UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The legal standing of Canadian environmental control organizations Switzer, James G. 1972

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1973_A6_4 S95.pdf [ 7.46MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0077741.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0077741-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0077741-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0077741-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0077741-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0077741-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0077741-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0077741-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0077741.ris

Full Text

C. I THE LEGAL STANDING OF CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL ORGANIZATIONS by JAMES G. SWITZER B.A.,LL.B., U n i v e r s i t y of Saskatchewan, 1969 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF LAWS i n the Department of LAW We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1972 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t fre e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of th i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada i ABSTRACT Environmental control has become a major problem i n North America's highly i n d u s t r i a l i z e d society. Governments are continually s t r i v i n g to f i n d methods to e f f e c t i v e l y h a l t and control environmental degradation. One of the major manifestations of the desperate concern for improved environmental quality has been the emergence of a strong "public i n t e r e s t " environmental control movement i n the United States. Canada, on the other hand, has given very l i t t l e scope to public p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the environmental decision-making process. The object of this paper i s to determine the extent to which a strong environmental control movement can contribute to higher environmental q u a l i t y , and to suggest methods to introduce public p a r t i c i p a t i o n to the Canadian environmental control system. The advantages and disadvantages of allowing public p a r t i c i p a t i o n are examined, with the conclusion that a strong environmental control movement with substantial p a r t i c i p a t o r y rights i s es s e n t i a l to e f f e c t i v e and comprehensive environmental control. The conclusion i s also reached that the public can most appropriately be represented i n the decision process by environmental control organizations. Evaluation i s made of the present Canadian laws governing l e g a l standing of "public i n t e r e s t " groups to pa r t i c i p a t e . The lack of such standing i s demonstrated both by the r i g i d standing rules of common law, and the f a i l u r e of Canadian environmental l e g i s l a t i o n to relax these rules and adapt them to the s p e c i f i c problems encountered i n environmental control law. The American system i s considered i n d e t a i l as an example of relaxed standing with respect to environmental control organizations, and the resultant benefit to environmental control e f f o r t s i n the j u r i s d i c t i o n . The Americans have enacted the National Environmental Policy Act which requires that every federal agency develop methods of assessing the environmental consequence of propose actions and suggest alternatives to those actions. Failure to comply with these requirements constitutes a reviewable breach. Other American statutes have i n e f f e c t removed a l l standing requirements and allow v i r t u a l l y anyone to sue to force compliance with environmental standards and regulations I t i s concluded from the American experience that public p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s generally a desirable phenomenon i n environmental control. I t i s further concluded that Canada can no longer j u s t i f y i t s exclusion of public representation and requires l e g i s l a t i o n designed to implement the concept of "public i n t e r e s t " standing. To that end, recommendations are made to adopt an enactment sim i l a r to the National Environmental Policy Act i n Canada and to introduce a system of r e g i s t r a t i o n whereby environmental control organizations, once registered, would i i i be assured of p a r t i c i p a t o r y r ights at a l l l eve l s of the Canadian environmental decision-making process. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 Chapter 1 THE NEED FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISIONS 5 A. P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n D e f i n e d . 5 B. The Argument f o r P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n . 9 1. I n a d e q u a c i e s i n P r e s e n t C o n s i d e r a t i o n o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l Consequences. 9 2. The R e l a t i o n s h i p o f Government t o I n d u s t r y . 13 3. The Need f o r a S t r o n g P u b l i c V o i c e . 15 4. Some P o t e n t i a l Drawbacks o f P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n . 17 11 THE LEGAL STANDING OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL ORGANIZATIONS IN CANADA 26 A. P u b l i c H e a r i n g s i n Canada. 27 1. The P u b l i c H e a r i n g i n P r o p e r P e r s p e c t i v e . 2 7 2. Canada's P o s i t i o n on the P u b l i c H e a r i n g . 31 B. J u d i c i a l Review - The N e c e s s i t y f o r O r g a n i z a t i o n s t o E s t a b l i s h Locus S t a n d i . 40 1. The Role o f J u d i c i a l Review i n E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o n t r o v e r s i e s . 40 2. The I n t e r e s t R e q u i r e d . 42 Mandamus 42 D e c l a r a t i o n 44 C e r t i o r a r i and P r o h i b i t i o n 46 3. Locus S t a n d i Under E n v i r o n m e n t a l L e g i s l a t i o n . 50 V Page 4. Recent Ontario L e g i s l a t i o n A f f e c t i n g Administrative Procedure. 53 C. Environmental Control Organizations and Environmental Tort Actions. 57 Chapter 111 THE AMERICAN APPROACH TO PUBLIC INTEREST STANDING. 6 3 A. 1. Standing and the Administrative Procedure Act. 64 2. Group Standing i n Environmental Class Actions for Damages 80 B. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 - Its e f f e c t on Public Interest Standing. 84 1. The L e g i s l a t i v e Framework. 84 2. Section 102 Procedural Requirements. 85 3. NEPA's Effectiveness Examined. 91 C. Additional L e g i s l a t i v e Relaxation of American Standing Requirements. 93 1. Federal L e g i s l a t i o n Removing Standing Requirements. 93 2. State L e g i s l a t i o n Removing Standing Requirements. 94 3. State Adoption of NEPA's Impact Statement Procedure. 95 D. The Relaxed American Approach to Standing - Is i t working? 96 IV A PROPOSED FORMULA FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN CANADA. 113 A. NEPA i n Canada. 114 1. The Council on Environmental Quality 116 2. Public Hearings under NEPA. 120 B. Who Should Have Legal Standing? A Proposed Registration System. 124 vi Page 1. Where should the L e g i s l a t i o n be Placed? 127 2. The A d m i n i s t e r i n g Body. 127 3. Necessary Q u a l i f i c a t i o n s to R e g i s t e r . 12 8 4. Should I n d i v i d u a l s be Allowed Standing i n Environmental Cases. 130 5. A S i m p l i f i e d Review Procedure. 133 CONCLUSION 134 FOOTNOTES 136 BIBLIOGRAPHY 144 / 1 INTRODUCTION Major technological advances have provided mankind with an unprecedented a b i l i t y to r a d i c a l l y a l t e r and i n some instances destroy the natural ecological balance of the environment. The a i r we must breathe i s becoming l i t e r a l l y choked with contaminants. Rivers are polluted, and many animal species face extin c t i o n . These and many other si m i l a r problems have forced us to re-examine our values and objectives with respect to our relationship to the environment. The r e s u l t has been a marked increase i n concern for environmental issues i n a desperate attempt to re-establish that seemingly vanishing compatability of man with his environment. Although the problem of man r e l a t i n g and adjusting to his environment i s age old, i t s magnitude seems never to have been greater at any time throughout hist o r y . As might be expected with such a comprehensive problem, we have very few established mechanisms and procedures which can be used to deal e f f e c t i v e l y v/ith environmental issues. There i s , i n fact, l i t t l e h i s t o r i c a l information in this area from which to draw appropriate solutions, and we are forced to develop new methods to deal with novel problems. These attempts to develop procedures to halt or at least slow down the continuing process of environmental degradation have been varied as those responsible for environmental protection seek to discover a sat i s f a c t o r y formula. Governments at a l l levels are enacting numerous environmental statutes i n an e f f o r t both to monitor and to 2 control environmental deterioration. Considerable emphasis i s being placed on the international p o t e n t i a l for environmental problem-solving, as evidenced by the f i r s t United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held.in Stockholm i n June of 1972. Sustained i n t e r e s t i n and concern for environmental issues i s manifest i n the private sector of society as well. During the past few years, we have witnessed the phenomenal growth of private environmental control organizations. These organizations vary i n terms of the i r s p e c i f i c objectives, but a l l e xhibit a common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . They are composed of concerned c i t i z e n s with an in t e r e s t i n environmental problems who have banded together to demonstrate that i n t e r e s t through concerted action i n an attempt to improve the qual i t y of our environment. This paper w i l l be devoted to an examination of the role of these organizations i n the environmental decision-making process. I t w i l l be demonstrated that these c i t i z e n groups have a v a l i d contribution to make to the decision process, and that f a i l u r e to allow t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a meaningful way i s a f a i l u r e to ensure that environmental considerations are given s u f f i c i e n t emphasis i n decisions which produce a po t e n t i a l l y harmful e f f e c t on the environment. Under e x i s t i n g Canadian law, environmental "public i n t e r e s t " groups have very l i t t l e opportunity to pa r t i c i p a t e e f f e c t i v e l y at the various levels of the decision-making process, largely because they lack the necessary legal standing 3 to exert t h e i r views either at the administrative or j u d i c i a l l e v e l . This deficiency w i l l be demonstrated i n part by an examination of e x i s t i n g Canadian environmental l e g i s l a t i o n at both the p r o v i n c i a l and federal l e v e l s . This l e g i s l a t i o n , with few exceptions, f a i l s to acknowledge that the public has a v a l i d and sincere i n t e r e s t i n