How much do we really need to promote goodness in the “time of nature”: What is natural? We are often asked “are you natural?” Or “Can you call your natural products?” The answer is “it depends” because the word “natural” is complex.
Different people judge the natural using different criteria and the law varies by product and country, and sometimes there is no law. The purpose of this section is to make some observations that are worth reflecting on.
Natural is a spectrum
There are things that are completely “natural”: a leopard, alpana, smallpox in the wild. Smartphones, bicycles and contact lenses are completely artificial.
There are many things that use natural processes that would not exist without the intervention of humans: wheat, wine and bread.
“Natural” is often used as a metaphor for good and good. However, Lyme disease, malaria and Zika are natural. A bicycle is completely artificial, but one of the most permanent forms of transport.
How do you define natural regulators?
Each country has a different standard for “natural.” The taste and aroma are regulated differently from sweetness and supplements. Regulations differ between Europe, America, Asia, etc.
For example, the European Union has a law that defines how food can be described as “natural” (EC 1334/2008). While the FDA does not. Exactly how much do we need to promote goodness in the “time of nature”?
Spending time in nature can promote general well-being, but how much exposure do we need? A new study concludes that 2 hours per week are enough to reap the benefits, although important questions remain.
Being in rural areas promotes well-being, but how much nature do we need? In Western society, as general interactions with nature gradually decrease, scientists are exploring whether reintegration into parks, forests and beaches can benefit our overall health and well-being.
Researchers have conducted a series of studies, of varying quality, that have investigated the role of human interaction with nature in general health. For example, one study concluded that living in areas with more trees increases a person’s perception of physical.
And mental health and reduces the risk of cardiometabolic conditions. A 2016 review concluded that “living in areas with large amounts of green spaces reduces mortality, mainly [heart disease].”
Despite the slow accumulation of evidence on the benefits of visiting green spaces, no one has correctly calculated whether it is necessary to spend on nature to obtain the benefits.
The authors of the new study, from the Exeter School of Medicine in the United Kingdom and the University of Uppsala in Sweden, “aimed to better understand the relationship.
And between time spent on nature per week and better health and subjective health”. He recently published his findings in the journal Scientific Reports.
Time to interact with nature
For the investigation, the team took data from the Commitment Monitor with the Natural Environment Survey, including a representative sample of the American public. The researchers collected data for this survey by conducting face-to-face interviews in the participants’ homes.
He used a sample of 20,264 people and asked him several questions, two of which were: “How is your overall health?” And “In general, how satisfied are you with life today?”
They also asked participants how much contact they had with nature in the last 7 days, including “parks, canals and natural areas; coasts and beaches, and fields, forests, mountains and rivers”, but not “Including regular shopping trips or time in his garden “.
The researchers asked how often they visited him and how long each trip lasted. From that information, they extrapolated the average weekly performance of the nature of the participants.
Mrs. Scheffer’s article adopts a new approach to establish itself legally for nature, which is particularly relevant in the current political climate. The printed version of this article will follow in issue 9.2.
Man’s attitude towards nature is important today only because we have now acquired a powerful force to change and destroy nature. But man is part of nature, and his war against nature is essentially a war against himself.
[We are] challenged because humanity has never before been challenged to prove our maturity and our dominance, not of nature, but of ourselves. Rachel Carson made this observation more than fifty years ago.
And decades of intervention have led to its conclusion. Our attitude towards nature, and the refusal of the legal system to accept the legal state of nature, has resulted in a legally authorized environmental destruction that has accumulated.
And accelerated to such an extent that it is a cause for nature and, therefore, , for the humanity. It presents potential danger. Our laws support corporate rights to exist and prosper financially.
This seems rational in capitalist societies, since the great fortunes can depend on corporate well-being. However, corporations are not connected to the natural world as humans breathes air, drinks water and needs food to survive.
In an attempt by modern society to use science to separate itself from nature, science has repeatedly shown that we are connected to the environment like any other living being.
The jurisprudence of the United States does not yet reflect this relationship; There is no legal analogue of corporate rights, which establishes the right to nature, damages and protects against damage.
A lawyer for your defense cannot make a direct representation of nature. Although the permanent doctrine of the Supreme Court recognizes a corporation as a “jurist,” it does not recognize nature in the same way.
In fact, environmental damage is not relevant in determining whether a person stands out in terms of environmental protection to protect the environment. Shouldn’t nature be granted the same legal rights that companies have to take advantage of it?
This question is not new. The concept of the nature of rights has its roots in indigenous cultures and has gained strength in some legal systems. [rights] However, the assumption of recognizing nature as a “judicial person” still exists. As for the legal system, it is far away.
This paragraph establishes that such recognition is fully manageable and provides a mechanism through which the recognition of the legal personality of nature can conform to established legal principles without taking into account judicial economics or the theory of political issues.
The identification and loss of a natural ecosystem, compared to a naturalized natural ecosystem (“DNE”), is a specific and definitive “critical individual” scientifically based that has the nature of It is a power that is comparable to the construction of a legal entity of a corporation.
Of course, there is a natural ecosystem in nature and not in a courtroom. But by establishing DNE by location and using DNE scientific and modern technology to make the underlying accusations of injuries, a DNE scientist and lawyers are in a position to build a court.
A corporation acquires a “legal personality” through legal forms and registration fees. Through the use of science-based methods and data, nature, on a case-by-case basis, can achieve “legal personality” through the identification of the DNE claimant.
This same science can identify dangerous injuries or injuries and the alleged cause of such injuries. In this way, the DNE proxy is a construction that creates a judicial figure with a functional structure that is scientifically true and judicially manageable.
The DNE proxy will be created and will exist, as a corporation, “in contemplation of the law.” The use of a DNE proxy for nature will align jurisprudence with modern science and provide a mechanism to balance the adverse judicial process.
The DNE tool conforms to the permanent principle of the Supreme Court because it allows the party to appear before the court with a “direct participation in the outcome” and defend it against those that cause harm.
From a broader point of view, this mechanism can allow the achievement of a ‘productive and pleasant harmony between man and his environment’. While the use of the DNE mechanism to recognize the “legal personality” of nature requires only a small analytical step.
It also requires the willingness to accept our fundamental relationship and the responsibility of our natural world. It is. In other words, we will need it, as Rachel Carson recognized 50 years ago, “to demonstrate our maturity and our dominion, not of nature, but of ourselves.”
Second Permanent principle
“Permanent” is a constitutional principle, which determines whether an injured person can file a claim (that is, “file”) with the court. The constitution does not guarantee what requirements must be met to stand; Rather.
