Preface 4 results
- Although there are casebooks, study guides, and nutshells that address “natural resources law,” and although there are Hornbooks that recount the law of some of the special subjects within natural resources law (e.g., Oil and Gas Law), and although there are multi-volume treatises that concentrate on some of the topics that comprise Natural Resources Law (e.g., Public Land and Resources Law), there has been no standard West Hornbook that sets forth a comprehensive analysis of all of Natural Resources Law. This Hornbook is that book.
- The basic structure of the book is organized around four central themes that define natural resources law. Part One considers the history of natural resources use and regulation, and the basic economic principles that drive both (1) human use of resources as well as (2) government regulation of natural resources use. Part Two lays out the principles that guide litigation involving natural resources, and also the primary statutory requirements that influence decision making about resources use. Part Three collects in one place the laws that usually control the management and protection of critical natural resources, such as public lands, wildlife, and wilderness. And Part Four sets forth the law of natural resources that serve as the basic commodities for resources use and development—rangeland, timber, minerals, energy resources, and water.
- This book’s purpose is to identify and analyze basic doctrines relevant to the various subjects and ancillary fields of natural resources law, that have emerged from Congress, Executive Branch policy, state legislatures, and federal and state courts. As such, the book should serve legal practitioners, judges, administrative officials, regulators, resources-related businesses, scholars, and students. It is our further aim to provide a useful, workable organization of the broader topic of natural resources law, which may serve as a guide for professionals, teachers, and students interested in natural resources issues. The book is designed to aid those wishing to learn more about natural resources and the law surrounding the use, management, and preservation of these resources.
- In this book we set forth a comprehensive accounting of the burgeoning and exciting subject of natural resources law in the United States. The academic discipline, and legal practice, of “natural resources law” is really a composite of multiple subjects, each of which is discussed and analyzed here. Because so many of these specific resources law subjects, such as Energy Law and Public Land Law, and Wildlife and Biodiversity, are interrelated, it has become customary for law schools, academic publishers, law firms, and businesses, to organize these various fields under one heading—the “law” of
- Open Chapter
Introduction 3 results
- Natural resources law is the study of how institutions have attempted to resolve and manage competing demands for natural resources. It provides a means of weighing the interests of ecology, economic growth, historical expectations, political expediency, and geographic reality. The law of natural resources referees conflicts between conservation and preservation values, on one hand, and consumption and extraction desires, on the other. This body of law is based in large part on statutes and administrative rules, with an underlay of common law doctrine (particularly property law) and constitutional mandates ( federalism and the takings clause). In this way, natural resources law is similar to environmental law, but natural resources law is different in that it is designed only in part to protect and preserve natural resources and the environments in which they are located. The relevant law of natural resources also facilitates the use, allocation, and management of resources. Readers...
- Given the earth’s growing human populations and demands, and its dwindling resources—particularly nonrenewable resources like minerals, oil, and gas—it is a certainty that more lawyers will be called upon to recognize and to resolve issues related to natural resources ownership and management. Law students, practicing lawyers, teachers, and regulators, and anyone interested in natural resources law and policy, are the primary audience of this book. It is designed to be useful both as a stand-alone examination of natural resources law and as a supplement to any of the major casebooks on the subject, including but not limited to J 2012). Nearly every principal case in each of the casebooks is discussed or at least cited. This book is intended as a comprehensive, in-depth resource on natural resources law (or at least as comprehensive and in-depth as a single volume treatise can be). Readers interested in a more succinct exposition of the subject are encouraged to consult S
- Natural resources include non-commodity resources, such as wildlife, wetlands, marine resources, parks and open spaces, wilderness areas, and wild and scenic rivers, as well as commodity resources, such as private land, timber, minerals, oil, gas, water, and public rangeland. These resources have played a significant role in the history and development of this country, and they continue to comprise the very fabric of the American landscape.
- Open Chapter
- One of the major signature developments in natural resources law was the imposition of management and protection regimes upon traditional natural resources use. For centuries, natural resources were perceived as virtually inexhaustible, causing humans to extract, remove, and over-use resources to the point where they were becoming unsustainable. Two kinds of laws were then invented and deployed—those that managed resource use and those that protected and preserved resource use. The three chapters in Part 3 set out the various ways that natural resources laws have controlled and regulated and overseen natural resources, and for some resources imposed a protection and preservation system, limiting or even prohibiting human use of the resource.
