Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
in whole or in part.
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
AT THE ENDS OF THE CASES
CASE 25.1—QUESTIONS (PAGE 490)
THE ETHICAL DIMENSION
money to take into account. These might include such social and political goals as assistance
for the disadvantaged.
THE GLOBAL DIMENSION
In analyzing the costs and benefits of an action that affects the environment, should a
1A. Suppose that during most of the year, there was a solid strip of land around the
property in question that was never under water or saturated. Would the outcome of this
case have been the same? Why or why not? Much would depend on what percentage of the
year that the strip of land around the property in question was actually dry. If it were dry for 95
percent of the year, the outcome of this case probably would have been different. If it were dry
CHAPTER 25: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 3
in whole or in part.
may depend in part on the egregiousness of the conduct—was the property owner’s action
willful? Of course, when such a sanction is publicized, there may be a deterrent effect on others’
behavior.
Some observers argue, however, that such sanctions are inappropriate for violations of
environmental laws unless those violations cause serious and immediate physical harm to other
To establish a common law cause of action for nuisance, each plaintiff would have to identify a
distinct harm caused by the pollution that was separate from that affecting the general public. In
other words, they would need to show how each of them was individually harmed by Cotton
Design’s emissions.
Major stationary sources of air pollution are required to use the maximum achievable control
technology to reduce emissions. The EPA issues guidelines as to what equipment meets this
standard, and the guidelines may vary depending on whether the source is new or existing and
whether the area is clean or polluted.
4 UNIT SIX: GOVERNMENT REGULATION
© 2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website,
in whole or in part.
ANSWER TO DEBATE THIS QUESTION IN THE REVIEWING FEATURE
AT THE END OF THE CHAPTER
The courts should reject all cases in which the wetlands in question do not consist
of actual bodies of water that exist during the entire year. The Army Corps of Engineers
brings numerous cases to court each year that involve areas that are not “wet” part of the
year. Some are only wet during storms. Congress never created wetlands legislation to protect
such areas. The U.S. is a huge country such that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should
spend its scarce resources protecting real wetlands—bodies of water that are wet all year long.
ANSWERS TO ISSUE SPOTTERS IN THE EXAMPREP FEATURE
AT THE END OF THE CHAPTER
1A. Resource Refining Company’s plant emits smoke and fumes. Resource’s operation
includes a short railway system, and trucks enter and exit the grounds continuously.
2A. ChemCorp generates hazardous wastes from its operations. Disposal Trucking
Company transports those wastes to Eliminators, Inc., which owns a site for hazardous
waste-disposal. Eliminators sells the property on which the disposal site is located to
Fluid Properties, Inc. If the Environmental Protection Agency cleans up the site, from
held responsible for the entire cost may be able to recoup some of it in a lawsuit against other
potentially responsible parties.
CHAPTER 25: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 5
in whole or in part.
ANSWERS TO BUSINESS SCENARIOS AND BUSINESS CASE PROBLEMS
25-1A. Clean Air Act
(Chapter 25—Page 486)
The courts have held that “safe” does not mean absolutely risk-free. Some small level of risk of
cancer might be permitted under the Clean Air Act. Consequently, the EPA has not eliminated
Fruitade has violated a number of federal environmental laws if such actions are being taken
without a permit. First, because the dumping is in a navigable waterway, the River and Harbor
Act of 1886, as amended, has been violated. Second, the Clean Water Act of 1972, as
amended, has been violated. This act is designed to make the waters safe for swimming, to
protect fish and wildlife, and to eliminate discharge of pollutants into the water. Both the
(Chapter 25—Pages 494–496)
As a general rule, a property owner is free to use his or her property in any manner desired so
long as such use is not in violation of any statute or does not interfere with the property rights of
others. When such use interferes with another’s property rights, an action may be brought as a
tort of nuisance. In such a case, the court would try to balance the interests of both parties. In
25–4A. Environmental impact statement
(Chapter 25—Page 485)
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that an environmental impact statement
(EIS) be prepared for every major federal action that significantly affects the quality of the
in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 25: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 7
in whole or in part.
parties, each liable for an allocated portion of the costs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit affirmed.