The Supreme Court through its jurisprudence has developed elements of prestige over time. According to the court, there are three elements of legitimation: first, the plaintiff would be “really hurt.”
In fact, the injury must consist of an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and specialized, and (b) “real or imminent, not ‘speculative’ or ‘imaginary’ Element of injury.
In fact, “Article III is a difficult jurisdiction floor, which cannot be removed by law.” Second, there must be a causal relationship between the injury and the reported behavior: the injury must be traced fairly as a challenge to the defendant’s action.
And not the result of the independent action of a third party before the court. Third, this “possibility” should only be contrasted with “speculative,” that the damage would be “redeemed by a favorable judgment.”
The party that falls within the federal jurisdiction has the burden of establishing these elements. Like a human plaintiff, an organization has the independent right to conduct a judicial review to claim its own interests.
In determining whether the organization is maintained, the court examines the same article III in the case of a human being: “The plaintiff [organization] ‘has claimed such personal interest in the outcome of the dispute [as a court order].
Invoked under the jurisdiction of the Federal Court? Inanimate entities contained in the Principle of Direct Organization – of states, churches, nonprofit organizations or for-profit corporations Judicial recognition is, as separate legal entities.
Artificial” or “legal person” is a concept well established in US law. Simply put, a judicial person is a non-human entity that is granted the status of person by law. As expressed by Supreme Court President John Marshall in 1819.
Corporation is an artificial, invisible, intangible and existing enterprise only in contemplation of the law. Legally, the Law of the United States Code Dictionary echoes this jurisprudence.
The words” person “and” whoever “include corporations, companies, associations, companies, societies, societies and corporations, as well as individuals.
This article advocates the application of the permanent principles of Article III in favor of Sierra Club v. Morton and Luzon v. Wildlife Defenders (“Luzon II”), which characterize the plaintiff as “concrete and particularly harmful”. Cases
Third The missing plaintiff
Currently, nature depends entirely on local and federal government agencies (for example, EPA) to implement appropriate environmental protection regulations and enforce these regulations and existing environmental laws.
If the agency does not do so, human litigants or non-living organizations may attempt to review the judiciary using principles of common law,  written, or follow a specific legislative authority.
At the federal level, environmental laws have authorized ordinary citizens to enforce environmental protection laws through civil lawsuits. The Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) and the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) have appropriate provisions for citizens.
Person can initiate a civil suit on their behalf to designate any person, including the United States and any other government instrument or agency. Who is accused of violating any regulation or regulation issued under any provision or authority of this chapter.
Force the Secretary to run… The ban is established or authorized… This title in relation to the capture of any resident species in danger of extinction or threatened species. Or against the Secretary where the Secretary is accused of breach of any function or duty.
This title is not discretionary with the Secretary. The district courts shall have jurisdiction, in relation to the amount in dispute or the citizenship of the parties, to enforce any provision or regulation, or to order the Secretary to perform such act or duty, as may be the case.
The CAA contains a clause that allows civil litigation against CAA offenders and a second clause that allows civil lawsuits that challenge EPA actions taken in accordance with the Law.
The CWA states that “[any person] has an interest that may or may be adversely affected “file a lawsuit. When the civil suit does not cause an alleged damage to nature with the authority.
A human plaintiff or an organization that is “harmed” or “harmed” by the federal government agency to challenge the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) Action.
The APA conducts an independent review only when “there is no other appropriate remedy in court,” and states that a court may set aside a government agency action that is “arbitrary, friendly, discretionary. Misuse or otherwise not in accordance with the law.
First, the legislative authority of ordinary citizens to file claims to enforce environmental protection laws would appear to be a powerful tool for humans and organizations that seek to protect nature.
However, these litigants often have difficulty convincing the courts that they have a “direct participation” in the litigation that gives them confidence in their position.
This avoids many injuries, designed to prevent or enforce any provision of civil lawsuits and any potential damage that may arise under the APA eunuch. This is the case as long as the injury.
- (1) does not bother the organizational or human litigant and
- (2) cannot be remedied even without the repair of the organizational or human plaintiff.
To solve the problem, the injuries that the Court has recognized to establish are often “economic”, recreational or “aesthetic” short-term and relatively inconsistent injuries. In the case of Sierra Club v. Serton.
The fate of the Sequoia National Forest and the National Park led Sierra Club (a corporation) and its human members back for economic, recreational or aesthetic injuries, and access to the judicial system.
Friends of the Earth, Inc. V. In Laidlove Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., the Court held that there should be no harm to water quality to support civil lawsuits under the Law on Clean water. According to the court, “.
The demonstration for the purposes of relevant Article III … is not harm to the environment but damage to the plaintiff.” With respect to the effects of the discharge of mercury into the river What was relevant was the “reasonable concerns” of the plaintiff that affected the plaintiff’s entertainment, aesthetic and economic interests.
Even when humans or organizations appeal for recreational, aesthetic, economic or occupational injuries, the Supreme Court does not easily recognize human or organizational interests in environmental protection.
Due to the “objective injury” of a permanent trial. v. Morton, for example, emerged from a challenge to a decision by the United States government that authorized the construction of a Disney ski resort in the land of national forests.
And national parks of exceptional ecological value. The Sierra Club claimed that the license agreement was illegal and based on long-standing interest and concern for the protection of the environment.
The Court held that this widespread interest and concern for nature had thwarted the permanent test of the Court because neither the club nor its members suffered a specific cognitive injury.
Such as the loss of recreational opportunities or deforestation. And enjoy associated with the license to develop part of the Sequoia National Forest… and park.
In Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation (“Lujan I”), the plaintiffs questioned the efforts of the United States government to review and classify hundreds of plots of public lands that could result in their use for mining.
Following the previous set in the Sierra Club, the plaintiffs harmed the enjoyment of their “recreational and aesthetic” land in areas around public lands that opened to claims for mining and leasing of oil and gas.
The Court refused to stand up, since the plaintiffs simply claimed that “they had only extracted land activity in the neighborhood” or “will probably occur” in the neighborhood. The government had classified public lands.
The Court held that “an interest in land to settle in developing areas” was insufficient to sustain itself. In writing for Bahujan, Judge Scalia stated that the civil provisions of the Endangered Species Act cannot pass to a citizen who defends an absent species from damage to an endangered species (or company).
In that case, the Department of the Interior promulgated a regulation that exempts actions taken at sea by the US government. UU. Abroad or the Endangered Species Act.
Those who claim to have been injured by wildlife (who claim to be standing) were that two of their human members (“plaintiffs”) had traveled to foreign countries and found their native habitats and animals in danger of extinction (indigo crocodiles.
