely suited to the production of wine grapes. In 1968, recognizing the importance of protecting the character of the valley, the county established the first agricultural preserve in the country, restricting the land use to farming and related activities.

But bucolic places where money can be made are attractive. Located northwest of San Francisco between two sets of mountains and bisected by the Napa River, Napa Valley has experienced rapid development and new building. This has resulted in habitat destruction, such as the cutting of thousands of century-old oaks, erosion, and pollution of the river (once home to salmon and steelhead, but no more) and the traffic, noise and dust of construction. Development is proceeding at a rate that threatens to destroy the natural beauty of the area that brought people there in the first place.  Not surprisingly, there has been pushback from conservationists and other residents who are not part of the wine industry.

This struggle between developers and those who want to preserve the valley’s pastoral charm is the subject of an excellent new book by James Conaway entitled Napa at Last Light: America’s Eden in an Age of Calamity (Simon & Schuster, 352 pages, $26). (Disclosure: I read and provided comments on an early draft of the book). This is the third book in a trilogy which began in 1990 with Conaway’s Napa: The Story of an American Eden, a New York Times best seller describing the 19th century origins of winemaking in the Napa Valley and its rediscovery starting in the 1960s.  This was followed in 2003 with The Far Side of Eden: New Money, Old Land and the Battle for Napa Valley.  It described the growing conflicts between winery owners, some of them by now-absentee corporations and investors eager to reap profits, and the local citizens and environmentalists who were becoming increasingly upset by the destructive results.

Napa at Last Light recaps the past and then brings this struggle current, including a hotly contested vote on a proposed woodland protection ordinance on the county ballot for June.  Conaway has traveled throughout the Napa region for more than 30 years getting to know the people, their values and concerns. As a result, the book is far more than just a chronology of events.  You get to know several generations of grape growers and winemakers along with the county officials and a variety of other residents and their families, the circumstances that brought them there, their hopes for the future and their interactions.  You meet winery owners who care a lot about preservation, have donated funds to protect fragile land and carried out streambank restoration efforts.

What is going on in the Napa Valley is a microcosm of conflicts over land use that are being played out across the country. The corrosive influence of money, and the power and abuses it brings, is never far from the surface. Nor is the philosophic struggle between those who believe they should be able to do whatever they want with their land, and those who believe they are part of a community in which what one person does with his or her land may adversely affect others.  It’s freedom vs regulation. Napa at Last Light is a timely and thoughtful portrayal of critical issues we are familiar with and will be dealing with for the foreseeable future. It’s also a great read.

 

Note: Ridge Hall has written a more extensive review of this book in the March-April issue of The Environmental Forum published by the Environmental Law Institute.

Takings Math for Dummies: When 1+1=1

Posted on March 7, 2018 by Mary K. Ryan

One benefit of preparing an annual review of last year’s important cases, as I just did for MCLE, is that you may have missed a significant case when it came out. That’s why I’m writing now about Murr v. Wisconsin, 137 S. Ct. 1645, decided on June 5, 2017. Murr, which incorporates the mathematical conundrum in the title, expands the Supreme Court’s regulatory takings jurisprudence by asking a preliminary question—what parcel or parcels of land are at issue? The Court held that this question must be answered before reaching the ad hoc case-by-case analysis established by Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, and Palazzolo v. Rhode Island which examines the economic impact of the challenged regulation, the investment-backed expectations of the landowner, and the character of the government action.

Murr involved the owners of two adjacent waterfront properties on the St. Croix River in Wisconsin which, given their location, were subject to numerous regulations, including a one acre buildable lot requirement. The properties lost their original grandfathered protection from that regulation when they were put into common ownership. The county denied requests for variances and the owners filed a regulatory takings claim, which they lost at the state level.

In a 5-3 opinion written by Justice Kennedy, the Court developed a new, three-factor test for determining the “denominator” in the regulatory takings analysis—in other words, the unit of property against which a court must assess the effects of the challenged governmental action. First, courts must assess the treatment of the land under state and local law, in particular how state law bounds and divides the land. Second, courts must look at the physical characteristics of the landowner’s property, e.g., whether the land is subject to further environmental or land use regulations due to the nature of the land or adjacent natural resources. Third, courts must consider the value of the property under the challenged regulation. Under this test, there was no regulatory taking. The Court rejected the bright line tests offered by the state (state law controls) and the landowners (lot lines define the relevant parcel) as too easily subject to manipulation. The Court defined the relevant parcel as a single combined lot based on several factors:  (1) that merger as a result of common ownership is a reasonable and usual zoning and land use control and there was a voluntary merger; (2) riverside property is often subject to restrictions on development; and (3) treatment as one lot did not substantially diminish the value of the land without the regulation.    

Murr may be an example where the “no harm, no foul” rule led to the right result. But generally speaking, the government’s defenses just got better, and the landowner’s burden tougher, in regulatory takings cases. And while there were three dissenters (Justice Gorsuch did not participate in the case), without two more votes, Murr will be the law for the foreseeable future.

Border Wall Waivers—A Continuing Problem

Posted on March 5, 2018 by Robert Uram

In January 2017, I warned that it was not too soon to begin thinking about reining in the Trump administration’s ability to use the waiver authority that the Congress adopted in 2005 to carry out its program to build new border facilities.  The 2005 waiver authority allows the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to unilaterally waive the federal government’s obligation to comply with any law that he feels will get in the way of building border walls. The grant of the waiver authority was a mistake. It is an affront to the rule of law, treats the residents of border areas as second-class citizens, and undermines the environmental laws that have been so successful in making America a great place to live.

My warning has not been heeded. The waiver authority issue has been lost in the raucous debate over immigration and border walls. None of the bills that were considered in the Senate during the week of February 12-16 proposed to change or reduce the waiver authority. Republicans in the House are actually seeking to expand the waiver authority. Democrats seem incapable of making the waiver issue a part of the conversation. This is inexcusable.

 Dozens of laws have been waived since 2005. These include waivers of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and laws that protect national parks and wildlife refuges.   The Trump administration continues to assert the right to exercise the 2005 waiver authority including waivers for walls near San Diego and for walls in New Mexico near the Texas Border.  Additional waivers are planned for the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, most likely including a wall through Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge. Established in 1943, the Refuge provides important habitat for more than 400 species of birds and would be devastated by a wall through its boundaries.  

I have practiced environmental law for more than 40 years. I know first hand that the environmental laws are not perfect, but there is no question that they are effective. Our air is cleaner and the water quality in our rivers and streams is vastly better. We are no longer creating toxic wastes sites and old dumps have been remediated. We have protected wildlife and ensured the continued existence of many species that would have been forever lost. We have saved billions of dollars on health problems that have not occurred because we have cleaner air, water, and land.  We have done all of this and have continued to prosper economically.  You only have to read the reports of air and water pollution in countries like China and India to appreciate how much our environmental laws have benefitted us. Application of the full suite of environmental laws to any new border facilities that may be built is needed to ensure that their environmental effects will be properly identified and addressed. 

New border walls and conversion of existing vehicle barriers to border walls will cause local residents grave economic, environmental, and social harm.   Border walls have divided farms and ranches, caused flooding in Texas and Arizona, and destroyed sensitive habitat for endangered species and other wildlife.  More than 90 endangered and threatened species including jaguars, ocelots, snowy plovers, pygmy owls, and the rare Mexican gray wolf use habitats on both sides of the 2,000-mile border. Without the protection of the Endangered Species Act, these species will be much more likely to become extinct.

Lawsuits now pending before Federal Judge Curiel in San Diego have been the only tangible effort to stopping the use of the 2005 waiver authority. The lawsuits challenge three waivers on a number of grounds, including arguments that the waiver authority has expired, that its use does not apply to the work covered by the waiver, and that the waiver is unconstitutional. Because the Congress has severely restricted judicial review of waivers, these kinds of lawsuits are difficult to win. On February 27, 2018, Judge Curiel rejected the challenge to three waivers.

