DOCSLIB.ORG

From Pennsylvania Coal to Keystone: the Supreme Court's Evolving View of "Regulatory Takings" by Richard M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
From Pennsylvania Coal to Keystone: the Supreme Court's Evolving View of UCD School of Law Vol. 10 No. 2 Environmental Law Society May 1987 From Pennsylvania Coal to Keystone: The Supreme Court's Evolving View of "Regulatory Takings" by Richard M. Frank Over the past decade, no issue could run afoul of the Takings of environmental law has so cap- Clause of the Fifth Amendment. tured the attention of the United Justice Holmes wrote in Penn- States Supreme Court as has sylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, "regulatory 260 takings." The Court U.S. 393, 415 (1922) that "If regula- has issued over a dozen opinions tion goes too far it will be during that period which seek to recognized as a taking." In Penn- clarify the slippery concept of sylvania Coal, the Court struck when a regulation becomes so down as such a taking a Penn- excessive as to result in an un- sylvania statute which had pro- compensated taking of private hibited coal mining in a manner property in violation of the Fifth which caused subsidence of land and Fourteenth Amendments to on which certain structures were the U.S. Constitution. The results located. Three generations later, of that judicial effort have been Pennsylvania Coal was still decidedly mixed. But with the characterized as the Court's recent decision in "cornerstone" of federal takings Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n jurisprudence-at least until v. DeBenedictis, - U.S. Keystone. __, 55 U.S.L.W. 4326 (March 9, The other crucial Supreme 1987), some much-needed Court precedent in this field is clarification may be at hand. At a Penn Central Transportation Co. minimum, Keystone provides v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 government with welcome legal (1978). Penn Central provided for support in its efforts to contain the first time an analytical some of the more dramatic framework in which to view threats to our environment. claims that governmental regula- tion effect an unconstitutional The Origins of "Regulatory taking. There the Court identified Takings" as the relevant factors "[tihe economic impact of the regula- It was 65 years ago that the tion on the claimant .... the ex- U.S. Supreme Court first ar- tent to which the regulation has ticulated the notion that ex- interfered with investment- cessive government restrictions backed expectations, [and] the character of the governmental ac- beneath such structures or areas as a party. While the Penn- tion." 438 U.S. at 124. In Penn to remain in place as a means of sylvania Coal decision contains Central the Court upheld a providing surface support.) The language concerning the alleged municipal landmark ordinance second provision requires a coal public purpose of the statute in- that precluded the owners of company to forfeit its mining per- volved, Keystone characterizes Grand Central Station from mit if its removal of coal causes this "uncharacteristic . ad- building a modern office building damage to these protected sites visory opinion" by Justice atop that venerable site. for which the company has not Holmes. 55 U.S.L.W. at 4330. The criteria identified in Penn promptly compensated the sur- Relying on the stated public pur- Central seems fairly straightfor- face owner. pose of the 1966 Act to ward. Yet they have done little to If this statute sounds vaguely distinguish it from the private clarify that illusory line which familiar, it should. The 1966 Act is controversy at the heart of Penn- separates legitimate exercises of very similar to the Pennsylvania sylvania Coal, Justice Stevens the police power from un- statute invalidated by the concluded that "the similarities constitutional "takings" of Supreme Court decades earlier in [between the two cases] are far private property. Attesting to that the Pennsylvania Coal decision. less significant than the dif- fact are the plethora of regulatory Relying on that precedent, major ferences, and that Pennsylvania takings cases finding their way to bituminous coal operators filed Coal does not control this case." the Supreme Court docket (four suit in federal court in 1982. They 55 U.S.L.W. at 4329. Thus Justice in the 1986-87 term alone), as well mounted a facial challenge to the Stevens effectively transforms as the growing number of such Act, claiming that it violated both the "cornerstone" of takings disputes clogging the state and the Takings Clause and the Con- jurisprudence into mere dictum. lower federal courts. tracts Clause of the U.S. Con- The Keystone decision next The Supreme Court's decision stitution. The stipulated facts in proceeded to apply the Penn Cen- in Keystone represents the latest the case revealed that the Act re- tral criteria to the stated facts. It chapter in this complex tale. quired plaintiff companies to is here that Keystone takes on its leave an aggregate 27 million greatest significance. Whereas Keystone-The Factual tons of coal in the ground, but property owners (and some Background that figure averaged only 2 per- courts) had generally considered cent of the available coal the economic impact of the con- In 1966, the Pennsylvania deposits in individual mines. tested regulation on the property Legislature enactecd the Understandably, plaintiffs owner to be the key variable, the Bituminous Mine Subsidence based their constitutional claim Court for the first time in and Land Conservation Act. The first and foremost upon Penn- Keystone elevated the "character Act was a reaction to a rather sylvania Coal. Nevertheless, both of the governmental action" dramatic environmental and safe- the District Court and the Court criterion to primary significance. ty hazard emanating from the of Appeals upheld the Act, fin- The Court pointed out that the bituminous coal fields of western ding that case distinguishable. 