The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been the subject of much controversy during the twenty or so years since its establishment—much more controversy than other agencies created at around the same time. Descriptions of the EPA's failures often focus upon the inherent faults in its structure and on the statutes it was asked to administer. One point almost completely ignored is the fact that, unlike other agencies of the ‘rights revolution’, the EPA has been asked to protect an entity not yet truly recognized as a right. Although the EPA was a product of the ‘rights revolution’, it was not a rights-based agency, and was probably never intended to be so. This helps to explain why it has failed to meet its statutory mandates-all three branches of government have been able to minimize the effects of environmental regulation without ever having to consider fully the environmental rights of the citizenry. The National Environmental Policy Act provided the citizenry with the assurance that environmental interests would be considered within the governmental and bureaucratic decisionmaking process, but this was no guarantee of rights. In this paper it is suggested that without any recognition of true environmental rights it will always be possible for pro-development interests to reduce the obligations and effects of environmental protection legislation upon industry.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AberbachJ.D.1990. Keeping a Watchful Eye: The Politics of Congressional Oversight (Brookings InstituteWashington, DC)
2.
BatesG.1992. Environmental Law in Australia3rd edition (ButterworthSydney)
3.
Bureau of National Affairs,1976, “Office of Management and Budget plays critical part in environmental policymaking, faces little external review” Environment Reporter7693–697.
4.
CaldwellL.K.1975. Man and His Environment: Policy and Administration (Harper and RowNew York)
5.
CaulfieldH.P.1989, “The conservation and environmental movements”, in Environmental Politics and Policy: Theories and Evidence Ed. LesterJ.P. (Duke University PressDurham, NC) pp 13–56
6.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. vNatural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (467 US 837 [1984])
7.
ClarkG.L.1993. Pensions and Corporate Restructuring in American Industry (John Hopkins University PressBaltimore, MD)
8.
Clean Air Act, 1970, and 1977 and 1990 amendments, 42 USC §§7401–7642
9.
Clean Water Act,1972, Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 USC §1251 (1982)
10.
Clean Air Act Hearings,1970, “Implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970”, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Senate Committee on Public Works, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session (US Government Printing OfficeWashington, DC)
11.
CohenS.A.1986, “EPA: a qualified success”, in Controversies in Environmental Policy Eds KamienieckiS., O'BrienR., ClarkeM. (State University of New York PressAlbany, NY) pp 174–195
12.
DaviesJ.C., DaviesB.S.1975. The Politics of Pollution (PegasusIndianapolis, IN)
13.
Delaney v Environmental Protection Agency (898 F.2d 687 [1990])
14.
DeMuthC.C., GinsburgD.H.1986, “White House review of Agency rulemaking” Harvard Law Review991075–1088.
15.
DwyerJ.P.1990, “The pathology of symbolic legislation” Ecology Law Quarterly17233–316.
16.
EadsG.C., FixM.1984. Relief or Reform? Reagan's Regulatory Dilemma (The Urban Institute PressWashington, DC)
17.
Environmental Defense Fund v Corps of Engineers (325 F.Supp 728 [1971])
18.
ElkingtonJ.1987. The Green Capitalists: Industry's Search for Environmental Excellence (Victor GollanczLondon)
19.
ElliottE.D., AckermanB.A., MillianJ.C.1985, “Toward a theory of statutory evolution: the federalization of environmental law” Journal of Law, Economics and Organization1313–340.
20.
Ely v Velde (451 F.2d 1130 [1971])
21.
Ethyl Corporation v Environmental Protection Agency (541 F.2d 1, at 20 [1976])
22.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 1969, 16USC 662
23.
GAO,1990, “Creation of a department of the environment”, Statement of J Dexter Peach, before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, GAO/T-RCED-90-25 (General Accounting OfficeWashington, DC)
24.
GAO,1992, “Environmental enforcement: alternative enforcement organizations for EPA”, General Accounting Office, report to Congressional Requesters, GAO/RCED-92-107 (General Accounting Office, Washington, DC)
25.
GAO,1993, “Creation of a department of environmental protection”, General Accounting Office, testimony before the Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security and the Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources, Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, GAO/T-RCED-93-39 (General Accounting Office, Washington, DC)
26.