Judge Curiel’s decision will likely be appealed. But it is more likely than not that litigation will be unable to block waivers. The Congress will have to act to rein in waivers.  A responsible Congress would address this issue decisively and head on. If the waiver remains on the books, it will not only lead to harm to border communities and the environment, it will also be a precedent to excuse compliance with other laws for other reasons. Protecting our legal system should be of bipartisan concern. The Congress is likely to return to the border issue in the weeks ahead. When it does, the Congress should set aside its past mistakes and revoke use of the waiver for any future repair or construction of border facilities of any kind and should decline to repeat its mistake with new, additional executive branch waiver authority.  

The Intersection of Environmental Justice and Climate Change

Posted on September 20, 2017 by Lisa C. Goodheart

Media images of the recent devastation from Hurricanes Harvey and Irma provide vivid illustration of the direct link between climate change and environmental justice (“EJ”) concerns.  For those who live in the path of tropical storms, the impacts of severe storm damage often have a disproportionately harsh effect upon low-income, minority, non-native English-speaking communities.  Members of these communities are often the least able to get out of harm’s way and find temporary living accommodations in a safer place.  They tend to live in sub-standard housing stock that is the least able to withstand the impacts of storm surges and extreme wind forces.  Frequently, their homes are disproportionately located in close proximity to clusters of known environmental hazards such as Superfund sites, hazardous waste TSDFs, chemical and power plants, other locally undesirable land uses (“LULUs”), and a range of industrial facilities which are associated with adverse health impacts.  Hurricanes, tornadoes, and other extreme weather events may cause catastrophic damage and failures of routine safety systems, resulting in unexpected and uncontrolled releases of dangerous chemicals that impose particular risks on neighboring “EJ communities.”

In the early days of the EJ movement, attention and energy was focused primarily on questions of equity with respect to facility siting and the permitting of new LULUs in close proximity to already overburdened neighborhoods populated by EJ communities.  For many years now, concerns about the inequitable distribution of environmental burdens have been used to rally opposition to the siting and permitting of new LULUs that would likely increase existing environmental risks.  Naturally, this approach has tended to focus attention on the adverse health impacts associated with long-term exposures to the environmental contaminants that proposed new facilities would or could release to air, soil and water in the course of their routine operations.

Increasingly, however, the most serious environmental risks facing EJ communities – especially in or near industrialized urban waterfront zones – are those associated with the catastrophic weather-related impacts of climate change on existing facilities and established infrastructure.  It is doubtful that the existing paradigms for thinking about environmental justice have grasped and evolved to account for this fundamental fact as quickly or as fully as they should and must.

At the state level, approaches to EJ vary considerably.  Some states, like California, were early adopters of legislation that codified EJ and have established EJ programs with responsibility vested in a coordinating body and various required legal processes.  Other states, like Massachusetts, have executive orders and state policies aimed at proactively integrating EJ considerations into the decision-making of environmental and energy agencies, and perhaps an occasional statutory nod in the direction of EJ.  Some have programs (e.g., the Texas Environmental Equity Program) or study centers (e.g., the Center for Environmental Equity and Justice at Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University) that pertain to environmental equity but do not explicitly compel the government to go beyond the avoidance of invidious discrimination.  In general, it remains the case that EJ laws, policies and programs have tended not to focus a great deal of attention on climate change impacts.  That is, they have not tackled with sufficient rigor and depth the unfortunate synergies that occur when the worst effects of climate change are felt by the most vulnerable EJ communities.  This is beginning to change, but the change cannot come too quickly.

By way of example, Massachusetts’ original EJ policy, which was issued in 2002, focused primarily on the equitable protection of parks and open space, on brownfields redevelopment, on fairness in environmental grant-making, and on procedural protections aimed at enhancing the ability of all to have a voice in environmental decision-making.  Its scope was limited to environmental agencies, and it contained no mention of climate change.  Today, the updated Massachusetts EJ policy (revised as of January 31, 2017) applies to energy as well as environmental agencies, and it expressly affirms the need to enhance meaningful participation by traditionally underserved and under-represented EJ communities in climate change decision-making, as well as in energy and environmental decision-making.  In addition, the updated Massachusetts EJ policy expressly points to the need to ensure that all residents “are prepared for and resilient to the effects of climate change.”  This link between climate change and EJ is also now reflected in the Massachusetts Climate Protection and Green Economy Act, codified at G.L. c. 21N.  Specifically, § 5 of that statute expressly requires the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs to determine “whether activities undertaken to comply with state regulations and efforts disproportionately impact low-income communities.”

The importance of strengthening the developing linkage of climate change to EJ concerns cannot be overstated.  The most pressing EJ problems today go far beyond matters of equity with respect to parklands, brownfields, grants, and opportunities for participation in environmental decision-making.  The most urgent current EJ needs include planning and providing for robust, effective, fair responses to the environmental disasters associated with climate change, as they affect vulnerable low-income, minority, non-native English-speaking communities.  States, counties, and municipalities will need to step up and provide the necessary leadership to address these needs.  This will require creating, strengthening, and fulfilling the promise of state and local EJ laws, policies, and programs, so as to address the current gaps in our legal system that all too often leave the most vulnerable among us “up the creek without a canoe paddle” in the wake of an environmental disaster.  As we face the future, whether and how we will choose to involve, consider, and respond to those who are at the greatest risk of being the most severely victimized, at the intersection of climate change and environmental justice, will be a test of our collective will and values.

With Litigation Guaranteed, the fate of national monuments will be uncertain for some time

Posted on September 1, 2017 by Brenda Mallory

At the end of August as the last days of summer pass, the Conservation community waits with bated-breath to learn what the Trump Administration will do to twenty-one significant national monuments and the century-old tradition they reflect. The consensus—among those who have dedicated their lives to protecting special places, the local communities whose economies have been bolstered by their presence, and a broad swath of Americans who simply enjoy having extraordinary places to visit—is that it won’t be good. The further consensus is that what the Administration is considering likely exceeds the President’s legal authority under the Antiquities Act. Both progressive and conservative voices have recently argued that the president lacks the authority to diminish or revoke National Monuments. While the motivations for making this argument may be different, the basic statutory and constitutional arguments are the same, and the significance of the president taking this uncharted path to diminishing national monument protections is recognized (in either a positive or negative light) even by the few who argue he does have the authority to do so.

The legal question begins where many of our most controversial issues today start –the scope of a law. Yet, at its foundation, a history of simmering tensions over the extent of Federal lands in the west and the Federal government’s control over those lands has fueled passions around this issue. For over 110 years, the Antiquities Act has stood as one of the most powerful tools for the protection of cultural, historic, and scientific resources. Some have described it as the first statute with an exclusively protective purpose.  The statute gives a President the discretion to “declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated on land owned or controlled by the Federal Government to be national monuments.” A key question is what does “other objects of historic or scientific interest” mean? This Administration appears poised to take on the longstanding, judicially endorsed conclusion that this phrase includes large landscapes like the Grand Canyon, and to bring to the fore the threshold question of whether a subsequent President can change the monument designation of a predecessor.

In April, President Trump signed an Executive Order instructing Interior Secretary Zinke to undertake a review of Antiquities Act monument designations since 1996. Secretary Zinke then launched the review process identifying 27 monuments that fit the EO criteria: 26 because they were over 100,000 acres and one for the purpose of determining whether stakeholder engagement had been adequate. Recommendations were submitted to the President on August 24, 2017, but have not been made public. The Commerce Secretary received a similar presidential directive and is undertaking a separate process for marine monuments and national marine sanctuaries.

Over its history, monument designations under the Antiquities Act have been challenged as inconsistent with the statute and have always been upheld. See, e.g., Cameron v. United States, 252 U.S. 450 (1920), Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128 (1976). However, no President has attempted to revoke a prior designation and there has been no judicial challenge in the previous circumstances where a President has modified the boundaries of a designation. All signs are suggesting that we are about to see both for the first time: the President is expected to revoke or substantially reduce one or more monuments and, if he does, a challenge is inevitable. While this will be a case of first impression, the overwhelming view of scholars, which I share, is that the President does not have the authority to take these actions because Congress has not delegated him the authority to undo a designation. See, e.g., a collection of articles submitted to the Department of Interior by 121 scholars and similar analysis for marine monuments. Of course, there is an alternate view.

