Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T16:02:10.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - The Case for the National Environmental Legacy Act

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Alyson C. Flournoy
Edited by
Alyson C. Flournoy  and
David M. Driesen
Alyson C. Flournoy
Affiliation:
University of Florida
David M. Driesen
Affiliation:
Syracuse University, New York
Get access

Summary

THERE IS VIRTUALLY UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT ACROSS THE political spectrum that we should protect the interests of our children and grandchildren in setting environmental, health, and safety policy. The concepts of sustainability and intergenerational equity, which advance this same objective, have become increasingly important in environmental law and policy debates in the past thirty years, both in the United States and internationally. In a large number of statutes, Congress and many state legislatures have embraced the goals of protecting a resource legacy for future generations and of promoting sustainable use of the nation's stock of natural resources. In addition, in polls, the American public consistently expresses concern for how well we steward resources and has shown a strong recognition of a responsibility to future generations.

Yet by any measure, it is clear that the United States is neither using its natural resources in a sustainable fashion nor systematically considering how today's patterns of resource use will affect the next generation. Report after report document the decline in supplies of fresh water, fish species and biodiversity, energy resources, and many of the values and services associated with those. Many public natural resources are managed under statutes with notoriously open-ended standards that require federal agencies to “balance” a variety of often-incompatible uses, many of which degrade or deplete relevant resources. Many of these statutes contain no enforceable standard mandating protection of any particular quality or quantity of a resource.