Elephants Asians and leopards). And the action of the United States government to finance foreign dam construction projects, including the Aswan Dam in Egypt, now threatened the animals with extinction.
The human applicant claimed that he intended to return to the habitat of animals in danger of extinction and that he would be harmed if the animals were extinguished.
Affirms an ecosystem link argument (a human that uses part of the ecosystem, supports), an animal link argument – humans who are interested in studying or watching endangered animals.
And an occupational rexus argument (which exists a professional interest in endangered animals) to support their claims. Rejecting these arguments, the Court stated that the plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate how the extinction of endangered animals would harm humans in any way.
Because they did not have a concrete and defined plan to return to countries and animals. It is a place of native residence. The Court stated: “To say that the Law [on Endangered Species] protects ecosystems is not to say that the Law has created [if possible] rights of action in [humans].
That are really injured. They have not happened, namely, humans  who do not use parts of the ecosystem affected by any illegal action. According to the court, the plaintiff’s claims are very important. They were widespread and insufficient to prove concrete and imminent injury.
There is no basis to trigger the investigation of Article III on the source of vocal authority. If the courts were to act on their own, or at the invitation of Congress, to ignore the specific damage requirement described in our cases.
They would reject a doctrine for the constitutional role separate and distinct from the third branch, a necessary requirement. Elements that identify those “cases” and “disputes” that are a matter of the courts rather than political branches.
Declarations that damage ecosystems are habitats of endangered species “do not directly affect humans.” It lacks both ethical and factual foundations. In fact.
If we ignore the troubling moral implications of a legal system that allows humans to extinguish other species in our selection. Judge Scalia’s statement is completely false from a utilitarian point of view.
Humans depend on the natural functioning ecosystems of the earth and the biodiversity they operate. Humans depend on rivers to get clean water and edible food.
Animals play an important role in maintaining these functional ecosystems. Crocodiles “clean” these rivers, since they eat bodies of other species and balance the aquatic populations of the rivers.
Elephants play an important role in forest ecosystems: commonly known as ‘key’ species, elephants help clear the forest and distribute the seeds of trees and shrubs. But humans depend on food, shelter , clean air, etc. Clean water
As a predator, the Asian leopard plays an important ecological role in controlling the population and health of the species in which it feeds. Therefore, predators affect the potential of biodiversity as part of a healthy natural ecosystem.
IV. Proposal: Plaintiff extinct natural ecosystem
In 1972, Judge Douglas wrote the following in Sierra Club v Morton as part of his dissent. The important issue of “legitimation” will be simplified and taken into account if we follow a federal standard that allows environmental problems to be ignited, rejected.
Exposed to federal agencies or federal courts on behalf of an inanimate object. It allows attacked by roads and bulldozers, and where the injury is subject to public outrage.
The contemporary public concern to protect the ecological balance of nature should lead to prosecute environmental goods for their own protection. Inanimate objects are sometimes parties to litigation.
A ship has a legal personality, a useful specification for maritime purposes. The corporation is a creature of a unique singular law: an acceptable adversary, and great fortunes run for their arguments.
The ordinary corporation is a “person” for the purpose of subsidiary processes, whether it represents property, spiritual, aesthetic or charitable causes.
Therefore, this honor must be in the valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, neighborhoods, beaches, ridges, tree bushes, swamps or even in the air that feel the destructive pressures of modern technology and modern life.
It is a moving road that, at that time, could not offer a practical mechanism to identify a representation of the legal personality of nature. As Professor Jonathan Cannon observes in his book, Environment in Balance.
There may be several problems associated with recognizing the ability of nature to sustain itself: “What will it represent in nature? Why is the river [as Judge Douglas disagrees in the Sierra Club].
And not a part of the river is a basin or an ecosystem? And is the river the distinctive voice of the ‘unity of ecological life’ that is part of it, or is each unit a potential in itself? And as Professor Hope Babcock points out,” nature lacks a functional structure remotely similar to a corporation.”
The proposal of this paragraph of power DNE provides a mechanism for a corporation to produce a separate and nominal legal entity with a “functional structure”. In each case, the representation of the nature of the DNE is established by location.
And by the impact of the underlying injury; The use of classification systems based on science and definitions of “operational” ecosystems allows us to name, describe and affect a DNI proxy and the injury that occurs or is sustained.
Geographic information system (GIS) technology can be displayed on a single map, a polygon of a DNE proxy, with different layers of information collected from a variety of sources, including remote sensing images, cartographic data.
As well as previous research Data contained and surveys on site evaluations, drones and photographs. A natural ecosystem is an organization that consists of organisms that live in a geographic area.
As well as in the physical environment, they all work together as a unit. Therefore, the use of the DNE proxy provides a site-specific “umbrella” to cover physical environments, mutual biodiversity, natural habitats.
And natural processes such as water filtration, air purification and soil retention. As such, the DNE proxy naturally represents nature’s interest in maintaining and reviving its critical cycles in an existing critical, permanent, threatened or injured geographic area.
It is an entity in nature, which becomes a legal person representing nature through human delimitation based on science, which conforms to the permanent doctrine framework of the Court.
Delimitation of natural ecosystems using classification systems of science. The classification of natural ecosystems is not new. Humans have painted and classified the earth in one way or another for millennia to identify food, clean water, medicinal plants and other raw materials.
Today, the classification of nature is the subject of peer-reviewed scientific literature and is based on legitimate objective information.  Many ecological classifications “exist on international, national, state and local scales.”
These classifications have different purposes in environmental protection and conservation work. For example, scientists from educational institutions, federal and state agencies, and several international organizations and partners have worked together for decades to develop.
And maintain the International Botany Classification (“IVC”). IVC is used by most federal agencies in the United States, as well as statewide natural heritage programs.
Natural heritage classifications that have been developed specifically for their own states, either the IVC or the US. UU. The national vegetation taxonomy (“NVC”) can lead to “crosses.”
The level of “type of community” in the classification of natural heritage corresponds to the level of “association” of NVC. Since 2001, a public-private network of independent organizations has known.
And that the “NatureServe Network” operates in the Western Hemisphere, analyzing and analyzing data on animals, plants and ecological communities.
The classification of nature ‘attempts to organize the ecological complexity of nature; namely, the complex relationship of living beings with non-living environments, in discrete classes. In turn, these classes provide ecosystem objectives for cataloging, mapping , research, monitoring, restoration and conservation.