achieving and maintaining a healthy environment. It w i l l be shown further that the majority of environ-mental problems presently are being resolved on the basis of private property right s , largely as a r e s u l t of the afore-mentioned l e g i s l a t i o n and the staunch reluctance of our courts to relax the r i g i d laws of "standing" and to recognize the public action as a legitimate expression of a general public concern for and i n t e r e s t i n a healthy environment. Both the courts and the l e g i s l a t o r s i n the United States have gone considerably further than t h e i r Canadian counterparts i n attempts to control environmental degradation. The American courts, although not accepting as v a l i d a l l aspects of the public action, have gone to considerable lengths to relax the laws of "public i n t e r e s t " group standing to a point where meaningful group p a r t i c i p a t i o n through the public action has become a r e a l i t y . The r e s u l t has been a marked increase i n awareness and understanding of environ-mental issues, and an additional assurance that environmental consequences form a substantial portion of the considerations which go into the decision-making process. Various American statutes at both the federal and state 4 levels w i l l be examined as being representative of a new philosophy and approach to environmental problem-solving. Where possible, the operation of these statutes w i l l be c r i t i c a l l y evaluated. F i n a l l y , a model w i l l be proposed which w i l l attempt to incorporate the best of the American approach with some rather substantial suggestions for changes in the present Canadian system, i n the hope that the Canadian public w i l l have a part in ensuring that the environment w i l l receive adequate consideration i n a l l future decisions at the various levels of government. 5 CHAPTER 1 THE NEED FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISIONS A. " P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n " Defined. P u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n can apply e q u a l l y to an i n d i v i d u a l c i t i z e n e x e r t i n g h i s i n f l u e n c e i n the d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s , or to a " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " group r e p r e s e n t i n g the c o l l e c t i v e views of a number of c i t i z e n s . The common f a c t o r i s an i n t e r e s t o f a p u r e l y p u b l i c n a ture, with no attendant c l a i m to ownership of p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y on which to base an a l l e g e d r i g h t to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a p a r t i c u l a r d e c i s i o n . T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i s of fundamental importance i n any d i s c u s s i o n o f p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n and p u b l i c a c t i o n s . The p u b l i c can p a r t i c i p a t e i n environmental d e c i s i o n s on the b a s i s of two very d i f f e r e n t kinds of r i g h t s . One i s based on a c i t i z e n ' s o r group of c i t i z e n s ' p u b l i c r i g h t s to p a r t i c i p a t e i n d e c i s i o n s a f f e c t i n g the q u a l i t y o f t h e i r environment, by v i r t u e of t h e i r i n t e r e s t and stake i n the co n t r o v e r s y . In the v a s t m a j o r i t y of cases t h i s i s the onl y type of i n t e r e s t possessed by an environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n which g e n e r a l l y w i l l own no p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y upon which to base i t s a l l e g e d r i g h t to p a r t i c i p a t e . The second type o f i n t e r e s t i s one based on the owner-sh i p of p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y a l l e g e d l y a f f e c t e d by a p a r t i c u l a r d e c i s i o n . Since the major focus o f t h i s paper i s the former, or " p u b l i c " i n t e r e s t , p a r t i c i p a t i o n based on p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y r i g h t s i s not of major s i g n i f i c a n c e . In a d d i t i o n , there are 6 well established p r i n c i p l e s of law protecting a property owner from damage to that property. Whether the owner seeks j u d i c i a l review of an agency decision, or commences a t o r t action i n nuisance or negligence, remedies do e x i s t i n these instances. The extent to which these remedies are inadequate has been examined by A.R. Lucas. 1 Accordingly, this subject w i l l receive only b r i e f attention i n Chapter 11. However, the major emphasis throughout t h i s paper w i l l center on the public action based on a purely public i n t e r e s t . Although the public action can be undertaken by both i n d i v i d u a l c i t i z e n s and by c i t i z e n s ' organizations, there are some very compelling reasons why such p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the decision process i s better suited to the group or organization-a l concept. These deserve consideration at t h i s point. The most obvious advantage of organizational p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s the superior a b i l i t y of a group of c i t i z e n s to p a r t i c i p a t e e f f e c t i v e l y both at the public hearing stage and throughout any ensuing l i t i g a t i o n . Environmental lawsuits are often very protracted and expensive, and participants inevitably must c a l l many experts who can t e s t i f y to, i n t e r a l i a , the e c o l o g i c a l , zoological, b i o l o g i c a l and s o c i o l o g i c a l e f f e c t s of a p a r t i c u l a r decision. Competent senior members of the legal profession are required to conduct the environmentalists' case. Considerable basic research i n the various relevant areas i s a necessary pre-requisite to the expert testimony. These are only the major factors of a great number which inevitably make environmental 7 l i t i g a t i o n very expensive. Accordingly, only the very wealthy i n d i v i d u a l could even contemplate engaging i n such l i t i g a t i o n . The environmental control group has several d i s t i n c t advantages in t h i s regard. Assuming a substantial membership, one obvious source of funds i s membership dues. For reasons to be examined i n Chapter 11, Canadian environmental control groups have never reached the r e l a t i v e size and power of t h e i r American counter-parts. Figures released in the United States give some idea of the s i g n i f i c a n t members involved in such organizations i n that j u r i s d i c t i o n . Combined membership i n the f i v e largest national environmental organizations in the United States -the National W i l d l i f e Federation, the National Audubon Society, the S i e r r a Club, the Izaak Walton League of America, and the Wilderness Society - jumped by almost 3 3 per cent over 2 the year ending June 1, 1971, from 1.2 m i l l i o n to 1.6 m i l l i o n . At a hypothetical average yearly membership of ten d o l l a r s , these f i v e organizations alone would be capable of producing annual membership revenue of $16 m i l l i o n . Small wonder that one finds numerous examples of l i t i g a t i o n where one or more of these organizations has shown i t s e l f capable of l i t i g a t i n g e f f e c t i v e l y against both governments and large industries. Their membership sometimes includes individuals who possess the necessary s k i l l s to assume the role of legal counsel or expert witness during the course of the l i t i g a t i o n . These services can sometimes be obtained at considerably less cost to the organization than would be the case i f a non-8 member's services were engaged. An established and respected organization frequently w i l l be i n a p o s i t i o n to obtain grants from private foundations and i n d i v i d u a l donations from concerned c i t i z e n s who are sympathetic to t h e i r e f f o r t s . There can be l i t t l e doubt that the vast f i n a n c i a l resources necessary for e f f e c t i v e public p a r t i c i p a t i o n can be obtained more readily by public i n t e r e s t groups than by private i n d i v i d u a l s . An environmental organization has the additional advantage of being i n a position to keep informed of p o t e n t i a l l y controversial proposals a f f e c t i n g the environment, both through established contacts with other organizations and through t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r organizational network. This a b i l i t y allows for considerable continuity of i n t e r e s t and a developed expertise, neither of which are generally available to an i n d i v i d u a l seeking to intervene in a p a r t i c u l a r decision. F i n a l l y , the organization i s i n a position to represent the interests and desires of a vast number of c i t i z e n s sharing a s i m i l a r viewpoint. The importance of t h i s factor must not be underestimated. One of the most frequently raised objections to the concept of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n centers on the fear that v i r t u a l l y every concerned c i t i z e n w i l l seek his day i n court, thereby throwing the system into chaos. This fear may be largely without j u s t i f i c a t i o n , and w i l l be given further consideration in part B of this chapter. Assuming for the moment, however, that some j u s t i f i c a t i o n exists for 9 this concern, then the a b i l i t y of the environmental control group to l i t i g a t e a major issue on behalf of those c i t i z e n s who share s i m i l a r environmental concerns assumes paramount importance. Because of the obvious advantages of p a r t i c i p a t i o n and l i t i g a t i o n by organizations as opposed to indi v i d u a l s , the major emphasis throughout this paper w i l l be on the role of environmental control organizations i n the environmental decision-making process. B. The Argument for "Public P a r t i c i p a t i o n " . There i s by no means general agreement that "public p a r t i c i p a t i o n " i n the environmental decision-making process i s a desirable goal. For that matter there does not exis t general agreement that the public should ac t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t e i n the governmental decision-making process at a l l , regardless of the subject matter. Accordingly, some attempt must be made to determine whether l i t i g a t i o n by the public of environmental issues i s a goal worth seeking. This w i l l involve an examination of the present decision-making process to determine whether environmental issues are being properly considered without public intervention. It w i l l also be necessary to determine the advantages to be gained by allowing public intervention, and whether these advantages outweigh the corresponding disadvantages. 