Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-30T23:25:24.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An American Perspective on Australian Conservation Foundation Incorporated v Commonwealth of Australia and the Status of Environmental Law in Australia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Daniel A Bronstein
Daniel A Bronstein*
Affiliation:
SJD (University of Michigan); Michigan State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Comments
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , March 1982 , pp. 76 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 (1979) 54 ALJR 176. See case note (1980) 11 FL Rev 431.

2 Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 (Cth) s 5; National Environmental Policy Act 42 USC s 4332.

3 Eg Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Technology on Trial (Paris, 1979) Ch III.

4 Eg Anderson, F R, NEPA in the Courts (Baltimore, 1973)Google Scholar; Bronstein, D A, “Recent Environmental Decisions-A War Correspondent's Report” (1977) 12 Forum 876Google Scholar; Rodgers, W H, Environmental Law (Minneapolis, 1977) 697-809Google Scholar; American Bar Association, Natural Resources Section, Environmental Quality Committee, Annual Report (1977) 10 Nat Res Lawyer 55, 57-60; ibid (1979) 12 Nat Res Lawyer 51, 51-81; ibid (1980) 13 Nat Res Lawyer 49, 49-97.

5 (1979) 54 ALJR 176, 181 per Gibbs J; 185 per Stephen J; 188-189 per Mason J; 191 per Murphy J.

6 United States Constitution, Art III s 2: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party—to Controversies between two or more States—between a State and Citizens of another State—between Citizens of different States—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

For a review of the early cases in this area, see G L Haskins and H A Johnson, “Foundations of Power: John Marshall 1801-15” in History of the Supreme Court of the United States (New York, 1981) Vol II Part II Ch 8. For a good discussion of the recent cases, to which I am indebted, see F K Benfield and R J Lazarus, “Standing to Sue the Federal Government: Current Law and Congressional Power” (1981) 18 US Dept of Justice Land and Natural Resources Division Journal No 3, 2.

7 For a lively discussion of these highly theoretical issues, see Bickel, A M, The Least Dangerous Branch: the Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics (Indianapolis, 1962) Ch 4Google Scholar.

8 Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v Camp 397 US 150, 151 (1970).

9 Eg F K Benfield and R J Lazarus, op cit n 6; Davis, K C, Supplement to Administrative Law Treatise (1980) 164Google Scholar.

10 “ 'I see nobody on the road,' said Alice. 'I wish I had such eyes,' the King remarked in a fretful tone! To be able to see Nobody! And at that distance too!'” Carroll, Lewis, Through The Looking Glass (New York, 1960) 279Google Scholar.

11 Baker v Carr 369 US 186, 204 (1962).

12 Scott v Sandford 19 How 393 (1856) (The “Dred Scott case”, once attributed a direct link in the causal chain leading to the Civil War) and Pollock v Farmers' Loan & Trust Co 158 US 601 (1895), which declared the income tax legislation passed over thirty years before to be unconstitutional.

13 The history of this can be found in Berger, R, “Standing to Sue in Public Actions:Is it a Constitutional Requirement?” (1969) 78 Yale LJ 816CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jaffe, LL, “The Citizen as a Litigant in Public Actions: the Non-Hohfeldian or Ideological Plaintiff” (1968) 116 U Pa L Rev 1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar; AM Bickel, op cit n 7.

14 Hardin v Kentucky Utilities Co 390 US 1 (1968); Flast v Cohen 392 US 83 (1968); Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v Camp 397 US 150 (1970); Barlowe v Collins 397 US 159 (1970); Sierra Club v Morton 405 US 727 (1972); US v Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures 412 US 669 (1973); Schlesinger v Reservists Committee to Stop the War 418! US 208 (1974); Warth v Seldin 422 US 490 (1975); Franks v Bowman Transportation Co Inc 424 US 747 (1976); Simon v Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization 426 US 26 (1976); Arlington Heights v Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation 429 US 252 (1977); Duke Power Co v Carolina Environmental Study Group Inc 438 US 59 (1978); Gladstone, Realtors v Village of Bellwood 441 US 91 (1979); Davis v Passman 442 US 228 (1979).

15 Davis, KC, 'The Liberalized Law of Standing” (1970) 37 U Chicago L Rev 450CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 F K Benfield and R J Lazarus, op cit n 6, 2.

17 Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v Camp 397 US 150, 154 (1970) cited with approval in Sierra Club v Morton 405 US 727, 738 (1972).

