Environmental Law Commons^™

Searching For Basinwide Solutions To Endangered Species Problems Of The South Platte Of Colorado, James S. Lochhead

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

42 pages (includes illustrations and map).

Contains endnotes.

“Takings” And The Endangered Species Act, Oliver A. Houck

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

3 pages.

The Fifth Amendment And The Retained Sovereignty Doctrine: A Study Of The Endangered Species Act And The Central Valley Project Improvement Act As Applied To Central Valley Project Water Service Contracts, Brian E. Gray

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

12 pages.

The Endangered Species Act And Constitutional Takings, Robert Meltz

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

18 pages.

Contains references.

Regulatory Takings And Resources: What Are The Constitutional Limits?, Virginia S. Albrecht

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

52 pages.

Contains footnotes.

Agenda: Regulatory Takings And Resources: What Are The Constitutional Limits?, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center, Byron R. White Center For The Study Of American Constitutional Law

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

Sponsored by the University of Colorado's Natural Resources Law Center and the Byron R. White Center for American Constitutional Study.

Conference organizers, faculty and/or moderators included University of Colorado School of Law professors David H. Getches, Lawrence J. MacDonnell, Gene R. Nichol, Jr. and Mark Squillace.

Governmental regulation for environmental protection and other important public purposes can affect the manner in which land and natural resources are developed and used. The U.S. constitution (and most state constitutions) prohibit the government from "taking" property without payment of compensation. Originally intended to apply to situations where the government physically seized private property …

Floodplain And Wetland Regulatory “Takings”, Jon A. Kusler

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

4 pages.

New York V. United States: The Constitutional And Environmental Fallout For Low-Level Waste Disposers, Rhett Traband

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.

Extraterritorial Reach Of Nepa's Eis Requirement After Environmental Defense Fund V. Massey, Karen A. Klick

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Two Social Movements, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

Two social movements in the last fifty years have had a profound impact on our understanding of law and the role of the courts in our system of government. One is the civil rights movement. The demand for greater racial and gender equality and other civil rights has changed the face of the law in countless ways. For example, it has called into question – or at least required a fundamental revision in – the traditional understanding that the courts should interpret the Constitution and laws in accordance with their original meaning. Decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education …

Seqra’S Too Valuable To Trash: A Reply To Stewart Sterk, Philip Weinberg

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Future Of Solid Waste Import Bans Under The Dormant Commerce Clause: Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill, Inc. V. Michigan Department Of Natural Resources, Howard G. Hopkirk

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.

Dashed "Investment-Backed" Expectations: Will The Constitution Protect Property Owners From Excesses In Implementation Of The Growth Management Act?, Elaine Spencer

Seattle University Law Review

Section I briefly discusses the basic principles of takings law as enunciated by prior cases, as well as the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, and the Washington Supreme Court's recent decisions in Sintra, Inc. v. Seattle and Robinson v. Seattle. Although the Lucas decision has received considerable publicity, it advanced the state of the law rather little. The real guidance for future decisions arising out of the GMA will come from earlier United States Supreme Court decisions and the Washington Supreme Court's decisions in Sintra, Robinson, and Lutheran …

Takings Law, Lucas, And The Growth Management Act, John M. Groen, Richard M. Stephens

Seattle University Law Review

In light of Lucas and the recent constitutionally questionable Washington decisions, government entities charged with implementing the GMA may have a more difficult time avoiding takings liability than previously thought. Accordingly, this Article first seeks to clarify the modern takings analysis as refined by Lucas. Second, Washington takings precedent is contrasted with the federal approach and several key changes are suggested to make state law consistent with controlling federal precedent. Third, key aspects of the GMA are identified that can be expected to raise takings implications. By identifying potential trouble spots in the GMA now, hopefully some takings will …

Between Scylla And Charybdis: Growth Management Act Implementation That Avoids Takings And Substantive Due Process Limitations, Jeffrey M. Eustis