Putting the law aside, the atmospherics associated with this early battle by the Administration are noteworthy. First, like many of its other actions, the unprecedented nature and scope of the attack is striking. While it was immediately obvious after the election that there would be some effort to challenge then-President Obama’s most controversial monument designations, with Bears Ears National Monument in Utah at the top of the list, few expected that designations completed decades ago, by three different Presidents would be under threat. Businesses and communities have grown and developed because of and in reliance on these monuments, inseparable from the benefits they bring to their local areas. Upending years of investment and expectation is stunning. Nor was it expected that the attack would include so many monuments, land and sea, or that Marine Sanctuaries, which are completed over many years and with considerable process, would be thrown brazenly into the mix.  

Second, like the Administration’s attack in other areas, the stated narrative driving the challenge to national monuments – alleged abuse of executive power, failure to consult or listen to stakeholders, ignoring elected officials, restoring balance to the use of Federal land – is at odds with the Administration’s own behavior in the process.  As noted in the above-referenced articles, revoking or substantially reducing the size of a monument is beyond the scope of the President’s authority, a clear abuse of executive power. Even conservative leaning scholars and publications have joined the ranks of those condemning the anticipated executive action as beyond the President’s authority. Moreover, Secretary Zinke has unapologetically spent his “review process” meeting primarily with opponents of the monuments and the summary of his report released last week dismisses as part of a “well-orchestrated national campaign” the 2.7 million comments generated during the review process that overwhelmingly support retention or expansion of national monuments. Next, while the Republican elected officials are getting Zinke’s attention, it is not clear that the views of their Democratic colleagues are being given the same weight. Finally, talk of balance in federal land use is in direct conflict with the newly ascribed goals of “energy dominance” and the expedited efforts to open unspoiled areas to oil and gas drilling, and other extractive activities. Taken together, it is clear that this battle is less about correcting “unlawful” designations by previous Presidents and more about aggressively shifting the policy focus on Federal lands to exploiting the natural resources. For monuments designated under the Antiquities Act, only Congress has the authority to change the designation; and Congress is the appropriate body to consider whether policy shifts warrant such changes.

Finally, the attack on national monuments is not occurring in isolation. Many other efforts to eliminate or impair environmental and conservation protections on Public lands are underway.  They encompass repealing protective measures such as the stream protection rule, withdrawing the rule regulating hydraulic fracturing; repealing the Clean Water Act Rule; eliminating the ban on drilling in the Arctic; and rescinding the Executive Order directing federal agencies to consider rising sea levels when building public infrastructure in flood prone areas. They also include process initiatives that appear designed to undermine the fact based decision-making necessary to ensure the protection of environmental and conservation measures. These initiatives include Zinke’s Order to streamline onshore oil and gas permits, his regulatory reform initiative to eliminate “unnecessary regulatory burdens,” and his Order jumpstarting Alaska Energy focused on opening the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and the National Petroleum Reserve Area to oil and gas drilling.

With this backdrop, there is a sense of foreboding as the Administration’s monuments review process comes to an end. One thing is clear, whatever is in the upcoming announcement by the Administration, it will likely take years of litigation before these issues are resolved and this century-old law will be put to the test.         

A Win for Appropriative Water Rights

Posted on August 25, 2017 by Rick Glick

In an unpublished opinion released August 24th, the Ninth Circuit rejected a long waged effort to upend the City of Bend’s water planning by forcing it to abandon its vested surface water rights in favor of an all-groundwater supply.  As is often the case, plaintiffs chose a somewhat oblique attack on the City’s water planning, relying on NEPA and forest planning laws to force a change of direction.

Central Oregon LandWatch v. Connaughton was a challenge to a Special Use Permit issued by the U. S. Forest Service to the City to construct a new pipeline and to upgrade water diversion facilities on Tumalo Creek, within the Deschutes National Forest.  The existing pipeline also was previously constructed within the national forest under a SUP, but needs replacement.  The project drew controversy. 

Plaintiffs contended that cessation of water withdrawals by the City is necessary to preserve Tumalo Falls, whereas the City argued that the project would enhance Tumalo Creek.  To maintain pressure, the old pipeline needed to be kept full, resulting in constant diversions and discharge of surplus water downstream.  The new pipeline allows the City to withdraw water on demand, which will keep more water in the stream.  In addition, the City is working closely with the Tumalo Irrigation District to further protect the creek.

An amici group comprised of municipal and agricultural water users, intervened on behalf of the Forest Service and the City.  (Disclosure:  Our firm represents the amici, and serves as water counsel to the City, though we did not represent the City in this case).  The Oregon Water Resources Department separately intervened as an amicus.

The central concern for amici was the integrity of Oregon’s appropriative water rights law, which follows the first in time, first in right principle of other Western states.  Plaintiffs sought to upend that principle by elevating federal minimum flows in the forest planning context over state water law.  Oregon law allows the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to apply for instream water rights, which would have priority from the date of application and would be treated like any other water right.  The purpose of the instream right is to prevent future appropriations, and so the “minimum” flows in the water right usually comprise or exceed the entire flow of the stream.

Plaintiffs argued that the Forest Service should have imposed minimum flows for the creek in the SUP, which they contended should be derived from the instream water established for Tumalo Creek.  The problem is that the instream water right is junior in priority to the City’s water rights.  Imposing the instream water right flows as a condition of the SUP would effectively turn appropriative water rights law on its head.  The instream right—with its aspirational flow regime—would then take precedent over the City’s right.

The court below rejected that outcome, as did the Ninth Circuit but on the basis that establishment of minimum flows are not required by rule or case law.  Further, doing so would not benefit Tumalo Creek because the City’s project would “positively impact stream flows” in one reach of the creek and “have no or minimal impact” in two other reaches, one of which is subject to Tumalo Irrigation District diversions that are not subject to the SUP.

The court also found that the Forest Service did not violate NEPA by limiting the alternatives analysis in the Environmental Assessment to just two: (1) implementation of the project and (2) a “no action” alternative based on the existing SUP.  In other words, the court was not troubled by the Forest Service assuming that continuing exercise of the City’s surface water rights represents the status quo.   The court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the Forest Service needed to additionally evaluate an alternative scenario where the City reduces or ceases withdrawals from Tumalo Creek.  The court found that the discussion in the Environmental Assessment was adequate, and relied on language in the EA that fully supports the City’s water planning:

The Forest Service determined that the surface water formed a “critical component of the City’s dual-source [water] supply.” . . . The EA explained that groundwater-only options would “compromise the City’s ability to provide a safe and reliable water supply,” reduce water flows in other parts of the Deschutes River, be costly, and be less reliable than a dual-source system. The EA also flagged possible environmental concerns posed by the groundwater-only option, including reduced surface stream flows (which are fed by groundwater) and increased energy consumption caused by pumping groundwater. This discussion was sufficient.

A dual source water system is the dream of every municipal water planner.  That redundancy is insurance against natural or human-caused catastrophes that could disable one source.  And all water users need to be able to rely on the priority of water rights under the law.  That the Forest Service and the Ninth Circuit declined to upset the City’s long-term water planning is a victory for municipal water planners everywhere.

H.R. 23: A VERY BAD FEDERAL WATER LAW BILL—AND A WORSE PRECEDENT

Posted on August 24, 2017 by Richard M. Frank

H.R. 23 is an important and most unfortunate environmental bill currently working its way through the U.S. Congress.  Sponsored by California Republican Congressman David Valadeo—with a strong assist from House Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy—H.R. 23 passed the House of Representatives last month on what was largely a party-line vote, 230-190.  It has now moved to the U.S. Senate.

This California-specific legislation would “reform” federal and California state water and environmental laws in order to provide more water from federal and state water projects in California to state agricultural interests in the state’s Central Valley.  H.R. 23 would do so at the expense of environmental values.  (That’s not mere interpretation or speculation on the part of this observer—it’s the express intent of the bill.)