The Virginia natural heritage programs and Maryland provide examples of classification approaches to natural communities that operate at the state level. Each is organized into four unique levels, from the widest to the most specific:
- System (extended level)
- Ecological class
- Ecological community group
- Type of ecological community
Five different ecosystems have been identified in Maryland and Virginia, from the widest to the most specific: 
- The rivers
Each system is distinguished from the other by its large-scale geomorphic, hydrological, biological and chemical characteristics. Terrestrial systems, for example, are highland habitats “consisting of well-drained soils that vary from dry to messy in the moisture regime.”
Terrestrial systems “sustain vegetation that is predominantly upstream and is not hydrophilic, even when there is occasional flooding or mud. Saturation occurs.” In contrast, the pelvic system “Contains all” non-tidal perennial wetlands ” which are characteristic of emerging vegetation.
It is composed of hydrophilic flora and includes wetlands, which are permanently saturated with groundwater leaks, permanently flooded wetlands and are in seasonal or intermittent wetlands.
Within each system there are orbits, which serve a group of natural communities based on the “natural environment such as soil moisture (eg, putty forest vs. dry forest) or hydrology (eg, wetlands alluvial versus non-alluvial wetlands) “.
While Virginia and Maryland have many similarities, their physical and topographic differences appear to be more pronounced at the level of this classification.
The divergence of the classes identified demonstrates the flexibility inherent in the general concept of classification systems: provided that each classification system is internally consistent.
The diversity of different classification systems may reflect the diversity of nature in different physical environments. For example, within the land system, Maryland has identified:
- The messy forest class
- Class of forests and massive dry forests
- Dry forest and forest category
- The Glades, Barrens and Rock Outcrops class
Kind of marine forests, forests and dunes: In Virginia, which is higher than in Maryland, the following classes in the terrestrial system have been identified:
- Tall forests, grasslands and rocky outcrops
- Low altitude putty forest
- Dry and dry low-altitude putty forest
- Low elevation forests, meadows and rocky outcrops
- Marine Area Communities
Sandy forests of the inland coastal plain and outer Piedmont: Within each class there are ecological community groups, which are “aggregations of fine-grained community types based on different combinations of topographic, adaphic, physiological and gross floral similarities.”
There are two examples of ecological groups found in Maryland. “Northern hardwood forest” and “Marine swamp”. Natural communities defined at this level (considered a “relatively thick scale”) are generally more suitable for applications such as “ecological modeling and vegetation mapping”.
Finally, there are types of smaller-scale ecological communities integrated into each of the groups of ecological communities. Each type of ecological community is representative of plant communities because plants are “easier to study.
Measure and sensitive to physical and biological factors that affect many types of organisms. Plant species are the state of the site and are faithful indicators of plants.
Collectively (that is, vegetative) species reflect biological and ecological patterns throughout the landscape.
Therefore, the use of plants are typically characterized by ecological communities.It is used as a substitute to characterize and define ” In addition,” since plant communities are often close to different combinations of other types of organisms occurs.
So that natural communities can be used as “thick capture filters that capture.” Many species and processes in the community, even if they are not specifically identified. Ecological communities Type is the level at which the community inventory.
And conservation action is directed and, as such, at what level of community this is, frequencies are tracked and for what conservation Credit conditions are assigned rows “.
The types of ecological communities are likely, although not necessarily the appropriate level for the identification of DNE representatives of nature, since this level of classification lends itself to easy interpretation and can be applied site by site.
It is in addition, ecological communities can be referenced with other applicable classification frameworks. If the DNE proxy is located in the northeastern United States.
For example, the “Northeast Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Classification System” may provide additional information (focusing on wildlife habitat) to describe the DNE proxy. The appendix of this article illustrates how one or more classification approaches can be used to implement the DNE proxy mechanism.
Parameters to describe DNE and injuries
Science recognizes that there are challenges to identify and describe ecosystems. For example, “No classification system can fully reflect the diversity of the community in a landscape.
The data available for community-based classification vary in quantity and quality.” As a complement to the classification approach Therefore, the delimitation and description of DNE representatives can benefit from the application of certain concepts and methods.
More classification approaches, a practical “operational definition” that addresses the four fundamental aspects of the natural ecosystem – “Native native biota, abiotic traits, characteristic processes.
And physical location where they work – What to use Affirms that describes both the DNI proxy and the injury. It is important to note that the level of specificity used to describe each of these four aspects should not be exhaustive.
The “uniqueness in the structure and processes of the DNE proxy” “ and must provide sufficient verifiable information to demonstrate its spatial limits, including the basic elements of DNE. Each will be addressed (or adjacent to) the contested action.
Consistent with this concept is the notion that the DNE of nature will be limited to natural ecosystems behind the scenes, reflecting minimal human modification or those that have largely recovered from prior human disruption in natural conditions.
And species interactions. native They are…Therefore, ecosystems are identified as “early eccentricities that have recently undergone highly modified disturbances or habitats.
Such as fields and plantation forests that artificially in a phase of dazzling succession” is maintained ” will not qualify as representative of nature under the preamble of this Article.
However, this exclusion does not affect the possibility that in the future such ecosystems may “evolve into natural systems that provide sufficient time and freedom for anthropogenic disturbance.”
Establishment of DNE nature representation in the courtroom: Instead of the legal acrobatics currently required when individuals or environmental groups seek legal actions to protect nature.
The most current and verifiable scientific methods, frameworks and technology can be used to identify and then natural ecology. The mechanism can be adversely affected in summary.
The DNE representation mechanism is designed to identify the plaintiff, who meets all the requirements of Article III of the Court for each case. For example, if you face a factual scenario like Sierra Club v. Morton.
A science-based classification approach can identify DNE claimants and delay the application of an operational definition and describe each DNY claimant. They will have to do so and may suffer injuries.
Summarize the four fundamental elements of a natural ecosystem. Finally, the GIS technique can provide a map that shows several layers of information about the fundamental aspects of the DANI proxy, including its spatial limits.
But who files the lawsuit and how will it work in the real case?
Just as litigation attorneys are routinely hired to represent other judicial persons, such as corporations, litigation attorneys will be hired to represent DNE representatives. The lawyers themselves do not have to be scientists.
Because in the context of other lawsuits, lawyers can work with one or more qualified expert witnesses. For example a lawyer representing an injured person in a medical malpractice case works with one or more qualified medical expert witnesses to perform the necessary physical examinations.
Submits a report to the court, and controls when necessary. Similarly, the lawyer confirmed Sierra Club v. Morton to challenge the permits issued to convert a natural forest ecosystem into a ski resort and a road, to identify.
And limit the DEN Experts qualified as biologists and ecologists will work with witnesses. Describe the specific and special injury found by the proxy / proxy and the DNE (s), which is caused by the permitted recreational “growth” of the DNE (s) forests.
Dubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The Supreme Court established a non-exclusive checklist for the courts of first instance to assess the credibility of the testimonies of scientific experts. The key factors include the following:
Whether the technique or the theory of the expert can be tested or not, that is, if the theory of the expert can be questioned in some objective sense, or is simply a subjective and extractive approach that is justified by reliability.
It cannot be qualified as such.. If the technique or theory has been subject to peer review and publication; Known or probable rate of error of technique or principle when appropriate; Existence and maintenance of standards and controls.
If technology or theory has been generally accepted in the scientific community. The use of a DNE power to establish and protect the legal personality of nature would be novel.
However, the underlying information, methods, techniques, standards and framework are not – This work is the object of objective, verifiable, peer-reviewed publications and studies and projects that adhere to rigorous standards and controls.
“Novelty” is limited to the context in which this work can now be applied. Therefore, a DNE representative, to protect himself from direct and imminent injuries, may oppose the agency that issued the permit.
As well as the company or companies that seek to build the complex or highway. This procedure “preserves the vitality of the confrontation process to assure both, since the parties before the court are genuine, instead of sharing the result.
And legal questions are presented and it will be resolved, not in the unusual environment of a debated society, but in a concrete factual context that leads to a realistic appreciation of the consequences of legal action.
In this case, the DNE nature representative is fighting against its continued existence. Permission from a government agency and a development company that wants to end the existence of DNE.
But it’s easy to damage nature: doesn’t this flood create courts that challenge every human or corporate act that affects nature? As Professor Bebak says, “Perhaps the problem is less that nature cannot show real or dangerous injuries.
It may allow to reach a multitude of statements that would otherwise be ambiguous. One way previously suggested to avoid this problem is to make claims of nature more important.
To be considered “significant and irreparable. The government’s inaction of natural resources has been compromised. Others, such as Professor Christopher Stone, suggested in early 1972 that a constitutional list of” favorite articles “be made.
This article establishes that all natural functioning ecosystems of nature are threatened or threatened by the government (at the hands of corporations or others), through the DNE mechanism to protect their right to exist.
Opportunities must be provided. It will not be unbearable. The DNE proxy mechanism naturally filters out suspicious claims because the establishment and loss or continuity of each DNE proxy requires the application of a scientific witness.
And the data through evidence from expert witnesses that the Daubert Standard Below passes the meeting. The DNE proxy also inhibits and avoids claims of the individual components of the natural ecosystem because the DNE proxy acts as an umbrella for its “characteristic native biota”.
Finally, DNE proxies are limited to natural ecosystems that exhibit minimal human modification or those who have overcome the human disruption passed primarily under natural conditions and interactions of native species.
In accordance with all the precedents of the court on the position of Article III, the DNE as plaintiff shall be a part of nature that exhibits a substantial, special or distinct and apparent injury.
In which it has a participation direct – This result can be exchanged through legal action when nature faces or has suffered a loss. To accept the right to nature, within the rigorous current investigation of Article III.
And within the well-established doctrine of “judicial personality”, the courts will take an important step towards the realization of the purpose behind the National Environmental Policy Law.
This will allow the formation of a national policy designed to foster “harmony between man and his environment” and promote “efforts to prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and the biosphere and humans.
It will encourage the health and well-being of “while” enriched “] understanding of ecosystems and natural resources is important to the nation.
Human requirements cannot define DNE
The fact that human health depends too much on the health of nature cannot justify the subordination of nature. Moral considerations aside from our relationship with nature, even under the most rigorous utilitarian approach.
We must recognize that to protect human health and survival, human beings must bring nature to the state of its natural functioning. You must be prepared to participate: to first assess the human impact on nature.
For this, we have to accept that humans are part of nature, humans do not define it. In the process of identifying a DNE as a “legal entity”, we cannot define or measure a DNE entity in terms of human needs or functions.
The simple reason is that catastrophic damage to an ecosystem has also been justified in terms of short-term economic needs. For example, a sustainable timber crop in a national forest can be rationalized through acceptance and recognition.
The Forest Service does not manage ecosystems only for their management or for some assumption about the internal values of the ecosystem. For the forest service, ecosystem management means producing the desired values, uses, products or services of resources.
Which maintain the diversity and productivity of ecosystems. In particular, nature is the latest in that analysis. Similarly, under the Endangered Species Act, the United States Fish.
And Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) does not designate an “important habitat” for an endangered species unless it is a “economic and other designation”. It does not take into account the effects.
In fact, according to the USFWS,” an area may be excluded from a significant housing designation based on any of the following: economic impact, national security impact “or” any other relevant impact.
If the service is determined Does that benefit benefit from excluding the benefits of including it, unless the failure to designate the area as an important habitat causes the species to become extinct? It can be “.
By clearing the Appalachian forests, destructive practices of coal mining, the destruction of mountain biodiversity peaks worldwide and the filling of mountain valley currents, it is economically appropriate when mortalit.
And Human morbidity are associated with these practices. It is.  Another existing example is the death of the Great Barrier Reef. In human terms, defenders in favor of reef conservation can argue that if the reef dies.
Then $ 6 billion in tourism revenue and future generations will lose the ability to enjoy the reef. However, as André Dow explains, “Such arguments invite refutations that have actually been used.
The following two hypothetical case studies are examples of how DNE proxy mechanisms can be used in a manageable and verifiable manner.
However, none of these hypothetical case studies have available legal claims or a complete fragmentation of science. And technology that can be implemented in support of DNE representatives or face imminent losses.
Hypothetical Case Study 1: Morton Redux in the Central Appalachian Mountains of the Sierra Club v. East of the United States. The National Forest Service approved a permit to build a ski resort in the Queen Mineral National Forest (“National Forest”).
As part of the plan for which the permits were approved. A road will be cut across the national highway and 2,000 acres of forest will become open ground for hotel development, along with a convention center and auxiliary infrastructure. ski.
Just as lawyers can work on behalf of non-humanitarian entities such as corporations, the lawyers here will act on behalf of the affected DNE representative.
And a comprehensive decision to prevent deforestation of 2,000 acres is a Complaint by declaratory judgment and court order . Take development support. To prepare for the case, a legal team will be assembled that includes lawyers.
And scientists (such as forest ecologists and plant and wildlife biologists) that will identify legal representatives appropriate for nature. The mountains that will be lost and developed are found in the Maryl.
And part of the National Forest and are part of the Appalachian mountain range. Using biological and abiotic indicators, such as soil type and humidity, local climate, distribution of native plant species, physical characteristics of the land and specific ecosystem processes.
