Natural Resources
How much are we going to have to know history
Pollard v. Hagan?
We learned a lot of statutory stds in cases like the standing ones – do we need to know them?
What about presentations are those going to be in final?
B. What are Natural Resources?
v Water, trees, minerals, air, animals, places (public parks, etc . . .)
v Equal Footing Doctrine: Each state admitted into the union has the same rights and privileges as the states that were first admitted into the union
v Shores and beds of navigable waters passed into state ownership at the time of statehood.
v In Re Tortorelli: Criminal case. Tortorelli was charged with stealing trees from Lake Washington. He took trees from the bottom of the lake that had been previously uprooted. State law allows the taking of floating logs, but you have to give money to the original owners. However, you cannot take the logs that are not strays and were part of the submerged forest. Issue is that it has to be someone else’s property. Here he argues that the logs don’t belong to the states.
Ø Natural resources are resources that result from natural occurrences including submerged trees and oil, gas and minerals. Includes oils, gas and minerals, but not limited to these. (says nothing about above ground trees)
Ø Uses the dictionary definition: “material supplied by nature”
Ø Both the rooted trees and the stray trees are natural resources that belong to the state
§ Public trust doctrine: owns things in waterways and waterbed (from state constitution)
§ Submerged Land Act Statute: states took title to natural resources found within navigable waters.
· This statute was trying to make clear that states owned the resources and submerged land, not the federal government. It is a federal/state concern
· Because of above, maybe this statute does not apply it was not designed to apply to disputes between private landowners and state. Instead it was designed to apply to disputes between federal and state government
· Also says trees are natural resources
· Cut logs are not natural resources because they do not naturally occur like that
§ Even if above doesn’t apply there is still a state statute: state law says that any log that is unbranded is owned by the state.
Ø State owned the logs that he was selling – therefore the conviction stands
Ø The place where things are found is important
Ø Dissent: shouldn’t have expanded the definition of natural resources so broadly.
§ Statutory interpretation gives a definition of natural resources that should be followed
v Paige v. Fairfield: the University filed for a zoning permit to subdivide their land into lots and sell them. (13.41 wooded acres). The zoning committee granted this request. The commission didn’t consider whether natural resources were involved and whether there would be impairment or destruction of resources and whether alternative plans were necessary. These were required under the CT statute (like NEPA). If there’s potential pollution or impairment then they must look at alternatives.
Ø Appellate Court: trees and wildlife are not natural resources. Natural resources are only things that have a monetary value. This definition is from Black’s Law: “any material in its native state which when extracted have economic value. Timberland, oil and gas wells, ore deposits and other products of nature that have economic value.”
§ No evidence showing trees were out of the ordinary or had a value. Normal trees do not have economic value.
§ How do you value trees and clean air. How do we value difference between having trees and not having trees. There are now companies that try to do this.
§ Rare definition – not really used anymore
Ø This court: Trees are natural resources
§ Nothing in state law defines natural resources as things having economic value. Instead, look to the broad policy of the act and the desire to protect these types of areas.
Ø CT statute that allows citizens to sue to protect natural resources.
§ MN Environmental Rights Act: interpreted broadly and has had far reaching implications immediately unlike the CT one.
v What could be natural resources?
Ø Not agricultural lands or domestic cattle
C. What is Conservation?
v Utilitarianism: public ownership of natural resources, development and use without waste to promote the common good, reliance upon scientific management techniques. Manage public resources in an efficient and sustainable manner.
v Preservation: preserving nature from human exploitation
v Conservation Ethic: set of rules to meet circumstances so new and intricate or else encompassing responses so far in the future, that the average person cannot foresee the final outcome.
v Conservation = the use of resources (but in a careful and sustainable manner)
v Preservation = the non-use of resources (keep nature in its natural state)
D. The Trust Notion
v The Planetary Trust Notion: obligation to protect our natural and cultural heritage for future generations
v A trust relation imposes on trustees a duty to act for the benefit of beneficiaries with respect to trust matters.
v Problems with place: by placing so much importance on place, people have little care to protect places that they don’t visit
Buffalo Problem
v There is a wild herd of buffalo that graze on Yellowstone. Their winter grazing place is beyond the boundaries. They can be slaughtered if leave the boundaries if have brucellosis or if there are more than 3,000. They are going to other federal public lands.