1966 Subsidence Act was Pennsylvania. Underground coal The coal companies were suc- predicated upon detailed mining often causes ground sub- cessful in obtaining Supreme legislative findings, and that the sidence of devastating propor- Court review, with former U.S. legislative purposes involved tions. It results in structural Solicitor General Rex Lee serving "were genuine, substantial and damage to buildings, makes va- as their counsel of record. legitimate . ." The majority opi- cant land impossible to develop, nion notes: destroys groundwater and sur- The Supreme Court's Decision [T]he Commonwealth is acting face ponds and-given its un- in Keystone to protect the public interest in predictable nature-can even health, the environment, and threaten human life. Recognizing In a 5-4 decision authored by the fiscal integrity of the area. the potential for such damage, Justice Stevens, the Supreme That private individuals [who coal companies purchased ac- Court sustained the lower court previously contracted away cess and mining rights from rulings and upheld the Act. The their surface rights to the coal thousands of Pennsylvania sur- manner in which the majority companies] erred in taking a face owners many years ago. reached that result suggests that risk cannot estop the State The Pennsylvania statute at- Keystone may be the most impor- from exercising its police tempts to minimize the threat of tant takings precedent since power to abate activity akin to subsidence in a variety of ways. Penn Central. It also calls into a public nuisance. Most important are two re- serious question the primacy of 55 U.S.L.W. at 4331. Keystone quirements: the first prohibits the Pennsylvania Coal decision. relies on several pre- mining that causes subsidence Justice Stevens first treated Pennsylvania Coal cases that damage to public buildings, and distinguished Pennsylvania upheld government's power to private dwellings and cemetaries Coal. He noted that the earlier terminate commercial operations that were in place when the Act case involved a private property found to be offensive, e.g., was passed. (Pennsylvania has dispute between a coal company breweries, brothels, etc. Many interpreted this provision to re- and a surface landowner; no property owners and commercial quire 50 percent of the coal governmental entity was named interests had argued that this line of cases had been effectively had chosen to mount a facial to consider the 27 tons of unex- overruled by Pennsylvania Coal challenge to the statute rather ploited coal in isolation; instead, and Penn Central. The Supreme than an "as applied" attack. The he opined, it had to be viewed in Court expressly rejected this in- Supreme Court in recent years conjunction with the companies' terpretation in Keystone: has repeatedly spurned such property interest as a whole: Under our system of govern- facial takings challenges as lack- Because our test for regulatory ment, one of the state's ing a concrete set of facts taking requires us to compare primary ways of preserving the against which the Court can ap- the value that has been taken public wealth is restricting the ply the Penn Central analysis from the property with the uses individuals can make of with precision. "[W]e have value that remains in the pro- their property . These recognized an important distinc- perty, one of the critical ques- restrictions are "properly tion between a claim that the tions is determining how to treated as part of the burden of mere enactment of a statute con- define the unit of property common citizenship" . stitutes a taking and a claim that "whose value is to furnish the Long ago it was recognized the particular impact of govern- denominator of the fraction." that "all property in this coun- mental action on a specific piece Id. try is held under the implied of property requires the payment Having construed the obligation that the owner's use of just compensation." 55 "denominator" in the broadest of it shall not be injurious to U.S.L.W. at 4333. Stating what by possible manner, Justice the community" ....[T]he Tak- now should be obvious to proper- Stevens' conclusion was not sur- ings Clause did not transform ty owners, the Court concluded prising: that principle to one that re- this portion of its analysis by The 27 tons of coal do not con- quires compensation when- stating that property owners stitute a separate segment of ever the State asserts its "face an uphill battle in making a property for takings law pur- power to enforce it." facial attack on [statutes] as a poses ....There is no basis for 55 U.S.L.W.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 4.0 the Approved Resource Management Plan
    APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 4.0 THE APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 4.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the decisions approved in the Record of Decision (ROD) for the King Range National Conservation Area RMP, otherwise known as the Approved RMP. It includes land use planning decisions and administrative actions that will be implemented over the life of the RMP. The decisions listed here are the same as those in the Proposed RMP, except for changes in syntax to reflect that the actions are now formal decisions. Otherwise both documents are the same and may be used interchangeably. This chapter is also essentially the Agency Preferred Alternative from the Draft RMP, with changes reflecting public comment, collaboration during the preparation of the Proposed RMP. The RMP decisions are intended to maximize diversity of multiple uses, including human activities and opportunities, while meeting or exceeding land health standards, and following the legislative requirements and management vision for the KRNCA. 4.2 MANAGEMENT ZONES In order to implement the management mandate for the KRNCA and to meet differing public needs, the planning area has been divided into three management zones. These zones represent a consolidation, revision, and simplification of the seven original zones in the 1974 King Range Management Program. All three of the zones allow multiple uses, but like the original zones, each emphasizes different primary resource values to be conserved and/or allowable uses available in various parts of the planning area. All public lands within the planning area are assigned to one of the three zones: Backcountry, Frontcountry, or Residential.