This first step, using the Maryland natural communities classification approach to identify types of ecological communities, may also include.
Class: The putty forest is characterized by a wet and well drained soil that supports succulent vegetation. Ecological community group: aposperous cove forests. Ecological community type: Central Appalachian Forest Rich Cove.
Maryland’s most important wildlife habitat and various levels of on-site evaluation data for field sampling. The application of an operational definition of natural ecosystems describes the basic elements that differentiate and define the DNE proxy.
And are found in this case. The unique native biota of DNE, its abiotic complex and its main processes and interactions can be described as follows. DNE “is characterized by vast and diverse forests of mountainous slopes located in protected landscapes such as coves, ravines.
And low concave slopes. These terraces provide shade, protection against strong winds and very wet soils. It lends itself to the situation.” DNE consists of a deep and fertile soil, with a wide variety of substrates, which contain high levels of calcium, magnesium and manganese.
The soil is moderately alkaline and supports very diverse and succulent layers. The characteristic canopy is dominated by sugar, maple, American linden, white ash and tulip, while the herbaceous layer is diverse.
And typically includes ansroot, wild ginger, white sun glasses and wild columbine. The DNE proxy is a habitat for many types of concerns, including Allegheny woodrat, lynx, North American porcupine, Eastern red bat.
And American woodpecker, golden eagle, mountain chorus frog, wooden turtle and Sanderson’s bumblebee. It has also been claimed that the diversity of this DNE proxy is the richest in this region of the United States.
The expert report presented with this information will also include spatial limits within which the DNE proxy operates. GIS mapping polygons can describe the unique characteristics of DNE proxies at the limits of the DNE proxy, location (latitude and longitude coordinates) and data layers.
Removing the forest and turning it into a comprehensive ski resort will destroy 2,000 contiguous acres of trees. As shown below, the identification and description of appropriate DNE as a proxy for “legal entity” for nature appears with a new level of clarity.
That the challenged action will not only destroy the “trees”, but will also act naturally and create a central forest ecosystem in the Appalachian Rich Cove, which will result in cumulative and far-reaching impacts.
The application of the law in a scientific context shows that the applicant DNE Central Appalachian Rich Cove Forest DNE [latitude / longitude coordinates for polygons / GIS boundary lines] completes each element of the permanent test:
At first, the plaintiff would have been “really hurt.” In fact, the injury must consist of an invasion of a legally protected interest, which is (a) concrete and specialized, and (b) “real or imminent, not” adjective “or” imaginary. “
Invasion of interests legally protected: the plaintiff seeks restrictive decisions and precautionary measures that allow federal authorities a comprehensive ski development to destroy it. Plaintiffs’ lawyers rely on 10 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Which accuses the agency of “judicial” review of a legally injured person, or [who] in the sense of the agency, because of agency action Is negatively affected or affected by the action.
The plaintiff-his lawyers claimed that the proposed development governs federal laws and the protection of national forests and the National Environmental Policy Act.
Association of data processing service organizations, Inc. V. Camp and Barlow v. In Collins, the court held that the persons should receive a judicial review of the actions of the federal agency under the APA of 10, where they claimed that the cause of the contested action was “de facto injury”.
And where the alleged injury It was definitely about an interest “to be protected or regulated safely within the area of interest”, a claim of infringement by those agencies was.
One of the fundamental characteristics of the plaintiff is that it is a forest located within a national forest. The National Forest Management Law applies to forests in national forests.
The plaintiff faces destruction and, therefore, is within the “area of interest” of the National Forest Management Law.
The injury that is really solid and specialized: Expert testimony indicated that deforestation and development of the plaintiff’s 2,000 acres of land in an extensive ski resort would result in a series of injuries, including:
Soil erosion and erosion
The soil of the monolithic forest is moist and contains nutrients. If the plaintiff’s forest cover is removed, the work floor will be exposed to the sun’s rays.
Soil moisture and nutrients will evaporate and bacteria that help break down organic matter will be affected. Finally, the rain will wash the soil surfaces and begin erosion.
Canopy loss and temperature regulation
Deforestation will eliminate the canopy of the forest that acts as a shield during the day of the sun, but retains heat at night. The loss of the forest canopy causes more extreme temperature changes.
And that negatively affect the native biota characteristic within the plaintiff; The plaintiff loses its microclimate created by the forest and the ability to provide its associated plant and animal habitat.
The Queen River mineral basin (home of the native brook trout) is very compact. Currently, the valley forest (intact) filters and controls the flow of rainwater. The leafy canopy accepts rain, modifying the fall of the rain.
The soil of the Wadi forest acts like a sponge and can absorb more than a foot of rain slowly before the groundwater flows slowly and recharges it. If the plaintiff’s forest board is removed and replaced by roads, parking lots.
And hotels (waterproof surfaces), the waterfall, the river and the streams will be affected immediately. Due to the increase in the impermeable surface, water flows from the “earth“.
Which travels through the surface to the surface. As this “stormwater runoff” travels to currents that collect pollutants and accelerate.
This leads to flooding, stream erosion, sediment and pollutant loading, degradation of water quality and loss of habitat for brook trout.
If the plaintiff is destroyed, an area rich in biodiversity will be lost.  Deforestation and the extensive development of ski resorts will result in the loss of habitat for countless species.
Upon evaluation of the site, data from remote sensing images and information from recent biological studies that will be analyzed by the forest ecologist and the biologist’s expert witnesses will confirm the following:
The tree map is dominated by sugar maple, base wood, white ash, white oak and northern red oak. Other tree species identified include Shabgark Hickory, Butternut, Black Locust, Witch-Hazel, Eastern Hope-Hornbeam, Striped Maple and Sweet Birch.
Herbs include: Jack-in-the-Pulpit, White Sarkcute, Aceroot, Wood Nettle, Enchanting Nightshade, Wild Ginger, American Ginseng, Wild Colbuin, Fenflower, Wood-Fern, Trillium and Bellwarts.
Specialized fauna (including animal species identified as those with the greatest conservation needs. Mammals:
Allegheny Woodrat, American mink, Appalachian cotton tail, large brown bat, lynx, eastern red bat, eastern mottled skunk, hori bat, Lester vessel, long treatment shadow, North American porcupine, northern long year bat, golden eagle , Silver Eagle-hard bat, Southern Bog Lemming, Tricolor bat, Southern Water Shook, Smokey Shuru, Southern Piezee Shamr. Birds: Acadian Flycatcher, American Redhead, American Woodcock, Black and White Warbler, Blackburnian Warbler, Black-Throated Blue Warbler, Black-Throated Green Warner, Wide-Winged Hawk, Blue-winged Wobbler, Dark-Eyed Junko, Eastern Whip – Poor Will, Serulian Warbler, Golden-winged Warbler, Hooded Warner, Kentucky Warler, Lest Flycatcher, Northern Parula, Northern Saw Owl, Rafed Claws, Karlet Tanegr, Sharp-Shaind Hawk and Vieri.