25–7A. A QUESTION OF ETHICS—Clean Air Act
(a) The court held that the fuel economy standards and GHG regulations did not cover
This fact undermines the assertion that the GHG regulation is nothing more than a fuel economy
standard, since it encompasses emissions which do not correlate with fuel economy.”
(b) The plaintiffs argued that Vermont's GHG regulations “intrude upon the foreign
policy of the United States and the foreign affairs prerogatives of the President and Congress of
the United States.” They claimed that “the regulation conflicts with the United States' pursuit of
organizations are taking a variety of steps that contribute to the overall GHG intensity reduction
goal. These nonfederal climate change activities can be an important factor in the success of
emission reduction policies.’ The report goes on to specify that ‘[m]any state governments have
made . . . climate change initiatives high priorities . . . . These states are implementing a wide
range of policies and measures to achieve the multiple benefits of minimizing their GHG
automakers.” But, said the court, ”the automotive industry bears the burden of proving the
regulations are beyond their ability to meet.” The court pointed out that “[p]olicy-makers have
used the regulatory process to prompt automakers to develop and employ new, state-of-the-art
technologies, more often than not over the industry's objections. The introduction of catalytic
8 UNIT SIX: GOVERNMENT REGULATION
in whole or in part.
converters in the 1970s is just one example. In each case the industry responded with
“[T]wo factors suggest the industry can meet these challenges. First, EPA clearly has the
authority and flexibility to address lead time concerns” while waiting for the EPA to approve the
California standards, which will then also apply in the other states. “Second, automakers
describe intensive efforts to develop and utilize new technologies to increase fuel efficiency and
reduce emissions. American automakers are in the vanguard of utilizing hybrid technology to
25–8A. LEGAL REASONING GROUP ACTIVITY—Clean-up costs
(a) One way to reduce administrative costs is to spend less money on administration:
allocate dollars strictly for clean-up. Administrative costs would also be reduced if business and
property owners would voluntarily clean up their dump sites. If insurance companies, lenders,
(b) Congress can change the laws pertaining to hazardous waste clean up if that
legislative body has the will to do it. Federal and state administrative agencies that implement
and administer those laws can also change them within the parameters of their authority. By any
means, those laws should be changed to reduce the costs to government, and it is not likely that
anyone would disagree with that goal. There is likely to be disagreement in what those changes
should involve, however. Should private businesses be required to shoulder more of the
burden? Should compliance be made less onerous so that clean up, and thereby the costs,
would be less? Should the owners of property adjacent to a site be asked to pay for its clean up
on the ground that the clean up will benefit their property most directly?
CHAPTER 25: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 3
in whole or in part.
may depend in part on the egregiousness of the conduct—was the property owner’s action
willful? Of course, when such a sanction is publicized, there may be a deterrent effect on others’
behavior.
Some observers argue, however, that such sanctions are inappropriate for violations of
environmental laws unless those violations cause serious and immediate physical harm to other
To establish a common law cause of action for nuisance, each plaintiff would have to identify a
distinct harm caused by the pollution that was separate from that affecting the general public. In
other words, they would need to show how each of them was individually harmed by Cotton
Design’s emissions.
Major stationary sources of air pollution are required to use the maximum achievable control
technology to reduce emissions. The EPA issues guidelines as to what equipment meets this
standard, and the guidelines may vary depending on whether the source is new or existing and
whether the area is clean or polluted.
4 UNIT SIX: GOVERNMENT REGULATION
© 2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website,
in whole or in part.
ANSWER TO DEBATE THIS QUESTION IN THE REVIEWING FEATURE
AT THE END OF THE CHAPTER
The courts should reject all cases in which the wetlands in question do not consist
of actual bodies of water that exist during the entire year. The Army Corps of Engineers
brings numerous cases to court each year that involve areas that are not “wet” part of the
year. Some are only wet during storms. Congress never created wetlands legislation to protect
such areas. The U.S. is a huge country such that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should
spend its scarce resources protecting real wetlands—bodies of water that are wet all year long.
ANSWERS TO ISSUE SPOTTERS IN THE EXAMPREP FEATURE
AT THE END OF THE CHAPTER
1A. Resource Refining Company’s plant emits smoke and fumes. Resource’s operation
includes a short railway system, and trucks enter and exit the grounds continuously.
