The environmental issues are related to a complicated sector of issues in legislation; the legislative base on this topic grew steadily since 1960s when the first claims from environmentally-conscious organizations and populations were passed to the courts on different levels starting from state up to federal and court of appeals. Every organization has some reasons for defending the environmental conditions due to being involved into the business that depends on environmental situation in the area or other terms. As such, many organizations try to sue other organizations that are claimed to violate their rights and threat their business.
Environmental disputes occur even more often because people are aware of their rights and try to protect the safe environment they have and make sure that different organizations that are considered industrial pollutants would not operate in their recreational areas and pollute the air and water causing health problems. In addition, organizations representing the interest of the injured party in the court can be considered those not having constitutional basis as well as organizations that bring threat of pollution in the role of defendants at court.
The law cases related to environmental dispute that occurred over the smelter in the City of Riverside proposed by RRE International and legal standing of the organization Citizens for a Clean Future if the case comes to the court and legal standing of the citizens of the city with regard to their constitutional rights and their potential violation, if any. In this case, it is necessary to review similar cases and those that were occurring over similar disputes and legislative basis that was developed with regard to the decisions on those disputes.
It is necessary to identify, evaluate, and analyze elements related to given facts because lack of constitutional standing can be considered a reasonable component in deciding the case for benefit of the defendant/plaintiff that can be a threat to the environmental safety of the area of the City of Riverside and the Long Trout River. If the RRE International starts operation of the aluminum smelter and build a power plant that would work to provide the smelter with sufficient energy with the help of burning coal and polluting the air or using hydro-energy by damming a portion of the Long Trout River and pollute the water, it would violate the right of citizens for safe environment and recreational area.
The first case that should be reviewed is the Sierra Club v. Morton (1972) where the Sierra Club is the party that seems to have legal standing. However, the court did not acknowledge that this party has legal standing in this case because they did not have individual interest in this case. Nevertheless, the individual interest could be reflected by any person who is usually involved in recreational activities on that territory and would be injured by the decision of the party to build a resort there.
Moreover, it is necessary to prove the standing requirements of the party so that the court could consider that it has legal standing in the case. So, the legal standing of the Sierra Club in the case Sierra Club v. Morton (1972) was not proven because of the absence of injury element. However, the injury element was found in the case when an ordinary individual who spends time on that territory with recreational purposes could prove the injury element, causation (when the case is clearly demonstrated to be the cause of the injury), and redressability (when the situation can be changed). As the company assigned for this project did not start the excavations and preparations for building yet, the redressability was also proven.
The next case to be considered is the Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation (1990) which had some controversies regarding the requirements for standing. Primarily, the National Wildlife Federation organization was trying to claim that land designations were not legal and provided two affiants who were considered to be insufficient to claim on all land designations (there were reported to be more than a thousand land designations) and the case should be solved in a case-by-case manner. So, the injury was not documented clearly to enable the National Wildlife Federation for standing.
The aspects of standing were also the matter in the cases Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992) and Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. (2000). However, Defenders of Wildlife were not acknowledged to have standing because they could not prove the fact of injury as one of the requirements of standing in the case Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992). Meanwhile, the plaintiff Friends of the Earth in the case Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. (2000) was considered to have standing because the potential injury was proven if the defendant reopens the factory which pollutes the river that is of recreational value for citizens of that area.
The organization Citizens for a Clean Future represents the interests of the citizens of the City of Riverside which can be polluted with the air pollutants if the RRE International starts operation of the aluminum smelter nearby the city and builds a coal-fired power plant to maintain the smelter. Otherwise, the RRE International may provide the energy for operation of the smelter via damming a portion of the Long Trout River for hydro- electric power.
Bother cases may potentially lead to the pollution of the air or water and influence the health of the population of the City of Riverside. Besides, the recreational value of the area can be proven if the case comes to the court; in this case, the Citizens for a Clean Future plaintiff would not even need to prove the fact of injury/potential injury to be considered to have sufficient rights for legal standing because the influence on recreational zone in terms of worsening its environmental conditions or reducing its total area is sufficient legal basis for considering the defendant unable to start operation of aluminum smelter in that area.
Citizens of the city whose rights would be presented by the organization Citizens for a Clean Future provided that the case come to the court have constitutional standing which can be proven:
- citizens will be injured if the RRE International starts the operation of the aluminum smelter and provides energy for its maintenance either via building a coal-fired power plant or via damming a portion of river for hydro-electric power; in this case, pollution of the air/water will affect people’s health and result in numerous health problems;
- the causation includes the problems with health that will occur after pollution of the air/water by the energy providing plant/mechanism to ensure normal operation of the smelter;
- redressability concerns the decision of the court provided that the RRE International did not start polluting activity yet or the power providing mechanism/plant can be easily eliminated from the territory near the City of Riverside.
After reviewing the requirements for constitutional standing by the plaintiff, it is necessary to infer that the citizens have constitutional standing which can be strengthened with the help of claiming that the operation of the smelter and pollution of air/water by the power providing mechanism/plant would injure the recreational area. Affecting the aesthetic and recreational values of the area is the basis for considering the plaintiff a winning party in this case. Besides, it is important to know that all the requirements for standing should be mentioned; especially, it is essential that the potential injury from operation of smelter is proven to the court.
The strategy can be introduced so that the Citizens for a Clean Future could be ensured to have constitutional standing. This means that a specific set of actions should be performed in order the citizens of the City of Riverside could avoid health problems caused because of the pollution of air/water due to operation of smelter and an energy providing mechanism or plant that would either contaminate the water of the Long Trout River or pollute the air of the area. So, when the issue comes before a court, the Citizens for a Clean Future will be considered to have constitutional standing and, possibly, make sure that the individual interest is evident in the case by providing affiants that would claim their personal interest in the case.
Reference List
Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 528 US 167 (2000).
Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 US 871 (1990).
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 US 555 (1992).
Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 US 727 (1972).