Seattle University Law Review

This Article begins with an overview of the GMA. It then proceeds with a summary of recent case law under the Takings Clause and substantive due process doctrine. After laying this groundwork, this Article focuses on four particular areas of growth management control and explores how local legislation implementing these areas of control would be analyzed under the Takings Clause and substantive due process. These four areas of land use regulation include: critical area protections, resource land designations, development phasing requirements for concurrency and urban growth areas, and impact fees for public facilities and services. This Article then concludes with …

Negotiated Sovereignty: Intergovernmental Agreements With American Indian Tribes As Models For Expanding First Nations’ Self-Government, David H. Getches

Publications

Constitutional issues related to First Nations sovereignty have dominated Aboriginal affairs in Canada for a considerable period. The constitutional entrenchment of Aboriginal self-government has, however, received a setback with the recent failure of the Charlottetown Accord in October of 1992. Nonetheless, day-to-day issues must be accommodated, even while this more fundamental constitutional question remains unresolved. This paper illustrates the American experience with negotiated intergovernmental agreements between tribes and individual states. These agreements have, for example, resolved jurisdictional disputes over taxation, solid waste disposal, and law enforcement between state governments and tribal authorities. The author suggests that these intergovernmental agreements in …

Appointments With Disaster: The Unconstitutionality Of Binational Arbitral Review Under The United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement, Jim C. Chen

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Cercla And The Abrogation Of State Sovereign Immunity, W. Shan Thompson

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.

The Right To A Clean And Safe Environment: A Case For A Constitutional Amendment Recognizing Public Rights In Common Resources, John A. Chiappinelli

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Can Government Afford To Protect Our Nation's Wetlands: An Analysis Of The Decisions In Loveladies And Florida Rock, 25 J. Marshall L. Rev. 837 (1992), John K. Devine

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Hazardous Waste And Partial Import Bans: An Environmentally Sound Exception To The Commerce Clause, Christine M. Fixl

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.

The Dormant Commerce Clause After Garcia: An Application To The Interstate Commerce Of Sanitary Landfill Space, James Hinshaw

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Footprints In The Shifting Sands Of The Isle Of Palms: A Practical Analysis Of Regulatory Takings Cases, John R. Nolon

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

It was not until the last day of the term, June 29, 1992, that the Court decided Lucas. By that time, interest could not have been greater. At issue was the validity of a regulation that prohibited all permanent development of the plaintiff's two beachfront lots. The South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the regulation by a 3-2 margin because it prevented a “great public harm.” The U.S. Supreme Court reversed that determination and remanded the case to determine whether South Carolina's common law of nuisance could prohibit the construction of single-family housing on the lots. The fractured Court delivered an …

Environmental Law (Symposium: The Supreme Court And Local Government Law: The 1989-90 Term), Leon D. Lazer

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

New Restrictions In Environmental Litigation: Standing And Final Agency Action After Lujan V. National Wildlife Federation, Lynn Robinson O'Donnell

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.

Out-Of-State Trash: Solid Waste And The Dormant Commerce Clause, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

America faces a garbage crisis. Many cities and states are rapidly depleting their landfill capacity for ordinary municipal solid waste.The "Not In My Back Yard" (NIMBY) syndrome hinders regional and national solutions to the solid waste problem. This Article examines to what extent local communities may exclude solid waste from out-of-state sources without violating the Commerce Clause.

The Medical Waste Tracking Act Of 1988: An Analysis Of Its Provisions And Its Effect On New York State, Laurence D. Granite

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Viability Of Citizens’ Suits Under The Clean Water Act After Gwaltney Of Smithfield V. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Bevery Mcqueary Smith

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Foreword, Focus: Clean Water Act’S Section 404, David H. Getches

Publications

No abstract provided.

Management And Marketing Of Indian Water: From Conflict To Pragmatism, David H. Getches

Publications

No abstract provided.