The legal environment and communal irrigation

The latest issue of the International Journal of the Commons has an article by Steven M. Smith, "Dynamics of the Legal Environment and the Development of Communal Irrigation Systems". From the Introduction (citations removed):

Archinia, Acequia System of El Rancho de las Golondrinas

Given the importance of external forces to the success of the commons, calls to integrate political ecology with the commons literature are becoming a common refrain. The combination can be approached from both directions: how do power structures shape institutions and how do institutions shape power structures? I take a historical perspective to explore both questions and their dynamic relationship. Specifically, I consider how external legal changes alter the incentives for how local users organize themselves and how those changes in local organizations alters the political coalitions, affecting subsequent legal changes.

To explore the question, I document and analyze the evolution of the legal environment and the development of communal irrigation systems, known as acequias, in current day New Mexico, US. Acequias have been held up as a case of a long-lived successful communal management regime of a natural resource . In the region of study, some acequias date back to the 16th century when Spain first colonized the area. The acequias have experienced sizeable shifts in their external legal surroundings, most rapidly and significantly during the US territorial period (1851–1912), that can be used to assess the relationship of external legislation and communal irrigation systems.

50 years ago

Daniel Farber goes back to the history of American environmental law again in his recent Legal Planet post, "50 Years Ago: Environmental Law in 1973". Farber writes:

Like today, 1973 was a time of political turmoil. The bitterly divisive Vietnam War was winding to an end, and much of the news that year was dominated by the Watergate scandal that ultimately brought down President Nixon. One subject stood outside the political turmoil: environmental law. In an EPA survey, 85% of the public thought pollution was a big problem.

The passage of the ESA highlights the extent of the national consensus over the environment. It’s a controversial law today, but it passed the Senate unanimously and the House by a 355-4 margin. In signing the bill into law, President Nixon said: “Nothing is more priceless and more worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as Americans.”  He congratulated Congress for “taking this important step toward protecting a heritage which we hold in trust to countless future generations of our fellow citizens."

After summarizing some judicial decisions of the year, Farber continues:

Efficiency and equality in US environmental regulation

Kunal Parker recently reviewed Elizabeth Popp Berman, Thinking Like an Economist: How Efficiency Replaced Equality in U.S. Public Policy (Princeton UP, 2022). There's a lot here that's relevant to the history of environmental regulation. First, Parker's summary of Popp Berman's argument, with obvious implications for understanding historically some mainstays of environmental policy, such as cost-benefit-analysis and market tools for regulation:

The book explores the rise to prominence of an economic “style of reasoning” in U.S. policymaking in the post-World War II decades. Between 1950 and 1980, Popp Berman shows, this style pervaded realm after realm of policymaking, from social welfare programs to the regulation of markets to the management of the environment.

The chief institutionalizers of the economic style of reasoning were not neoliberals or libertarians (these would become truly prominent in government only after the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980). Instead, they were Democrat-appointed economists and the bureaucrats they worked with and influenced. Albeit not ideologically opposed either to social programs or to market intervention, these economists and bureaucrats insisted that social goals be met as efficiently as possible and that market solutions were generally preferable to interventionist ones. Wherever possible, they pushed cost-benefit analyses and reviews within administrative agencies, urged the dismantling of early-twentieth-century market controls, and sought to achieve ends by creating markets for entitlements rather than by imposing standards by fiat. In all this, they shared much with those further to their right.

By the time Ronald Reagan was elected president, the economic style introduced during the Kennedy and Johnson years had become thoroughly entrenched. Indeed, it had become the hegemonic approach to solving all manner of public problems, its ubiquity and self-evidence continually reinforcing each other. Reagan Republicans would employ the economic style, but the ground had been laid for them decades earlier by Democrats. Indeed, Popp Berman argues, Democrats proved far less strategic in using the economic style than Reaganites. Democrats privileged it as a method in context after context and allowed it to subsume their substantive ends. By contrast, Reaganites were more selective and often successfully subordinated it to their substantive ends.

Parker, though, queries whether equality was actually the guiding principle in the pre-efficiency era:

Voluntarism and deregulation

Rachel S. Gross recently reviewed Jeffrey K. Stine's Green Persuasion: Advertising, Voluntarism, and America's Public Lands (Smithsonian 2021) for H-Environment. Gross writes:

In the 1980s, Hollywood tough guy Charles Bronson took his vigilante reputation to the world of public service. Bronson was a perfect poster boy for the Ronald Reagan-era PR effort, Take Pride in America. In TV ads, Bronson, along with fellow actors Clint Eastwood and Louis Gossert Jr., decried “bad guys who beat up on trees” and encouraged listeners to take voluntary action to help solve the problem (p. 62). The Take Pride ads were a curious take on the pressing environmental issues of the day. To be sure, vandalism did occur but to name that as a central environmental issue and to use Bronson’s image to convey pride in land as a masculine and patriotic concern were deflections. Just what these ads were a distraction from is the question that Jeffrey K. Stine addresses in Green Persuasion: Advertising, Voluntarism, and America’s Public Lands. Stine argues that the Take Pride in America campaign, which pushed voluntarism as a solution for the issues plaguing public lands, was a reflection of the conservative ideology that government was a problem rather than part of a solution. The Take Pride in America program suggested “that the enlightened self-interest of the private sector offered the ideal approach to public lands stewardship” (p. 53).

