A.  The Sources and Limits of Regulatory Power

1. The Police Power.
2. The Commerce Clause.
3. Equal Protection



Village of Willowbrook v. Olech (2000).
• Prof. Jan G. Laitos, "The New Equal Protection Clause and the Singling Out Prohibition" (Paper presented at the 10th Annual Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute Land Use Conference April 19-20, 2001) from the web site of the curriculum for Land Use Law at Washington University School of Law, by Prof. Daniel R. Mandelker.


4. Regulations That "Go Too Far": The problem of regulatory takings.



Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon


Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission.
• Photos and text describing the area in issue in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Comm'n,505 U.S. 1003 (1992) taken in 1994 amd again in 2000 from a site by Professor William Fischel, Professor of Economics at Dartmouth College.
• Listen to the oral argument before the Supreme Court from The Oyez Project of Jerry Golman and Northwestern University. [Search "CASES" by title; requires RealAudio^TM plug-in.]
• Good v. United States, 189 Fed.3d 1355 (1999) (from Emory University School of Law) (Landowner denied permit to fill wetlands due to presence of endangered species on land at time of application. No taking even though Endangered Species Act had not been adopted at time of owner's acquisition of land. "In view of the regulatory climate that existed when [owner] acquired the subject property, [owner] could not have had a reasonable expectation that he would obtain approval to fill ten acres of wetlands in order to develop the land." Owner's contract of prchase stated: "[t]he Buyers recognize that … as of today there are certain problems in connection with the obtaining of State and Federal permission for dredging and filling operations." 189 F.3d at 1361-2.)


Zealy v. City of Waukesah and Loveladies Harbor, Inc. v. United States
• PROBLEMS
  
• Ariel view of Loveladies Harbor taken 29 March 1995.


Dolan v. City of Tigard.
• Hear Chief Justice Rehnquist announce the Court's Opinion and Justice Stevens announce his Dissenting Opinion from The Oyez Project of Jerry Goldman and Northwestern University. [Search "CASES" by title; requires RealAudio^TM plug-in.]
• Visit the City of Tigard, Ore..
• Photos of the replacement house and beach in Nolan v. California Coastal Commission.

Note on Regulatory Takings and Jurisdictional Considerations.

Environmental Policy Project of Georgetown University Law Center "Takings" Issues in the Courts, Congress, and State legislatures, as well as related issues.
Position on "Takings" of the American Planning Association.
Defend Your Takings: Municipal Liability Pools Can Play A Key Role In Helping Members To Protect Their Communities' Health in Environment Takings Claims, by Douglas Kendall and Matthew Garvey. This is a draft of an article published in the October 2000 issue of Public Risk

1999-2001 Proposed federal "takings" legislation:
2001 — S. 1412, Private Property Rights Act of 2001.
2000 — H.R. 2372, Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2000.

Testimony before House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution,

in support of and in opposition to H.R. 2372, with links to witnesses' statements.
1999 — S. 1028, Citizens Access to Justice Act of 1999 (Senate version).

B.  The Regulatory Process: An introduction.

Administrative Agency Actions or Decision Making.
A. 3. Contents of the Final Rule.
• Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use," 66 Fed. Reg. 28335 (May 22, 2001).
• Memorandum from John Graham, Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OMB), September 20, 2001, outlining the standards that OIRA will use in reviewing proposed regulations.
C. Rulemaking and Policy Statements under the Administratinve Procedure Act.
Judicial Review of Agency Actions.
B. Participation by Those Interested or Affected — Standing
• Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 505 U.S. 555 (1992), from The Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School.
• Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) from FindLaw.
• Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 520 U.S. 725,117 S.Ct. 1659(1997).
C. Timing Problems. Ripeness
• Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967).
F. Judicial Review of Agency Actions.
• Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

The Regulation Home Page advertised as "comprehensive source of regulatory studies, statistics, and information to facilitate a better understanding of the complexity of the regulatory state."

C.  The National Environmental Policy Act.

• The NEPA Process - diagram
• CALI Lesson NEPA Basics
• More NEPA Information.

Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council.
Learn more about the Methow Valley:
• Methow Valley Homepage.
• Now known as Arrowleaf, the Early Winters site of 1,020 privately owned acres, was the subject of a second attempt to create a ski resort in 1995 and 1996. That project foundered before the local government planning agency. Later, The Trust for Public Land became invloved and purchased the land for $17 million. Seattle Times January 9, 2001. The Trust is reselling in large tracts subject to conservation easements limiting development on each tract. The benefits of the easements will be held by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. It is known as The Arrowleaf Conservation Project. You can visit the Arrowleaf Marketing Website.
• Methow Conservancy.
• Okanogan National Forest Homepage.