National Audubon Society v. Superior Court

What is National Audubon Society v. Superior Court known for?


quot part


significant water

. 982 (W.D.N.Y. 1991) Ill. Cent. R. R., 146 U.S. 387 (1892) and preservation of a public interest (such as recreation, swimming, access, and sport fishing). Marks v. Whitney, 98 Cal. Rptr. 790, 491 P.2d 374 (1971) In ''National Audubon Society v. Superior Court,'' it was alleged by the plaintiffs that the public trust doctrine was being violated due to environmental damages to Mono Lake in the form of significant water level declines


public

in California highlighting the conflict between the public trust doctrine and appropriative water rights. The Public Trust Doctrine is based on the principle that certain resources (such as navigable waters) are too valuable to be privately owned and must remain available for public use. In ''National Audubon

Society v. Superior Court,'' the court held that the public trust doctrine restricts the amount of water that can be withdrawn from navigable waterways. The basis for the Public Trust Doctrine goes back to Roman law. Under Roman law, the air, the rivers, the sea and the seashore were incapable

of private ownership; they were dedicated to the use of the public. In essence, the public trust doctrine establishes the role of the state as having trustee environmental duties owed to the public that are subsequently enforceable by the public. There is judicial recognition of this, dictating


scenic views


water quality

water quality. In 1976, a group of students from the University of California began to study the Mono Lake environment. Their research concluded that the lake’s reduction in water level caused environmental damage, including the loss of the lake’s brine shrimp, loss of migrating and nesting birds, and the destruction of the Mono Lake’s natural beauty. In 1979, the National Audubon Society, Mono Lake Committee, Friends of the Earth, and four

be employed, using the discretionary powers enjoyed by states for determining public purpose, as the basis for the preservation of a public interest in recreation. Other states, such as Montana, have integrated natural resource values and the public trust doctrine into appropriative water rights through allowing water to be appropriated for future uses that are protective of the environment or a resource (such as maintaining instream flows for water quality


title national

of the streams feeding the lake. The California Supreme Court held that the state, under the public trust

challenge the ''DWP’s'' permits by asserting the public trust doctrine limits their permits and licenses, or argue that the water diversions are not “reasonable or beneficial,” as required under the California water rights system? And 2.) Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies was pursued or is applicable in this context. This case eventually reached the Supreme Court of California, carrying this title: '''''National Audubon Society v. Superior


political amp

Audubon Society v. Los Angeles. Superior Court of Alpine County No. 6429'''''. The case was transferred to Alpine (Alpine County, California) Superior Court (Superior Courts of California); ''DWP'' filed a cross-complaint seeking adjudication of Basin water


national attention

url http: www.pclfoundation.org work CEQA publisher pclfoundation.org The diversions from the second aqueduct caused the surface area of the lake to decrease by one-third and the lake level to drop


public interest

. 982 (W.D.N.Y. 1991) Ill. Cent. R. R., 146 U.S. 387 (1892) and preservation of a public interest (such as recreation, swimming, access, and sport fishing). Marks v. Whitney, 98 Cal. Rptr. 790, 491 P.2d 374 (1971) In ''National Audubon Society v. Superior Court,'' it was alleged by the plaintiffs that the public trust doctrine was being violated due to environmental damages to Mono Lake in the form of significant water level declines as a result of water diversions by the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (Los Angeles Department of Water and Power) (DWP).


982

. 982 (W.D.N.Y. 1991) Ill. Cent. R. R., 146 U.S. 387 (1892) and preservation of a public interest (such as recreation, swimming, access, and sport fishing). Marks v. Whitney, 98 Cal. Rptr. 790, 491 P.2d 374 (1971) In ''National Audubon Society v. Superior Court,'' it was alleged by the plaintiffs that the public trust doctrine was being violated due to environmental damages to Mono Lake in the form of significant water level declines

National Audubon Society v. Superior Court

agency_name Los Angeles Department of Water and Power nativename nativename_a nativename_r logo LA DWP Logo.jpg logo_width 200px logo_caption seal seal_width seal_caption picture picture_width picture_caption formed Water: 1902 Electric: 1916 preceding1 Los Angeles City Water Company preceding2 dissolved superseding jurisdiction headquarters John Ferraro Building (John Ferraro), Los Angeles, California latd latm lats latNS longd longm longs longEW region_code employees 8,611 employees budget $4.19 billion (water and electric) Electric: $3.19 billion Water: $1 billion minister1_name minister1_pfo minister2_name minister2_pfo chief1_name Austin Beutner chief1_position General Manager (Interim) chief2_name chief2_position agency_type Water Infrastructure parent_agency child1_agency child2_agency keydocument1 website footnotes thumb Landsat image of Mono Lake (File:Wfm mono lake landsat.jpg) thumb Lakeside of Mono Lake 1999 (File:Lakeside of Mono Lake.jpg)

The case of '''National Audubon Society v. Superior Court''' (Supreme Court of California, 1983) was a key case in California highlighting the conflict between the public trust doctrine and appropriative water rights. In essence, the public trust doctrine establishes the role of the state as having trustee environmental duties owed to the public that are subsequently enforceable by the public. There is judicial recognition of this, dictating that certain rights of the public are key to individual common law rights (such as state recognition of the public right or trust for waterways and coastal zones). Judicial recognition of the public trust doctrine has been established for tidelands and non-navigable waterways, Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Mississippi, 484 U.S. 469 (1988) submerged land (such as lake beds) and the waters above them, New York v. DeLyser, 759 F. Supp. 982 (W.D.N.Y. 1991) Ill. Cent. R. R., 146 U.S. 387 (1892) and preservation of a public interest (such as recreation, swimming, access, and sport fishing). Marks v. Whitney, 98 Cal. Rptr. 790, 491 P.2d 374 (1971)

In ''National Audubon Society v. Superior Court,'' it was alleged by the plaintiffs that the public trust doctrine was being violated due to environmental damages to Mono Lake in the form of significant water level declines as a result of water diversions by the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (Los Angeles Department of Water and Power) (DWP). The California Supreme Court held that the state, under the public trust doctrine, had '''continuing responsibility''' for the state's navigable waters and that the public trust doctrine, therefore, prevented any party from appropriating water in a manner that harmed the public trust interests. However, the court also recognized that LA depended on these diversions as a critical water source, and this in turn mitigated the rule of law as the court held that water transfers were permissible even though some damage to the environment would occur as long as this was kept to minimal harm to the extent feasible. This ruling established that the public trust doctrine and appropriative water rights are ''"part of an integrated system of water law"'' and so both must be considered when determining appropriate use of water in California.

Search by keywords:


Copyright (C) 2015-2017 PlacesKnownFor.com
Last modified: Tue Oct 10 05:56:30 EDT 2017