*****

Stine faces a challenge in that his book is an analysis of a government program that in the author’s own assessment was ultimately ineffectual and unimportant. In addition to showing the program’s lack of effectiveness, Stine also makes the case for why such an analysis is necessary. For Stine, the office was a failure but a revealing one, in that its longevity reveals a political history of conservative approach to environmental (lack of) action. Namely, Take Pride in America and the agenda of voluntarism it pushed via a succession of Republican administrations reflect a partisan divide on environmental policy, where conservatives aimed to deflect attention away from how they underfunded federal land agencies.

"Environmental law" - a response to Farber

I have some objections to a recent post by Dan Farber at Legal Planet, "Learning to Name Environmental Problems". 

Farber raises the interesting issue of when various issues seen today as "environmental problems" became thought of as such by the law, both in terms of seeing various issues – air pollution, water pollution, wilderness protection, and so on – as parts of a larger problem, and with regard to use of modern terms like "environment" and "pollution". But I think his answers are problematic.

Farber focuses on US Supreme Court decisions, finding its earliest uses of "air pollution" and "water pollution" and references to wilderness as something worthy of preservation in decisions from the 1960s. He also goes on to state that "The 1960s were also Congress’s first forays into issues like air and water pollution, wilderness protection, and the endangered species.  These developments set the stage for the blossoming of federal environmental law with the passages of NEPA, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and other major legislation in the decade that followed."

Even allowing for methodological nationalism and the focus on the unrepresentative Supreme Court, this is all rather strange.

Paul E. Wolfe, Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District vehicle, Burbank, 1947-1950?

Changes in environmental law scholarship

Recently published in Journal of Environmental Law: Ole Pedersen, "The Evolution and Emergence of Environmental Law Scholarship—A Perspective from Three Journals". The abstract:

In the attempt to lay the foundations for a better understanding of environmental law scholarship, this article offers a local perspective of environmental law scholarship in the UK. Through a study of more than 1,400 articles published in three leading UK environmental law journals over the course of three decades, the article considers the ways in which environmental law scholarship has changed over time by reference to gender and geographical location of authors. The article also interrogates the ways in which the topics of scholarship have changed over time, as well as the extent to which environmental law scholars make use of empirical methods and external sources of funding for their research. Finally, the article explores the extent to which environmental law scholarship is published in generalist law journals.

There are a lot of interesting data in the article. Here, for instance, is a graph showing the changes (mainly increases) in the number of environmental law articles published in leading UK generalist law journals:

It would be interesting to see parallel date for other countries.

How control of nature shaped the international order

Posted recently to International Law Reporter, a nomination by Gail Lythgoe for the most interesting, important, or influential article or book published in 2022:

Joanne Yao, The Ideal River: How Control of Nature Shaped the International Order (Manchester Univ. Press 2022)

This book explores the geographical imaginaries of three rivers (the Rhine, Danube, and Congo) and how these very imaginaries shaped the constitutions, structure, and life of three early international organizations. It is a marvellous tale of how (and why) experts sought to tame nature and also says much about law’s relationship to the physical geography. I always really recommend and admire it because of how well written and engaging it is.

From the publisher's website:

The ideal river examines nineteenth-century efforts to establish international commissions on three transboundary rivers - the Rhine, the Danube, and the Congo. It charts how the Enlightenment ambition to tame the natural world, and human nature itself, became an international standard for rational and civilized authority and informed our geographical imagination of the international. This relationship of domination over nature shaped three core International Relations concepts central to the emergence of early international order: the territorial sovereign state; imperial hierarchies; and international organizations. The book contributes to environmental politics and international relations by highlighting how the relationship between society and nature is not a peripheral concern, but one at the heart of international politics. 

Problems with formalizing rights in the commons

Political Geography recently published "Grabbing the commons: Forest rights, capital and legal struggle in the Carpathian Mountains", by Stefan Voicu and Monica Vasile. The abstract:

In this paper we show that formalizing communal rights is a process riddled with struggles leading to a partial or total grabbing of commons. Drawing on long-term research and using interviews, surveys, and historical sources, we analyze struggles that emerged from processes of formalizing rights to commons, occurring one century apart in the Carpathian Mountains of Romania. The first wave of formalization, initiated by the state in 1910, institutionalized a model of hybrid commons in which individual rights to communal forests and pastures were understood as inheritable and tradable shares. This generated never-ending contention and a vulnerability to capital, allowing timber companies to grab shares and dispossess rightsholders. The second formalization, post-1989, enabled local communities to regain rights to forests that had been nationalized by the state at the beginning of the socialist rule. However, this resurgence of mountain commons unleashed again a suite of legal struggles, bringing back to life previous vulnerabilities and dispossessions. We argue that the formalization of rights often does not bring clarity and security to commons rightsholders. Instead, it creates a suite of vulnerabilities, ambiguities, and complexity within regulatory texts, begetting the grabbing of the commons.

