In Praise of Parochialism: The Advent of Local Environmental Law
2006; Routledge; Volume: 23; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês
10.58948/0738-6206.1096
ISSN0738-6206
Autores Tópico(s)Property Rights and Legal Doctrine
ResumoUnited States Army Corps of Engineers, 6 the Court held that the Army Corps lacked jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act to regulate development in intrastate, non-navigable waters solely on the basis of the presence of migratory birds. 7 The jurisdictional limits of federal agencies to protect the environment, resting in part on the Interstate Commerce Clause of the federal Constitution, were at issue in this case.Such jurisdictional limits, of course, do not constrain state governments or their localities in regulating wetland disturbances or other private land uses.These jurisdictional, constitutional, and political obstacles have redirected federal energies from regulating land use to influencing state land use regulation.The Clean Water Act provides states with federal funds to encourage land use planning to prevent nonpoint source pollution. 8 State and local governments are encouraged under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act to adopt plans to preserve coastal areas. 9Federal financial aid is denied for developments in sensitive coastal areas under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act. 10 The modification of habitats that may harm endangered species is prohibited under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") unless the modification is allowed by a permit issued pursuant to an approved habitat conservation plan." 6. 531 U.S. 159 (2001).7. Id. at 171. 8. 33 U.S.C. § 1281(g)(1) (1994).9. The Act provides grants to coastal states to develop management programs for their coastal zones.16 U.S.C. 88 1451-1465 (1994).State programs must meet several requirements, including providing for management of land uses having a significant impact on coastal waters and making a
Referência(s)