In response to Grant?s question about setting up legal structures to coax cities to be more environmentally conscious or to insure a more effective use of resources and how these issues come into the courts or become legislative issues. This is one of the areas that I work in (not presently because I am clerking for a Judge but I will go back to practicing Energy, Environmental, and Natural Resources Law after this stint). The following thoughts are my observations and not a list of policies that I think are right or wrong.
First, I have been convinced that the best way to effectively make environmental changes, in regards to residential, urban concerns, and even agriculture, is through city and county planning. Zoning laws and county ordinances are tremendously powerful and often can withstand legal challenges. Plus, in my experience people care about environmental concerns in their neighborhood or that effect them and it is easier to persuade them to take action. Plus large interest groups are less effective at the local level because money is less of a concern. We NEED to think and act LOCALLY (I know that some of my environmentally minded friends vehemently disagree with me and you may as well). For example, an international conference on the environment that produces an agreement is all fine and nice (it has value and should be pursued) but at the end of the day a city policy to eliminate the installation of garbage disposals in new homes is where the real action is. Now, if that city policy was motivated by an effort to comply with the international agreement then we are talking about a different thing, but more than likely that city policy was motivated by the efforts of citizens who studied the issue and determined the water supply was being contaminated by the disposals. On this note, most western states have progressive water codes that are fairly environmentally friendly (after years of battles) however the environmental movement has focused on the national level when it comes to water policy, helping the federal government secure rights to water believing then the environmentalist could control the water. This has completely back fired because federal water is not subject to the progressive state systems and often times is more subject to the will of powerful special interest groups, such as large corporations who want to use the water.
Second, I believe if we stopped subsidizing environmentally harmful activity on a national and state level then cities would have every reason to by more conscious because it would effect their bottom line and the quality of life of the citizens. This is what I mean when I propose legal structures for distributing resources such as water at on a true cost basis that charges for over uses but provides a basic level to all. For example, federal funding of highways and roads compared to funding mass transportation systems is an example of an indirect subsidy that allows more well off people to behave in a way (commute alone in a SUV) without truly internalizing the costs of such behavior (the true cost in terms of emissions, resources that could have been directed elsewhere, time etc . . .). There already is tremendous economic motivation in the American West for cities to conserve water but this exists even though the federal government and most western state governments give water away at a fraction of its true cost. Who benefits? Big users, not the average people who use only what they need, in fact, the average users pay because they subsidize the big users. See my next posting (forthcoming) about using direct policies and not the Santa Fe policy.
Third, not enough efforts are made to persuade people at a local level that environmental policies increase the quality of life and do not cost us but rather save us. We need to challenge the idea of value (i.e., challenge the assumption that non-developed land constitutes worthless property). For example, we currently live in the city center and save time, money, and do not burden the system by commuting ? these things make our life better (in Houston the system has its problems but that is another posting about urban planning).
Finally, environmental issues get to the legislature in the usual ways: concerned citizens and special interest. But again, these things can be accomplished locally in a more effective way. Environmental issues reach the courts through enforcement of laws and the MOST significant change in the American landscape has been the creation of laws (since the 1960’s) that allow private individuals to enforce environmental policy. If you have some connection to Mono Lake in California (you live there or visit) you can sue the City of L.A. to prevent them from draining the lake and endangering the entire ecosystem which is against federal and state environmental policy (this is a true example of a case).
Okay, sorry about the first, second, third structure of the posting ? what can I say, I am a lawyer!
dddroog
Nov 06 2002
08:19 am
In response to Grant?s question about setting up legal structures to coax cities to be more environmentally conscious or to insure a more effective use of resources and how these issues come into the courts or become legislative issues. This is one of the areas that I work in (not presently because I am clerking for a Judge but I will go back to practicing Energy, Environmental, and Natural Resources Law after this stint). The following thoughts are my observations and not a list of policies that I think are right or wrong.
First, I have been convinced that the best way to effectively make environmental changes, in regards to residential, urban concerns, and even agriculture, is through city and county planning. Zoning laws and county ordinances are tremendously powerful and often can withstand legal challenges. Plus, in my experience people care about environmental concerns in their neighborhood or that effect them and it is easier to persuade them to take action. Plus large interest groups are less effective at the local level because money is less of a concern. We NEED to think and act LOCALLY (I know that some of my environmentally minded friends vehemently disagree with me and you may as well). For example, an international conference on the environment that produces an agreement is all fine and nice (it has value and should be pursued) but at the end of the day a city policy to eliminate the installation of garbage disposals in new homes is where the real action is. Now, if that city policy was motivated by an effort to comply with the international agreement then we are talking about a different thing, but more than likely that city policy was motivated by the efforts of citizens who studied the issue and determined the water supply was being contaminated by the disposals. On this note, most western states have progressive water codes that are fairly environmentally friendly (after years of battles) however the environmental movement has focused on the national level when it comes to water policy, helping the federal government secure rights to water believing then the environmentalist could control the water. This has completely back fired because federal water is not subject to the progressive state systems and often times is more subject to the will of powerful special interest groups, such as large corporations who want to use the water.
Second, I believe if we stopped subsidizing environmentally harmful activity on a national and state level then cities would have every reason to by more conscious because it would effect their bottom line and the quality of life of the citizens. This is what I mean when I propose legal structures for distributing resources such as water at on a true cost basis that charges for over uses but provides a basic level to all. For example, federal funding of highways and roads compared to funding mass transportation systems is an example of an indirect subsidy that allows more well off people to behave in a way (commute alone in a SUV) without truly internalizing the costs of such behavior (the true cost in terms of emissions, resources that could have been directed elsewhere, time etc . . .). There already is tremendous economic motivation in the American West for cities to conserve water but this exists even though the federal government and most western state governments give water away at a fraction of its true cost. Who benefits? Big users, not the average people who use only what they need, in fact, the average users pay because they subsidize the big users. See my next posting (forthcoming) about using direct policies and not the Santa Fe policy.
Third, not enough efforts are made to persuade people at a local level that environmental policies increase the quality of life and do not cost us but rather save us. We need to challenge the idea of value (i.e., challenge the assumption that non-developed land constitutes worthless property). For example, we currently live in the city center and save time, money, and do not burden the system by commuting ? these things make our life better (in Houston the system has its problems but that is another posting about urban planning).
Finally, environmental issues get to the legislature in the usual ways: concerned citizens and special interest. But again, these things can be accomplished locally in a more effective way. Environmental issues reach the courts through enforcement of laws and the MOST significant change in the American landscape has been the creation of laws (since the 1960’s) that allow private individuals to enforce environmental policy. If you have some connection to Mono Lake in California (you live there or visit) you can sue the City of L.A. to prevent them from draining the lake and endangering the entire ecosystem which is against federal and state environmental policy (this is a true example of a case).
Okay, sorry about the first, second, third structure of the posting ? what can I say, I am a lawyer!