    [Show full text]
  • “N-Shong-Shaa-Nul-Lah” a Wailaki Student Thanks the Mattole Field Institute by Flora Brain, Mattole Restoration Council
    Mattole Watershed NEWS WINTER/SPRING 2017 ISSUE #8 “n-shong-shaa-nul-lah” A Wailaki student thanks the Mattole Field Institute By Flora Brain, Mattole Restoration Council Isn’t it interesting how an expression of gratitude can often cause you to feel like you’ve been given a gift? This is the way I felt when a recent Mattole Field Institute student said thank you in the Wailaki language. It was like she had given me a gift, and I wanted to say it right back to her. This exchange came after the Mattole Field Institute held its second field course in partnership with HSU’s graduate program in Social Sciences this past August. For five days, students beginning their studies in Environment & Community camped in the Mattole and heard from various residents about wide-ranging issues affecting life in this rural valley. With local guides, students visited ranches and nonprofits, hiked in Mill Creek’s old growth forest, listened to a gathering of residents discuss challenges in our community, heard a lively campfire discussion Students in the Mattole Field Instiute’s August 2016 course enjoy a break for about cannabis cultivation, toured a small cannabis farm, strawberry popsicles near Whitethorn Junction. Photograph by Flora Brain. spent a day in the Mattole River headwaters, availed themselves of popsicles at a Whitethorn farm stand (along with a have to the land.” Another student commented, “I was surprised by spontaneous tour of a garden of plants used for dying wool), visited how quickly I evolved my perspective by mingling with people in a small private sawmill, hung out at the Petrolia General Store, and the Mattole and the cohort (of fellow grad students).” at the end of the week got a fabulous tour of a permaculture farm As director of the slowly but steadily growing Mattole Field in nearby Salmon Creek.
    [Show full text]
  • King Range National Conservation Area Case Study
    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Books, Reports, and Studies Resources, Energy, and the Environment 2004 King Range National Conservation Area Case Study Ann Morgan Doug Cannon University of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/books_reports_studies Part of the Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, and the Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons Citation Information Ann Morgan & Doug Cannon, King Range National Conservation Area Case Study (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law 2004). Ann Morgan & Doug Cannon, KING RANGE NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA CASE STUDY (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law 2004). Reproduced with permission of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (formerly the Natural Resources Law Center) at the University of Colorado Law School. KING RANGE NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA CASE STUDY Ann Morgan and Doug Cannon Natural Resources Law Center January 9, 2004 Table of Contents BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................. 1 PUBLIC LAW 91-476....................................................................................................................... 2 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • One Hundred Ninth Congress of the United States of America
    H. R. 233 One Hundred Ninth Congress of the United States of America AT THE SECOND SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the third day of January, two thousand and six An Act To designate certain National Forest System lands in the Mendocino and Six Rivers National Forests and certain Bureau of Land Management lands in Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, and Napa Counties in the State of California as wilderness, to designate the Elkhorn Ridge Potential Wilderness Area, to designate certain segments of the Black Butte River in Mendocino County, California as a wild or scenic river, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS. (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act’’. (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this Act is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents. Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary. Sec. 3. Designation of wilderness areas. Sec. 4. Administration of wilderness areas. Sec. 5. Release of wilderness study areas. Sec. 6. Elkhorn Ridge Potential Wilderness Area. Sec. 7. Wild and scenic river designation. Sec. 8. King Range National Conservation Area boundary adjustment. Sec. 9. Cow Mountain Recreation Area, Lake and Mendocino Counties, California. Sec. 10. Continuation of traditional commercial surf fishing, Redwood National and State Parks. SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY. In this Act, the term ‘‘Secretary’’ means— (1) with respect to land under the jurisdiction of the Sec- retary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Agriculture; and (2) with respect to land under the jurisdiction of the Sec- retary of the Interior, the Secretary of the Interior.