GlicksmanR.L.1987, “A retreat from judicial activism: the Seventh Circuit and the environment” Chicago-Kent Law Review63209–253.
27.
GlicksmanR., SchroederC.H.1991, “EPA and the courts: twenty years of law and politics” Law and Contemporary Problems54(4) 249–309.
28.
GradF.P., RathjensG.W., RosenthalA.J.1971. Environmental Control: Priorities, Policies and the Law (Columbia University PressNew York) Griffin v Illinois (351 US 12 [1956])
29.
GuruswamyL.1991, “The case for integrated pollution control” Law and Contemporary Problems54(4) 41–56.
30.
Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd v Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc. (108 S.Ct 376 [1987])
31.
Heckler v Chaney (105 S.Ct 1649, 1656 [1985])
32.
HinesN.W.1977, “A decade of nondegradation policy in congress and the courts: the erratic pursuit of clear air and clean water” Iowa Law Review62643–711International Harvester Co. v Ruckelshaus (102 F.2d 615 [1973])
33.
KamienieckiS., O'BrienR., ClarkeM. (Eds), 1986. Controversies in Environmental Policy (State University of New York PressAlbany, NY)
34.
KirchickW.D.1975, “The continuing search for a constitutionally protected environment” Environmental Affairs4515–558.
35.
KlipschR.E.1974, “Aspects of a constitutional right to a habitable environment: towards an environmental due process” Indiana Law Journal49(2) 203–237.
36.
KovacicW.E.1991, “The Reagan judiciary and environmental policy: the impact of appointments to the federal courts of appeals” Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review18669–713.
37.
LandyM.K., RobertsM.J., ThomasS.R.1990. The Environmental Protection Agency: Asking the Wrong Questions (Oxford University PressNew York)
38.
LazarusR.J.1991a, “The neglected question of congressional oversight of EPA: Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes (who shall watch the watchers themselves)?” Law and Contemporary Problems54(4) 205–239.
39.
LazarusR.J.1991b, “The tragedy of distrust in the implementation of federal environmental law” Law and Contemporary Problems54(4) 311–374.
40.
LevanthalH.1974, “Environmental decisionmaking and the role of the courts” University of Pennsylvania Law Review122(3) 509–555.
41.
LevyR.E., GlicksmanR.L.1989, “Judicial activism and restraint in the Supreme Court's environmental law decisions” Vanderbilt Law Review42343–431.
42.
LiroffR.A.1976. A National Policy for the Environment: NEPA and Its Aftermath (Indiana University PressBloomington, IN)
43.
LundqvistL.J.1980. The Hare and the Tortoise: Clean Air Policies in the United States and Sweden (University of Michigan PressAnn Arbor, MI)
44.
McGarityT.O.1991, “The internal structure of EPA rulemaking” Law and Contemporary Problems54(4) 57–111.
45.
MarcusA.A.1980. Promise and Performance: Choosing and Implementing an Environmental Policy (Greenwood PressWestport, CT)
46.
MarcusA.A.1991, “EPA's organizational structure” Law and Contemporary Problems54(4) 6–40.
47.
MelnickR.S.1983. Regulation and the Courts: The Case of the Clean Air Act (The Brookings InstituteWashington, DC)
48.
NathanR.P.1975. The Plot that Failed: Nixon and the Administrative Presidency (John WileyNew York)
49.
National Environmental Policy Act, 1970, 42 USC §4321 (1982)
50.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v Environmental Protection Agency (475 F.2d 968 [1973])
51.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v Environmental Protection Agency (489 F.2d 390 [1974])
52.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v Train (510 F.2d 692 [1975])
53.
PercivalR.V.1991, “Checks without balance: executive office oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency” Law and Contemporary Problems54(4) 127–204.
54.
PierceR. J.Jr.1988, “Chevron and its aftermath: judicial review of agency interpretations of statutory provisions” Vanderbilt Law Review41301–314.
55.
QuarlesJ.1976. Cleaning Up America: An Insider's View of the Environmental Protection Agency (Houghton MifflinBoston, MA)
56.
RabeB.G.1986. Fragmentation and Integration in State Environmental Management (The Conservation FoundationWashington, DC)
57.
