Abstract
There is no doubt that the Public Trust Doctrine undergirds U.S. fisheries law and provides the basis for a number of its provisions (See e.g., National Research Council (1999), p. 39, explaining this is true for IFQs). However, it has been argued that the doctrine can do more than simply provide the theoretical underpinnings for MSA, and the next question is what the doctrine offers that existing statutory law does not?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Olson, pp. 861–862 (1978–1979).
- 2.
Id. citing Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Ill., 146 U.S., at 452–454.
- 3.
Baer, p. 433 (1988).
- 4.
Id., p. 426; Lazarus, pp. 654–655 (1986).
- 5.
Id.
- 6.
Turnipseed et al., pp. 56–57 (1999), citing Lum (2003).
- 7.
Nat’l Audubon Soc’y v. Superior Court, 658 P.2d 709, 724 (Cal. 1983).
- 8.
Turnipseed et al., p. 55 (1999).
- 9.
See id., p. 47.
- 10.
Osherenko, p. 367 (2006), citing Marks v. Whitney, 491 P.2d 374, 380 (Cal. 1971). The Marks decision recognized that one of the most important public uses of the tidelands is the “preservation of those lands in their natural state, so that they may serve as ecological units for scientific study, as open space, and as environments which provide food and habitat for birds and marine life, and which favorably affect the scenery and climate of the area.” Id. at 380.
- 11.
Blumm & Guthrie, p. 748 (2012), citing In re Water Use Permit Applications, 9 P.3d 409, 467 (Haw. 2000).
- 12.
See Osherenko, p. 367 (2006).
- 13.
Id., p. 369, citing Weiss (1990); World Comm’n on Env’t & Dev. (1987).
- 14.
Turnipseed et al., p. 18 (1999).
- 15.
Id.; 21 J. Osherenko, pp. 369, 381 (2006), citing Christie at (2004a); but see Bevis, p. 171 (2005).
- 16.
Babcock, pp. 5, 60–61 (2007).
- 17.
See infra.
- 18.
Id., p. 64, citing Hildreth, p. 229 (1993); Eichenberg & Vestal, p. 347 (1992).
- 19.
Id., p. 66, quoting People v. Weeren, 26 Cal.3d 654, 666 (1980). Professor Babcock talks about the application of the doctrine within the context of the Coastal Zone Management Act, but the Public Trust Doctrine might just as well stand on its own.
- 20.
Turnipseed et al., p. 19 (2009), citing Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. v. FPL Group, Inc., 83 Cal. Rptr. 3d 588, 600 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). This case notes that “‘any member of the general public … has standing to raise a claim of harm to the public trust.’” (quoting Nat’l Audubon Soc’y v. Superior Court, 658 P.2d 709, 716 n.11 (Cal. 1983)).
- 21.
Blumm & Guthrie, pp. 765, 769, 780 (2012).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Corrigan, Z. (2016). Textbox: How the Public Trust Doctrine Supplements Existing Statutory Law. In: Steier, G., Patel, K. (eds) International Food Law and Policy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07542-6_35
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07542-6_35
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-07541-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-07542-6
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)