- Chapter 5 is a comprehensive overview of the many ways that federal law has managed the publicly owned lands and resources of the United States. Chapter 5 also recounts the history of federal public land law, from disposition to withdrawals to multiple use to dominant use to adaptive management. Chapter 6 reveals how the wildlife resource has been protected over time, in part because of the critical role that wildlife play in maintaining biodiversity. Chapter 7 introduces the reader to the many ways that federal and state law seek (1) to preserve certain natural resources and objects for their wild, “natural,” or historic qualities, and (2) to set aside certain lands for their recreational potential.
- RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION
- Open Chapter
Chapter 2. Economics and Natural Resources Law 57 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Natural resources are fundamental to society. Economic analysis is both a policymaking tool, and a means of explaining the distribution and allocation of these resources. Understanding the distribution and allocation of natural resources in turn allows policymakers and decision makers, such as lawyers, judges, administrators, and legislators, to formulate laws and policies regarding the management and use of natural resources.
- All natural resources do not share these characteristics. Indeed, the natural gas above was qualified as being containerized. Absent containerization, natural gas does not share all of these property attributes. The inability of a particular natural resource from being owned completely, or the inability to exclude others from it, or the inability to easily transfer ownership, requires economic analysts to talk and think differently about some natural resources.
- These simple, perhaps obvious, laws of supply and demand are significant for natural resources economics. As the price of a barrel of oil rises on the global oil market, there will be an increase in oil drilling in order to profit from the more lucrative market. Likewise, when the price of interstate natural gas drops below that of intrastate gas, then natural gas producers will try to put their product on the more profitable intrastate market.
- Summit Water Distrib. Co. v. Summit Cnty., 2005 UT 73, ¶ 45, 123 P.3d 437 (when a state grants authority to a utility to provide a natural resource it authorizes that utility to exercise its natural monopoly powers, but such a grant does not immunize the utility from antitrust laws).
- The legal (and economic) incentive to drill is known as the rule of capture, which holds that whoever “captures” the resource keeps it. Thus, the reward goes not to the frugal interest holder who keeps the oil in the ground, but to the persons who drill and capture it. A landowner is encouraged by the rule of capture to bring the resource to the surface before a neighboring landowner or lessee does. The “tragedy” is that such common natural resources are consumed (wasted) rather than used in response to market demand. When there is overconsumption of a resource, the free market in that resource is in disequilibrium and government regulation is usually necessary to correct the defect. State oil and gas conservation laws are the regulatory response to the problem of waste created by the rule of capture. These laws attempt to limit waste by reducing production and conserving supply.
- Open Chapter
- An understanding of natural resources law requires a parallel understanding of how courts and government institutions make legal decisions involving resources. Part 2 summarizes and analyzes how the judiciary resolves disputes and controversies about natural resources, and how administrative agencies and government entities make decisions that affect the natural environment.
- Chapter 4 addresses a federal statute that has become in so many ways the Prime Directive for all federal decision-making that might possibly affect the natural environment—the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Many states also have their own equivalent “state environmental policy acts.” NEPA is probably the most litigated natural resources law, because virtually every federal action impacting nature risks a presumptive violation of NEPA, and an ensuing lawsuit, and because a NEPA challenge is often an effective way to delay or even halt that federal action. Chapter 4 offers an analysis of the central legal issues that tend to arise whenever NEPA is triggered or litigated.
- Chapter 3 is a review of all the various preconditions that must be met before a court can ever get to the point where it is able to decide the merits of the substantive conflict that is being litigated. These preconditions arise from the United States Constitution and from statutes, such as the Administrative Procedure Act, and various federal enabling statutes. Much of the “practice” of natural resources law involves mastering these procedural, administrative, constitutional preconditions to litigation, and Chapter 3 sorts out these barriers and sets out the issues that tend to be most prominent when one is in court.
- LAWS, LITIGATION, AND DECISION-MAKING
- Open Chapter
- The subject of natural resources law is understood in part by its history, and in part by the underlying economic principles that are the forces influencing its development. Part 1 explores how history and economics both play a role in the evolution and ultimate outcome of laws that seek to impose order on how we simultaneously use and protect our natural resources. Chapter 1 lays out the legal history of the American response to resources use, while Chapter 2 discusses the economic theories which explain how and why we used, and then regulated, our insatiable need for resource exploitation. These two chapters set out the fundamental underpinnings of natural resources law.