Barat Roland, Lambs in the autumn in the mountains

Nazi legislation against animal cruelty

From Sydney Criminal Lawyers, on Lexology (via Legal History Blog): "The History of Laws Against Cruelty to Animals". A particularly interesting section discusses the Nazis:

There can be no words to sufficiently encapsulate the appalling atrocities perpetrated by one of history’s most evil people, Adolf Hitler, and his fascist Nazi party.

And one must take special care before giving credit for any act to the person at the helm of history’s most disgusting and shameful political, social and cultural regime, whereby millions of innocent men, women and children were tortured and murdered, including the systematic use of humans for medical experimentation, annihilation of ‘undesirable’ groups in society including the disabled and slaughter of large segments of targeted racial and religious groups.

Hitler and his extreme right-wing party exemplified the very worst of humankind, and the regime’s ultimate demise was a Godsend to all moral people.

But the irony must also be acknowledged that while on the way to murdering millions of human beings, the famously vegetarian and dog-loving Hitler took unprecedented steps to protect non-human animals from cruelty. And many of the enacted laws go way further than present day legislation.

In that regard, 24 November 1933 saw the German parliament (the Reichstag) the under the Chancellorship of Hitler and Presidency of Hermann Göring) pass the Reichstierschutzgesetz, or Reich Animal Protection Act, which is listed in the above table.

The law imposed a total ban on the almost-universally accepted, and even encouraged and publicly funded, practices of vivisection (operating or experimenting on live animals) and slaughter of animals without anaesthetic.

In a 1933 speech approved by Hitler, Göring declared an end to the “unbearable torture and suffering in animal experiments” and warned that those who “still think they can continue to treat animals as inanimate property” would be sent to concentration camps.

The regime saw a range of further prohibitions to protect animals including bans on animal trapping, the boiling of crustaceans such as crabs and lobsters, live baiting, neglect and cruel acts to domestic animals, and severe restrictions on hunting.

And so it was – perhaps history’s most evil regime was ironically perhaps the most benevolent in the treatment of non-human animals.

This is just one one section of the long post, which includes a chronology of developments and a discussion of Australian law. 

The US Supreme Court’s earliest pollution cases

Over at Legal Planet, Dan Farber recently posted on "The Supreme Court’s Earliest Pollution Cases". Farber writes:

Well over a century ago, the Supreme Court ruled that it had that power to remedy interstate water pollution. That was in 1901. Six years later, the Court decided its first air pollution case.  Notably, these cases came during the conservative Lochner era when the Court was hardly known for its liberalism.  Quite the contrary. Yet the Court didn’t hesitate to address pollution issues.

The water pollution case was Missouri v. Illinois.  In a feat of engineering prowess or incredible hubris, depending on how you look at it, Illinois had built a canal to reverse the flow of a river from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi. The canal then became a dumping place for the city’s raw sewage. Missouri claimed that the sewage was befouling the water as far away as St. Louis. The Court had long heard other law suits between states, but this was apparently the first one to involve pollution.

Chicago Drainage Canal being built (from The New Student's Reference Work (1914))

I'm not sure this was really the US Supreme Court's first pollution case - how about the Slaughterhouse Cases? In any case, Farber goes on to also discuss Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., an interstate air pollution case. He comments:

These two cases are little known today, but they have cast long shadows.  Very briefly, here were some of their longterm impacts:

1. International law. This line of precedent got the attention of an international tribunal in the Trail Smelter case, which involving a Canadian smelter polluting across the U.S. border. The tribunal held that a country has a duty to prevent its inhabitants from inflicting serious harm within another country. Thus, Canada had to take responsibility for the pollution. This principle is now famous in international law as the Smelter Trail rule. In turn, that principle of international law was taken up in international concords such as the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.
   
   
2. Water pollution. Use of federal common law to pursue water pollution cases enjoyed a big revival in the 1960s and early 1970s. It was ended by the Supreme Court, which held that the then-new Clean Water Act took over the field of interstate water pollution in lieu of court-made rules.
   
   
3. Climate change.  In a groundbreaking climate decision, Massachusetts v. EPA, Justice Stevens invoked this line of cases to emphasize the special interest that states have in access to the Court to protect their interests as sovereigns.  The upshot was to give states standing to sue EPA for failing to take action against carbon emissions. Also, this line of cases was repurposed  early in this century in order to bring lawsuits against major carbon emitters in federal court. The Supreme Court ultimately said that since the Clean Air Act covered climate change, lawsuits based on judge-made federal rules were no longer needed. It left open the possibility of lawsuits based on state law, and state lawsuits against oil companies are now underway.

More on the US Supreme Court and the history of environmental law here.