978-0078023866 Chapter 17 Internet Exercise and Supplements Part 1

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

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

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

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

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

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

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

any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.