1. Inadequacies i n Present Consideration of Environmental Consequences. In our present production-oriented society, governments 10 f i n d themselves i n a very precarious position with respect to implementing adequate environmental controls and standards. In one breath we adamantly demand of our elected o f f i c i a l s that they give adequate consideration to environmental issues. Yet i n another we demand greater production, more and better jobs, and a further enhancement of our already affluent l i f e s t y l e . Preservation and restoration of a healthy environment cannot be achieved without considerable cost, both i n terms of production and jobs. To our governments goes the task of s t r i k i n g an appropriate balance. A United States Government report released on March 12, 1972, analysed 12,000 plants i n fourteen industries, and estimated the cost of a i r and water p o l l u t i o n abatement between now and 19 76 at about 32.6 b i l l i o n d o l l a r s . The r e s u l t i n g plant closures, the report stated, would cost 50,000 to 125,000 jo b s . 3 Canada i s facing s i m i l a r problems, as evidenced by a statement issued by Environment Minister Jack Davis: "V7e w i l l need to go slowly and put jobs ahead of p o l l u t i o n abatement. We w i l l have to be frank about th i s and admit this to the country."4 These problems represent for any government a v i r t u a l c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t , since one objective can seemingly be achieved only at the expense of another perhaps equally v a l i d objective. To complete the perspective, i t must be pointed out that p r o v i n c i a l governments in Canada suffer equally from c o n f l i c t -11 ing i n t e r e s t s which sometimes prevent adequate consideration of environmental issues. Each province has j u r i s d i c t i o n over property and c i v i l 5 rights within i t s boundaries, which unquestionably gives i t control over environmental protection. Yet as owners of the natural resources within the province, each p r o v i n c i a l government has a clear obligation to develop those resources. Resource development can mean undesirable depletion, and in e v i t a b l y accounts for a substantial portion of the p o l l u t i o n and destruction of the natural environment within a province's boundaries. Each province has both an obligation to protect the environment and an obligation to promote a c t i v i t i e s causing considerable ecological damage to that environment. A.R. Lucas commented on the problem: "But i s i t reasonable to expect a p r o v i n c i a l government to vigorously pursue i t s duties as guardian of the physical environment, when i t i s at the same time resource owner, and through i t s lessees and licensees, resource developer? "6 The very make-up of our various governments suggests obstacles to consistent and adequate consideration of environmental issues. Each government, be i t federal or p r o v i n c i a l , consists of various departments discharging s p e c i f i c obligations within t h e i r statutory j u r i s d i c t i o n . The obligations of one department may be largely incompatible with those of another, and t h e i r respective philosophies may d i f f e r widely. For instance, the objectives of the minister in charge of mining or forestry may be t o t a l l y inconsistent 12 with those o f the m i n i s t e r r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the environment o r f i s h e r i e s . These d i s c r e p a n c i e s are o f t e n r e s o l v e d i n accordance wi t h the r e s p e c t i v e s i z e and s t r e n g t h o f the departments i n c o n f l i c t , a method of r e s o l u t i o n which i n many in s t a n c e s p r e c l u d e s an o b j e c t i v e assessment of environmental consequences. Examples abound where environmental c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n d e c i s i o n s of government agencies seemed of secondary importance. David Anderson, formerly the F e d e r a l L i b e r a l Member of Pa r l i a m e n t f o r Saanich-Esquimalt, c i t e s s e v e r a l 7 such examples. Among those c i t e d was the a p p l i c a t i o n by Utah Mining and C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. L t d . f o r a p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l permit i n the Pr o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia. A f t e r a p u b l i c h e a r i n g i n which on l y f o u r out of a p o t e n t i a l 150 o b j e c t o r s were allowed t o p a r t i c i p a t e , the p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l branch i s s u e d a p ermit to Utah a l l o w i n g them to dump 9.3 m i l l i o n g a l l o n s of copper t a i l i n g s i n t o Rupert I n l e t d a i l y . A d e t a i l e d case g study o f t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n has been w r i t t e n and pr o v i d e s i n t e r e s t i n g r e a d i n g as an example of the extent to which f i n a n c i a l and i n d u s t r i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s can c o n t r o l and a f f e c t government a c t i o n . Very l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n was p a i d to s u b s t a n t i a l environmental o b j e c t i o n s to the p r o j e c t r a i s e d by the p u b l i c . S u f f i c e i t to say t h a t the d i r e c t o r of the P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l Branch admitted i n an i n t e r v i e w p r i o r t o the h e a r i n g t h a t the p r o j e c t would o b v i o u s l y proceed, and t h a t the only q u e s t i o n was what t e c h n i c a l d i s p o s a l requirements would 9 • . be imposed. The M i n i s t e r r e s p o n s i b l e made a s i m i l a r admission, s t a t i n g t h a t the p r o v i n c i a l government and i t s agencies had made commitments to the Company which made the P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l Board's f i n d i n g s as to whether the p r o j e c t should proceed i r r e l e v a n t one way or a n o t h e r . ^ The Utah case i s only one example of many where the r e s p e c t i v e governments f a i l , f o r a number of reasons, to g i v e any r e a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n to the environmental consequences of t h e i r d e c i s i o n s . C l e a r l y the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the company and the government was a f a c t o r . 2. The R e l a t i o n s h i p of Industry to Government. I t has been shown t h a t governments are c o n s t a n t l y e f f e c t i n g a balance between environmental p r o t e c t i o n and i n c r e a s e d p r o d u c t i o n . That the environment o f t e n s u f f e r s as a r e s u l t of t h i s need to balance i s beyond doubt. One of the major reasons f o r t h i s r e s u l t i s the s u b s t a n t i a l pressure e x e r t e d by i n d u s t r y on governmental and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c i a l s . I t has long been r e c o g n i z e d t h a t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agencies tend to become i n e x t r i c a b l y bound up i n the i n t e r e s t s of the i n d u s t r i e s under t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n , and i n e f f e c t become r e g u l a t e d by those they seek to r e g u l a t e . Not a l l w r i t e r s s u b s c r i b e to t h i s v i e w , 1 1 but the Nader group has produced some very c o n v i n c i n g evidence of agency 12 domination by i n d u s t r i e s i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s . In Canada the Utah a p p l i c a t i o n appears to be another example of an i n d u s t r y e x e r t i n g tremendous i n f l u e n c e on the d e c i s i o n s not only of an agency but of an e n t i r e government. T h i s 14 phenomenon i s p a r t i c u l a r l y d i s t u r b i n g i n environmental matters, s i n c e most environmental r e g u l a t i o n i s the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agencies. I t i s not p a r t i c u l a r l y a s t o n i s h i n g t h a t agencies should prove o v e r l y sympathetic to i n d u s t r y demands. They are f o r c e d t o d e a l f r e q u e n t l y with the i n d u s t r i e s b e i n g r e g u l a t e d and must of n e c e s s i t y e s t a b l i s h a working r e l a t i o n s h i p with those i n d u s t r i e s . T h i s f r e q u e n t c o n t a c t has the obvious r e s u l t of making the agencies aware of the needs or p r o f e s s e d needs of the r e g u l a t e d i n d u s t r i e s . On the o t h e r hand, agencies are o n l y o c c a s i o n a l l y r e q u i r e d to d e a l with the g e n e r a l p u b l i c whose i n t e r e s t they p u r p o r t e d l y p r o t e c t . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h i s phenomenon does l i t t l e to ensure t h a t environmental consequences w i l l be given adequate c o n s i d e r a t i o n by the agency p r i o r to r e a c h i n g a d e c i s i o n . The o t h e r main source of i n d u s t r y pressure i s e x e r t e d through l o b b y i n g . I t i s somewhat i r o n i c t h a t the very l a r g e i n d u s t r i e s , which account f o r a good d e a l of the p r e s e n t process o f environmental d e g r a d a t i o n , are i n the b e s t p o s i t i o n to persuade a government to reach a p a r t i c u l a r d e c i s i o n . Environmental l o b b y i n g i s now an accepted phenomenon, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s , and has been d e s c r i b e d as f o l l o w s : "The main e f f o r t of a l o b b y i s t i s g e t t i n g a l l the i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t supports your p r o p o s a l to a l l congressmen who might be persuaded to vote your way. Boeing gets the pro arguments f o r the SST to Congress. F r i e n d s of the E a r t h , Zero P o p u l a t i o n Growth, S i e r r a Club and Environmental A c t i o n t e l l Congress the other s i d e of the story."13 15 Industry l o b b y i n g i s not an u n d e s i r a b l e phenomenon, pr o v i d e d i t i s o f f s e t i n environmental i s s u e s by an e q u a l l y e f f e c t i v e environmental lobby. However, l o b b y i n g and agency domination r e p r e s e n t powerful t o o l s by i n d u s t r y which must be e f f e c t i v e l y o f f s e t by a s t r o n g environmental v o i c e i f our l e g i s l a t o r s and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c i a l s are to base t h e i r d e c i s i o n s on an assessment of environmental consequences as w e l l as economic and t e c h n i c a l consequences of a p a r t i c u l a r p r o p o s a l . 3. The Need f o r a Strong P u b l i c V o i c e . I f we are as concerned about the process of environmental degradation and as determined to c o n t r o l t h a t process as we p r o f e s s t o be, then we must face the n e c e s s i t y of a l l o w i n g " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " o r g a n i z a t i o n s s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n r i g h t s i n the environmental decision-making p r o c e s s . I t i s simply u n r e a l i s t i c to expect our governments to c o n s i s t e n t l y and adequately c o n s i d e r the environmental consequences of t h e i r d e c i s i o n s . Yet i t would seem t h a t e f f e c t i v e environmental p r o t e c t i o n w i l l be r e a l i z e d only when t h i s e x p e c t a t i o n i s f u l f i l l e d . The p r e s e n t system of h a l f - h e a r t e d , h i t and miss environmental c o n t r o l i s c l e a r l y inadequate, and w i l l remain so u n t i l such time as our governments make a l l d e c i s i o n s with an awareness and acceptance of t h e i r o b l i g a t i o n s with r e s p e c t to environmental q u a l i t y . I t i s e q u a l l y u n r e a l i s t i c to suggest t h a t i n d u s t r i e s have the i n t e r e s t or a b i l i t y to e f f e c t i v e l y ensure t h a t t h e i r o p e r a t i o n s are e c o l o g i c a l l y unobjectionable/. 