18 US v Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures 412 US 669, 689 n 14 (1973). In the same note the Court cites Professor Davis to the effect that “an identifiable tri,fle is enough for standing to fight out a question of principle; the trifle is the basis for standing and the principle supplies the motivation”.

19 “An organization whose members are injured may represent those members.”Sierra Club v Morton 405 US 727, 739 (1972).

20 “...tanding is not to be denied simply because many people suffer the same injury.” US v Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures 412 US 669, 687 (1973).

21 Gladstone, Realtors v Village of Bellwood 441 US 91, 99-100 (1979).

22 Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v Camp 391 US 150, 153 (1970).

23 Brennan and White JJ.

24 Professor Davis devotes most of his article (above n 15) to attacking this test.

25 “The Data Processing decision established a second, non constitutional standing :requirement that the interest of the plaintiff . . . at least be 'arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated'....”Simon v Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization 426 US 26, 39 (1976) (italics added).

26 F K Benfield and R J Lazarus, op cit n 6, 13.

27 Warth v Seldin 422 US 490, 499 (1975). For a discussion see F K Benfield and R J Lazarus, op cit n 6, 15-19.

28 “ ...when the asserted harm is a “generalized grievance' shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens, that harm alone normally does not warrant the exercise of jurisdiction.” Warth v Seldin 422 US 490, 499 (1975) discussed in F K Benfield and R J Lazarus, op cit n 6, 19-20. Compare the above statement with the following from US v Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures 412 US 669, 688 (1973): ''To deny standing to persons who are in fact injured simply because many others are also injured, would mean that the most injurious and wide-spread Government actions could be questioned by nobody. We cannot accept that conclusion.”

29 F K Benfield and R J Lazarus, op cit n 6, 9.

30 Simon v Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization 426 US 26, 46 (1976) per Brennan and Marshall JJ.

31 “Much could be written in an attempt to rationalize these decisions, but their inconsistencies are too obvious to ignore.” F K Benfield and R J Lazarus, op cit n 6, 11.

32 Davis, KC, Supplement to Administrative Law Treatise (1980) 173Google Scholar.

33 Eg F K Benfield and R J Lazarus, op cit n 6, 20: “The Court's confusion of its own rulings amply illustrates the difficulties inherent in discerning standing principles.”

34 5 USC s 702.

35 Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v Camp 397 US 150 (1970), and Simon v Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization 426 US 26 (1976), respectively.

36 Davis v Passman 442 US 228, 239 n 18 (1979).

37 Ibid.

38 Discussed in F K Benfield and R J Lazarus, op cit n 6, 24-48.

39 (1979) 54 ALJR 176, 177-179 per Gibbs J.

40 Ibid 177.

41 422 US 490 (1975).

42 (1979) 54 ALJR 176, 181.

43 Ibid 185.

44 405 US 727 (1972).

45 412 US 669 (1973).

46 (1979) 54 ALJR 176, 185 (italics added).

47 426 26, 40 (1976).

48 (1979) 54 ALJR 176, 189.

49 Above n 19.

50 (1979) 54 ALJR 176, 191.

51 Ibid 177 per Gibbs J.

52 US v Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures 412 US 669, 678 (1973).

53 See the works cited above n 4.

54 Citizens Committee for Hudson Valley v Volpe 302 F Supp 1083 (SDNY, 1969); affirmed 425 F 2d 97 (2nd Cir, 1970); certiorari denied 400 US 949 (1970).

55 Pennsylvania Environmental Council Inc v Bartlett 315 F Supp 238 (MD Pa, 1970).

56 Citizens to Preserve Overton Park Inc v Volpe 401 US 402 (1971).

57 Eg F P Grand, Environmental Law: Sources and Problems (1971) Ch 9; 0 S Gray, Cases and Materials on Environmental Law (2nd ed 1973) Ch 4C.

58 Citizens to Preserve Overton Park Inc v Volpe 401 US 402 (1971 ).

59 Ibid 416.

60 Rodgers, W H, Environmental Law (1977) 738-750Google Scholar.

61 Strycker's Bay Neighbourhood Council, Inc v Karlen 444 US 223, 227 (1980).

62 This consensus emerged at a panel discussion on the subject at the Midyear Meeting of the Environmental Committees of the Section of Natural Resources, American Bar Association, at Keystone, Colorado, on 27 February 1981.