Why, exactly, is H.R. 23--which has largely evaded public and media attention to date--such a flawed legislative proposal?  Let me count the ways:

First, it would reverse an over century-long tradition of federal deference to state water law regarding the construction and operation of federal water projects.  Congress made that commitment in the Reclamation Act of 1902, which transformed the settlement and economy of the American West.  Congress has reiterated this commitment to cooperative federalism in numerous subsequent federal statutes.  But H.R. 23 reneges on that promise, expressly preventing California state water regulators from imposing any restrictions on the federal Central Valley Project that would protect environmental values.

Doubling down on its preemptive effect, H.R. 23 expressly exempts the CVP (and those who obtain water from it) from application of California’s public trust doctrine, which—as is true of many other states—operates as a longstanding, cornerstone principle of California natural resources law.

Additionally, H.R. 23 brazenly exempts operation of the CVP and other California water projects from the federal Endangered Species Act “or any other law” pertaining to those operations.

H.R. 23 thus is terrible news for California’s environment.  But why should environmental attorneys from other states be concerned about the bill?

The answer is again multifaceted.  H.R. 23 represents the first serious Congressional effort of 2017 to weaken application of the Endangered Species Act.  The broad ESA exemption contained in H.R. 23 could easily be replicated in future federal legislation affecting federal, state or local projects in other parts of the country.

Similarly, if the longstanding tradition of federal deference to application of state water law is breached by passage of H.R. 23, rest assured that similar attempts will be made concerning similar projects in other states as well.

H.R. 23 is opposed by both of California’s U.S. Senators, along with California Governor Jerry Brown.  Even more notably, California’s largest water district—the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California—has signaled its opposition to the bill, declaring that it “goes too far” in elevating agricultural water interests over California’s environment.

H.R. 23: an awful bill for California, and a terrible precedent for the nation as a whole.

The Takings Line is Bent

Posted on June 26, 2017 by Brian Rosenthal

In an expansive review of regulatory takings, the Supreme Court reiterates governments must pay when overly impinging individual property rights by regulatory means, resulting in compensable takings.  The Court announces a flexible approach to analyze the private party’s parcel deemed taken by regulatory action (past or present).  Particularly, but not exclusively, when more than one parcel is involved as was the case before the Court, a new test emerges to define the taken parcel. The test includes consideration of the landowner’s expectations.  

The dissenters believe the Court for the first time strays away from its precedential findings on the whole parcel in issue as defined under state law, and predict the new multi-factor parcel review test will “tip the scales in favor of the government” for uncompensated takings by allowing the government to frame the taking as reasonable as it relates to the defined parcel and burden.

The majority is equally passionate, noting its test mitigates against the government’s unchecked usurpation and sometimes over-eager use of private property rights in the guise of the greater good.  The Court suggests “[p]roperty rights are necessary to preserve freedom” and supports its test as best suited for that protection.

The case involved a state’s restricting the development of lots on a protected river to those of a certain size, and resulted from unique circumstances where the property owners had come into possession of adjacent lots, each individually failing the development requirement.  Analyzing the facts under a multi-step review, the Court found the lots retained their economic value as a whole and supported a “no compensable taking” finding by looking at the following factors:

  1. No complete loss of economic value [might be non-compensable even if a complete loss where state property and nuisance laws would be deemed legitimately and commonly understood as a fair counterbalance to the regulatory taking (perhaps like wetlands restrictions)];

  2. Land treatment under governing state and local real estate law (how and where bounded);

  3. Physical characteristics (including topography and both its human and ecological features, such as if it were a coastal property or, as  here, a scenic river);

  4. Value (including any opportunities the burden may create, such as preserving a vista or greenspace or relationship of the lots); and

  5. Reasonable expectations of the landowners.

This case has been closely watched by both land use practitioners and regulating governments and municipalities.  Its implications reach squarely to environmental laws and regulations such as water regulations and use and development restrictions.

Public Parks in Massachusetts – Here Today, Gone Tomorrow?

Posted on March 10, 2017 by Mary Ryan

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) will soon decide how hard or easy it is to sell or change the use of public parks. Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution provides that the “people shall have the right to clean air and water . . . and the natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic qualities of the environment” and protects “the people in their right to the conservation, development and utilization of the agricultural, mineral, forest, water, air and other natural resources  . . . .” Under Article 97, any change in use or disposal of lands taken or acquired to protect such rights requires a two-thirds vote of the state legislature.

In its most recent pronouncement on Article 97, the SJC held that it did not apply to block the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) from building a waterview restaurant and bar at the end of Long Wharf in Boston Harbor. Project opponents argued that the land was subject to Article 97 and that issuance of a key development permit was a use or disposition requiring a two-thirds legislative vote.

The BRA took the land by eminent domain in 1970 pursuant to an urban renewal plan which had, as one of fifteen goals, providing “public ways, parks and plaza which encourage the pedestrian to enjoy the harbor and its activities.” While this goal is consistent with Article 97, it is also incidental to the overall goal of urban renewal; thus, the land was not taken for Article 97 purposes. Nor did the SJC find any subsequent evidence that the land was later designated for those purposes, with the SJC strongly suggesting that only a recorded restriction would be sufficient to do so. That would have put everyone on notice that Article 97 applied and legislative action was necessary for a change of use. The SJC did note in dicta that in some cases, “the ultimate use to which the land is put may provide the best evidence of the purposes of the taking. . . .”

Fast-forwarding to 2016, the City of Westfield so far has prevailed in its efforts to use a playground as the site for a new school building, without a legislative vote approving the change in use. This is a fairly typical example of how the issue often arises in cities and towns strapped for cash or available land. The City acquired the land by tax forfeiture in 1939 and dedicated it for use as a playground through a City ordinance in 1957. And in 2010, the City endorsed an open space and recreation plan that included the playground as open space. But no formal Article 97 designation or restriction was ever recorded. The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled in favor of the City, but there was a concurring opinion from one of the members of the three judge panel (coincidentally the former head of the Environmental Protection Division of the Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General). While constrained to follow SJC precedent, Justice Milkey noted that often there is a murky past on how public land came to be used for parks or other recreational use and that requiring an instrument of record “threatens to reduce art. 97 to near irrelevancy. . . .”

The SJC granted further appellate review and will hear the case in April. Amicus briefs were requested and many are expected. There is considerable interest in the outcome of the case, including from the Attorney General’s Office, municipalities and conservation groups. 

PS:  As it happens, there won’t be a restaurant and bar at the end of Long Wharf anytime soon, at least according to the latest word from the courts. As part of the urban renewal development in the 1960s and 1970s, the BRA used federal funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to acquire a certain portion of Long Wharf. Land acquired or developed with LWCF money may not be converted from public outdoor recreational use without National Park Service (NPS) permission. After the SJC decision, with the help of a tip from two former employees, NPS found a map showing the restaurant would be on the parcel acquired with LWCF money. The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled against the BRA, hoping to end the “long war for Long Wharf.”

Coincidentally, LWCF money, channeled through a state program which provided that use of LWCF money triggers Article 97, was used to improve the Westfield playground in 1979. But the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that the state agency restriction was trumped by the SJC interpretation of the Massachusetts constitution. This is yet another issue in the pending appeal.

President Theodore Roosevelt: A Conservative for All Seasons

Posted on March 8, 2017 by Irma S. Russell

The debate on whether President Theodore Roosevelt was a conservative or a progressive experienced a recent uptick.  One example of the debate is the reception to Daniel Ruddy's new book, Theodore the Great: Conservative Crusader.  In Theodore the Great, Ruddy documents the Roosevelt presidency’s conservation achievements, including efforts to protect the Grand Canyon and other national wonders from exploitation.  Like most presidents since his time, Theodore Roosevelt had a goal of making America great.  His philosophy centered on increasing the political power of the American people and limiting the build-up of the “invisible government” of party bosses, corporate trusts, and corporate lobbyists.  President Roosevelt championed reforms that limited corporate interests and conserved public lands for future generations.  The book’s website indicates that TR “obfuscated his own legacy with populist speeches” and promises that the book’s focus on Roosevelt’s actions “clears the cobwebs and presents a real and convincing case for remembering Theodore Roosevelt as a great conservative leader.”  I am persuaded of this point without reading the book.