    [Show full text]
  • VISITOR PERCEPTIONS of TECHNOLOGY and RESCUE in the WILDERNESS by Kristen E. Pope a Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Humboldt
    VISITOR PERCEPTIONS OF TECHNOLOGY AND RESCUE IN THE WILDERNESS by Kristen E. Pope A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Humboldt State University In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Masters of Science In Natural Resources: Planning and Interpretation May, 2010 ABSTRACT Visitor Perceptions of Technology and Rescue in the Wilderness Kristen E. Pope As devices like personal locator beacons become readily available, more visitors will bring them into wilderness and use them to request rescues. Visitors may develop unrealistic expectations of rescue based on these devices, and come to rely on them instead of developing appropriate knowledge and skills. In 2009, 235 overnight visitors to the King Range Wilderness in California completed a written survey. Visitors with previous involvement in a serious wilderness accident were more likely to believe that technology creates a false sense of safety for wilderness users than were people who had not been involved in a serious wilderness accident. Experienced visitors were likewise more likely to believe that technology makes visitors feel that they have a safety net which in reality may not exist. Experience was also positively correlated with the belief that technology makes people feel that their safety is not their personal responsibility. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Steven Martin, for his endless hours of assistance with this study and ongoing support and encouragement throughout the process. I would also like to thank Dr. Paul Marsh for his incredibly valuable perspective on the recreation administration aspects of the study as well as his very helpful commentary on my drafts.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior King Range National
    United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT King Range Project Office P.O. Box 189, 768 Shelter Cove Road Whitethorn, CA 95589 www.ca.blm.gov/kingrange King Range National Conservation Area: Roads & Trails Report February 1, 2021 Water sources: All sources of water throughout the King Range National Conservation Area require treatment and/or proper filtration. All coastal watersheds are flowing as well as high country springs, Miller Spring and Maple Spring below the summit of King Peak. Bear Hollow Spring status is currently unknown. When navigating roadways within the King Range National Conservation Area ensure appropriate vehicle safety equipment is present in automobile (including properly inflated spare tire, jack and wrench). Cellphone reception is limited throughout the King Range, an SOS emergency responder device is recommended. “Pack it in, Pack it out.” All visitors are asked to follow Leave No Trace (LNT) guidelines when recreating in the King Range Wilderness. Human waste is to be disposed of in the sand near the tide line by digging an eight-inch-deep cathole and burying it, do not bury waste in or around campsites and creeks. Toilet paper can be buried with waste or packed out. BURNING TRASH IS PROHIBITED. ALL TRASH MUST BE PACKED OUT. As of December 1st, 2020, fire prevention orders have been rescinded however visitors are asked to follow LNT guidelines when having a campfire in the wilderness area. Dig a pit on the beach, never leave fires unattended, ensure the fire is properly extinguished when finished, and remove fire pit before departing.