- Chapter 1 advances the notion that natural resources laws emerged during four “eras,” over the past 200 plus years. In Era One, the “Use” Era, natural resources were seen as commodities to extract and develop, and laws were in place to assist this goal. In Era Two, the “Conservation” Era, laws sought to slow and regulate the otherwise unrestricted exploitation of resources, not to preserve them, but to ensure that they could be used in the future. In Era Three, resources were seen to have value when they were not actively “used” by humans, but when they remained in place, so that we could anthropomorphically enjoy natural resources in their wild and undeveloped state. In Era Four, the “Protection” Era, laws were enacted that were designed to protect environmental goods like air, land, and water from being used as environmental sinks or garbage dumps when we used, developed, or extracted natural resources.
- Chapter 2 sets out the principles of resource economics that have guided human desires to use natural resources, as well as subsequent human wishes to restrict and protect natural resources. Chapter 2 introduces concepts that permeate both human behavior and the laws that humans adopt to regulate that behavior—e.g., supply and demand, and price and cost, and market failures and negative externalities, information costs, and congestion points, and the “tragedy of the commons” and the reality of open access resources, and efficiency, cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment and risk management, social norms and common property regimes.
- THE FUNDAMENTALS OF NATURAL RESOURCES LAW
- Open Chapter
Chapter 1. The Strange Career of Natural Resources Law 128 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Natural resource and environmental laws are often rigidly organized by resource (e.g., timber, minerals, rangeland) or environmental good (e.g., air, water, land). Such laws tend to consider particular natural resources and environmental goods as These laws seek to empower humans to manage according to the type of resource at issue, not according to the complex dynamics between different ecological systems. A regulatory fragmentation then takes place that separates natural resources (like forests and rangeland) from their surrounding environment (like air and water and land).
- The advent of the law of property ownership encouraged the rush to exploit natural resources. The ensuing charge to extract, develop, and use natural resources depleted stock resources and frequently outpaced the regeneration of renewable resources. Users were principally concerned with the individual benefits they derived from exploiting the natural world, and were unconcerned if their use and removal of these resources imposed negative externalities for a larger group of potential future users, who would thereby be denied their opportunity to benefit from the resource. Era I laws reflected a high discount rate, where future value was discounted in favor of present benefits. Era I anthropomorphic ideas led resource users to predictably make choices based on their own near-term self-interest without regard for widespread and future consequences.
- Natural resource and environmental laws permeate the statute books of the United States. Anti-pollution laws seek to clean up the air, water, and land; endangered species laws are designed to slow extinctions ( open space and parkland laws are intended to preserve dwindling wilderness areas (see Chapter Seven); and mineral and energy laws are in place to regulate the removal and use of valuable resources (Chapters Ten and Eleven). These laws directing human actions regarding natural and environmental resources have been in place for decades, and are both comprehensive and ubiquitous, at both a national and state level. Nonetheless, despite all these laws, it is increasingly becoming apparent that human actions have (1) dramatically altered environmental spaces and natural systems (2) started to exhaust the planet’s store of natural resources, ..., then, an odd paradox. We have been exceptionally aggressive in utilizing our legal institutions to manage, regulate, and protect natural...
- In Era I, our policies completely ignored planetary boundaries and systematically rejected the idea that once used and exhausted, the resources that were so highly coveted would be gone forever. As John Locke explained, the natural environment was seemingly placed on this planet by a higher force for the “industrious and rational” —in other words, for human use. This belief, which permeated America legal and political thought in Era I, is most easily seen in the rise of property law. Laws that granted rights in land and resources to individual owners created private property interests that allowed the owners to exploit their natural resources essentially without any limits. Reckless exploitation of renewable and stock resources in the twentieth century led to the unsustainable use and near exhaustion of some natural resources, such as timber, rangeland, minerals, oil, and gas. These resources were extracted, developed, and used without appreciation for the reality of the natural...
- Unfortunately, natural resources policies have traditionally failed to reflect the basic principle that there are planetary boundaries and that consequently human behavior should be restrained in order to safeguard the biological integrity of the planet. The laws put in place in the era of resource use (Era I) and the era of conservation (Era II) did not effectively restrict humans’ ability to extract natural resources and exploit environmental goods. Accordingly, human activity often exceeded the ecological limits of natural systems.
