This is the first of four posts on the application of the public trust doctrine to water resources, based on a forthcoming CPR publication, Restoring the Trust: Water Resources and the Public Trust Doctrine, A Manual for Advocates, which will be released this summer. If you are interested in attending a free web-based seminar on Thursday, July 30, at 3:00 pm EDT, please contact CPR Policy Analyst Yee Huang, or register here.
While the United States has a strong private property system, that system is a product of common property ownership of certain resources. Doubtful? For centuries, people have enjoyed public access to resources such as the ocean, certain bodies of water, tidewaters and tidal lands, shorelines, and most sensibly the air. Much of the commerce during the foundational years of the United States depended on common, public access to rivers for transportation of goods. Imagine the hassles if a ship had to negotiate passage through each privately owned section of a river!
In legal terms, this idea of common property ownership is captured in the public trust doctrine, a legal doctrine imported from ancient Roman and English law and common to many cultures around the world. The doctrine holds that certain water-related natural resources belong to all and cannot be privately owned or controlled because of their overwhelming importance to each individual and society as a whole. Similar to any legal trust, the public trust doctrine has three primary components: the trustee, the trust principal, and the beneficiaries of the trust. In the public trust framework, the state is the trustee, which manages specific natural resources – the trust principal – for the benefit of present and future generations – the beneficiaries.
In its traditional form, the doctrine only encompasses navigable water resources – larger bodies of water that historically accommodated commerce and transportation. As a result, the traditional doctrine ignores many surface water resources and groundwater. Yet these latter resources also provide vital public benefits, including drinking water and recreational, environmental, and aesthetic needs.
Applying the doctrine to all water resources is a logical step that would capture the value and importance of water as a public resource. Surprisingly though, even after key expansions of the doctrine in California and Hawaii, few states have applied the doctrine to specifically protect water resources. Several factors, however, may push the public trust doctrine to the forefront of water resource protection: emerging evidence of dwindling inexpensive water supplies; changing public perception of the value of certain uses of water, such as bottled water; looming negative impacts of climate change on water resources and future water supplies; and increasing demands on water to fill a plethora of environmental, municipal, industrial, and agricultural needs.
This disquieting brew provides a timely opportunity for the public trust doctrine to both complement and reinforce water resource protection laws. States should explicitly declare that the public trust doctrine applies to all water resources. Such a declaration would create a duty for states to manage water quality, quantity, and viability for present and future generations and would unfailingly recognize the ecological and environmental value of water.
Special thanks to the Park Foundation for making this manual possible.
Showing 2,837 results
Yee Huang | July 16, 2009
This is the first of four posts on the application of the public trust doctrine to water resources, based on a forthcoming CPR publication, Restoring the Trust: Water Resources and the Public Trust Doctrine, A Manual for Advocates, which will be released this summer. If you are interested in attending a free web-based seminar on […]
Joel A. Mintz | July 15, 2009
In a memo sent to EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance on July 2nd, Lisa Jackson, the Agency’s Administrator, observed that “the level of significant non-compliance with Clean Water Act permitting requirements is unacceptably high and the level of enforcement activity is unacceptably low.” She directed Agency officials to develop a new plan for […]
Rena Steinzor | July 14, 2009
Bowing to right-wing political pressure, Cass Sunstein, nominee for “regulatory czar” in the Obama Administration, broke months of official silence to plead his case with the cattle ranchers and agribusiness lobby who have engineered a hold on the nomination by Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA). Sunstein’s move was all the more troubling because his absence from […]
Daniel Farber | July 14, 2009
This item cross-posted by permission from Legal Planet. Greenwire reports that one issue in the confirmation hearing may be a case involving climate change. The plaintiffs sued under the federal common law of nuisance for injunctive relief against public utilities for their carbon emissions. The case has now been pending before a panel including Judge […]
Yee Huang | July 13, 2009
Perhaps – as a byproduct of a recent, revealing report by the Government Accountability Office and the economic downturn – the bubble of market growth for the bottled water industry may finally deflate, if not outright burst. Pop! The report, released last Wednesday, further debunks the myth that the quality of bottled water is better […]
Rebecca Bratspies | July 10, 2009
In this month’s Atlantic, Gregg Easterbrook writes that privatizing the seas through use of individualized transferrable quotas (ITQs) is the solution to the grave problem of overfishing. Recently, NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco came out strongly in favor of ITQs (which the agency is calling “catch shares”), and has committed her agency to “ transitioning to […]
Matt Shudtz | July 8, 2009
On March 9, President Obama announced a science integrity initiative aimed at taking the politics out of science. In his memorandum that day, he laid out the broad principles and instructed the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to “develop recommendations for Presidential action designed to guarantee scientific integrity throughout the […]
Ben Somberg | July 7, 2009
It was, as Greenwire put it, a rough term for environmental interests; in five separate cases the Supreme Court overturned rulings that environmentalists had favored. CPR Member Scholar Amy Sinden told the NYTimes of one of the themes: “It’s become a cliché to say the Roberts court is about the expansion of executive power … […]
Holly Doremus | July 6, 2009
Cross-posted by permission from Legal Planet. For much of the past decade, the Department of Agriculture regulations governing land and resource management planning in the national forests have been a kind of political ping-pong ball, bounced back and forth between administrations, and between the executive branch and the courts. Now the U.S. District Court for […]