2A. ChemCorp generates hazardous wastes from its operations. Disposal Trucking
Company transports those wastes to Eliminators, Inc., which owns a site for hazardous
waste-disposal. Eliminators sells the property on which the disposal site is located to
Fluid Properties, Inc. If the Environmental Protection Agency cleans up the site, from
held responsible for the entire cost may be able to recoup some of it in a lawsuit against other
potentially responsible parties.
CHAPTER 25: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 5
in whole or in part.
ANSWERS TO BUSINESS SCENARIOS AND BUSINESS CASE PROBLEMS
25-1A. Clean Air Act
(Chapter 25—Page 486)
The courts have held that “safe” does not mean absolutely risk-free. Some small level of risk of
cancer might be permitted under the Clean Air Act. Consequently, the EPA has not eliminated
Fruitade has violated a number of federal environmental laws if such actions are being taken
without a permit. First, because the dumping is in a navigable waterway, the River and Harbor
Act of 1886, as amended, has been violated. Second, the Clean Water Act of 1972, as
amended, has been violated. This act is designed to make the waters safe for swimming, to
protect fish and wildlife, and to eliminate discharge of pollutants into the water. Both the
(Chapter 25—Pages 494–496)
As a general rule, a property owner is free to use his or her property in any manner desired so
long as such use is not in violation of any statute or does not interfere with the property rights of
others. When such use interferes with another’s property rights, an action may be brought as a
tort of nuisance. In such a case, the court would try to balance the interests of both parties. In
25–4A. Environmental impact statement
(Chapter 25—Page 485)
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that an environmental impact statement
(EIS) be prepared for every major federal action that significantly affects the quality of the
in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 25: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 7
in whole or in part.
parties, each liable for an allocated portion of the costs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit affirmed.
25–7A. A QUESTION OF ETHICS—Clean Air Act
(a) The court held that the fuel economy standards and GHG regulations did not cover
This fact undermines the assertion that the GHG regulation is nothing more than a fuel economy
standard, since it encompasses emissions which do not correlate with fuel economy.”
(b) The plaintiffs argued that Vermont's GHG regulations “intrude upon the foreign
policy of the United States and the foreign affairs prerogatives of the President and Congress of
the United States.” They claimed that “the regulation conflicts with the United States' pursuit of
organizations are taking a variety of steps that contribute to the overall GHG intensity reduction
goal. These nonfederal climate change activities can be an important factor in the success of
emission reduction policies.’ The report goes on to specify that ‘[m]any state governments have
made . . . climate change initiatives high priorities . . . . These states are implementing a wide
range of policies and measures to achieve the multiple benefits of minimizing their GHG
automakers.” But, said the court, ”the automotive industry bears the burden of proving the
regulations are beyond their ability to meet.” The court pointed out that “[p]olicy-makers have
used the regulatory process to prompt automakers to develop and employ new, state-of-the-art
technologies, more often than not over the industry's objections. The introduction of catalytic
8 UNIT SIX: GOVERNMENT REGULATION
in whole or in part.
converters in the 1970s is just one example. In each case the industry responded with
“[T]wo factors suggest the industry can meet these challenges. First, EPA clearly has the
authority and flexibility to address lead time concerns” while waiting for the EPA to approve the
California standards, which will then also apply in the other states. “Second, automakers
describe intensive efforts to develop and utilize new technologies to increase fuel efficiency and
reduce emissions. American automakers are in the vanguard of utilizing hybrid technology to
25–8A. LEGAL REASONING GROUP ACTIVITY—Clean-up costs
(a) One way to reduce administrative costs is to spend less money on administration:
allocate dollars strictly for clean-up. Administrative costs would also be reduced if business and
property owners would voluntarily clean up their dump sites. If insurance companies, lenders,
(b) Congress can change the laws pertaining to hazardous waste clean up if that
legislative body has the will to do it. Federal and state administrative agencies that implement
and administer those laws can also change them within the parameters of their authority. By any
means, those laws should be changed to reduce the costs to government, and it is not likely that
anyone would disagree with that goal. There is likely to be disagreement in what those changes
should involve, however. Should private businesses be required to shoulder more of the
burden? Should compliance be made less onerous so that clean up, and thereby the costs,
would be less? Should the owners of property adjacent to a site be asked to pay for its clean up
on the ground that the clean up will benefit their property most directly?