    [Show full text]
  • Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus Marmoratus) 5-Year Review
    Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) 5-Year Review U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Washington Fish and Wildlife Office Lacey, WA June 12, 2009 FINAL Final 2009 5-Year Review for the Marbled Murrelet June 12, 2009 5-YEAR REVIEW Species reviewed: Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION............................................................................................. 1 2.0 REVIEW ANALYSIS........................................................................................................ 3 2.1 Application of the 1996 Distinct Population Segment (DPS) policy ......... 3 2.2 Recovery Criteria...................................................................................... 12 2.2.1 Does the species have a final, approved recovery plan containing objective, measurable criteria? ........................................................................................... 12 2.2.2 Adequacy of recovery criteria.............................................................................. 12 2.3 Updated Information and Current Species Status..................................... 14 2.3.1 Biology and Habitat ............................................................................................. 14 2.3.1.1 New information on the species’ biology and life history:...................... 14 2.3.1.2 Abundance, population trends (e.g. increasing, decreasing, stable), demographic features (e.g., age structure, sex ratio, family size, birth rate, age at mortality, mortality rate, etc.),
    [Show full text]
  • MICROCOMP Output File
    109TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION S. 128 AN ACT To designate certain public land in Humboldt, Del Norte, Mendocino, Lake, and Napa Counties in the State of California as wilderness, to designate certain segments of the Black Butte River in Mendocino County, Cali- fornia as a wild or scenic river, and for other purposes. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Northern California 5 Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act’’. 2 1 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY. 2 In this Act, the term ‘‘Secretary’’ means— 3 (1) with respect to land under the jurisdiction 4 of the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Ag- 5 riculture; and 6 (2) with respect to land under the jurisdiction 7 of the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of the 8 Interior. 9 SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS AREAS. 10 In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 11 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State of California 12 are designated as wilderness areas and as components of 13 the National Wilderness Preservation System: 14 (1) SNOW MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS ADDITION.— 15 (A) IN GENERAL.—Certain land in the 16 Mendocino National Forest, comprising ap- 17 proximately 23,312 acres, as generally depicted 18 on the maps described in subparagraph (B), is 19 incorporated in and shall considered to be a 20 part of the ‘‘Snow Mountain Wilderness’’, as 21 designated by section 101(a)(31) of the Cali- 22 fornia Wilderness Act of 1984 (16 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1464 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 1132
    § 1132 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION Page 1464 Department and agency having jurisdiction of, and reports submitted to Congress regard- thereover immediately before its inclusion in ing pending additions, eliminations, or modi- the National Wilderness Preservation System fications. Maps, legal descriptions, and regula- unless otherwise provided by Act of Congress. tions pertaining to wilderness areas within No appropriation shall be available for the pay- their respective jurisdictions also shall be ment of expenses or salaries for the administra- available to the public in the offices of re- tion of the National Wilderness Preservation gional foresters, national forest supervisors, System as a separate unit nor shall any appro- priations be available for additional personnel and forest rangers. stated as being required solely for the purpose of managing or administering areas solely because (b) Review by Secretary of Agriculture of classi- they are included within the National Wilder- fications as primitive areas; Presidential rec- ness Preservation System. ommendations to Congress; approval of Con- (c) ‘‘Wilderness’’ defined gress; size of primitive areas; Gore Range-Ea- A wilderness, in contrast with those areas gles Nest Primitive Area, Colorado where man and his own works dominate the The Secretary of Agriculture shall, within ten landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where years after September 3, 1964, review, as to its the earth and its community of life are un- suitability or nonsuitability for preservation as trammeled by man, where man himself is a visi- wilderness, each area in the national forests tor who does not remain. An area of wilderness classified on September 3, 1964 by the Secretary is further defined to mean in this chapter an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service primeval character and influence, without per- as ‘‘primitive’’ and report his findings to the manent improvements or human habitation, President.