16 In fact, industries spend a good deal of time and money convincing various governments that t h e i r proposals are ec o l o g i c a l l y acceptable. It i s not without j u s t i f i c a t i o n i n our s o c i a l structure that the i n d u s t r i a l complex operates on the p r o f i t motive, an objective which i s often at d i r e c t odds with environmental control programs. Industries have been of great assistance i n cleaning up the environment, largely through the development and i n s t a l l a t i o n of p o l l u t i o n control devices. However, these devices are i n many instances the r e s u l t of regulatory requirements, and i n no way negate the e a r l i e r proposition that we cannot rely on industry to e f f e c t i v e l y p olice i t s own procedures in the absence of adequate mandatory legal requirements that they do so. As a r e s u l t , a strong "public i n t e r e s t " movement represents the only i d e n t i f i a b l e element of society with both the i n t e r e s t and a b i l i t y to "go to bat" for the environment and to ensure that environmental consequences are given detailed consideration in the decision process. The United States experience has shown beyond doubt that a strong "public i n t e r e s t " movement produces very d i s t i n c t advantages i n terms of e f f e c t i v e environmental control. Environmental issues are much more frequently the subject of public attention. Administrative o f f i c i a l s and industry executives are much more responsive to environmental issues when f a i l u r e to respond can mean a public challenge. Ignorance of environmental issues i s no longer condoned, and 17 most d e c i s i o n s must be made on the b a s i s of environmental as w e l l as economic and t e c h n i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . Under a s t r o n g " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " environmental movement, the Americans are becoming i n c r e a s i n g l y aware of t h e i r environmental o b l i g a t i o n s , both i n d i v i d u a l l y and as a n a t i o n . We are p r e s e n t l y b e i ng c h a l l e n g e d by environmental problems of unprecedented magnitude. No s i n g l e element of s o c i e t y possesses the e n t i r e answer. A c c o r d i n g l y , i t seems i n f i n i t e l y wise t o take advantage of a l l a v a i l a b l e human resources i n our attempt to achieve a s a t i s f a c t o r y b a l a n c i n g of i n t e r e s t s . Environmental " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " o r g a n i z a t i o n s c l e a r l y r e p r e s e n t one such r e s o u r c e , and t o p r o h i b i t t h e i r e f f e c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the decision-making process seems i n e x c u s a b l e . Without the advantage of t h e i r e x p e r t i s e and s u s t a i n e d i n t e r e s t i n environmental q u a l i t y , we are i n e f f e c t f o r e -going an o p p o r t u n i t y o f b e n e f i t t i n g from the views of the one org a n i z e d source o f i n f o r m a t i o n which has as i t s c e n t r a l o b j e c t i v e the p r o t e c t i o n o f our environment. There seems to remain l i t t l e doubt t h a t " p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n " i n environmental decision-making i s a necessary and d e s i r a b l e g o a l . However, t h i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s not without i t s c o s t s and these deserve examination. 4. Some P o t e n t i a l Drawbacks of " P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n " . Since the American system p r o v i d e s an o p p o r t u n i t y to determine how " p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n " works i n p r a c t i c e , the p o t e n t i a l disadvantages need o n l y be r a i s e d at t h i s , time. 18 Attempts to draw c o n c l u s i o n s as t o the e f f e c t s o f these a l l e g e d disadvantages w i l l he delayed u n t i l the American experience has been e v a l u a t e d . Concern i s o f t e n expressed t h a t the environmental o r g a n i z a t i o n s would e v e n t u a l l y assume c o n t r o l of the d e c i s i o n process i f they r e c e i v e the r i g h t to c h a l l e n g e agency a c t i o n s and l i t i g a t e environmental i s s u e s . There seems to be l i t t l e f o u ndation f o r t h i s argument. At t h i s p o i n t i n time, no s i n g l e element i n s o c i e t y e x e r c i s e s more i n f l u e n c e i n government d e c i s i o n s than i n d u s t r y . E f f e c t i v e l o b b i e s and a c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p with r e g u l a t i n g agencies ensures i n d u s t r i e s not n e c e s s a r i l y t h a t t h e i r p o i n t of view w i l l p r e v a i l , but t h a t i t w i l l r e c e i v e s e r i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n . There seems l i t t l e reason, then, why those seeking g r e a t e r environmental p r o t e c t i o n should not be a f f o r d e d the same advantages. We do not conclude t h a t i n d u s t r y power should be suspended because of the s u b s t a n t i a l i n f l u e n c e i t e x e r t s i n the d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s . Nether should we so conclude with r e s p e c t to p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n environmental d e c i s i o n s . Unless we concede t h a t i n d u s t r y i s powerless to counter any e x c e s s i v e environmental a c t i v i t y , i t would seem t h a t we have a b u i l t i n check on the e x c e s s i v e e x e r c i s e of e n v i r o n -mental power. Furthermore, i t seems a p a r t i c u l a r l y h e a l t h y s i t u a t i o n to have two very s i g n i f i c a n t f o r c e s i n s o c i e t y each e n s u r i n g t h a t the oth e r acts i n a reasonable and 19 r e s p o n s i b l e f a s h i o n . Our c o u r t s are not powerless to prevent the commencement of f r i v o l o u s or vex a t i o u s a c t i o n s . I t i s important t o note t h a t environmental o r g a n i z a t i o n s would be i n no p o s i t i o n to succeed i n l i t i g a t i o n a g a i n s t an agency or i n d u s t r y u n l e s s the i n d u s t r y had breached an e x i s t i n g law, r e g u l a t i o n , or standard, or the agency acted o u t s i d e i t s s t a t u t o r y j u r i s d i c t i o n . I f there are environmental consequences f l o w i n g from such i l l e g a l i t y , there seems no v a l i d reason to prevent an o r g a n i z a t i o n from r e c t i f y i n g the i l l e g a l i t y by f o r c i n g compliance through l i t i g a t i o n . Where no cause of a c t i o n i s shown by the p l e a d i n g s , the cou r t i s always i n a p o s i t i o n to e n t e r t a i n a motion f o r d i s m i s s a l . A c t i o n s c l e a r l y of a f r i v o l o u s or vex a t i o u s nature are s u b j e c t to the same f a t e , although i n f a i r n e s s i t must be r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h i s i s a very d i f f i c u l t problem f o r which no simple s o l u t i o n can be suggested. Furthermore, the experience i n the United S t a t e s does not seem to bear out the c o n t e n t i o n t h a t everyone w i l l seek h i s day i n c o u r t . There w i l l undoubtedly be i n s t a n c e s where the e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s ' power would be abused. However, t h i s does not seem a s u f f i c i e n t reason t o forego the very d i s t i n c t b e n e f i t s t o be gained from " p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n " . P r o f e s s o r J a f f e , l e g a l a d v i s e r to the C o u n c i l on Environmental Q u a l i t y i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s , agrees: 20 "There i s a r i s k , then, of too much opportunity for obstruction. I do not, however, think this i s a serious problem. If the environmentalists overplay t h e i r hand, they w i l l be checked."14 However, a word of caution i s i n order. If environ-mentalists are given strong p a r t i c i p a t o r y rights i n the decision process, they w i l l be acting i n the "public in t e r e s t " only i f those rights are exercised i n a responsible fashion. I t i s no more reasonable for the environmentalists to push environmental protection at a l l costs than i t i s for industry to seek to maximize p r o f i t s at a l l costs. What we are faced with i s a necessity to balance competing i n t e r e s t s : "I r e j e c t the proposition that we ought to respect the "balance of nature" or to preserve the environment unless the reason for doing so, express or implied, i s the benefit of man."15 The proper question, then, i s - -what w i l l most benefit man? The r e s u l t i n g decision may not i n a l l instances favor environmental protection, and r i g h t l y so. This issue of balancing interests was examined with respect to the power shortages i n the Eastern United States, and attempts by environmental organizations to enjoin the construction of various power generating f a c i l i t i e s i n remote areas, with the r e s u l t that power rates increased, " I r o n i c a l l y , among those who may suffer most are the poor i n the c i t i e s who have the least opportunity to enjoy the natural environment i n distant places where generating f a c i l i t i e s and other f a c i l i t i e s might be located, but for the protests of the organized environmentalists."16 There i s an obvious argument here that the public i n t e r e s t might best be served by increasing the power 21 f a c i l i t i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i f i t can be shown that to do so would prevent increases i n power rates. The environmental organizations seeking to prevent construction also have a duty to consider the interests of those who can i l l afford power increases, since t h i s segment i s included i n the "public i n t e r e s t " which they purportedly represent. On the surface, this example may furnish support for the argument that environmental organizations should not have "standing". The subject of environmental a c t i v i t y i n the eastern United States receives further treatment i n the f i n a l part of Chapter 111, at which time this argument i s refuted. For present purposes, s u f f i c e i t to say that i t was the f a i l u r e of the Federal Power Commission to comply with t h e i r statutory duties to consider alternatives to and the environmental consequences of the proposed f a c i l i t i e s that made the challenge by environmentalists possible. Had the Commission properly f