Type
Chapter
Information
Beyond Environmental Law
Policy Proposals for a Better Environmental Future
 , pp. 3 - 36
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Flournoy, Alyson C., Halter, Heather & Storz, Christina, Harnessing the Power of Information to Protect our Public Natural Resource Legacy, 86 Tex. L. Rev. 1575, 1575–77 (2008)Google Scholar
Holling, C.S., Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems, 4 Ann. Rev. Ecology & Systematics1 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunderson, Lance, Resilience, Flexibility and Adaptive Management: Antidotes for Spurious Certitude? 3 Conservation Ecology7 (Winter 1999)Google Scholar
Connaughton, James L., Keynote Address: Modernizing the National Environmental Policy Act: Back to the Future, 12 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 1 (2003)Google Scholar
Bear, Dinah, Some Modest Suggestions for Improving Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act, 43 Nat. Resources J. 931 (2003)Google Scholar
Caldwell, Lynton K., Beyond NEPA: Future Significance of the National Environmental Policy Act, 22 Harv. Envtl. L. REv. 203 (1998)Google Scholar
Culhane, Paul J., NEPA's Impacts on Federal Agencies, Anticipated and Unanticipated, 20 Envtl. L. 681 (1990)Google Scholar
O'Brien, Mary H., NEPA as It Was Meant to Be; NCAP v. Block, Herbicides, and Region 6 Forest Service, 20 Envtl. L. 735 (1990)Google Scholar
Ackerman, Stark, Observations on the Transformation of the Forest Service: The Effects of the National Environmental Policy Act on U.S. Forest Service Decision Making, 20 Envtl. L. 703 (1990)Google Scholar
Karkkainen, Bradley C., Toward a Smarter NEPA: Monitoring and Managing Government's Environmental Performance, 102 Colum. L. Rev. 903, 906 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houck, Oliver A., The Secret Opinions of the United States Supreme Court on Leading Cases in Environmental Law, Never Before Published! 65 U. Colo. L. Rev. 459, 469–70 (1994)Google Scholar
Houck, Oliver, Is That All? A Review of the National Environmental Policy Act: An Agenda for the Future, 11 Duke Envtl. L & Policy F. 173, 178–79 (2000)Google Scholar
Yost, Nicholas, NEPA's Promise – Partially Fulfilled, 20 Envtl. L. 533 (1990)Google Scholar
Houck, Oliver, Unfinished Stories, 73 U. Colo. L. Rev. 867 (2002)Google Scholar
Buzbee, William, The Regulatory Fragmentation Continuum, Westway and the Challenges of Regional Growth, 21 J.L. & Pol. 323, 340–41 (2005)Google Scholar
Lindstrom, Matthew J., Procedures without Purpose: The Withering Away of the National Environmental Policy Act's Substantive Law, 20 J. Land Resources & Envtl. L. 245, 264 (2000)Google Scholar
Bartlett, Harvey, Is NEPA Substantive Review Extinct, or Merely Hibernating? 13 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 411 (2000)Google Scholar
Dernbach, John C., Sustainable Development as a Framework for National Governance, 49 Case W. Res. 1, 31 (1998)Google Scholar
Shapiro, Sid & Steinzor, Rena, Capture, Accountability, and Regulatory Metrics, 86 Tex. L. Rev. 1741, 1769 (2008)Google Scholar
Garmestani, Ahjond S., Allen, Craig R. & Cabezas, Heriberto, Panarchy, Adaptive Management and Governance: Policy Options for Building Resilience, 87 Neb. L. Rev.1036 (2009)Google Scholar
Driesen, David M., Is Cost-Benefit Analysis Neutral? 77 U. Colo. L. Rev. 335, 339–42 (2006)Google Scholar
Doremus, Holly, Precaution, Science and Learning While Doing in Natural Resource Management, 82 Wash. L. Rev. 547 (2007)Google Scholar
Esty, Daniel C., Environmental Protection in the Information Age, 79 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 115, 197 (2004)Google Scholar
Latin, Howard A., The “Significance” of Toxic Health Risks: An Essay on Legal Decisionmaking under Uncertainty, 10 Ecology L.Q. 339 (1982)Google Scholar
Applegate, John S., The Perils of Unreasonable Risk: Information, Regulatory Policy, and Toxic Substances Control, 91 Colum. L. Rev. 261 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Applegate, John S., The Taming of the Precautionary Principle, 27 WM. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 13 (2002)Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R., Beyond the Precautionary Principle, 151 U. Penn. L. Rev. 1003 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Wendy E., Commons Ignorance: The Failure of Environmental Law to Produce Needed Information on Health and the Environment, 53 Duke L.J. 1619, 1741–42 (2004)Google ScholarPubMed
Karkkainen, Bradley C., Logjams and Baselines: Tackling Information Deficits in Environmental Regulation, 86 Tex. L. Rev. 1409, 1427–34 (2009)Google Scholar
Doremus, Holly, Precaution, Science and Learning While Doing in Natural Resource Management, 82 Wash. L. Rev. 547, 549–50 (advocating an approach that is precautionary and incorporates adaptive learning); Karkkainen, supra note 30, at 938–40 (2002)Google Scholar
Doremus, Holly, Nature, Knowledge and Profit: The Yellowstone Bioprospecting Controversy and the Core Purposes of America's National Parks, 26 Ecology L.Q. 401, 437–43 (1999)Google Scholar
Fischman, Rob, The Significance of National Wildlife Refuges in the Development of U.S. Conservation Policy, 21 J. Land Use & Envtl. L. 1 (2005)Google Scholar
Stroup, Richard L., Privatizing Public Lands: Market Solutions to Economic and Environmental Problems, 19 Pub. Land & Resources L. Rev. 79 (1998)Google Scholar
Huffman, James, Environmental Protection and the Politics of Property Rights: The Public Interest in Private Property Rights, 50 Okla. L. Rev. 377, 378 (1997)Google Scholar
Sinden, Amy, The Tragedy of the Commons and the Myth of a Private Property Solution, 78 U. Colo. L. Rev. 533 (2007)Google Scholar
Frank, Joshua, Natural Selection, Rational Economic Behavior, and Alternative Outcomes of the Evolutionary Process, 32 J. Socio-Economics601–22 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Repetti, James R., Corporate Governance and Stockholder Abdication: Missing Factors in Tax Policy Analysis, 67 Notre Dame L. Rev. 971, 980–83 (1992)Google Scholar
Driesen, David, The Economic Dynamics of Environmental Law: Cost-Benefit Analysis, Emissions Trading, and Priority-Setting, 31 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 501, 504–06 (2004)Google Scholar
Heinzerling, Lisa, Regulatory Costs of Mythic Proportions, 107 Yale L.J. 1981 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×