- Open Chapter
Part 4. Resource Use and Development 4 results
- As a matter of historic and economic reality, many natural resources have not been viewed as environmental goods to preserve, but as commodities to exploit, so that they fuel the thriving American marketplace. The chapters in Part 4 organize and analyze how laws have permitted the extraction and development and human use of various marketable natural resources that have economic value. These chapters also show how laws seek to regulate and manage the use of these valuable resources in order to conserve their potential for future generations. Both federal and state laws play a role in determining how we use and develop these economic resources.
- The five central commodity natural resources are: (1) rangeland (forage for cattle and sheep grazing); (2) timber; (3) hard rock minerals; (4) energy resources; and (5) water. These are the natural resources that we have used and developed.
- Chapter 8 considers rangeland law, especially federal rules for grazing on lands under the control of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service. Chapter 9 is devoted to the timber resource, where the applicable law is a combination of common law (relevant on private lands), state timber practices acts, and federal statutes and regulations controlling lands under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service. Chapter 10 takes up mineral resources, which on federal lands are largely subject to the 1872 Mining Law and the 1955 Common Varieties Act. Chapter 11 addresses energy resources, oil, gas, and coal, as well as hydro-electricity, nuclear power, and renewables. The topic of “energy law” also encompasses hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to release gas and oil from shale deposits, as well as coalbed methane and tar sands development. Finally, Chapter 12, Water Law, considers this critically important natural resource. Water as an exploitable resource is subject primarily to...
- RESOURCE USE AND DEVELOPMENT
- Open Chapter
Chapter 10. Mineral Resources 89 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Many economists have come to believe, however, that an abundance of natural resources can be an economic curse. Empirical studies indicate that economies with abundant natural resources generally have lower rates of economic growth than economies with scarce natural resources. There are different explanations for why this is the case. Reasons for this “Paradox of Plenty” include unstable, corrupt, or otherwise ineffectual government institutions, resource mismanagement, the volatility of the natural resource sector due to rapid shifts in commodity markets, and other factors. Even the United States shows evidence of this curse, with the communities that are most dependent on extractive industries being among the most economically depressed in the country.
- Most mineral resources in the United States are extracted not from the federal public lands, but from state and privately owned lands. Mines on state lands are not subject to federal location, leasing, or sales procedures, unless rights to minerals on or underlying lands once owned by the federal government have been expressly reserved to federal ownership. Virtually every state has its own mining laws governing state owned mining lands; many of these laws turn out to be quite similar to the federal mining laws. State location requirements tend to be only slightly less liberal than federal law. State mining laws are similar to federal law in excluding from location energy resources, such as oil, gas, and geothermal resources, as well as common varieties of minerals, like sand and gravel. Apart from setting out procedures for acquiring private interests in state owned minerals, state law also addresses issues relating to mine operations on state and private lands.
- and other minerals were so vast, that the supply seemed virtually inexhaustible. Economists once believed that a plentiful supply of natural resources—including hard rock and energy-producing minerals—was crucial for economic takeoff and development.
- Congressional response to the problems with United States mining law has been too limited or ineffective. In 1994, Congress issued a moratorium on processing new applications to patent mining claims. But, attempts to pass legislation in both 2007 and 2009 failed in their efforts to impose royalties on hard rock mining operations. Frustration over congressional inaction to address this and other remaining concerns has led to the use of alternative methods to protect public lands from new mining operations, such as executive withdrawals of lands from the location and patenting system. In 2008, the House Natural Resources Committee exercised emergency powers to pass a binding resolution banning new mining claims in and around the Grand Canyon National Park.
- A valid unpatented mining claim encompasses the resources on the surface. Prior to 1955, case law limited the right of exclusive possession of the surface for mining purposes only. After 1955, the Surface Resources Act provides that the owner is entitled to use the surface only as necessary for the mining operation. For claims perfected prior to 1955, the claimant is precluded from exploiting any surface resources reserved to the United States. Use of an unpatented mining claim on public lands, including using claim for residence, is limited to activities reasonably incident to mining operations and is subject to the right of the government to manage surface resources. Mining operations that are likely to cause significant surface disturbance require an approved plan of operations before mining activities begin.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 5. Public Lands 83 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Public Land and Natural Resources Law Definitions
- As a sub-field of natural resources law, state lands ownership presents many challenges. First, it is a diverse field due to the divergent culture and history of the states. Each state has its own cases, regulations, and policies pertaining to state lands management. Much of this law traces back to the original state constitutions and enabling acts.