The term “conservative” is capacious and has many dimensions, and the model of Roosevelt as a conservative is thoroughly convincing.  The U.S. National Parks website presents the evidence of President Roosevelt’s legacy.  Among other things, he created 51 federal bird reserves that have now evolved into national wildlife refuges in every state.  But of even greater importance, he established the U.S. Forest Service in 1905 and set aside 230 million acres of public lands, with over 150 million acres of that designated as national forests.  The success and public acceptance of the Forest Service was laid out for the ACOEL by Timothy Egan in a presentation to our members about his book, The Big Burn, which chronicled the birth of the agency within the Department of Agriculture and the public’s acceptance of its value after a 1910 fire in Montana and Idaho claimed lives as well as acres of forest. Roosevelt and the USFS insured the future of our forests – both for commercial and for recreational use. As an advocate for the American people, Roosevelt worked to insure the sustainability of those resources. 

Today, conservatives seem to be taking a markedly different approach to conservation and public lands.  Last week Ryan Zinke was confirmed by the Senate as Secretary of the Interior, the principal manager of public lands.  Zinke, the former Montana representative has been compared to President Roosevelt and praised as a Roosevelt conservative.  Last fall, he resigned his position as a delegate to the Republican National Convention in protest to proposals to transfer federal lands to states and private entities. 

More recently, however, Zinke has changed his approach to the preservation of public lands.  Before vacating his seat in the House of Representatives to accept the top position in the DOI, he voted in favor of a bill that facilitates the transfer of large tracts of western state federal public lands to states, local governments and private entities.  Such transfers of federal public lands will enrich the new owners by millions if not billions of dollars in valuable land and the natural resources on the lands. 

Even if the transfers were made for a fair market price and assuming the uses of the land were to remain the same (with the same park rangers and the same memorial markers), there would be adverse consequences.  The legacy, access, and pride in the public treasures would be forever altered.  Disposing of public lands will take these assets from America and Americans to enrich commercial or state interests.  This will impoverish the country both fiscally and by severing the relationship of ordinary Americans with the lands they revere.  Such transfers may also limit public access and will inevitably deprive the country of the value of natural resources on the public lands and reduce the national security – an important rational for the creation of public lands. 

National forests, wildlife refuges and other lands provide a national conservation and recreation system like none other.  Transferring these assets from the public to other interests is a loss to America no matter what form is used for the disposition.  Private interests focused on the corporate bottom line will inevitably exploit such holdings for profit.  As corporate spokesmen often explain, the responsibilities of their corporations are to their shareholders, not the general public.  Ordinary Americans might have the ability to hike, camp, and hunt and fish, but such access is not insured, and the nature of the access would be far different if our citizens become ticket-holders to private attractions. 

The collective holdings of the nation’s public lands protect access for all to the most inspiring areas on earth.  Debating what label best describes President Roosevelt’s brand of conservative principles or conservationist zeal is trivial in comparison to the serious issue of preserving America’s heritage in public’s lands.  Even from a purely economic perspective, selling public lands would be the worst deal in history. 

Bears Ears Monument Designation Was the Right Decision at the Right Time

Posted on January 24, 2017 by Zach C. Miller

On December 28, 2016, President Obama by Proclamation under the federal Antiquities Act designated 1.35 million acres of federal lands in southeastern Utah as the Bears Ears National Monument.  That action culminated nearly a century of efforts to protect this unique, canyon-country site, which is archaeologically rich, ecologically diverse, and the ancestral homeland of a number of southwestern Indian tribes.

Immediately after this designation, the Utah governor and congressional delegation, some local officials, and various conservative pundits railed that the designation was an illegal and inappropriate “federal land grab,” was done without proper public input, will unduly impede traditional tribal and local activities, and can and should promptly be reversed and rescinded by the incoming Trump Administration.

Each of those claims has no factual or legal merit.  The most recent Bears Ears proposal was initiated several years ago by local Navajo leaders and formally endorsed by the Navajo Nation and four other tribes whose ancestors inhabited this area, as well as other local and national Indian and conservation groups.  It has been thoroughly vetted for several years and was the subject of a number of public meetings throughout 2016, including several local meetings attended by Interior Secretary Jewell.  As a result of that extensive public input, the Obama administration excluded over 600,000 acres of initially-proposed lands that contain oil and gas leases, existing and prospective uranium mining sites, limestone quarries, grazing areas, local water supply watersheds, and other objected-to areas.  The designation also expressly protects all valid existing rights, preserves access by Native Americans for traditional uses such as sacred ceremonies and gathering plants and firewood, and creates an Advisory Committee of state, local, and tribal representatives and private landowners to provide information and advice to BLM and the U.S. Forest Service in their joint administration of the monument and development of appropriate management and transportation plans.  As a result, the principal existing activities that will be restricted within the designated Monument are the ongoing illegal theft and vandalism of federal and tribal archaeological sites.

The Proclamation also uniquely creates a Bears Ears Commission consisting of an official from each of the five Native American tribes with historic ties to the area, to provide guidance and recommendations on the management of the Monument and related plans.  This is the first, and long-overdue, instance of Native American tribes being directly involved in coordinating with federal agencies to manage a monument that protects sacred sites on their ancestral homelands.

Regarding whether this action is a proper use of the Antiquities Act, it is widely acknowledged that this area contains one of the densest and most significant concentrations of archaeological and paleontological sites and specimens in North America.  It is also uncontroverted that historic sites in the area have been extensively looted and vandalized over the last century.  The FBI has conducted major enforcement actions against illegal “pot-hunters” in this area, including as recently as 1986 and 2009.  Complaints that state and local officials can better protect against such theft and vandalism ignore that most illegal pot-hunters have been local denizens and that, until fairly recently, the University of Utah museum was a major purchaser of the pilfered artifacts.  Providing federal protection to these highly-jeopardized antiquities on federal public lands is precisely what the Antiquities Act was designed and intended to do.  Far from being improper, this protective measure is long overdue.

In terms of timing and process, the Administration waited patiently until a long-pending legislative alternative proposal to protect the area failed in Congress.  That bill, introduced by Utah Congressman R. Bishop and dubbed the Public Lands Initiative (PLI), would have put 1.4 million acres into two National Conservation Areas (NCAs) and a separate wilderness area, but it provided less protection and increased state and local control over uses in the NCAs, with no direct tribal involvement.  But that bill failed to move through Congress before it adjourned.  In addition to waiting for completion of that legislative process, by reducing the monument designation from the initially proposed 1.9 to the final 1.35 million acres, the Obama Administration also largely aligned the boundaries of the final monument designation with those of the failed PLI proposal and excluded the central areas of objection.

Regarding the proposal for the incoming Trump Administration to administratively rescind this designation, there is no legal authority for the President to do so.  The Antiquities Act authorizes a President to designate an area as a national monument on federal lands when necessary to protect the appropriate sites and resources.  It does not authorize a President to rescind a designation made by some predecessor, and no President has ever done so in the 111-year history of the Act.  The Attorney General in 1938 formally opined that the Act does not provide for such rescission, and nothing has changed that would alter that conclusion.  The Congressional Research Service recently confirmed the absence of any such authority or precedent.  Republican Party members would also do well to recall that the Antiquities Act was signed in 1906 by its own conservation hero, Teddy Roosevelt, who used it to designate 18 monuments in three years, seven of which later became popular national parks, including at the Grand Canyon.  All but three presidents since that time have done the same.  As was the case with all those actions by Teddy and others, after all the immediately-following outrage and uproar, this measured Bears Ears designation will no doubt later be acknowledged as a brave, innovative, and critical action to protect this long-vandalized and currently-threatened area.

In sum, the recent designation of the Bears Ears Monument was the right decision at the right time for the right reasons, and there is no legal basis to rescind or restrict it without an act of Congress.  The incoming Administration and Congress should not heed recent partisan, emotional calls to try to undo it and should instead work with the new tribal Commission and all affected stakeholders to develop a fair and appropriate management plan for the new Monument.

The California Supreme Court Hoovers Up More Pieces of the Mining Law of 1872

Posted on September 1, 2016 by James Holtkamp

Once both a paradigm of brevity in the federal code and a fertile source of work for generations of mining lawyers, the Mining Law of 1872 has been picked away at (pun intended) for many years. The romance of throwing a pack and a pick on a mule, nailing an old tobacco tin to a post with a location notice, and wresting riches from your very own mining claim is largely gone. The restrictions in federal and state law on surface disturbances from mining have made operations by individuals on mining claims more anachronistic than ever.

