Environmental law

Subscribe to Environmental law via RSS

The Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School has published its preview of Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012), the takings case set to be argued on October 3, 2012.

Petitioner, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (the “Commission”) sued Respondent, the United States, for a violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which compels the government to compensate parties when the government physically seizes property. Specifically, the Commission argues that the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) permanently destroyed trees in a bottomland hardwood forest in Arkansas by intermittently flooding the forest for six years. The United States asserts that the actions of the Corps did not constitute a taking because the Corps did not oust the Commission of possession of the forest, and only a continuous invasion qualifies as a physical taking. The Supreme…

Continue Reading A Concise Preview Of The Arguments In Arkansas Game: Flooding & Takings

Those of you who attended the recent CLE session at the ABA Annual Meeting about Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012) may recall that Professor John Echeverria, the well-known environmental lawprof, said he was writing a brief in the case supporting the government’s arguments, but was looking for a “client.” Well, it looks like he found one: today, the International Municipal Lawyers Association filed this amicus brief in support of the respondent.

In Arkansas Game, the Federal Circuit held that flooding caused by the Corps of Engineers was only temporary, and did not result in a compensable taking merely because it eventually stopped, and “at most created tort liablity.” The dissenting judge concluded that temporary flooding was no different in kind than more permanent flooding that occurs in other inverse condemnation cases, and regularly results in awards of …

Continue Reading IMLA Amicus Brief In SCOTUS Flood Takings Case: This Is Not An “Environmental” Case

Check this out. A report from the Maui News that “Environmental court would be perfect fit here – judge.” Apparently, there is an effort to get the Judiciary or the Legislature to form another court with specialized jurisdiction, either formally like the Family Courts, or more likely on a less formalized basis like the “Drug Courts” that the circuit courts convene.

And who is recommending the formation of such a court? Why a judge from just such a court in Memphis, Tennessee:

“I’ve learned over the years that if you get them by the wallet, their hearts and minds follow,” Potter said to about 100 people at the Maui Arts & Cultural Center.

Potter said that an environmental court here is a perfect fit – and long overdue. There’s just so much to protect and balance in this delicate paradise, he said.

“The environment is everything here. It’s…

Continue Reading Does Hawaii Need An “Environmental Court?” – Doesn’t It Already Have One?

Here’s the federal government’s merits brief in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012), the case in which the Federal Circuit held that flooding caused by the Corps of Engineers was only temporary, and did not result in a compensable taking merely because it eventually stopped, and “at most created tort liablity.” The dissenting judge concluded that temporary flooding was no different in kind than more permanent flooding that occurs in other inverse condemnation cases, and regularly results in awards of compensation. The Federal Circuit’s opinion is here.

As you might expect, the brief phrases the Question Presented somewhat differently than the property owner/petitioner’s brief:

The Court of Federal Claims found that during several years in the 1990s, temporary and irregular changes in water releases from a flood-control dam operated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers marginally…

Continue Reading Fed Govt’s Brief: “Temporary And Irregular Inundation Of Wetlands” (Read: Flooding) Is Not A Taking

This just in: as we predicted after oral arguments (see HAWSCT Oral Argument Recap – Who Defines The “Project” For Archaeological Review? and The Real “Descendants” Plays Out In The Hawaii Supreme Court – Honolulu’s $4+ Billion Rail Project In Grave Danger), in a unanimous opinion, Hawaii Supreme Court has slapped down the City of Honolulu’s archaelological inventory survey, holding:

In sum, the SHPD failed to comply with HRS chapter 6E and its implementing rules when it concurred in the rail project prior to the completion of the required archaeological inventory survey for the entire project. The City similarly failed to comply with HRS chapter 6E and its implementing rules by granting a special management area permit for the rail project and by commencing construction prior to the completion of the historic preservation review process.

Slip op. at 6. The court vacated the trial court’s decision, and sent…

Continue Reading Hawaii Supreme Court Smacks Rail EIS – City Needed To Evaluate Burials For “Entire Project” Before Starting To Build

This past week was the ABA Annual Meeting in Chicago. These things can often be endurance contests where you’re rushing from one meeting to another (is this the Executive Committee meeting or the Council meeting?), and it’s often hard to tell the players without a scorecard.