Section 2: Federal Lands
C. 1. The Birth of the Federal Public Domain
v US government still holds title to 28% of land
v When old states ceded their territories to the federal government, the agreement allowed new states to be on equal footing with the old states.
v When the 13 colonies became independent from Great Britain, they claimed title to the lands under navigable waters within their boundaries. Because all subsequently admitted states enter on an equal footing with the original 13 states, they too hold title to the land under navigable waters within their boundaries upon entry into the United States, absent some federal reservation. It is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
v Pollard v. Hagan (1845): Pollard was given the land by the government of Spain originally in what is now Alabama. He wants a piece of land by the edge of the water for a landing site for his lumber mill. The defendant occupied the land and fills in the land in 1823. In the meantime, Alabama becomes a state in 1819. Then Pollard’s heirs take over. Lewis recovers possession later. The US government granted the land through Congress in 1836 to Pollard.
Ø Plaintiffs not relying on the Spanish land grant. They are relying on the act of the land patent from the United States and the act of Congress that gives them the land.
Ø Issue: whether the jury instructions were correct
§ The jury instructions said that if the lands were below the high water mark at the time the state was admitted to the union, then the plaintiffs couldn’t get title.
Ø The jury instructions were right
§ Anything that was under water belonged to Alabama not the federal government. Other states kept lands under navigable waters when they were admitted to the states. Even though AL was admitted later, it will gets these same protections. The US only owned the land temporarily in trust until AL became a state.
§ Equal footing doctrine: you treat the new states the same as the original states. Its like the federal government never owns the land.
Ø The Court held that the original States had reserved to themselves the ownership of the shores of navigable waters and the soils under them, and that under the principle of equality the title to the soils of navigable water passes to a new State upon admission.
Ø Important issue is federal land rights v. state rights
§ Federal government can never have complete control over the land. As soon as a state is created, the full power the federal government has over the land ceases.
§ Unless states give land to federal governm
property be used for a special benefit of others
§ Earlier state acts didn’t create express trust and later state acts did.
§ Here the court says there is enough specificity to create a trust. There is explicit instructions
Ø Does Congress have the power to create this trust, because they didn’t with earlier states and it violates equal footing
§ Fits with US property clause rights
§ Could have done it after CO was admitted. And was not a condition for admittance.
§ Doesn’t violate equal footing
Ø This amendment doesn’t violate the enabling act
§ On its face doesn’t change minimum price or won’t use money for schools. On its face it looks okay.
· There may be a problem when only the stewardship land is left, but not there yet. It may be a problem because no other land to sell for school funds. Could also get money from stewardship lands through leases if not sold.
§ If it did violate the fiduciary duty, then it would violate the supremacy clause because the federal law preempts state law.
3. Grants to Private Parties.
v US wanted to get the land settled so it began to sell the land.
v Congress surveyed lands for sale in many different ways, but also passed “preemption” statutes that were designed to protect those already settled on their land from having their claims sold out from under them.
v No adverse possession is allowed against the federal government
v Foust v. Lujan: Part of the land was given to Indians in 1868. Then, the government decides it wants the land and takes some of it back for hydroelectric power. In the 30s, the Smiths build on some land. Then he applies for a patent to the land. He receives the patents in 1936. However, the parcel of land noted in the patent is wrong. Everyone thinks he’s on the land recorded, but its actually a different part. Then in 1939, the government gives the land they took for hydroelectric power that is uninhabited is given back to the Indians. Foust buys the land after looking at title. Some time later there was a resurvey and he finds he is on the wrong land. Then he goes and tries to correct the error in the patent (patent correction). He doesn’t have a deed to the land he’s own. He offers to deed back the land that he was given in exchange for the land he built on.
Ø The patent correction comes from US law that allows errors to be corrected. FLPMA: the secy may correct patents or documents of conveyance relating to the disposal of public lands where necessary in order to eliminate errors
Ø The land had been excluded from entry by settlers because it was being held as part of the power reserve. The statute used to require land’s availability for entry. However, the later law changed that. So even though this land was not available for settling originally – doesn’t matter
Ø This is a mistake of fact: the area is difficult to survey because of tough topography
Ø Arguments in favor of not correcting:
§ Fiduciary duty for tribes
· Court rejects that and balances the equities. Clearly everyone was mistaken here. He was mistaken, the US government was mistaken and even the Indians didn’t ever think that they owned the land. They never put a claim for the land (either they were mistaken or sat on their rights too long). It would be hard for him to move.