On August 22, 2016, the California Supreme Court knocked off another big chunk when it unanimously held that California’s ban on suction mining for gold is not preempted by the Mining Law. People v. Rinehart, No. S222620 (Aug. 22, 2016). Mr. Rinehart was convicted of engaging in suction dredge mining for gold on his mining claim in violation of a moratorium on the practice imposed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Not surprisingly, the department found that suction dredge mining has significant adverse impacts on water quality, protected species, and the environment generally.

Rinehart went ahead with suction dredge mining anyway, and when charged criminally, argued that the Mining Law preempted any state laws that would restrict his right to mine on his mining claim. He was convicted, but the California Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, agreeing with Rinehart that the Mining Law preempts any state restriction on mining on a mining claim.

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, explaining in great detail how the Mining Law was not intended to allow mining without regard to the application of state police power on a duly located mining claim, notwithstanding that the purpose of the law is to facilitate the development of mining on public lands. The court relied heavily on precedents going back over a century, including a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions holding that in order to displace the application of state law on federal lands, Congress must act affirmatively. The court was doubtless influenced by an extensive amicus brief filed by the United States, which agreed that the state’s moratorium was not preempted by the Mining Law.

The California decision is not surprising given the increased emphasis on state and federal regulation of the environmental impacts of mining operations, which began with the major environmental legislation of the 1970s. For example, many years ago the BLM and Forest Service issued regulations requiring permits for surface disturbances on unpatented mining claims. The federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act and the various state programs operating under delegation from that statute also regulate surface impacts of mining operations. Other environmental laws, including federal and state clean water statutes, air quality laws, and waste management requirements have been applied to mining operations without regard to whether the right to mine is based on fee simple ownership, leasehold interests, or unpatented mining claims.

Opponents of the Mining Law view the law as an anachronistic give-away of federal resources but have not succeeded in repealing it. But environmental regulations such as the suction dredge mining moratorium in California and increasingly insurmountable economic challenges in operating a small mining operation are slowly strangling the Mining Law. It is death by a thousand . . . picks.

Perspectives of Twenty-four Pioneers on the Past and Future of Environmental Law

Posted on June 16, 2016 by Leslie Carothers

On Earth Day 2016, the Environmental Law Institute presented to the public a collection of 24 videotaped interviews conducted over the past five years to record the career experiences of many pioneers of environmental law.  The men and women profiled were active in the environmental movement in the sixties and early seventies.  They served as Democratic and Republican legislators, organizers and advocates for public interest organizations, administrators of national and state environmental agencies, academics producing new ideas and educating new lawyers, and legal counsel to business and government agencies contending with a host of new environmental laws.   ELI’s interviewers wanted to learn why these pioneers chose to enter the field of environmental law, what they see as its major successes and shortcomings, and how they view the health of environmental activism and public commitment today.

Among other things, the oral histories provide interesting insight into the roots of activism for early environmental lawyers and what different life experiences and motivations may influence today’s new environmental lawyers.  Practically every pioneer spoke of enjoyment of nature and the out of doors experienced through growing up on a farm or in rural areas or visiting campsites and parks on family vacations and scouting trips.  They witnessed both the beauty and the degradation of natural and scenic resources and were inspired to seek ways to protect them.  The other factor mentioned most often was the example and energy of other social movements in the sixties and seventies, first and foremost the civil rights struggle.  Personal experience and the climate of social activism combined to motivate many environmental pioneers to become leaders in the new environmental movement. 

Most of the pioneers express optimism that new generations of young women and men will take up activism and environmental law to attack today’s agenda of complex and serious problems.   But many worry that the communications technology building young people’s impressive expertise may also be keeping them glued to their screens and disconnected from the natural world.  Robert Stanton, former Director of the National Park Service and the first African American to hold the position, comments in his interview that we should not be unduly critical of young people who spend so much time inside.  He observes that when he was growing up, there were only a few black and white TV channels to compete with going outdoors!   Still, a lifelong activist like Gloria Steinem believes that excessive dependence on electronic connections can weaken the interpersonal qualities of empathy that depend on face-to-face communication and can dilute the emotional drivers for action in concert with others.  Activism means more than making a statement and pressing “send.”    The impact of technology is just one of many issues discussed in an engaging set of interviews available to all.  Visit ELI’s website at http://www.eli.org/celebrating-pioneers-in-environmental-law for a unique source of perspective on the evolution of environmental law and the prospects for further progress on pressing problems in today’s very different social and political setting.

Looking Back Over 100 Years of the National Park Service, Looking Ahead to the Future of Environmental Law

Posted on May 20, 2016 by Benjamin F. Wilson

August 25, 2016 is the 100th anniversary of the National Park Service.  The many planned celebrations and observances provide an opportunity for everyone to become reacquainted with these great outdoor spaces and reflect on the world around us.  As your summer plans take shape, be sure to visit FindYourPark.com and try to visit at least one national park.  I invite you to share photos of your travels in the comments section of this post, and perhaps ACOEL can find a place for the collection of images of its members enjoying these national treasures.

As I reflect on the Park Service’s anniversary, I observe that it presents a chance for me – and for all environmental lawyers – to take stock of where we have been as a profession.  Why – and how – we do what we do?  What challenges will the next 100 years hold?

I issue this charge, in part, to carry on the conservation legacy of Henry L. Diamond.  Henry was a founder of my firm, Beveridge & Diamond, and a great environmental lawyer and mentor to many (including myself).  Sadly, we lost Henry earlier this year.

Henry and many others like him paved the way for our generation to be stewards of the planet and the environmental laws that govern our interactions with it.  We have made progress, but new challenges have emerged.  Easy answers, if they ever existed, are fewer and farther between.  So what, then, does the future hold for the next generation of environmental lawyers? 

Future generations of lawyers would do well to focus on the funding mechanisms that are critical but often overlooked components to achieving our most important environmental and sustainability goals.  As an example, we can look to the past.  Early in his career, Henry Diamond assisted the Chairman of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Laurance Rockefeller, in editing the Commission’s seminal report, Outdoor Recreation for America, that was delivered to President John F. Kennedy in 1962.  Among the Commission’s more significant recommendations was the idea to use revenues from oil and gas leasing to pay for the acquisition and conservation of public lands.  Congress took action on this recommendation, creating the Land & Water Conservation Fund in 1965 as the primary funding vehicle for acquiring land for parks and national wildlife refuges.  While the fund has been by all accounts a success in achieving its goals, much work remains to be done and the fund is regularly the target of budgetary battles and attempts to reallocate its resources to other priorities.  Today, the four federal land management agencies estimate the accumulated backlog of deferred federal acquisition needs is around $30 billion. 

I expect climate change will dominate the agenda for the young lawyers of our current era.  They will need to tackle challenges not only relating to controlling emissions of greenhouse gases, but also adaptation resulting from climate change.  Sea level rise, altered agricultural growing seasons, drought and water management, and other issues will increase in prominence for this next generation.

We can expect our infrastructure needs to continue to evolve – not only replacing aging roads, bridges, tunnels, railroads, ports, and airports, but also the move to urban centers and the redevelopment of former industrial properties.  Autonomous vehicles and drones also pose novel environmental and land use issues.  These trends will require us to apply “old” environmental tools in new ways, and certainly to innovate.  As my colleague Fred Wagner recently observed on his EnviroStructure blog, laws often lag developments, with benefits and detractions.  Hopefully the environmental lawyers of the future will not see – or be seen – as a discrete area of practice so much as an integrated resource for planners and other professions.  Only in this way can the environmental bar forge new solutions to emerging challenges.

The global production and movement of products creates issues throughout the supply chain, some of which are just coming to the fore.  From raw material sourcing through product end-of-life considerations, environmental, natural resource, human rights, and cultural issues necessitate an environmental bar that can nimbly balance progress with protection.  As sustainability continues its evolution from an abstract ideal to something that is ever more firmly imbedded in every aspect of business, products, services, construction, policymaking and more, environmental lawyers need to stay with their counterparts in other sectors that are setting new standards and definitions.  This area in particular is one in which non-governmental organizations and industry leaders often “set the market,” with major consequences for individuals, businesses, and the planet.