- The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention
- Over the years, some courts have expanded the doctrine to other critical natural resources, including water, beaches, wetlands, parks, and wildlife. to include all natural resources. The Hawai’i Constitution, for example, reads: “All public natural resources are held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people.”
- The modern planning statutes came with the tide of legislation Congress passed in the 1970s to create sweeping reform in the area of natural resources and environmental law. The reforms adopted in National Forest Management Act
- Open Chapter
Dedication 1 result
Title Page 3 results
Chapter 3. Natural Resources Decisionmaking and Litigation 35 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Natural resources decisionmaking is accomplished within the framework of administrative law. Administrative procedures provide the rules of the road and can often be outcome-determinative of disputes over resource management, development, or conservation. Constitutional and prudential requirements also play a significant role in resolving resource-related disputes. Rulemaking is addressed in Part A of this chapter, while jurisdictional requirements, such as standing, ripeness, and mootness, are detailed in Part B. Part C covers the scope and standards of judicial review. Citizen suits are described in Part D.
- The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) sets the playing field for federal natural resources decisionmaking processes. State resource management agencies follow state APAs, which often have similar requirements.
- Many of the federal natural resource agencies provide some form of administrative review of their actions, although some are more formal than others. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service are among the agencies with detailed requirements for internal appeals. An appeal of most BLM actions must be lodged with the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA). IBLA review is available for “a specific action being proposed to implement some portion of a resource management plan or amendment.” The BLM’s decisions regarding the use and disposition of public lands and resources are reviewed by the IBLA, but the approval of BLM land use plans are protested to the BLM director.
- Many federal actions related to the management of public lands and natural resources are challenged in court using the APA, because NEPA and most of the public lands statutes lack a citizen suit provision. By contrast, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and many pollution control statutes (
- Environmental Citizen Suits Against Natural Resource Companies
- Open Chapter
Chapter 7. Preservation and Recreation 104 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Each of these groups has differing views regarding permissible natural resources use. Pure preservationists and low impact/non-motorized recreationists labor to protect lands and resources for the sake of the land’s non-use values, and promote only minimal low impact, human-powered recreation. High impact/non-motorized recreationists and motorized recreationists view natural resources as commodities that should be open for whatever form of recreation they see fit. And, high impact users want to engage in activities, which are often destructive to natural resources for recreation. As such, preservationists and low impact recreationists often cannot utilize national parks, national forests, BLM lands, and wilderness areas in conjunction with the higher-impact recreationists.
- The “amenity resource value” of recreation is another type of economic benefit that flows from public lands. This value refers to the largely intangible, noncommercial benefits associated with unspoiled natural resources. One important amenity use of natural resources is recreational use. When public lands have recreational value, they become economic assets in much the same way that forage, water, timber, and mineral resources are. They help ensure that the existing people and businesses remain economically viable, and they help lure in new potential employers and entrepreneurs. Public recreation lands also provide a quality of life and a general sense of belonging that has value both to people currently living there and to those who might want to move or travel there.
- National parks and monuments reflect federal efforts to preserve wild nature from exploitation by man and can therefore connote ideas of wilderness. In the field of natural resources law, however, the word “wilderness” is a term of art that refers to those areas designated as wilderness by Congress and managed pursuant to the Wilderness Act of 1964. Designated wilderness areas are more heavily managed than other federal lands.
- The wilderness ethic holds that certain lands should be preserved in their natural condition, unaffected by human activities. This concept is at odds with the multiple use doctrine, by which lands are used, not preserved or “locked up.” Although the wilderness idea is sometimes criticized as halting valuable resource development for the benefit of a few, privileged, physically fit backpackers, it is an entrenched and significant component of American law.