    [Show full text]
  • 109Th Congress 1St Session U. S. Senate S 128 2005 Bill Tracking S. 128; 109 Bill Tracking S. 128 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL WI
    109th Congress 1st Session U. S. Senate S 128 2005 Bill Tracking S. 128; 109 Bill Tracking S. 128 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL WILD HERITAGE WILDERNESS ACT SPONSOR: Senator Barbara Boxer D-CA DATE-INTRO: January 24, 2005 LAST-ACTION-DATE: July 27, 2005 STATUS: Introduced in the Senate, 01/24/05 Considered in the Senate, 07/26/05 Passed in the Senate, as amended, 07/26/05 TOTAL-COSPONSORS: 1 Cosponsors: 1 Democrats / 0 Republicans SYNOPSIS: A bill to designate certain public land in Humboldt, Del Norte, Mendocino, Lake, and Napa Counties in the State of California as wilderness, to designate certain segments of the Black Butte River in Mendocino County, California as a wild or scenic river, and for other purposes ACTIONS: Committee Referrals: 01/24/2005 Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Legislative Chronology: 1st Session Activity: 01/24/2005 151 Cong Rec S 145 Referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 01/24/2005 151 Cong Rec S 317 Remarks by Sen. Boxer (D-CA) 02/16/2005 151 Cong Rec D 129 Order reported by Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 07/26/2005 151 Cong Rec S 9010 Amendments printed 07/26/2005 151 Cong Rec S 9018 Senate considered en bloc 07/26/2005 151 Cong Rec S 9018 Amendment No. 1588 offered by Sen. Domenici (R-NM), in the nature of a substitute 07/26/2005 151 Cong Rec S 9018 Senate agreed to Domenici Amendment No. 1588 (by unanimous consent) 07/26/2005 151 Cong Rec S 9018 Senate passed, as amended, en bloc (by unanimous consent) 07/27/2005 151 Cong Rec H 6929 Referred to House Committee on Resources BILL-DIGEST: (from the CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE) Digest : (This measure has not been amended since it was introduced.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1517 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 1131 (Pub. L
    Page 1517 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 1131 (Pub. L. 88–363, § 10, July 7, 1964, 78 Stat. 301.) Sec. 1132. Extent of System. § 1110. Liability 1133. Use of wilderness areas. 1134. State and private lands within wilderness (a) United States areas. The United States Government shall not be 1135. Gifts, bequests, and contributions. liable for any act or omission of the Commission 1136. Annual reports to Congress. or of any person employed by, or assigned or de- § 1131. National Wilderness Preservation System tailed to, the Commission. (a) Establishment; Congressional declaration of (b) Payment; exemption of property from attach- policy; wilderness areas; administration for ment, execution, etc. public use and enjoyment, protection, preser- Any liability of the Commission shall be met vation, and gathering and dissemination of from funds of the Commission to the extent that information; provisions for designation as it is not covered by insurance, or otherwise. wilderness areas Property belonging to the Commission shall be In order to assure that an increasing popu- exempt from attachment, execution, or other lation, accompanied by expanding settlement process for satisfaction of claims, debts, or judg- and growing mechanization, does not occupy ments. and modify all areas within the United States (c) Individual members of Commission and its possessions, leaving no lands designated No liability of the Commission shall be im- for preservation and protection in their natural puted to any member of the Commission solely condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy on the basis that he occupies the position of of the Congress to secure for the American peo- member of the Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • King Range Rivers & Streams PROPOSED WILD & SCENIC RIVERS
    Management Agency: King Range Rivers & Streams Bureau of Land Management ~ King Range National Conservation Area PROPOSED WILD & SCENIC RIVERS BLM Arcata Field Office Location: These proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers flow from the King Humboldt County CA 2nd Congressional District Range National Conservation Area and Wilderness, providing important habitat for endangered salmon and Watershed: Mattole River, Pacific Ocean steelhead, as well as rare plants. These streams also provide nationally significant outdoor recreation opportunities. Wild & Scenic River Miles: Mattole River Estuary—1.5 Honeydew Creek—10.6 Mattole River Estuary – 1.5 miles Bear Creek—11 Located in the King Range National Conservation Area, the Gitchell Creek—3 Big Flat Creek—7.5 Mattole Estuary provides important anadromous fish Big Creek—4.6 habitat for coho and Chinook salmon and steelhead. Federal Outstanding Values: officials recently identified the river as essential for the Anadromous fisheries, wildlife, botanical, recovery of threatened salmon and steelhead. The estuary scenery, recreation also provides habitat for several rare plants. A popular For More Information: campground and recreation site near the mouth of the Steve Evans—CalWild Mattole that attracts campers, hikers, hunters, and birders, [email protected] and provides the northern access point for visitors hiking (916) 708-3155 the Lost Coast Trail. The Mattole River is recommended for protection by the BLM. Honeydew Creek – 10.6 miles Honeydew Creek and its tributaries are in the King Range Wilderness. The creek provides suitable stream habitat for anadromous fish and old growth forest habitat for northern Front Photo: Mattole River Estuary spotted owl. Federal officials recently identified the creek as essential for the recovery of threatened salmon and steelhead.
    [Show full text]