Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Chapter 17 - Environmental Protection
Internet Exercises and Supplements
Answer to Internet Exercise (p. 771)
1. This is an internet exercise can be assigned by the instructor to the whole class or for extra credit
Student Project
1. Find a website illustrating one of the environmental issues discussed in Chapter 17. Explain the
Supplemental Web Address
http://www.yahoo.com/Government/Law/Environmental (Links to a variety of environmental web sites)
Answers
Answer to ‘Practicing Ethics: Global Environmental Justice’ Question (p. 738)
1. The students could have a discussion based on this question. It may be useful for the instructor to
Answer to ‘Valuing Ecosystem Services’ Question (p. 741)
1. The text provides one response to the critic—people might not pay to not get mugged (the red
light analogy), but still support a food stamp or head start program to try to help those who
Answer to ‘Ethical Business Decision Making’ (p. 743)
1. The students could have a discussion based on this question. Consider other issues facing
17-1
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in
any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 17 - Environmental Protection
Answer to ‘Laws and Regulations’ Question (p. 744)
1. This is an internet exercise that could be assigned by the instructor. The answers will vary
Answer to ‘National Environment Policy Act’ Question (p. 745)
1. Sierra Club brought an action against the Hawaiian Tourism Authority seeking relief for failure to
Answer to ‘Pollution in the Movies’ Question (p. 756)
1. At the heart of both conflicts was proving causation, linking the actions of the corporate defendant
to the illnesses suffered by the plaintiffs. Not only did plaintiffs have the burden of proving that the
Answer to ‘How does your Community Compare?’ Questions (p. 759)
1. The answers to all the questions posed will depend on the communities in which the particular
students live.
Answer to ‘Practicing Ethics: Environmentally Aware Decision Making’
Question (p. 760)
1. Possible practices might include: buying higher percentage of ingredients locally; working with
suppliers to reduce the packaging that supplies come in; investigating the relative environmental
Answer to ‘Practicing Ethics: Voluntarily Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions’
Question (p. 770)
1. The students could have a discussion based on this question.
Cases and Answers
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 127 S.Ct. 1438 (2007) (p.
17-2
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in
any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 17 - Environmental Protection
747)
Syllabus
In 1999, several private organizations filed a rulemaking petition asking EPA to regulate “greenhouse
gas emissions from new motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act. Four years later, the EPA entered an
order denying the rulemaking petition. The EPA gave two reasons for its decision: (1) that contrary to
the opinions of its former general counsels, the Clean Air Act does not authorize EPA to issue
mandatory regulations to address global climate change; and (2) that even if the agency had the
authority to set greenhouse gas emission standards, it would be unwise to do so at this time. [The
petitioners appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the EPA’s order. The U.S.
Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the EPA had offered no reasoned explanation for
its denial of the rulemaking petition, rendering its action “arbitrary, capricious… or otherwise not in
accordance with law.””
Answers to ‘Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency’ Questions (p. 749)
1. The Supreme Court said it had the power to reverse the EPA’s decision if that decision was
2. The petitioners wanted the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles.
3. The EPA said it would not regulate the greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles, even if it
has the power to do so, because doing so would conflict with other administrative priorities—it
4. The EPA must first make a decision as to whether greenhouse gases “may reasonably be
5. The Court did not determine that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles cause or contribute to
Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
531 U.S. 159 (2001) (p. 753)
Syllabus
Petitioner desired to develop a disposal site for baled nonhazardous solid waste at a location
that had been the site of a sand and gravel pit mining operation several decades previously.
17-3
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in
any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 17 - Environmental Protection
Long since abandoned, the site’s excavation trenches had evolved into a scattering of
permanent and seasonal ponds of varying size, none more than several feet deep. The Army
Corps of Engineers interpreted its authority to regulate “navigable waters” under the Clean
Water Act to allow it to regulate any waters which “are or would be used as habitat by other
migratory birds which cross state lines.” Because approximately 121 bird species had been
observed at the site, the Corps refused to issue a permit to the petitioner to develop the
disposal site. The petitioner sued. The district court found for the Corps. The circuit court held
that the Corps could reach “as many waters as the Commerce Clause allows” and therefore
found the Corps’ interpretation of the Clean Water Act reasonable. The Supreme Court
reversed, holding that the so-called Migratory Bird Rule is not fairly supported by the Clean
Water Act. In an earlier case, they had permitted the extension of “navigable waters” to reach
wetlands “that actually abutted on a navigable waterway” and specifically acknowledged that
Congress intended the Act to reach “at least some waters that would not be deemed
‘navigable’ under the classical understanding of that term.” Here the ponds, however, had no
connection whatever to “the ‘waters’ of the United States.”