- In 2008, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources heard testimony on the impacts of off-highway vehicles on public lands. Representatives of the FS, the BLM, recreational motorist proponents and opponents, and senators from many western states expressed their views to the committee. During these talks, motorized recreation advocates called attention to the revenues generated by ORV use and the efforts made by OHV groups to partner with the federal agencies to sustainably manage OHV use. On the other side of the issue, motorized recreation opponents discussed the damage OHVs cause to wildlife habitat, wilderness characteristics, watersheds, and other non-motorized users. They pointed out the duty of the land management agencies under FLPMA, NFMA, and implementing regulations to prioritize the protection of natural resources over the promotion of recreation. Opponents further discussed land management agencies’ lack of adequate funding to appropriately manage existing OHV...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 6. Wildlife Law 98 results (showing 5 best matches)
- State statutes continued to trigger Commerce Clause challenges, however, especially those that restricted the possession and sale of game or prohibited out-of-state shipments of wildlife. By the late twentieth century, the Dormant Commerce Clause had become a significant impediment to the implementation of protectionist state laws. In the Court invalidated a state law that prohibited the transportation or out-of-state sale of any minnows caught in state waters. The Court stated that, although the natural resources of the state are owned in common by the people of the state, with the state as a trustee, the regulation of those natural resources must be scrutinized with modern Commerce Clause standards. There was no doubt that Oklahoma had a legitimate conservation interest in maintaining an “ecological balance” in state waters by preventing the removal of excessive numbers of minnows. The downfall of the state law was that it had failed to consider and adopt non-discriminatory...
- Over the last century, federal regulation over natural resources has expanded, and wildlife regulation has become increasingly focused on conserving biodiversity and habitat. Most regulation still occurs at the state level, but state regulations are now susceptible to preemption by conflicting federal law. State regulations occasionally provide more protection for wildlife than federal regulations, and state law is capable of providing more effective solutions in certain wildlife issues.
- Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) (upholding the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of July 3, 1918 and related regulations, and noting that it is no longer sufficient to rely upon the States for protection of the country’s natural resources).
- Eventually, federal authority over natural resources began to change.
- In spite of the MMPA and other U.S. and international laws on marine resources, our oceans are in dire jeopardy. The Oceans Commission, an independent body formed by the Pew Charitable Trust, issued a comprehensive assessment in 2003, which reported that overfishing, over-development along the coasts, and increasing pollution from coastal areas are leading to a severe decline of aquatic species and the collapse of entire ocean ecosystems. Major culprits include regulatory divisiveness among governmental authorities, a lack of oversight, and consumption-oriented policies. The report calls for immediate reform of U.S. laws and policies to address these problems through more coherent regulation of all ocean resources, living and non-living, and increased use of marine-protected areas to sustain living marine resources.
- Open Chapter
Table of Contents 50 results (showing 5 best matches)
Summary of Contents 11 results (showing 5 best matches)
Index 70 results (showing 5 best matches)
Chapter 12. Water 121 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The two doctrines were developed in response to the dramatic differences in the hydrology and settlement of the eastern and western United States. In the relatively water-abundant east, the colonial states adopted a modified version of the English common law doctrine of “riparianism.” Under riparianism, owning land adjacent to a natural watercourse automatically gives the landowner the right to use the water in the abutting natural watercourse. Water is a shared, or correlative, resource. Its use is governed by reasonableness, and conflicts are resolved through tort-like principles.
- Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Marsh, 52 F.3d 1485 (9th Cir.1995); Oregon Natural Desert Ass’n v. Green, 953 F. Supp. 1133 (D. Or. 1997).
- Barnes v. Hussa, 136 Cal. App. 4th 1358, 39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 659, 664 (2006); Hohenlohe v. State, Dep’t of Natural Resources & Conservation, 240 P.3d 628, 637 (Mont. 2010); Barron v. Idaho Dep’t of Water Resources, 18 P.3d 219, 225 (Id. 2001).
- Neb. Rev. Stat. 46–701–754 (Groundwater Management and Protection Act); Bamford v. Upper Republican Natural Resources Dist., 245 Neb. 299, 512 N.W.2d 642(1994) (upholding a natural resources district’s authority to issue a cease and desist order with respect to unpermitted pumping in a groundwater control area).
- Crookston Cattle Co. v. Minnesota Dep’t of Natural Resources, 300 N.W.2d 769 (Minn. 1980).
- Open Chapter
Chapter 4. Nepa 49 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Texas Comm. on Natural Resources v. Marsh, 736 F.2d 262, 268 (5th Cir. 1984);
- Natural Resources Def. Council, Inc. v. Hodel, 865 F.2d 288, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Del. Riverkeeper Network v. FERC, 753 F.3d 1304 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (FERC impermissibly segmented NEPA review of a natural gas pipeline project and did not take into account the cumulative effects of the four segments).