u l f i l l e d these duties and then decided to construct the proposed f a c i l i t i e s , no challenge could have succeeded. C i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n places a great s t r a i n on an agency's a b i l i t y to operate promptly and e f f i c i e n t l y in response to what i t considers the "public i n t e r e s t " to be. The Second Annual Report of the Council on Environment-al Quality estimates that there are over 3,100 environmental 17 organizations i n the United States. Responses from 2,500 l o c a l organizations indicated that at l e a s t 2 31 organizations considered law enforcement as one of t h e i r major a c t i v i t i e s . The day has long passed, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the United States, when an administrative agency with environmental r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s can simply ignore public opinion. This change in emphasis w i l l ensure i n a great many more instances that agencies w i l l act i n accordance with e x i s t i n g l e g a l requirements. However, i t also emphasizes the need for responsible action on the part of the "public i n t e r e s t " movement i n order to prevent a s i t u a t i o n where the administrative business of a nation i s l i t e r a l l y brought to a h a l t i n the name of the environment. The inherent dangers i n a strong c i t i z e n s ' environment-a l force do not, hov/ever, properly lead one to the conclusion that environmental organizations should not be given p a r t i c i p a t o r y rights i n the decision-making process. Such a conclusion has no more v a l i d i t y than to suggest that industry lobbies be prohibited from further operation because of the substantial power they wield. I t i s legitimate to conclude, however, that the success and longevity of the public environmental movement w i l l depend largely on the a b i l i t y of that movement to exercise i t s powers i n a selective and responsible fashion. To allow the public environmental organizations to represent the "public i n t e r e s t " need not represent an under-mining of the democratic process, i f the group function i s seen i n i t s proper perspective. I t i s true that a r e l a t i v e l y small number of people i n the various organizations purport 23 to r e p r e s e n t the g e n e r a l p u b l i c , w h i l e i n f a c t they r e p r e s e n t on l y those members of the p u b l i c who s u b s c r i b e to t h e i r v iewpoint. For i n s t a n c e , not everyone i s i n t e r e s t e d i n p r e s e r v i n g a w i l d e r n e s s area or a p a r t i c u l a r s p e c i e s of animal on the endangered l i s t . Many are more concerned with the immediate jobs and i n c r e a s e d p r o f i t s to be a v a i l a b l e i f a p a r t i c u l a r i n d u s t r y or government p r o p o s a l i s implemented. However, the " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " group does have a v a l u a b l e r o l e to p l a y . The proper f u n c t i o n of these o r g a n i z a t i o n s i s not to usurp the decision-making f u n c t i o n of government, any more than t h i s i s i n d u s t r y ' s proper f u n c t i o n . Rather i t i s to endeavor to ensure, p r i o r to a p a r t i c u l a r d e c i s i o n b e i n g made, t h a t the government agency or department w i l l take cognizance of the environmental consequences and w i l l reach i t s d e c i s i o n only a f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g a l l the a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n . Viewed i n t h i s l i g h t , the " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " group f u n c t i o n does not h i n d e r , and i n f a c t enhances the democratic process, s i n c e i t enables the r e s p o n s i b l e o f f i c i a l s to become aware of the views of one segment of s o c i e t y which might otherwise never r e c e i v e e x p r e s s i o n . The u l t i m a t e d e c i s i o n may then r e f l e c t a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of environmental as w e l l as economic and t e c h n i c a l concerns. In any examination of " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " s t a n d i n g , i t becomes necessary to decide what types of i n t e r e s t should be r e q u i r e d of an o r g a n i z a t i o n seeking to e s t a b l i s h l e g a l s t a n d i n g . This i s an extremely d i f f i c u l t q u e s t i o n i n v o l v i n g a number of 24 c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . Under what circumstances, i f any, should l e g a l s t a n d i n g be c o n f e r r e d on a s i n g l e i n d i v i d u a l seeking to r e p r e s e n t the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t ? What type of i n t e r e s t should be necessary to e s t a b l i s h the l e g a l s t a n d i n g of an environmental o r g a n i z a t i o n seeking to i n t e r v e n e i n the d e c i s i o n process? Is i t necessary to r e s t r i c t l e g a l s t a n d i n g to those o r g a n i z a t i o n s with members r e s i d e n t i n the area a f f e c t e d by the p r o p o s a l ? Should these o r g a n i z a t i o n s be r e q u i r e d to show a c t u a l use of the area a f f e c t e d , or i s an a e s t h e t i c , r e c r e a t i o n a l , or c o n s e r v a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t i n environmental matters a s u f f i c i e n t i n t e r e s t to warrant the c o n f e r r a l o f standing? I f i t should be determined t h a t c o n f e r r a l of " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " s t a n d i n g to i n d i v i d u a l s i s an unnecessary or u n d e s i r a b l e r e l a x a t i o n of e x i s t i n g s t a n d i n g requirements, then f u r t h e r i s s u e s a r i s e as to the type of o r g a n i z a t i o n which should p r o p e r l y have l e g a l s t a n d i n g . For example, how l a r g e must an o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s membership be to warrant a f i n d i n g t h a t the o r g a n i z a t i o n should have l e g a l s t a n d i n g to i n t e r v e n e ? How long must a group be i n e x i s t e n c e before i t s s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t i n the environment should be r e c o g n i z e d as s u f f i c i e n t to c o n f e r l e g a l standing? The above r e p r e s e n t only the most s i g n i f i c a n t of a number of i s s u e s r e q u i r i n g r e s o l u t i o n i f " p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n " i s to become a r e a l i t y i n Canada. Many of these i s s u e s have been co n s i d e r e d i n the context of the American experience, and t h a t 25 experience suggests some answers. Other i s s u e s are as y e t unresolved, and no simple answers e x i s t . These may u l t i m a t e l y be r e s o l v e d o n l y on a t r i a l and e r r o r b a s i s . However, the i s s u e s cannot be i g n o r e d and must be r e s o l v e d i f p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s to become a r e a l i t y i n the Canadian environmental decision-making p r o c e s s . I t seems c l e a r , however, t h a t the advantages of " p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n " i n terms of improving the q u a l i t y of our environment so outweigh the attendant disadvantages, t h a t our a t t e n t i o n should p r o p e r l y be focused on means of removing the e f f e c t s of these disadvantages, r a t h e r than on e x c l u d i n g the p u b l i c from r a i s i n g an e f f e c t i v e V o i c e . CHAPTER 11 THE LEGAL STANDING OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL ORGANIZATIONS IN CANADA Canada has, for the most part, f a i l e d to recognize the concept of "public i n t e r e s t " standing. As a r e s u l t , environmental control organizations have very limited opportunities to par t i c i p a t e i n the decision-making process. The public action, so much the center of attention i n the United States, i s v i r t u a l l y unknown i n Canada. No concerted e f f o r t has been made i n Canada to determine whether the public action could enhance the success of present e f f o r t s to control environmental degradation. Nor has any attempt been made to determine whether any good reason exists for preventing environmental organizations from p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the environmental decision-making process. Canadian law denies "public i n t e r e s t " standing largely on the basis of h i s t o r i c a l concepts developed long before anyone recognized the need for a comprehensive e f f o r t to h a l t environmental destruction. Not surprisi n g l y , these h i s t o r i c a l concepts are not always suitable for resolving issues of general public i n t e r e s t and concern. Be that as i t may, the public action has become the major tool of the environmental movement i n the United States, and w i l l undoubtedly f i n d i t s way into Canadian law. Accordingly, i t becomes a matter of necessity to examine the e x i s t i n g Canadian rules of legal standing i n an attempt to 27 determine where d e f i c i e n c i e s e x i s t , whether these r u l e s can be j u s t i f i e d , and the b e s t method by which to i n t r o d u c e the concept of " p u b l i c s t a n d i n g " to Canadian environmental law. I t may w e l l be i n e v i t a b l e , and perhaps necessary, t h a t Canada adopts some form of the p u b l i c a c t i o n . I t seems of paramount importance, however, t h a t the e n t i r e concept of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n should be the s u b j e c t of c a r e f u l s c r u t i n y p r i o r t o i t s i n t r o d u c t i o n i n t o Canadian law. T h i s can b e s t be accomplished by examining three types of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the context of the e x i s t i n g Canadian system. The f i r s t i s the p u b l i c h e a r i n g , the second j u d i c i a l review and the t h i r d the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t o r t a c t i o n s . These w i l l be examined to determine the extent to which they are a v a i l a b l e i n Canada as means by which environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s can e x e r t t h e i r i n f l u e n c e i n r e s o l v i n g environmental c o n t r o v e r s i e s . A. P u b l i c Hearings i n Canada. 1. The P u b l i c Hearing i n Proper P e r s p e c t i v e . P u b l i c hearings r e p r e s e n t one of the major avenues f o r p u b l i c e x p r e s s i o n i n environmental i s s u e s . For t h i s reason, they r e p r e s e n t one method to determine the e x t e n t to which the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i s g i v e n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n the environmental c o n t r o l system. D e f i n i t i o n of the term " p u b l i c h e a r i n g " seems i n order at t h i s time. Throughout t h i s paper i t w i l l be used to denote the type of h e a r i n g at which i n t e r e s t e d o r g a n i z a t i o n s and 28 i n d i v i d u a l s are allowed t o make r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s t o the h e a r i n g board e i t h e r v e r b a l l y or by w r i t t e n submissions. In o t h e r words, at a p u b l i c h e a r i n g , the p u b l i c has more than a mere r i g h t to be i n attendance. F r a n k l y , we know very l i t t l e about the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of p u b l i c hearings i n terms of changing the d i r e c t i o n o f a co n t r o v e r s y . T h i s q u e s t i o n has not been e x p l o r e d i n s u f f i c i e n t depth to allow f o r any d e f i n i t e c o n c l u s i o n s , although the e n t i r e concept of the p u b l i c h e a r i n g i s p r e s e n t l y . . . . 