Reptiles: Eastern box turtle, wooden rattlesnake, wooden turtle. Amphibians: Green salamander, mountain choir frog, Jefferson salamander, mountain choir frog, valley and ridge salamander, Wehrle salamander.
Insects (including butterflies and moths): Sanderson Bumble Bee, American Chestnut Neptulid Moth, Appalachian Blue, Compton Tortoichel, Hickory Hairstreak, Gray Comma, Early Hiercrake, Three Horned Moth, Fallofagan Chestnut Nepticid Moth and West Virginia White.
Greenhouse gases and global warming increased
Trees and soil help regulate atmospheric temperature through a perspiration process. It helps stabilize the weather. In addition, forests enrich the atmosphere by absorbing CO2 and other greenhouse gases and producing oxygen.
Trees also help remove air pollutants. Less forests means the introduction of large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and increasing the speed and severity of global warming.
The fact that the plaintiff’s ban on preventing the destruction and permanent conversion of the extensive development of skiing “alone” would protect 2,000 acres of forest and, therefore, would only have minor effects on greenhouse gases worldwide.
It is not relevant. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court clarified that although climate risk is “widely shared” and that the possible consequences associated with man-made climate change are much greater than the impact of the challenging action.
The plaintiff specifically The interest in avoiding injuries did not diminish. Specifically, the court stated, the argument is based on the mistaken belief that a small incremental step.
Because it is incremental, can never be attacked in the federal judicial forum. Still accepting that Aadhaar is the biggest challenge for the regulatory action. The injury is in fact real or imminent:
Permits have been issued and a special use authority has been granted that will allow the plaintiff to clean and remove 2,000 acres of land so that the area can become an integral ski resort.
“Second, there must be a causal relationship between the complaint of the injury and the behavior: the injury must be” impartial. . . [Competent] follow-up on the defendant’s contested action, no more. . . The [e] result [k] independent action of a third party not before the court. “
The National Forest Service issued permits and granted a special use authority, which would allow the destruction of the plaintiff without a declaration of environmental impact, violating the laws that govern the National Forest and NEPA.
The conduct of the National Forest Service will lead to the execution of plans for deforestation and development of resorts and, therefore, to specific injuries in the form of destruction of the plaintiff.
"Thirdly, it should be 'probable', 'alone, unlike speculative,' that the injury be repaired through a favorable judgment resolved." ]
If the court requested precautionary and declaratory measures, the plaintiff would survive the destruction. Trees, plants, animals, soil and water (including mineral watersheds) will remain intact.
And will continue to function as natural ecosystems with natural processes that improve biodiversity, habitat, land integrity and water quality and the air Protect, in addition to acting as a “carbon sink” to reduce greenhouse gases and global warming.
Does this mean that no ski resort can be rebuilt? No The result of the power of representation of the DNE claimant prevailing in this case would mean that the courts.
And allowing government agencies, developers. And the public to be more aware of the very real and far-reaching effects of the destruction of the natural ecosystem.
The ski resort developers can find another place (one that does not affect the natural ecosystem) or modify their plans to eliminate the possibility of damaging or destroying the plaintiff.
This will be a victory for both humans and nature.
Hypothetical case study 2: Luzon II Redux in fertile New York
This hypothetical case study will capture the facts that are parallel to the relevant facts of Luzon II. Hypothetically, the United States government has just approved funds to build a dam in New York State.
And the Secretary of the Interior has issued the necessary permits to build the dam. The dam will consolidate and eliminate the wetlands occupied by threatened turtles. According to the proposal in this article.
The power of the nature of the DNE, which seeks declaratory relief and a permanent court order for the construction of the dam, is exceptionally different. Lujan II Humanists who traveled to Egypt and Sri Lanka and studied endangered animals in their native habitats.
In particular, the plaintiff is a “legal person” who directly suffers an imminent injury: the dam will decimate the delegated habitat of the Dalit turtles on a scientific basis. Keep in mind that nature’s proxy is a DNE (swamp turtle habitat).
And not the swamp turtle itself. The DNE proxy serves as an umbrella to protect all living and non-constituent components that act through natural processes within it. [1/2] Without this methodology.
The wetland ecosystem, individual swamp turtles would not survive. Therefore, even under the Endangered Species Act, the “legal person” aspect of nature would be the DNE proxy – DNE habitat of threatened or endangered species; Not only individual species.
To prepare for the case, a legal team will be assembled that includes lawyers and scientists (such as wetland ecologists, herpetologists and plant and wildlife biologists) to identify legal representatives appropriate for nature.
Using biological and abiotic indicators such as soil type and humidity, the local climate, the distribution of native plant species, the physical characteristics of the land and the specific processes of the ecosystem.
Scientists must first confirm that the destruction of The wetlands are doing There is a natural ecosystem that has a colony of swampy turtles extinct and viable. We Expert testimony of scientists can be used (but not limited to) in equipment.
Surveys and research published by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The implementation of an operational definition of the natural ecosystem habitat describes the basic elements that define and define the DNE proxy.
In this case, face different disadvantages. Therefore, DNE’s unique native biota (including the marsh threatened by the Union), its abiotic complexes and its main processes and interactions can be described as follows:
Inhabitants of swamp turtles, shallow chickens fed by springs, sphagnum swamps, swamps, swampy grasslands and pastures that contain soft and muddy bottoms; clear, cold and slow water, often forming a network of ravines; and open Awnings.
Only four inches long, the swamp turtle (Clemmis (Glyptimis) muhlenbergi) is one of the smallest turtles in North America. The swamp turtles depend on different parts of the wetlands at different times of the year (ending soon ) to meet different needs.
The variety of wet and dry places found in this wetland (or “swamp”) is a common feature of all turtles. It meets the origin of the needs. Sunny and open areas provide warmth necessary to regulate the turtle’s body temperature and hatch its eggs.
While soft and muddy areas allow turtles to survive edators and extreme temperatures. The wetland is a mapping element event for a viable swamp turtle colony in question and the characteristic habitat of the swamp turtle is:
Appropriate Hydrology: In general, swampy turtle wetlands are introduced year-round with shallow surface waters or saturated soils, although in summer wet areas may be restricted to near spring heads.
