Suffering Matters: NEPA, Animals, and the Duty to Disclose
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Pace University DigitalCommons@Pace Pace Law Faculty Publications School of Law Spring 2020 Suffering Matters: NEPA, Animals, and the Duty to Disclose David N. Cassuto Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University Tala DiBenedetto Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Animal Law Commons, and the Environmental Law Commons Recommended Citation David N. Cassuto & Tala DiBenedetto, Suffering Matters: NEPA, Animals, and the Duty to Disclose, 42 U. Haw. L. Rev. 41 (2020), https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/1166/. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Suffering Matters: NEPA, Animals, and the Duty to Disclose David N. Cassuto*& Tala DiBenedetto** I. IN TRO D U C TIO N ................................................................................... 42 II. THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) ........... 43 A . Backg round ........................................................................................ .43 B. NEPA Procedure............................................................................... 43 C. "SignificantlyImpacts the Human Environment" Under NEPA........... 45 III. A N IM A L SU FFER IN G ............................................................................. 47 A . Suffering Generally............................................................................. 47 B. Farm ed A nim als.................................................................................. 51 1. Housing and Living Conditions .................................................... 52 2. Procedures........................................................................................53 3. Handling........................................................................................... 55 4. Breeding............................................................................................55 5. Transportation and Slaughter ........................................................ 56 C . W ildlife..................................................................................................5 7 1. Wildlfe Management and PredatorControl on FederalLands ....... 57 IV. MAJOR FEDERAL ACTIONS THAT CAUSE ANIMAL SUFFERING... 59 A. Loan Guaranteesfor CAFOs............................................................. 59 B. Wildlife Management on FederalLands ............................................... 62 V. ANIMAL SUFFERING SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTS THE HUMAN EN V IR O N M EN T ............................................................................................... 63 A. Animals are a Part of the Human Environment.................................. 63 B. Actions that Cause Animal Suffering Significantly Impact the Human En vironm en t.................................................................................................. 64 1. Farm A nim als ............................................................................... 65 i. Proximity to cultural ecologically criticalareas................... 65 ii. Likely to Involve Uncertain or Unknown Risks ...................... 66 iii. PrecedentialEffect.................................................................. 67 2. Wild A nim als................................................................................. 6 7 i. Proximity to cultural ecologically criticalareas................... 67 ii. Likely to be Highly Controversial........................................... 68 iii. May Threaten Endangeredor Threatened Species (ESA) ......... 69 * Professor of Law, Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University, Class of 1946 Visiting Professor of Environmental Studies, Williams College, Senior Counsel for International Affairs, Animal Legal Defense Fund; J.D. University of California, Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law; Ph.D, Indiana University, B.A., Wesleyan University ** Research Assistant to Professor Cassuto and J.D. and Environmental Law Certificate Candidate at Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University, Class of 2020. I would like to thank Professor Cassuto for his guidance and support, and for being a fierce advocate for animals. 42 University of Hawai i Law Review Vol. 42:2 iv. Cum ulative Im p acts ................................................................... 70 v. Wildlife is A CulturalResource ............................................ 71 C. Connected A ctions ................................................................................. 72 1. Farm A nim als .............................................................................. 72 i. A ir Pollution ........................................................................ .. 73 ii. Water Pollution...................................................................... 73 iii. Land D egradation................................................................. 74 iv. Clim ate Change ..................................................................... 74 v. FinancialImpacts and Environmental Justice........................ 75 V I. C O N C L U SIO N ............................................................................................. 75 Treat everyone you meet like God in drag. - Ram Dassi I. INTRODUCTION The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)2 requires the federal government to disclose potential environmental harms arising from agency actions. Animal suffering is an environmental harm, yet no court has ruled that its infliction triggers a reporting obligation under NEPA. This Article argues that animal suffering should be a cognizable environmental harm under NEPA, that considerations of animal suffering should factor into whether an agency must prepare an EIS-and should be discussed in the content of the EIS. Part II of this Article introduces and explains the procedural requirements of NEPA. Part III discusses animal suffering-how it is defined, how laws deal with or fail to deal with issues of animal cruelty, and outlines the ways animals suffer as a result of federal actions. Part IV offers examples of major federal actions that cause animal suffering-including federal loan guarantees for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and wildlife management practices, such as depredation, carried out by federal Wildlife Services (WS). Part V establishes that animals are a part of the "human environment" as defined by NEPA and that the harms inflicted on animals resulting from major federal actions constitute a "significant impact," that should trigger NEPA review and warrant discussion in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Finally, we argue that even if animal suffering alone were insufficient to trigger NEPA review, that suffering in conjunction with the various other environmental impacts associated with activities that cause animal suffering should trigger NEPA review regardless. 1 Ram Dass (@BabaRamDass), TWITTER (June 25, 2018, 8:40 PM), https://twitter.com /BabaRamDass/status/1011439008163991553. 2 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370m-12 (2018). 2020 / SUFFERINGMATTERS 43 II. THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) A. Background NEPA was enacted in 1970 to encourage harmony between humans and the environment, and to promote efforts that minimize environmental harms.3 In enacting the law, Congress recognized the profound impact of humans on the natural environment4 and the need to, among other things, "create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony[.]"5 Rather than direct government actors to do or refrain from doing a particular harmful act, NEPA instead compels all federal agencies to perform a thorough assessment any time it seeks to undertake an action that is likely to "significantly affect the human environment."6 NEPA is a flexible statute, capable of incorporating a wide range of environmental harms, including animal welfare.' B. NEPA Procedure Under NEPA, any "major" agency action that could significantly affect the human environment must be preceded by an EIS. These include actions with effects that may be major, and which might be "potentially subject to federal control and responsibility." 8 "Actions" also include "circumstances where responsible officials fail to act[,]" 9 and that failure to act constitutes a reviewable "agency action" under the Administrative Procedure Act 0 (APA) or other applicable law." Actions may also include new and continuing activities, projects and programs entirely or partly financed, assisted, conducted, regulated, or approved by federal agencies; new or revised agency rules, regulations, plans, policies, or procedures; and legislative proposals.1 2 This includes, for example, issuance of permits, 3 3 42 U.S.C. §4321. 4 42 U.S.C. § 4331(a). 5 Id. 6 Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 65 F.3d 1502, 1505 (9th Cir. 1995) (emphasis added). Lars Johnson, Pushing NEPA's Boundaries: Using NEPA to Improve the Relationship Between Animal Law and Environmental Law, 17 N.Y.U ENVTL. L.J. 1367, 1395 (2009). 8 40 C.F.R. § 1508.18 (2019). 9 Id. 10 5 U.S.C. § 551(13) (2018) ("An 'agency action' includes the whole or a part of an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act."). i Delta Smelt Consol. Cases v. Salazar, 686 F. Supp. 2d 1026, 1034 (E.D. Cal. 2009). 12 40 C.F.R.