19 r e c e i v i n g c o n s i d e r a b l e a t t e n t i o n i n the United S t a t e s . We do know, however, t h a t i t i s very s i g n i f i c a n t l y connected with the concept of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n environmental matters. P a r t i c i p a t i o n at a p u b l i c h e a r i n g produces very d i s t i n c t p s y c h o l o g i c a l b e n e f i t s i n a s o c i e t y which i s becoming i n c r e a s i n g l y impersonal and b u r e a u c r a t i c . Regardless o f the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of p u b l i c submissions i n a c t u a l l y changing the r e s u l t o f a h e a r i n g , there i s a c o n s i d e r a b l e element of p a r t i c i p a t o r y democracy i n the very concept o f p u b l i c submissions. A d d i t i o n a l l y , the h e a r i n g board has an o p p o r t u n i t y to become b e t t e r acquainted with p r e v a i l i n g p u b l i c o p i n i o n on environmental i s s u e s . Thus while p u b l i c submissions may prove not to have a d i r e c t e f f e c t i n changing a p a r t i c u l a r h e a r i n g r e s u l t , the cumulative e f f e c t on a h e a r i n g board of a number of such submissions over a p e r i o d of time may be of s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r import. Furthermore, there i s c o n s i d e r a b l e merit i n p l a c i n g 29 c o n t r o v e r s i a l i s s u e s of environmental consequence i n the p u b l i c forum to allow the p u b l i c to e v a l u a t e the views and performance of i t s governing o f f i c i a l s . In the same way t h a t a d m i n i s t r a t -i v e o f f i c i a l s l e a r n a g r e a t d e a l about p u b l i c o p i n i o n through the h e a r i n g p r o c e s s , the p u b l i c l e a r n s a g r e a t d e a l about the problems and c o n f l i c t s f a c i n g the government i n most complex environmental i s s u e s . The p u b l i c h e a r i n g r e p r e s e n t s the only known method a v a i l a b l e to f a c i l i t a t e t h i s semi-personal exchange of views. I t s frequent use cannot help but produce a g r e a t e r understanding between those who govern and those who are governed. However, the most b a s i c argument i n support of the open p u b l i c h e a r i n g i s i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to the g e n e r a l concept of " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " p a r t i c i p a t i o n . While we may g e n e r a l l y tend to t h i n k of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n terms of p u b l i c i n t e r e s t s u i t s and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a c t i o n s , i t seems that the most b a s i c and perhaps the most meaningful form of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s b eing i n a p o s i t i o n at the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l e v e l to a s s i s t the d e c i s i o n making process i n r e a c h i n g a s a t i s f a c t o r y c o n c l u s i o n on an i s s u e . The p u b l i c h e a r i n g f a c i l i t a t e s an open exchange of views and i n f o r m a t i o n at a very e a r l y stage of the d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s . In the absence of the p u b l i c h e a r i n g , no o p p o r t u n i t y e x i s t s f o r those with c o n f l i c t i n g views to c o n f r o n t each other and r e s o l v e t h e i r d i f f e r e n c i e s i n an e f f i c i e n t and o r d e r l y manner. I t becomes an example where the r i g h t hand i s unaware of what the l e f t hand i s doing. Industry i n e v i t a b l y d i s t r u s t s any p u b l i c 30 o p p o s i t i o n to i t s p r o p o s a l s . The p u b l i c i n t e r e s t o r g a n i z a t i o n s d i s t r u s t the motives of i n d u s t r y . The r e s u l t seems t o be c o n s i d e r a b l e l a c k of communication and lack of mutual understanding. The p u b l i c h e a r i n g seems to o f f e r at l e a s t a p a r t i a l s o l u t i o n by which to remove much of t h i s p erpetuated mutual ignorance. While p u b l i c hearings may never b r i n g c o n f l i c t i n g p a r t i e s to a c t u a l agreement, they tend to expose r e s p e c t i v e v/eaknesses i n the p o s i t i o n s taken, and submit these p o s i t i o n s to p u b l i c s c r u t i n y . There seems to be an argument t h a t f a i r l y conducted hearings have the p o t e n t i a l to reduce the i n c i d e n c e of environmental l i t i g a t i o n . The concept allows the p a r t i e s t o present t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e views a t a very e a r l y stage i n the proceedings. Conversely, the lack of a p u b l i c h e a r i n g or an u n f a i r p u b l i c h e a r i n g leaves those seeking to r e p r e s e n t the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t who were thwarted at the agency l e v e l no o p t i o n but to seek j u d i c i a l a s s i s t a n c e . Moreover, e f f e c t i v e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n seems u n l i k e l y i n the absence of some form of p u b l i c h e a r i n g system. Without such a system, there i s simply no r e g u l a r channel o f communic-a t i o n through which the ge n e r a l p u b l i c can e i t h e r r e c e i v e or d i s b u r s e i n f o r m a t i o n . An i g n o r a n t p u b l i c i s u n l i k e l y t o be a very e f f e c t i v e i n f l u e n c e i n the d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s . Unless the agency i s r e q u i r e d to make r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n on environmental i s s u e s a v a i l a b l e t o i n t e r e s t e d o r g a n i z a t i o n s and to pr o v i d e an o p p o r t u n i t y to r e a c t t o t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n , environmental o r g a n i z a t i o n s have gr e a t d i f f i c u l t y 31 becoming s u f f i c i e n t l y w e l l informed to make an e f f e c t i v e and r e s p o n s i b l e argument i n support of t h e i r views on an i s s u e . O r g a n i z a t i o n s which have been e f f e c t i v e l y excluded from agency proceedings are l e f t at a tremendous disadvantage i n any subsequent l i t i g a t i o n , assuming f o r a moment t h a t they c o u l d e s t a b l i s h the r e q u i s i t e l e g a l s t a n d i n g . Without the back-ground and b e n e f i t of having p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the e a r l i e r p roceedings, o r g a n i z a t i o n s must of n e c e s s i t y operate a t a c o n s i d e r a b l e disadvantage at the j u d i c i a l l e v e l . There would seem to be no q u e s t i o n t h a t the p u b l i c h e a r i n g must become an i n t e g r a l component of any system which a l l o t s due c o n s i d e r a t i o n to the " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " . The nature and frequency of p u b l i c hearings w i t h i n a given system would appear to be a f a i r l y accurate y a r d s t i c k of the e x t e n t to which t h a t system r e c o g n i z e s and g i v e s e x p r e s s i o n to the " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " . Canada does not r a t e very h i g h l y i n t h i s r e g ard. 2. Canada's P o s i t i o n on the P u b l i c Hearing. E s s e n t i a l l y , Canada has simply never r e c o g n i z e d i n any g e n e r a l way the advantages of the p u b l i c h e a r i n g as a v e h i c l e f o r e x p r e s s i n g the " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " . T h i s i s r e f l e c t e d i n the s c a r c i t y of adequate p u b l i c h e a r i n g p r o v i s i o n s i n both f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l environmental l e g i s l a t i o n . Because of t h i s s c a r c i t y of p u b l i c h e a r i n g requirements, there i s no need t o examine a g r e a t number of s t a t u t e s . Only a few examples w i l l be g i v e n , some of which p o i n t out the t o t a l absence of any p u b l i c h e a r i n g p r o v i s i o n s , and others which p o i n t out the 32 inadequacies where p r o v i s i o n f o r p u b l i c hearings i s made. The environmental s t a t u t e s of B r i t i s h Columbia, A l b e r t a 20 and Manitoba w i l l be used as examples of p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n . These s t a t u t e s are not n e c e s s a r i l y r e p r e s e n t -a t i v e of a l l p r o v i n c i a l environmental l e g i s l a t i o n . They do have some common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , however, which make them a p p r o p r i a t e examples i n t h i s context. Each d e a l s s p e c i f i c a l l y with environmental c o n t r o l . Each p r o v i d e s f o r an a d m i n i s t r a t -i v e t r i b u n a l to adminster the l e g i s l a t i o n , and i n c l u d e s w i t h i n i t s scope comprehensive j u r i s d i c t i o n over environmental i s s u e s . Furthermore, the B r i t i s h Columbia s t a t u t e comes as c l o s e as any to p r o v i d i n g a p u b l i c h e a r i n g concept t o r e s o l v e environmental i s s u e s . 21 F e d e r a l l y , the N a t i o n a l Energy Board Act pr o v i d e s a good example of the d e f i c i e n c i e s i n our presen t l e g i s l a t i o n governing environmental p u b l i c h e a r i n g s . 22 The P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l A c t , 1967 of B r i t i s h Columbia p r o v i d e s i n s e c t i o n 14: "14. Whenever i t appears to the Board or the D i r e c t o r t h a t the proper determination of any matter w i t h i n i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n n e c e s s i t a t e s a p u b l i c or other i n q u i r y , the Board or D i r e c t o r may h o l d an i n q u i r y and f o r t h a t purpose the Chairman of the Board or the D i r e c t o r , as the case may be, has a l l the powers of and j u r i s d i c t i o n of a J u s t i c e of the Peace under the Summary C o n v i c t i o n s Act." 23 The Environment Conservation Act of A l b e r t a p r o v i d e s i n s e c t i o n 7 ( 1 ) ( e ) : "7.