These wetlands are generally kept in dry and wet bags. Adequate soil. Usually a lower substrate of permanently saturated organic or mineral soil. These are often soft and mossy soils.
Adequate flora The predominant vegetation of low grass and sedge. This specific swamp turtle habitat can be identified as “marga fen”: using data collected from the New York State natural heritage classification approach and on-site assessments.
- System: Palustrine
- Subsystem: open peat
- Community: Marl Fenn
[It’s] a wetland that lies on a bed of loam. Loam is a white substance deposited in water that contains a lot of calcium. The white substance is calcium carbonate, people used marla to lime agricultural areas.
Loam substrate is always saturated, can be flooded and has a very high pH, generally greater than 7.5. The main source of water is always groundwater. Plants are often scarce and dry. The marls can occur as small patches inside a rich graminoid swamp.
The predominant species in marls are graminoids. Characteristic herbaceous species include yellow seeds, spikerusch, twig-rush, bikrish, waterhorn, grass-of-parnassus, pitcher-plant, hard-bullrush, nutrush, Ohio goldenrod, arrow-grass, mottled horsetail, rushes, and culm lobelia.
The expert report presented with this information will also include spatial limits within which the DNE proxy operates. GIS mapping can describe the boundaries, location and unique characteristics of DNE proxies in polygonal data layers.
Law enforcement in a scientific context suggests that plaintiff Marl Fenn, the habitat of federally threatened swamp turtles, [latitude / longitude coordinates for GIS polygons] complete each element of the permanent test:
First, the plaintiff must have been really injured. In fact, the injury is “a legally protected interest (which is a) concrete and specialized, and (b) real or imminent, not ‘presumed’ or ‘imaginary’.
Invasion of interests legally protected
The plaintiff took this action against the United States and the Secretary of the Interior, demanding a declaratory judgment that the sanctioned dam project would end directly with threatened swamp turtles.
And destroy their habitat, violating the Endangered Species Act. ESA seeks to protect animal species against threats to their continued existence due to humans.
ESA instructs the Secretary of the Interior to regulate a list of endangered or threatened species, and to define the critical habitat of these species. Section of the ESA establishes, in the relevant part.
Each federal agency shall consult and with the assistance of the Secretary [Interior], which is authorized, financed or carried out by said agency It is unlikely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered species.
And threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the habitat of such species as determined by the Secretary, after consulting with the affected states, important Ser.
The plaintiff - as a "judicial person" in the civil lawsuit provision of his lawyers and ESA - as follows:
Person can initiate a civil suit on their behalf to designate any person, including the United States and any other government instrument or agency. Who is accused of violating any regulation or regulation issued under any provision or authority of this chapter.
Force the Secretary to implement and the ban is established or authorized. This title in relation to the capture of any resident species in danger of extinction or threatened species.
Where there is a failure of the Secretary to carry out any act or obligation against the Secretary. Under this title that is not discretionary with the Secretary. The district courts shall have jurisdiction.
In relation to the amount in dispute or the citizenship of the parties, to enforce any provision or regulation, or to order the Secretary to perform such act or duty as the case may be..
As noted above, Wadi’s specialty is the swamp turtle habitat and a mapping element opportunity for a viable swamp turtle colony.
The claimant’s basic elements include ideal habitats for swamp turtles:
- (1) adequate hydrology, which consists of soil saturated with dry and wet patches;
- (2) suitable soil, with saturated marble substrate;
- (3) the characteristic vegetation of the gramonid species.
The plaintiff of the dam wants everyone to change one of the basic elements of the plaintiff. Once the dam is built, the plaintiff will dry completely. The plaintiff will disappear and the swamp turtle colony, which naturally depends on the job seeker, will not survive.
The defendant United States approved the financing of the dam and the Secretary of the Interior issued the necessary permits to allow the Army Engineers Corporation to begin construction.
Second, there must be a causal relationship between the injury and the reported behavior: the injury must be impartial … traceable to the defendant’s contested action, and not … in court. It is not the result of the action party independent.
The defendant United States approved the financing of the dam and the Secretary of the Interior issued the necessary permits to allow the Army Engineers Corporation to begin construction.
The dam will change the natural water flow regime. In doing so, the plaintiff’s natural hydrology and saturated soil will cease to exist. The dam will eliminate the four fundamental aspects of the plaintiff.
Its abiotic characteristics (soil, hydrology), its basic biota (including endangered swamp turtles in the Union), its specific processes and the spatial limits in which it operates.
The wetland will dry out and cease to exist, as will all the creatures that depend on it. Thirdly, it should be ‘probable’ only instead of speculative that the injury would be repaired by a favorable trial resolved.
If the court built the dam permanently, the plaintiff and his resident swamp turtle colony would not be destroyed. The natural ecosystem will be allowed to exist, maintain and sustain its natural processes.
Would this mean that planned water storage, flood protection and / or power generation to provide the dam is now impossible? There are modern options for the construction and maintenance of expensive dams.
For example, water conservation practices, desalination plants and infiltration gallery technology can provide sustainable options for water storage. Sustainable options for flood management include practices that reduce surface runoff.
And river and river techniques, along with a common sense approach to separate human communities from naturally flooded areas. Finally, there are better alternatives to hydroelectricity.
Including conservation and energy efficiency measures, as well as the generation of solar and wind energy. Given the dependence of humans on natural wetland ecosystems, with the ethic of not extinguishing another species, it is a victory for both nature and humans.
In 1994, George received his J.D. from the Washington National Law Center. After winning, the author served as the Honorable Joel F. Dublin, judicial secretary of the United States Court of Appeals for Circuit Eleven.
He spent the first decade of his career as a trial lawyer with the law firm Arnold & Porter, based in Washington, D.C., to represent the corporation.
Shaffer now serves as Associate Director of Land Conservation in the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, where she works with government scientists and NGOs to identify and conserve ecologically significant lands.
The opinions expressed in this paragraph are solely those of the author and do not reflect the policies or positions of the Department of Natural Resources or the State of Maryland. Authors Margaret Klin Giblin, Christina Harrington, Linda Sheehan, Jonathan A.
McKnight and Wendy wish to thank Ruth Walker for her encouragement and honesty in sharing her knowledge and in reviewing the first drafts. The authors also wish to thank the editors of JEEL for their complete and professional work.
Finally, the author wishes to thank her husband and son, Alex and Morgan Scheffer, for their unwavering support and our countless conversations and debates about how nature can be recognized by law. Stacey J. Shaffer.
Trustee of the Dartmouth College to wear the suit and also going through Roberts Court as an extension of the First Amendment to businesses in cases such as Citizen United v. Federal Communications Commission.