Finally, as technology moves ever faster, so do the tools with which to observe our environment, to share information about potential environmental risks, and to mobilize in response.  With limited resources, government enforcers are already taking a page from the playbooks of environmental activists, who themselves are bringing new pressures for disclosures and changes to companies worldwide.  With every trend noted above, companies must not underestimate the power of individual consumers in the age of instantaneous global communication, when even one or two individuals can alter the plans and policies of government and industry.

Before Henry Diamond passed away, he penned an eloquent call to action that appeared in the March/April edition of the Environmental Law Institute’s Environmental Forum (“Lessons Learned for Today”)I commend that article to you.  It shares the story of the 1965 White House Conference on Natural Beauty and how a diverse and committed group of businesspeople, policymakers, and conservationists (some of whom were all of those things) at that event influenced the evolution of environmental law and regulation for the decades to come.  Laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and others have their roots in that Conference.  In recognition of his lifetime of leadership, Henry received the ELI Environmental Achievement Award in October 2015.  The tribute video shown during the award ceremony underscores Henry’s vision and commitment to advancing environmental law.  I hope it may inspire ACOEL members and others to follow Henry’s lead.

These are just a few things I think the future holds for environmental lawyers.  What trends do you predict?  How should the environmental bar and ACOEL respond?  

Contracting for Original and Renewal of Pipeline Right-of-Ways on Tribal and Allottee Lands

Posted on February 24, 2016 by Tom Sansonetti

The Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has promulgated new regulations involving the original procurement and renewal of Right-of-Ways (ROW) on tribal and allottee lands which take effect on March 22, 2016. These new rules will replace those in place since 1947, creating a series of significant problems. This post lists the problems and suggests a legislative solution.

1) Majority Consent of Life Estate Heirs is Needed for ROW to be Granted or Renewed

The new rules limit the length of a ROW to 20 years. The ROWs are not subject to state or local laws, and the new rules impose consent and approval requirements that do not appear in the current regulations. Under the current law, voluntary agreements could be struck between tribes, allottees, and a company, so long as the BIA Regional Director approved the deal. The BIA would approve if a majority of the allottee landowners consented and the amounts of money paid for the ROW were not less than the fair market value (FMV) of the allotment parcel. Under the new rules, however, the company must obtain a majority consent for the original ROW or renewal thereof, not only from the living life estate allottees, but from their heirs as well. This presents a huge obstacle, as companies will now have to find each of the heirs and then attempt to bargain with them individually. Under the current rules, if agreement could not be reached, then the company was free to use a 1907 statute to condemn the allottee land but never the tribal land.

2) Life Estate Holders Can Withdraw Previously Granted Consents

In two separate New Mexico ROW cases involving Western Refining’s pipeline and Public Service of New Mexico’s (PNM) overhead wires, the companies both originally obtained the written consent of a majority of the life estate holders who were paid fair market value for their consent. However, upon the BIA Regional Director finding a lack of a majority of heirs consenting, certain life estate holders informed the BIA that they were “unconsenting” in order to hold out for better compensation, even though they had cashed the original checks. Because the BIA allowed the holdouts’ action of “unconsenting” to stand, the companies lost their majority consent of life estate holders. Attorneys for the life estate holders are now suing PNM for trespass in federal court in Albuquerque.

3) Fair Market Value Has Become a Floor in Negotiations Rather Than an Appraisal Standard

Since the 1947 statute came into existence, the fair market value (FMV), as determined by BIA-qualified appraisers, of the allotment acreage to be crossed by the pipeline served as the negotiation basis between the company and individual allottees. The allottees, knowing that their land could be condemned under the 1907 statute dealing with ROWs, often bargained for a payment that was two or three times FMV. However, under the new regulations, FMV is a starting point, non-binding and irrelevant to an allottee who believes that the sky is the limit when dealing with large corporations.

4) The Condemnation Alternative is Under Attack Due to Tribal Ownership of Undivided Interests in Allotments

In the Public Service of New Mexico federal district court litigation, PNM sued the allottees of several allotments under the New Mexico condemnation statutes after failing to obtain the consent of a majority of life estate heirs for a 20-year renewal. The federal judge dismissed the condemnation lawsuit, because recently deceased allottees left their interests to the Navajo Nation. Even though those interests amounted to less than 1% of the entire allotment, the court labeled that interest tribal land, recognized the Navajo Nation’s sovereign immunity from suit, declared the Navajo Nation an indispensable party, and dismissed the lawsuit. PNM is appealing the dismissal to the Tenth Circuit. Without the ability to condemn, pipelines will be left only with choice of either paying ransom under the 1947 statute or facing allottee trespass actions.

Western Refining has also filed a condemnation suit against the unconsenting allottees under the New Mexico condemnation statutes. The case is before a different judge than the PNM case and is currently stayed pending a decision from the Interior Board of Indian Appeals on the majority consent of heirs issue.

The best solution to the four problems above requires the active involvement of the Legislative Branch.

Utilizing its plenary authority concerning tribal issues, Congress should pass amendments to the 1907 and 1947 statutes or create new legislation supplanting the current law that:

  1. Eliminates the need for heirs to consent
  2. Eliminates the ability of consenters to unconsent once consideration is paid
  3. Re-establishes the sufficiency of fair market value as the basis for the compensation to be paid
  4. Guarantees the right of pipeline owners to condemn allottee land regardless of partial tribal ownership

Nothing less than the free flow of energy-oriented interstate commerce is at stake. 

Ninth Circuit to federal land trespassers: Fuggedaboutit

Posted on February 2, 2016 by Theodore Garrett

Tensions ran high in eastern Oregon in early January 2016 as an armed group seized the headquarters of a national wildlife refuge. The occupation began as a protest of the sentencing of ranchers who were convicted of arson on federal lands in Oregon. The occupation subsequently became a rally for opening federal public lands to all. Entering the fray, albeit indirectly, the Ninth Circuit in its January 15, 2016 decision in United States v. Hage, held that defendants’ unauthorized grazing of cattle on federal lands in Nevada was unlawful. Contrary to the views of the Oregon occupiers that they are defending the Constitution, the Ninth Circuit held that grazing cattle without a grazing permit violated federal statutes as well as the state law of trespass, noting that a grazing permit is “a revocable privilege” and is not a “property right.” The Ninth Circuit rejected the district court’s ruling that the government cannot claim trespass if the cattle stayed within a reasonable distance of a source to which defendants had water rights. Concluding that the district judge “harbored animus toward the federal agencies,” the Ninth Circuit requested the Chief Judge of the Northern District of Nevada to assign the case to a different judge on remand. Meanwhile, back in Oregon, several of the protesters have been arrested. One was killed. 

What’s Historic Preservation Got to Do With Environmental Law?

Posted on December 7, 2015 by John A. McKinney Jr

To answer the question posed above - in New Jersey, plenty!  Under several New Jersey environmental statutes regulating, inter alia, development, the least that can happen if historic preservation issues are overlooked is a delay of the project.  The worst is a criminal indictment of the developer and/or its consultants.

Regulations implementing the Coastal Area Facility Review Act (N.J.S.A. 13:19-1 et seq.), the Waterfront Development Law (N.J.S.A. 12:5-3), the Wetlands Act of 1970 (N.J.S.A. 13:19-1 et seq.)  and the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act (N.J.S.A. 58:10A-1 et seq.) in effect require a historic preservation analysis in order to obtain approvals.  Using as an example the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act Rules, (N.J.A.C. 7:7A-4.3(b)5), an applicant must first determine if the property to be developed and the surrounding properties that may be adversely affected are listed on the New Jersey or the National Register of Historic Places listed or are eligible for listing.  “Adversely affected” can be as little as compromising the view from a neighboring property.