- Shiffler v. Schlesinger, 548 F.2d 96 (3d Cir. 1977); No GWEN Alliance v. Aldridge, 855 F.2d 1380 (9th Cir. 1988); Natural Resources Def. Council v. Evans, 232 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (N.D.Cal. 2002).
- In NEPA, Congress also hinted at an enduring public trust responsibility for safeguarding the nation’s natural resources: “it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the Nation may … fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations.”
- the Third Circuit upheld an injunction blocking the Forest Service from implementing a settlement agreement that would have prevented mineral owners from drilling in a national forest until an EIS was completed. The court acknowledged that the Forest Service had a statutory duty to protect the natural resources of the forest, but found that an injunction would protect the mineral owners’ property rights and vindicate the public interest in aiding the local economy.
- Open Chapter
Acknowledgments 1 result
- We wish to acknowledge and thank the various individuals and institutions that helped the authors to produce this book. Chapter 1 is a shortened version of a law review article, co-authored by Prof. Laitos and Lauren Wolongevicz, which was originally published in 2015 in 39 William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review 1. An earlier, shorter version of Chapter 2 appeared in “Natural Resources Law 2d ed. (West Academic 2012),” co-authored by Jan Laitos, Sandi Zellmer, and Mary Wood, where much of the contents of that chapter were originally written by Prof. Daniel Cole of the Indiana University Maurer Law School. The Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation’s Grants Committee provided a generous grant to Professors Laitos and Zellmer to complete this book. Juliana Okulski, a law student from the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, helped to update the book. Emily Dowd, another law student from the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, updated, copy-edited, formatted,...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 9. Timber 71 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The U.S. Department of Agriculture, through its Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), supports a variety of conservation programs that provide financial and technical benefits to private landowners for conserving soil, water, and other natural resources. Today, there are approximately 3,000 local NRCS conservation districts. They are found in nearly every county in the nation.
- 2. The Natural Resources Conservation Service Programs
- 2. The Natural Resources Conservation Service Programs
- Tomas M. Koontz, Federalism in the Forest: National Versus State Natural Resource Policy 17, 81, 101 (2002).
- Washington Dept. of Natural Resources v. Browning, 148 Wash.App. 8, 199 P.3d 430 (2008) (upholding a stop order where the landowner admitted conducting unauthorized forest practices for the purpose of converting land to nonforest use) (citing RCW § 76.09.140(2)).
- Open Chapter
Chapter 8. Rangeland Law 94 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Some grazing reformers advocate reliance on local stakeholder collaboration to manage the rangeland resource. The local consensus building process is considered more flexible and responsive than national command and control regulations. Proponents of local control value efforts to bring together all stakeholders. Invested parties include, but are not limited to, ranchers, high and low impact recreators, preservationists, state government, Indian tribes, and local officials. A range of levels of local involvement, along with federal oversight or law, will assure that broader national interests are not forgotten. For local reform advocates, the best way to tackle natural resource management issues on the range, or on public lands generally is to cede
- A. RANGELANDS AS A NATURAL RESOURCE
- A. RANGELANDS AS A NATURAL RESOURCE
- Natural Resources Def. Council, Inc. v. Hodel, 624 F. Supp. 1045 (D. Nev. 1985), aff’d, 819 F.2d 927 (9th Cir. 1987) (upholding a plan that was challenged on the basis that it allowed overgrazing).
- Chevron v. Natural Resources Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
- Open Chapter
Table of Cases 62 results (showing 5 best matches)
- ABKA Limited Partnership v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Natural Resources ………… 489
- Bamford v. Upper Republican Natural Resources Dist ………… 508, 511
- Bostwick Properties v. Dep’t of Natural Resources ………… 493
- Crookston Cattle Co. v. Minnesota Dep’t of Natural Resources ………… 489
- Denali Citizens Council v. State Dep’t of Natural Resources ………… 221, 267
- Open Chapter
Chapter 11. Energy Resources Part 2 42 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Kachemak Bay Conservation v. Alaska Dep’t of Natural Resources, 6 P.3d 270 (Alaska 2000).