Sprinkled among these unexciting-but-productive sessions are the real meat of the Annual Meeting, the CLE sessions. Some are interesting and fun (but pretty useless as CLE). Others are timely. Some are just plain weird. But never let it be said that the State and Local Government Law Section (the one that we are active in) doesn’t put on relevant programming: two of the featured CLE’s this past week were of particular interest to our readers, one about eminent domain, and the other about the takings case currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court (which will be argued on October 3, 2012).…

Continue Reading Summary Of Flood Takings CLE – Lawprofs And Lawyers Discuss Pending SCOTUS Case

We are at the ABA Annual meeting this week, so don’t have a lot of time to keep up a long-distance practice and write up comprehensive blog posts, so we’re going to keep it short.

Here’s the latest takings decision from the Federal Circuit in a case we’ve been following, Estate of Hage v. United States, No. 2011-5001 (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2012). The property owners filed their case in 1991 in the Court of Federal Claims seeking compensation for the federal government’s taking of water rights in Nevada. In 2008, the CFC ruled in favor of the property owners, but the Federal Circuit reversed on Williamson County grounds because the case wasn’t administratively ripe. The federal agency, you see, has not reached a final decision on what the property owners might do with the land, and just might issue a permit (even if other similar permit applications…

Continue Reading Federal Circuit: 22-Year Old Takings Case In Which The Landowner Is Already Dead Is Not Ripe

Thanks to the Land Use Prof Blog for getting the word out about the most recent documentary from filmmaker Gary Hustwit, “Urbanized,” which will have its Hawaii premier this weekend as part of Interisland Terminal‘s “Manufacturing Reality” film series.

The film examines how cities are designed — whether on purpose or though usage — and what works and what doesn’t. It covers a range of issues: zoning, architecture, mass-transit, sewage, redevelopment, sprawl, smart growth, and economic inequality. Urbanized features planners, architects, artists, and lawyers (including colleague Grady Gammage, Jr., with a different perspective on “sprawl” in Arizona), discussing their visions of urban design.

From the film’s description page:

Urbanized is a feature-length documentary about the design of cities, which looks at the issues and strategies behind urban design and features some of the world’s foremost architects, planners, policymakers, builders, and thinkers. Over half the world’s population …

Continue Reading Honolulu Premiere: “Urbanized” – Designing Cities, Working Cities

Last week, we were on the Rick Hamada program on KHVH-AM, summing up the recent Hawaii Supreme Court oral arguments in Kaleikini v. Yoshioka, No. SCAP-11-0000611, the appeal asking whether archaeological review must be completed for the entire 20-mile length of the Honolulu rail project, or whether it can be done on a “phased” or segment-by-segment basis. (A preview and briefs are posted here.)

Here’s a “video” (no picture, this is radio).Continue Reading More Thoughts On Honolulu Rail And The Sufficiency Of Archaeological Review

Watch this case: it is likely to be a landmark in Hawaii water law.

Hawaii water law cases tend to be vast adventures in history, culture, irreconcilable arguments, and oddball doctrines (e.g., appurtenant water rights are keyed to the amount of taro under cultivation at the time of the 1848 Mahele), and the appeal to be heard by the Hawaii Supreme Court on Wednesday, June 6, 2012, starting at 9:00 a.m., appears to be no different. It seems to have something for everyone: appellate jurisdiction, administrative law (the old metaphysical question of what is a “contested case”), instream flow standards, Native Hawaiian rights, and the public trust in water resources.

Here’s the description of In re `Iao Ground Water Management Area High-Level Source Water Use Permit Applications and Petition to Amend Interim Instream Flow Standards of Waihe`e River and Waiehu, `Iao, and Waikapu Streams Contested Case Hearing…

Continue Reading HAWSCT Oral Arguments: The Next Big Hawaii Water Case