RabinR.L.1986, “Federal regulation in historical perspective” Stanford Law Review381189–1326.
58.
RegensJ.L., RycroftR.W.1989, “Funding for environmental protection comparing congressional and executive influences” The Social Science Journal26(3) 289–301.
59.
Reynolds v Sims (377 US 533 [1964])
60.
RodgersW.H.Jr.1972, “The National Industrial Pollution Control Council: advise or collude?” Boston College Industrial and Commercial Law Review13719–747.
61.
ScaliaA.1978, “Vermont Yankee: the APA, the D.C. Circuit, and the Supreme Court” The Supreme Court Review pp 345–409
62.
ScaliaA.1987, “Responsibilities of regulatory agencies under environmental laws” Houston Law Review2497–109.
63.
ScaliaA.1989, “Judicial deference to administrative interpretations of law” Duke Law Journal pp 511–521
64.
SchoenbrodD.1983, “Goals statutes or rules statutes: the case of the Clean Air Act” UCLA Law Review30740–828.
65.
SCIIA,1968, “A Congressional White Paper on a National Policy for the Environment”, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and House Committee on Science and Astronautics, 90th Congress, 2nd Session (US Government Printing OfficeWasington, DC)
66.
Senate Report1985, Number 50, 99th Congress of the United States of America, 1st Session, 1985
67.
ShapiroM.1988. Who Guards the Guardians? Judicial Control of Administration (University of Georgia PressAthens, GA)
68.
ShapiroS.A., GlicksmanR.L.1988, “Congress, the Supreme Court, and the quiet revolution in administrative law” Duke Law Journal pp 819–878
69.
ShapiroS.A., LevyR.E.1987, “Heightened scrutiny of the Fourth Branch: separation of powers and the requirement of adequate reasons for agency decisions” Duke Law Journal pp 387–455
70.
ShimbergS.1991, “Checks and balance: limitations on the power of congressional oversight” Law and Contemporary Problems54(4) 241–248Sierra Club v Gorsuch (551 F.Supp 785 [1982])
71.
Sierra Club v Morton (405 US 727 [1972])
72.
Sierra Club v Ruckelshaus (344 F.Supp 253 [1972]; 412 US 541 [1973])
73.
SiveD.1977, “Foreward: roles and rules in environmental decision making” Iowa Law Review62637–642.
74.
SmithV.K. (Ed.), 1984. Environmental Policy Under Reagan's Executive Order: The Role of Benefit- Cost Analysis (University of North Carolina PressChapel Hill, NC)
75.
Status of Programs,1977, “Status of the Programs and Policies of the Environmental Protection Agency”, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution of the Senate Committee on Public Works, 95th Congress, 1st Session (US Government Printing OfficeWashington, DC)
76.
SteckH.J.1972, “Nixon and the environment: a critique” Alternatives Winter, 12–19
77.
SteckH.J.1975, “Private influence on environmental policy: the case of the National Industrial Pollution Control Council” Environmental Law5241–281.
78.
StewartR.B.1977, ‘The development of administrative and quasi-constitutional law in judicial review of environmental decisionmaking: lessons from the Clean Air Act” Iowa Law Review62713–769
79.
StoneC.D.1972, “Should trees have standing?” Southern California Law Review45450–501.
80.
StumpfH.P.1988. Americal Judicial Politics (Harcourt Brace JovanovichNew York)
81.
SunsteinC.R.1990. After the Rights Revolution: Reconceiving the Regulatory State (Harvard University PressCambridge, MA)
82.
Tanner v Armco Steel Corp (340 F.Supp 532 [1972])
83.
The State of New York v Gorsuch (554 F.Supp 1060 [1983])
84.
TolchinS.J., TolchinM.1983. Dismantling America: The Rush to Deregulate (Houghton MifflinBoston, MA)
85.
TuranoV.S.1984, “The Vermont Yankee line: a hard look becomes a passing glance” New England Law Review19837–866.
86.
Weinburger v Romero-Barcels (456 US 305 [1982])
87.
Weyerhauser Co. v Costle (590 F.2d 1011 [1978])
88.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (435 US 519 [1978])