- Kachemak Bay Conservation Soc’y v. Alaska Dep’t of Natural Resources, 6 P.3d 270 (Alaska 2000) (involving state-owned lands).
- An Overview of Unconventional Oil and Natural Gas: Resources and Federal Actions
- Getty Oil v. Dep’t of Natural Resources, 419 So.2d 700 (Fla. Dist. App. 1982).
- Natural Resources Def. Council, Inc. v. Hodel, 865 F.2d 288, 298 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (EIS failed to consider cumulative impacts of simultaneous development on species that migrate through the planning areas).
- Open Chapter
Chapter 11. Energy Resources 66 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The environmental groups brought the challenge based on the best interests finding by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. The challengers argued that in determining the best interests of the state, the Department of Natural Resources could not look at the project independently in different phases (exploration, construction of facilities and production) in conducting the best interests test. Conversely, the state asserted that multi-phasing constituted an acceptable practice. The Alaska Supreme Court, in accordance with the statute,
- States with geothermal resources have adopted their own requirements. Most western states provide for the permitting and monitoring of geothermal wells. But many have had a difficult time determining whether and how their water law regimes apply to geothermal development. Some states have elected to treat geothermal energy as a water resource, which subjects it to the same regulations governing appropriation of other state water resources. ,” not a water resource but also not a mineral resource.
- Because geothermal energy is a “fugacious” resource that underlies both state and federal lands, it is often inseparable from other water resources. The Act does not answer the question of whether the United States holds reserved water rights for geothermal resource development, but states, “[n]othing in this chapter shall constitute an express or implied claim or denial on the part of the Federal Government as to its exemption from State water laws.”
- Two additional, and potentially more threatening, water quality issues involve the contamination of ground and surface water resources by the solution used to frack a well, referred to as “fracking fluid,” or the wastewater a well regurgitates after it has been fracked, referred to as “flowback.” Environmental groups have been particularly concerned with the fracking fluids used by oil and gas developers, which the Natural Resource Defense Council asserts, “are likely to contain toxic and carcinogenic chemicals.”
- The force from the injection initiates and propagates fractures in unconventional, or low permeability rock formations, and allows for the release and capture of trapped petroleum, natural gas, coal steam, or other hydrocarbons. Although first discovered in the 1940s, developments in fracking technology, in conjunction with advancements in horizontal drilling, have enabled the economically efficient extraction of oil and gas resources from vast shale reservoirs underlying large regions of the country.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 10. Mineral Resources Part 2 19 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Frisholm v. Fitzgerald, 53 P. 1109 (D. Colo. 1898) (a location certificate may be amended to cure the failure to reference a natural object or monument).
- , Rosette Inc. v. United States, 277 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 2002) (rights to use some minerals in connection with homesteads did not extend to use of geothermal resources for commercial reasons).
- the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, 30 U.S.C. § 1101; Ida-Therm, LLC v. Bedrock Geothermal, LLC, 293 P.3d 630 (Idaho 2012) (the mineral reservation did not include geothermal resources).
- Hydro Resources Corp. v. Gray, 173 P.3d 749 (N.M. 2007).
- United States v. Pepper, 697 F. Supp. 2d 1171, 1175 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (recognizing the Forest Service’s authority to regulate surface resources in connection with mining activities).
- Open Chapter
Advisory Board 9 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Professor of Law, Michael E. Moritz College of Law,
- Professor of Law Emeritus, University of San Diego Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Michigan
- Professor of Law, Chancellor and Dean Emeritus, Hastings College of the Law
- Professor of Law, Yale Law School
- Professor of Law, Pepperdine University Professor of Law Emeritus, University of California, Los Angeles
- Open Chapter
- Publication Date: May 8th, 2015
- ISBN: 9780314290168
- Subject: Natural Resources
- Series: Hornbooks
- Type: Hornbook Treatises
- Description: This treatise is a thorough assessment of the important and growing field of natural resources law. It provides comprehensive coverage of the laws, policies, and decision-making processes pertinent to the “core” commodity natural resources – rangeland, timber, mineral resources, energy resources, and water. It also covers the management and protection of non-commodity resources, such as wildlife, wilderness, and other types of preservation and recreation lands. As an essential addition to any environmental, natural resources, or public lands library, the book puts natural resources law in context with a review of the National Environmental Policy Act, a history of natural resources use and regulation, as well as a user-friendly description of resource economics.