            Anyone can look at the registers of historic places to see if a property is listed.  More often, properties are not so listed.  But an analysis cannot stop there, since an applicant must determine if the property is “eligible for listing”.  That often takes an analysis, not by an environmental engineer, but by a “cultural resources consultant” working with the developer’s counsel.  Determining if a property is eligible for listing is more of an art than an engineering analysis, as illustrated by the following highly subjective criteria for evaluation which are set forth in rules implementing the New Jersey Register of Historic Places Act (N.J.A.C. 7:4-2.3(a)(1)):

Criteria for Evaluation:  The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:

(Criterion A) That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or

(Criterion B) That are associated with the lives of significant persons in our past; or

(Criterion C) That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

(Criterion D) That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.

As you can see from reading the criteria above, concluding that a property is or is not eligible for listing is a whole lot harder than determining if it is within a specific distance from the middle of a stream or from the edge of a wetland.  However, failure to make the determination correctly can result in significant delays and penalties. 

The upshot?  Before the applicant can obtain the necessary state approval, the applicant must demonstrate that an unlisted property is or is not eligible for listing.  That in itself can be a resource intensive effort. If it is eligible, the lawyer’s and cultural resource consultant’s real work is just beginning.  Describing that work and the legal issues arising from it may be the subject for a future blog post. 

Presidential Directive Mandates Expansive and Likely Unlawful No Net Loss Compensatory Mitigation Requirement for Most Federal Development Permitting

Posted on November 12, 2015 by Jeffrey Lepo

 

On November 3, 2015, President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum establishing policies that are a significant departure from existing practice regarding compensatory mitigation for effects to natural resources from most federally approved projects.  The Memorandum, entitled “Mitigating Impacts on Natural Resources from Development and Encouraging Private Investment,” applies to all permits and authorizations issued by the Department of Defense (e.g., the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), the Department of Agriculture (e.g., the Forest Service), the Department of Interior (e.g., BLM, USFWS, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, etc.), EPA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration  (e.g., National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) ), including actions taken by USFWS and NMFS pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.  Although it cannot be known today how the new policies will ultimately be implemented, the Memorandum is, at least as written, both anti-development and potentially draconian. 

 

The new Memorandum states that it is establishing certain policies premised upon “a moral obligation to the next generation to leave America’s natural resources in better condition than when we inherited them.”  In furtherance of this moral obligation, the President has established it to be the policy of the identified federal bodies (and all bureaus and agencies within them):

 

·         To avoid and to minimize harmful effects to land, water, wildlife and other ecological resources (natural resources), and to require compensatory mitigation for, the projects they approve.

 

·         To establish a net benefit goal or, at a minimum, a no net loss goal for mitigation of the natural resources each agency manages that are important, scarce or sensitive.

 

·         To give preference to advance compensation mechanisms in establishing compensatory mitigation.  “Advance compensation” is defined to mean a form of compensatory mitigation for which measurable environmental benefits (defined by performance standards) are achieved before a given project’s harmful impacts to natural resources occur.  This policy preference appears to somehow contemplate that compensatory mitigation will be achieved before the project is constructed and operated.

 

·         To use large-scale plans to identify areas where development is most appropriate, where natural resource values are irreplaceable and development policies should require avoidance, and where high natural resources values result in the best locations for protection and restoration.

 

The Memorandum also establishes certain deadlines for action, principally by the agencies of the Department of Interior (e.g., one year deadline for BLM to “finalize a mitigation policy that will bring consistency to the . . . application of avoidance, minimization and compensatory actions [f]or development activities and projects impacting public lands and resources.”; one year deadline for USFWS to finalize compensatory mitigation policy applicable to its Endangered Species Act responsibilities).

 

Some federal laws (e.g., Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting for filling of waters of the United States) already have well-developed compensatory mitigation programs; however, most federal permitting schemes have not been interpreted or implemented to authorize or require compensatory mitigation, let alone at no net loss or net benefit levels.  Accordingly, to the extent that the Memorandum is intended to require net benefit or no net loss compensatory mitigation through many/most federal permitting programs, such a directive would be a significant departure from existing practice, of untested legality, and arguably contrary to existing law.

 

Moreover, to demonstrate that compensation has occurred at a net benefit or no net loss, unless the adverse effects are offset through generation or preservation of in-kind resources (e.g., a duck for a duck), the “damage” to affected natural resources must first be valued.  Accordingly, if implemented so that compensatory mitigation is broadly required, the policy could lead to an extensive, time consuming and complicated valuation process.  One worst case scenario would be for this policy to result in some form of new natural resources damages assessment, the time and expense for which would be challenging to rationalize in the context of a development proposal where cost and time are relevant (i.e., for every development project).

 

Unless the Memorandum is rescinded or feebly implemented, or its implementation is held unlawful, it has significant strategic, permitting, legal and financial implications for many, if not most, major development projects.  Of course, it is likely to be difficult or impossible to challenge the new policies established in the Memorandum, except on a project-by-project permit-by-permit basis.  As such, the pressure for project proponents to navigate (rather than litigate) the new policies will be substantial. 

Now Driving Urban Design — Driverless Vehicles

Posted on August 26, 2015 by Robert Uram

Autonomous vehicles will almost certainly supplant people-driven vehicles, the horse-and-buggies of the 21st century. Given the pace of technological change, that day is closer than you may think.

As recently as 2004, the Department of Defense’s research arm sponsored a race for self-driving vehicles over a 142-mile desert course. That year, 15 self-driving vehicles entered the race, but none made it to the finish line. The following year, four autonomous vehicles successfully completed a 132-mile desert route within the required 10-hour limit. A short 10 years later, Google’s autonomous cars have traveled nearly 2 million miles and its cars legally drive the roads of Mountain View. Testing centers for autonomous vehicles have been established in Michigan, Sweden and Japan.

Our land-use planning and zoning regimes, however, are tailored to meeting the needs of driven cars. Land-use plans and standards will need to be changed to maximize the benefits of shifts from the two-car family to the shared-driverless-car community. As many people as possible need to share his or her vision of the future as part of this process for change.

Planning rules for housing, stores and offices require parking areas. Roads and streets are sized to accommodate a flow of traffic based on models of driven cars. The needs of cars dominate cities and suburbs, and have done so for decades. Everywhere you look you see vehicles: Not just the hordes of cars moving on streets and highways, but the endless rows of cars parked at the curbs and road shoulders, and vast parking lots that envelop shopping centers, business parks, sports stadiums and other destinations. In some cities, parking makes up a quarter of the land use.

As autonomous vehicles begin displacing the ones requiring a human at the wheel, people will no longer need to keep a car parked near where they live. The parking space will no longer be a valued office perk. Parking areas around shopping centers and stadiums will begin to disappear because autonomous cars can be stored (or used) elsewhere and just come to pick up the passengers when needed. Our land-use standards do not contemplate a traffic pattern where picking up and dropping off passengers is a dominant feature of the transportation landscape and where parking is almost an afterthought.

Over time — perhaps decades, perhaps sooner — as more people turn to autonomous cars for transport from home to work, school and play, it will no longer be necessary for each person or family to own a car. The overall fleet of vehicles can be managed more efficiently to serve more people, much like what is happening with the increased use of car-sharing services and chauffeured services. Fewer personal vehicles will also reduce the need to require parking areas.

It will take a concerted effort over many years by planners, engineers, social advocates and affected communities to decide how to best address changes that will occur. Transit and social service agencies should see the development of autonomous vehicles as a laboratory for experimentation. I see great opportunities for positive change:

  • Reduced housing costs and increased capacity by eliminating the need for high rises and homes to build expensive parking garages.
  • Land for other, more productive uses as shopping centers give up vast parking areas to areas designed for efficient passenger pick-up and drop-off.
  • Improved water quality, as land now covered with concrete for parking is converted to grass.
  • More biking and walking paths as street lanes formerly used for parking are converted to these uses, and for lanes for bus rapid transit.
  • Enhanced transportation for low-income and underserved communities through use of autonomous microbuses, subsidized access to autonomous cars and other means.

Collective brainstorming will develop ideas that can be discussed, refined and eventually implemented as we enter the era of autonomous vehicles. Everyone has a stake. What are your thoughts on how to adopt land-uses to autonomous vehicles? 

______________

This article was originally published in the San Francisco Chronicle on August 16, 2015.