Answers to ‘Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’
Questions (p. 755)
1. The Corps argued that “navigable waters” were any “waters of the United States” and that
included purely intrastate “waters,” “the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect
interstate or foreign commerce.” Further, it would extend to intrastate waters solely by reason of
2. The Court found that the Corps’ current position was inconsistent with its original interpretation,
which was that “navigable waters” referred to “those waters of the United States which are subject
3. The Supreme Court only held that the Congress had not sought to regulate this category of water
4. The students could have a discussion based on this question. Students might view the issue
17-4
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in
any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 17 - Environmental Protection
Cook Inlet Beluga Whale v. Daley, 156 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D.C. D.C. 2001) (p. 762)
Syllabus
Evidence showed that the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale is a genetically distinct, geographically
isolated marine mammal with a population estimated at 300 to 400 whales, down from 1000 to
1,300 whales 20 years ago. It also was not disputed that the single most significant factor in
the population decline has been Native American hunting. Plaintiffs filed a petition to have the
whale listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). After the petition was filed, the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) designated the whale as “depleted” under the Marine
Mammal Protection Act. The listing as “depleted” allows the promulgation of regulations which
would limit further takings by Native Americans. The NMFS then determined that listing under
the ESA was “not warranted.” Petitioners sought court review of that decision. There are five
statutory factors for determining whether a species must be listed under the ESA and the
decision is to be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data
available.” The court considered each of the five factors in turn and determined that the NMFS
had acted within the scope of its legal authority in declining to list the whale under the ESA.
The factor most implicated was “overutilization,” but as to that factor, the court found that it
does not support ESA listing “because it has been stopped—by designating the whale as
‘depleted’ under the MMPA.” Further, “[i]f the moratorium fails to control Native American
harvesting in the future, ESA listing will be warranted.”
Answers to ‘Cook Inlet Beluga Whale v. Daley’ Questions (p. 763)
1. The petitioners wanted an ESA listing because “a listing under the MMPA does not have the
2. Under the APA, the court must consider “whether the agency acted within the scope of its legal
3. The five factors are: (1) present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the
Arizona Cattle Growers’ Ass’n v. Salazar, 606 F. 3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2010) (p. 764)
Syllabus
The plaintiff, Arizona Cattle Growers’ Ass’n challenged the defendant, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
about the designation of critical habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl. The primary issue before the
court was whether the FWS included unoccupied areas in its critical habitat designation. Arizona Cattle
also argues that even using the owl’s substantially larger home range as the appropriate measure for
the territory occupied by the owl, the FWS has designated a grossly disproportionate amount of land
compared to the amount the owl occupies. The Court affirmed, finding no fault with the FWS’s
designation of habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl.
17-5
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in
any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 17 - Environmental Protection
Answers to ‘Arizona Cattle Growers’ Ass’n v. Salazar’ Questions (p. 765)
1. The ESA defines a species’ critical habitat based on the geographical area “occupied” by the
species. Thus, the court was interpreting the term “occupied” as used in the statute.
2. The FWS identified Protected Activity Areas (PACs) that included the best nesting and roosting
areas where there were “known owl sites” and the most proximal and highly used foraging areas
3. Arizona Cattle argued that “occupied” means the areas the owl “resides in” which would include
4. The Court applied the same standard as in Cook Inlet Beluga Whale—“the agency did not
5. From the first lawsuit in 1995 through this decision in 2010 15 years elapsed.
Answers to Chapter Questions (p. 771)
1. Pashigian cites conflict between developed and developing regions of the nation, between urban
2. The cost of compliance should certainly come up in the discussion.
3. The students could have a discussion based on this question. Presumably some of the items that
would be mentioned would be an evaluation of the need for fresh water to sustain projected area
4. The students could have a discussion based on this question.
5. This question is particularly suitable for a brief small group exercise, with the groups then
17-6
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in
any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