63 W H Rodgers, op cit 717.

64 Compare eg Scottsdale Mall v Indiana 549 F 2d 484 (7th Cir, 1977) with Ethyl Corporation v EPA 541 F 2d 1 (DC Cir, 1976).

65 Scientists' Institute for Public Information, Inc v Atomic Energy Commission 481 F 2d 1079 (DC Cir, 1973).

66 Environmental Defense Fund v Marsh 651 F 2d 983 (5th Cir, 1981).

67 Personal conversations of the author with L Stein and P Johnston, Perth, WA, on 5 August 1981, and with G Gajewicz, Melbourne, Victoria, on 10 August 1981.

68 The Conservation Council of Western Australia, Inc v Aluminium Corporation of America,(ALCOA) 518 F Supp 270 (WD Pa, 1981).

69 It is the author's opinion that, even had the Court found itself to have jurisdiction, no relief would have been granted. Even under the most liberal US statute, the so-called Sax Act in Michigan, which provides that “any person ... may maintain an action ... for declaratory and equitable relief against ... any person . . . for the protection of the air, water and other natural resources and the public trust therein from pollution, impairment or destruction”, The Michigan Environmental Protection Act 1970, MCLA s 691.1202, “the principles of burden of proof ... generally applicable in civil actions ... shall apply ... “. MCLA s 691.1203(1).

70 Fugate, W, Foreign Commerce and the Antitrust Laws (2nd ed 1973)Google Scholar; In re Uranium Antitrust Litigation 617 F 2d 1248 (7th Cir, 1980).

71 “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of [sic] all civil actions wherein the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, except that no such sum or value shall be required in any such action brought against the United States, any agency thereof, or any officer or employee thereof in an official capacity...  ,” 28 USC s 133l(a).

72 ''.Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion: (1) lack of jurisdi,ction over the subject matter “Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 28 USC Rule 12(b).

73 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b}(6). (This is the equivalent of a general demurrer.)

74 Failure to join indispensable partilis (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 28 USC Rule 12(b)(7)); and the “Act of State doctrine”: eg Banco Nacional de Cuba v Sabbatino 376 US 398 (1964).

75 Above p 79.

76 Conservation Council of Western Australia v ALCOA 518 F Supp 270, 276 (WD Pa, 1981). NEPA of course applies only to federal government, not private, actions.

77 One of these is the poisoning of the water supply through runoff from the mined areas: Johnston interview n 67 above.

78 Alumina Refinery (Wagerup) Agreement and Acts Amendment Act 1978 (WA); Alumma Refinery (Worsley) Agreement Act 1973 (WA); Alumina Refinery (Worsley) Agreement Act Amendment Act 1978 (WA).

79 Murphyores Inc Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1976) 9 ALR 199.

80 Eg Environmental Defense Fund v Marsh 651 F 2d 983 (5th Cir, 1981).

81 See Postscript below.

82 See Cutler, M R and Bronstein, D A, “Public Involvement in Government Decisions” (1974) 4 Alternatives 11-13Google Scholar; RD Vlasin and DA Bronstein, “Institutional Mechanisms for Land Use Planning and Controls” in Swindale, Beatty and Peterson, (eds), Planning the Use and Management of Land (Madison, 1979) 981-1011Google Scholar; H Saddler, “Public Participation in Technology Assessment with Particular Reference to Public Inquiries” (1978) Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies (Canberra) General Paper.

83 “A conference is a gathering of important people who singly can do nothing but together can decide that nothing can be done.” Allen, F in McCarthy (ed), Fred Allen's Letters (New York, 1966) 22Google Scholar.

84 The author acknowledges that he has not made major studies of these inquiries, but has read the following reports: Fraser Island Environmental Inquiry, Interim Report (1976); Final Report (1976); Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry, First Report (1976); Second Report (1977); Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region, First Annual Report 1978-79 (1979); Harris, S (ed), Social and Environmental Choice: the Impact of Uranium Mining in the Northern. Territory (1980)Google Scholar; H Saddler op cit; A Gilpin, The Australian Environment (1980) Chs Sand 6.

85 A phrase which unfortunately and inaccurately omits the Chinese and Japanese.

86 Eg OECD, Technology on Trial (1979) Paris.

87 (1981) 36 ALR 425. A useful discussion of the case is to be found in Blackshield, A R, “The Alcoa Decision on Standing: How Liberal?” (1981) 6 Legal Service Bulletin 274Google Scholar.

88 (1981) 36 ALR 425, 427.

89 Ibid 436.

90 Ibid 452.