Volume
25, Issue 2
Spring 1995
ARTICLES
The Sleeping Giant Awakens: PUD No. 1 of Jefferson
County v. Washington Department of Ecology
Katherine P. Ransel
Ms. Ransel is the public interest
lawyer who represented the plaintiffs in Jefferson County. In this
Article, she analyzes the U.S. Supreme Court's 1994 decision that confirms the
right of states to impose minimum instream flow requirements on federal
hydroelectric projects and discusses its implications.
Environmental Racism Claims Brought Under Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act
Michael Fisher
Mr. Fisher evaluates the
usefulness of Title VI's prohibition on discrimination in federal funding to
the environmental justice movement, focusing on the evidentiary demands that a
Title VI case presents and concluding that a Title VI approach to litigation
would overcome the doctrinal barriers that have frustrated past attempts to
apply civil rights laws to the problem of discrimination.
An Essay on Environmental Audit Privileges: The Right
Problem, the Wrong Solution
Craig N. Johnston
Professor Johnston urges EPA to
prevent federal and state legislation designed to create either privileges or
immunities for documents related to an environmental audit by altering its
enforcement policies to create proper incentives for industries to implement
voluntary compliance-assurance programs.
COLLOQUIUM: WHO RUNS THE RIVER?
Sponsored by the Northwest Water Law and Policy Project of Northwestern
School of Law of Lewis & Clark College
On November 4, 1994, the Northwest Water Law and Policy Project of
Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark College held a colloquium on
issues affecting Columbia River salmon. The focal points of the colloquium were
two decisions, Northwest Resource Information Center v. Northwest Power
Planning Council and Idaho Department of Fish and Game v. National
Marine Fisheries Service, that held that the federal agencies responsible
for running the river had violated the Northwest Power Act and the Endangered
Species Act. Participants in the conference included attorneys who argues both
sides of these cases and other interested parties.
These Articles are adaptations of remarks delivered at the colloquium.
COMMENTS
American Indian Reserved Water Rights: The Federal
Obligation To Protect Tribal Water Resources and Tribal Autonomy
Sylvia F. Liu
Ms. Liu asserts that a federal
water policy that has historically neglected tribal interests, theories
favoring equitable distribution of resources, and tribal sovereignty dictate a
broad interpretation of the Indian reserved water rights doctrine.
Oregon's Senate Bill 61: Balancing Protection and
Privatization of Cultural Resources
Katherine S. Somervell
Ms. Somervell reviews the
legislative history and analyzes the practical effects of Oregon's Bill 61. She
concludes that, although Senate Bill 61 provides Oregon tribes with greater
control over the preservation and disposition of their cultural resources,
serious flaws remain which will continue to undermine cultural resource
protection in Oregon.
NOTES
Problems of Punitive Damages for Political Protest and
Civil Disobedience
Kaarin L. Axelsen
Ms. Axelsen examines Huffman
& Wright Logging Co. v. Wade, a recent Oregon case in which members of
Earth First! were assessed punitive damages for trespassing on private property
to protest a logging operation. She concludes that the freedom of expression
provisions of the U.S. and Oregon Constitutions make punitive damages
inappropriate in cases of political protest and civil disobedience.
Animal Habitats in Harm's Way: Sweet Home Chapter of
Communities for a Great Oregon v. Babbitt
Starla K. Dill
Ms. Dill criticizes the majority
opinion in Sweet Home III. She argues that, pursuant to the Chevron
doctrine, the majority should have held the Fish and Wildlife Service
interpretation of harm as habitat modification, a reasonable interpretation of
the Endangered Species Act and concludes that the Supreme Court should reverse Sweet
Home III and declare the Fish and Wildlife Service regulation valid.
FIFRA Preemption of Common-Law Tort Claims After Cipollone
Sandi L. Pellikaan
Ms. Pellikaan analyzes Cipollone v. Liggett Group, applies its two-part test for determining the preemptive domain of a federal act to FIFRA, discusses how post-Cipollone decisions have applied to preemption test, and concludes that FIFRA should not preempt common-law tort claims.