(1) The A u t h o r i t y (The Environment Conser-v a t i o n A u t h o r i t y ) (e) may, and when r e q u i r e d to do so by an order o f the L i e u t e n a n t Governor i n C o u n c i l s h a l l , h o l d p u b l i c h e a r i n g s f o r the purpose of r e c e i v i n g b r i e f s and submissions on any matter p e r t a i n -i n g t o environment c o n s e r v a t i o n , and s h a l l r e p o r t thereon to the L i e u t e n a n t Governor i n C o u n c i l ; " 24 S e c t i o n 12 of the Clean Environment Act of Manitoba does not c o n t a i n a s p e c i f i c p r o v i s i o n a l l o w i n g p u b l i c hearings at a l l , but may by i m p l i c a t i o n empower the Clean Environment Commission t o h o l d a p u b l i c h e a r i n g : "12. The commission may i n v e s t i g a t e any matter r e s p e c t i n g the contamination o f the environment and i n the course of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n i t may summon witnesses and take evidence." C l e a r l y at l e a s t the A l b e r t a and B r i t i s h Columbia s t a t u t e s r e c o g n i z e t h a t a p u b l i c i n q u i r y may have some p o t e n t i a l value i n c e r t a i n i n s t a n c e s . The Manitoba s e c t i o n i s worded i n such a way i . e . may summon witn e s s e s , t h a t one would probably be s t r e t c h i n g the p o i n t to suggest t h a t t h i s p r o v i s i o n contemplates a p u b l i c h e a r i n g . While two of the above ac t s at l e a s t make mention of a p u b l i c h e a r i n g , n e i t h e r makes i t mandatory under any circum-stances. N e i t h e r do they provide any g u i d e l i n e s as to the type of s i t u a t i o n s which should p r o p e r l y be the s u b j e c t of a p u b l i c h e a r i n g . T h i s d e c i s i o n i s a c c o r d i n g l y l e f t to the a d m i n i s t r a t -i v e a u t h o r i t y which may or may not be s u f f i c i e n t l y f r e e of p o l i t i c a l i n f l u e n c e s to give the p u b l i c h e a r i n g concept a chance. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t not one s t a t u t e i n Canadian law d e a l i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y with environmental c o n t r o l makes a p u b l i c h e a r i n g mandatory under any circumstances. In f a c t the c l o s e s t we come i s the p r o v i s i o n i n the v a r i o u s p r o v i n c i a l m u n i c i p a l a c t s r e q u i r i n g a p u b l i c h e a r i n g before a zoning change can be made. 34 2 5 F e d e r a l l y , the N a t i o n a l Energy Board Act i s a s t a t u t e with g r e a t environmental s i g n i f i c a n c e s i n c e i t c o n f e r s on the Board j u r i s d i c t i o n over a l l e x t r a p r o v i n c i a l and i n t e r n a t i o n a l o i l and gas p i p e l i n e c o n s t r u c t i o n a p p l i c a t i o n s i n Canada. S e c t i o n 20 c o n f e r s on the Board the r i g h t to h o l d p u b l i c i n q u i r i e s on the i s s u e , c a n c e l l a t i o n , or suspension of export c e r t i f i c a t e s or l i c e n c e s , and on any o t h e r matter which i t c o n s i d e r s i t a d v i s a b l e to do so. S e c t i o n 44 p r o v i d e s the Board with a u t h o r i t y to i s s u e c e r t i f i c a t e s f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n and o p e r a t i o n of i n t e r n a t i o n a l p i p e l i n e s and power l i n e s , and o u t l i n e s some of the major c o n s i d e r a t i o n s to which the Board i s to d i r e c t i t s mind. These i n c l u d e : the a v a i l a b i l i t y of the r e s o u r c e , the e x i s t e n c e of markets, the economic f e a s i b i l i t y of the p r o j e c t , the f i n a n c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the a p p l i c a n t , and any o t h e r p u b l i c i n t e r e s t which, i n the o p i n i o n of the Board, may be a f f e c t e d by g r a n t i n g or r e f u s i n g the permit. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t although the above l i s t i s e x p r e s s l y d e c l a r e d t o be g e n e r a l and not e x h a u s t i v e , there i s not one r e f e r e n c e i n s e c t i o n 44, or i n any other s e c t i o n , of the environmental c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of c o n s t r u c t i n g a p i p e l i n e . Despite the r e f e r e n c e "and any other p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " , i t i s submitted t h a t the Board may not have j u r i s d i c t i o n to c o n s i d e r the environmental consequences of a proposed p i p e l i n e , s i n c e such c o n s i d e r a t i o n s would not seem to f a l l w i t h i n the contemplated scope of the l e g i s l a t i o n . I t seems q u i t e c e r t a i n i n any event t h a t the Act imposes no o b l i g a t i o n on the Board to 35 consider the environmental consequences of a proposal. I t i s equally clear that the Board may c a l l a public inquiry and refuse to entertain submissions of an environmental nature. Thus i t seems quite reasonable to suggest that permission could be obtained from the Board to construct the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline through Canada to the United States without a single public hearing on or even a reference to the environmental consequences of such a proposal. In practice t h i s r e s u l t i s unlikely, but i t does point out the extent to which some of our present public hearing provisions are t o t a l l y inadequate for purposes of environmental control. The P o l l u t i o n Control Act, 196 7, of B r i t i s h Columbia comes as close as any Canadian environmental statute to providing for public hearings i n the true sense of the word. Yet i t s t i l l f a l l s far short of anything approaching the i d e a l i n terms of fairness and equality of opportunity to the "public i n t e r e s t " . A b r i e f examination of the problems encountered by those seeking to represent the public i n t e r e s t under i t s provisions w i l l serve to point out the urgent need for change i f the public hearing i s to have any re a l meaning i n Canada as a vehicle for public p a r t i c i p a t i o n . B a s i c a l l y , the Act provides for a permit system which allows the discharge of e f f l u e n t or emissions into water or the atmosphere as the case may be under conditions imposed by the P o l l u t i o n Control Board i n the permit i t s e l f . The Act makes provision for objections to be f i l e d to a permit application, and provides for a public hearing in the d i s c r e t i o n of the 36 Board. I t represents the best attempt to date i n Canada to allow objections from members of the public other than those immediately affected by the permit application. In the case of an application for a permit to discharge or emit a contaminant into the a i r , an objection may be f i l e d by any person who i s resident within f i v e miles of the ex i s t i n g or proposed point of discharge and by any immediately 2 6 adjoining municipality that may be affected. I t i s in t e r e s t i n g to note that the permit holder and the holder of r e s i d e n t i a l land within f i v e miles may object to the permit as a matter of r i g h t . So may a municipality. A l l the above objections are made to the Director of P o l l u t i o n Control. However, a person or organization wishing to object i n the public i n t e r e s t must submit the objection to the Board which then determines whether the public i n t e r e s t requires that the Director s h a l l also take such an objection into consideration in making his decision. The decision of the Board i s stated 27 to be f i n a l . I t i s important to note that these provisions apply to the basic r i g h t to f i l e an objection regardless of whether a hearing i s actually held. Clearly, the l e g i s l a t i o n , while recognizing the v a l i d i t y of objections i n the public i n t e r e s t , was not intended to equate th i s type of objection with those based on the t r a d i t i o n a l private property i n t e r e s t . Those objecting i n the public i n t e r e s t have no legal rights under the l e g i s l a t i o n , and are e n t i r e l y subject to the whim of the Pol l u t i o n Control Board. As a matter of i n t e r e s t , t h i s group 37 would include i n d i v i d u a l s , a l l interested environmental organizations, and anyone wishing to present technical or s c i e n t i f i c evidence i n objection to the permit applied f o r . There have been a number of cases a r i s i n g out of the Act, and each invar i a b l y revolved around the public right to 2 8 p a r t i c i p a t e . While small gains are being made in the courts r e s u l t i n g i n greater p a r t i c i p a t i o n by public i n t e r e s t organizations, the l e g i s l a t i o n contains a basic f a u l t common in the Canadian j u r i s d i c t i o n . By placing u n j u s t i f i e d r e s t r i c t i o n s on the right to object i n the public i n t e r e s t , that r i g h t becomes v i r t u a l l y meaningless. This defect can only be cured by amendments which recognize a genuine public i n t e r e s t i n environmental issues and e f f e c t i v e l y discontinue the present tendency to r e s t r i c t hearing rights to those having a proprietary i n t e r e s t . Equally damaging to the environmental control movement i s the f a i l u r e i n our l e g i s l a t i o n to provide any guidelines either as to the type of s i t u a t i o n which i s appropriate for a hearing or the type of procedure to be employed when a hearing i s conducted. The unfortunate r e s u l t of this f a i l u r e can best be demonstrated by a b r i e f factual examination of the 29 application of Utah Construction and Mining Co. Ltd. for a p o l l u t i o n control permit i n B r i t i s h Columbia, one of the few documented cases on the subject. The following factual account i s not necessarily representative of problems presently being experienced i n other Canadian j u r i s d i c t i o n s . Rather i t should be viewed as an excellent example of the serious obstacles to 38 e f f e c t i v e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n which can a r i s e where laws v e s t wide d i s c r e t i o n a r y powers i n the r e s p e c t i v e c o n s e r v a t i o n a u t h o r i t i e s . Utah C o n s t r u c t i o n and Mining Co. L t d . made an a p p l i c a t i o n on October 2, 1969, f o r a p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l permit to dump 9.3 m i l l i o n g a l l o n s of copper t a i l i n g s d a i l y i n t o Rupert I n l e t . The P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l Branch r e c e i v e d some 150 o b j e c t i o n s to the a p p l i c a t i o n . The o b j e c t o r s i n c l u d e d a number of i n d i v i d u a l s and s e v e r a l w i l d l i f e and environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s . A f t e r c o n s i d e r a b l e p u b l i c p r e s s u r e and lengthy n e g o t i a t i o n s , a p u b l i c h e a r i n g was h e l d , at which f o u r out o f the 150 o b j e c t o r s were allowed to p a r t i c i p a t e . The r e s u l t of the p u b l i c h e a r i n g has been examined i n Chapter 1. The procedure at the h e a r i n g i s p e r t i n e n t at t h i s p o i n t , however. The f o u r o b j e c t o r s , three i n d i v i d u a l s and the P a c i f i c Salmon S o c i e t y , were each allowed one t e c h n i c a l a d v i s o r and d i d not have a formal r i g h t to c o u n s e l . The Utah r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , i n s t a r k c o n t r a s t , was r e p r e s e n t e d by three t e c h n i c a l a d v i s o r s , a s e n i o r company o f f i c i a l from San F r a n c i s c o , and two lawyers, i n c l u d i n g s e n i o r c o u n s e l . No matter how one views the s i t u a t i o n , i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o see t h i s h e a r i n g as an i n s t a n c e of " p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n " . By v i r t u e of the very a c t of i n c l u d i n g a p r o v i s i o n f o r p u b l i c h e a r i n g s , at l e a s t some l e g i s l a t o r s i n Canada have sa n c t i o n e d i t s use as a t o o l f o r environmental c o n t r o l . However, i n i t s p r e s e n t s t a t e , i t s u s e f u l n e s s seems l a r g e l y f i c t i o n a l . Kenneth Culp Davis, a r e c o g n i z e d American expert i n 39 a d m i n i s t r a t i v e law, made a statement i n one of h i s books which a p p l i e s o n l y too w e l l to the present p u b l i c h e a r i n g s i t u a t i o n i n Canada: "I t h i n k the g r e a t e s t and most frequent i n j u s t i c e occurs a t the d i s c r e t i o n end of the s c a l e , where r u l e s and p r i n c i p l e s p r o v i d e l i t t l e or no guidance, where emotions of d e c i d i n g o f f i c e r s may a f f e c t what they do, where p o l i t i c a l or other f a v o r i t i s m may i n f l u e n c e d e c i s i o n s , and where the i m p e r f e c t -ions of human nature are o f t e n r e f l e c t e d i n the c h o i c e s made."30 To give a proper p e r s p e c t i v e , i t must be noted t h a t p u b l i c h e a r i n g s have been h e l d i n Canada on environmental i s s u e s . The P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l Branch i n B r i t i s h Columbia has h e l d a number of hearings on major i s s u e s of concern, 31 i n c l u d i n g f o r e s t r y and mining. P u b l i c h e a r i n g s are f r e q u e n t l y h e l d on park use, the most notable r e c e n t example be i n g the proposed V i l l a g e Lake Loui s e development, which was e v e n t u a l l y d i s c o n t i n u e d as a r e s u l t of adverse r e a c t i o n s from 32 those p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the h e a r i n g s . Some of our l e g i s l a t i o n pays l i p s e r v i c e t o the h e a r i n g concept. Many s t a t u t e s do not even go t h a t f a r . I t seems t h a t a d e c i s i o n i s i n o r d e r . Our l e g i s l a t o r s must e i t h e r decide they do not wish to be bothered by the views of the g e n e r a l p u b l i c , and openly admit t h i s d e c i s i o n , or make the necessary amendments to our e x i s t i n g l e g i s l a t i o n s to p r o v i d e f o r p u b l i c hearings much more f r e q u e n t l y and t o give the p u b l i c h e a r i n g p r o v i s i o n s some meaning by removing the v a s t d i s c r e t i o n a r y powers i n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a u t h o r i t i e s . Simply put, they must decide whether we w i l l , o r w i l l not, enjoy the 40 concept of the p u b l i c h e a r i n g i n Canadian environmental law. B. J u d i c i a l Review. The N e c e s s i t y f o r O r g a n i z a t i o n s to E s t a b l i s h Locus S t a n d i . The Canadian l e g a l system has a h i g h l y developed system of j u d i c i a l review. The p r e r o g a t i v e w r i t s of c e r t i o r a r i , p r o h i b i t i o n and mandamus, have t r a d i t i o n a l l y served as a method of j u d i c i a l c o n t r o l over the a c t i o n s of i n f e r i o r c o u r t s and more r e c e n t l y , the a c t i o n s of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e t r i b u n a l s . The d e c l a r a t o r y a c t i o n , although not t e c h n i c a l l y a review procedure, has been used f r e q u e n t l y i n p l a c e of the p r e r o g a t i v e w r i t s and a c c o r d i n g l y can c o n v e n i e n t l y be i n c l u d e d i n t h i s examination. The c r u c i a l i s s u e i s the extent to which these review procedures are a v a i l a b l e t o those o r g a n i z a t i o n s seeking to r e p r e s e n t the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . 1. The Role of J u d i c i a l Review i n Environmental  C o n t r o v e r s i e s . Simply put, j u d i c i a l review i s the process whereby a person c l a i m i n g t o be aggrieved or ad v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d by an agency d e c i s i o n a p p l i e s to a cou r t o f competent j u r i s d i c t i o n t o have t h a t d e c i s i o n reviewed. The p o t e n t i a l of these procedures to an environmental o r g a n i z a t i o n which was unsuccess-f u l at the agency l e v e l i s obvious. I f the agency r e f u s e d t o conduct a p u b l i c h e a r i n g , i t may be open to the cou r t to conclude t h a t a h e a r i n g should have been h e l d . Where a h e a r i n g was conducted, the q u e s t i o n of the f a i r n e s s of t h a t h e a r i n g may form a proper b a s i s f o r 41 r e v i e w . I f an o r g a n i z a t i o n was e x c l u d e d from p a r t i c i p a t i n g , the c o u r t may det e r m i n e t h a t such e x c l u s i o n was improper and i s s u e a p p r o p r i a t e o r d e r s t o r e c t i f y the s i t u a t i o n . Where t h e agency has a p o s i t i v e o b l i g a t i o n t o c o n s i d e r the e n v i r o n m e n t a l consequences, and f a i l s t o do s o , t h a t f a i l u r e may g i v e the c o u r t s u f f i c i e n t grounds f o r q u a s h i n g any d e c i s i o n r e a c h e d . S i m i l a r l y , i n a d e q u a t e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l consequences may c o n s t i t u t e a r e v i e w a b l e b r e a c h . The c h o i c e o f the p a r t i c u l a r remedy depends t o a l a r g e e x t e n t on the f a c t s . F o r i n s t a n c e , where a d e c i s i o n has been i m p r o p e r l y made, c e r t i o r a r i may i s s u e t o quash t h a t d e c i s i o n . Where the agency has i n d i c a t e d an i n t e n t i o n t o do a c e r t a i n t h i n g which i t cannot p r o p e r l y do, p r o h i b i t i o n may i s s u e t o p r e v e n t the i l l e g a l a c t i o n . Where the agency has i m p r o p e r l y r e f u s e d t o a c t i n accordance w i t h i t s s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s , mandamus may i s s u e t o compel the agency t o a c t . The d e c l a r a t o r y a c t i o n s e r v e s v e r y s i m p l y t o d e c l a r e the p o s i t i o n o f the p a r t i e s where, f o r i n s t a n c e , an i l l e g a l o r d e r o r d e c i s i o n has been made. These remedies c l e a r l y have the p o t e n t i a l t o be e x t r e m e l y u s e f u l t o e n v i r o n m e n t a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s which have been t h w a r t e d a t the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l e v e l . However, each o f t h e s e remedies c a r r i e s w i t h i t a p a r t i c u l a r s e t o f s t a n d i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s . Only those who can e s t a b l i s h the n e c e s s a r y l o c u s s t a n d i are e n t i t l e d t o t h e i r b e n e f i t . E x i s t i n g s t a n d i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s make t h e s e remedies v i r t u a l l y u n a v a i l a b l e t o e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n Canada. E n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s a re s i m p l y unable to e s t a b l i s h the necessary i n t e r e s t under our pr e s e n t system to enable them t o o b t a i n j u d i c i a l review. 2. The I n t e r e s t Required. T h i s q u e s t i o n can b e s t be examined i n two p a r t s . Each of these remedies i s s u b j e c t to p a r t i c u l a r s t a n d i n g r e q u i r e -ments of common law. These govern to a l a r g e e x t e n t the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f the w r i t s . Secondly, i t i s necessary t o examine what e f f e c t , i f any, e x i s t i n g environmental l e g i s l a t i o n has on the s t a n d i n g requirements. Mandamus• The w r i t of mandamus would seem t o c a r r y the g r e a t e s t p o t e n t i a l to r e c t i f y i r r e g u l a r i t i e s i n environmental i s s u e s of any of the remedies p r e s e n t l y being c o n s i d e r e d . A s u c c e s s f u l a p p l i c a t i o n f o r mandamus i n e f f e c t f o r c e s the agency or i n f e r i o r t r i b u n a l to perform a p a r t i c u l a r t a s k . T h i s has s p e c i a l a p p l i c a t i o n t o environmental law. For example, mandamus co u l d f o r c e an agency to conduct a p u b l i c h e a r i n g , o r t o hear a p a r t i c u l a r submission. Where the agency has been remiss i n a s s e s s i n g environmental consequencies, mandamus may w e l l l i e to f o r c e such assessment. In other words, any improper or u n j u s t i f i a b l e f a i l u r e on the p a r t of an environmental agency to perform a mandatory task c o u l d be r e c t i f i e d by mandamus. However, because of the p a r t i c u l a r l i m i t a t i o n s on the a v a i l a b i l i t y of mandamus, i t i s at p r e s e n t one of the l e a s t u s e f u l of the remedies b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d . Of these l i m i t a t i o n s , two are d e s e r v i n g of mention i n the pr e s e n t context. 43 The f i r s t i s the g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t the a p p l i c a n t f o r a w r i t o f mandamus must have a s p e c i f i c l e g a l r i g h t to have the duty performed. T h i s p r i n c i p l e was adopted i n Canada as 33 e a r l y as 1876, and has p r e v a i l e d l a r g e l y u n a l t e r e d to the pre s e n t date. Mandamus to compel the C i t y o f Toronto t o order v a c c i n a t i o n was r e f u s e d , on the ground t h a t the a p p l i c a n t , the P r o v i n c i a l Board of Health, had no s p e c i f i c l e g a l r i g h t t o enforce performance of the p r o v i s i o n s of the 34 V a c c i n a t i o n A c t . The e f f e c t o f t h i s requirement i s c l e a r l y to exclude environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s from u s i n g the w r i t of mandamus, s i n c e they c l a i m only an i n t e r e s t o f a general p u b l i c nature and can scarce ever show a s p e c i f i c l e g a l r i g h t to have an environmental duty performed. The second requirement merely i n c r e a s e s the f u t i l i t y of o r g a n i z a t i o n s seeking t o a v a i l themselves o f mandamus. Mandamus w i l l only i s s u e where there i s a p u b l i c duty imposed . . . 35 on the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agency to perform the task i n i s s u e . Yet few environmental o b l i g a t i o n s e x i s t i n our 3 6 l e g i s l a t i o n which would make mandamus o p e r a t i v e . Hearings are s c a r c e ever r e q u i r e d , w i t h a c l e a r d i s c r e t i o n v e s t e d i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c i a l s . In the absence o f s p e c i f i c mandatory p r o v i s i o n s t h a t p u b l i c hearings must be h e l d , o r th a t assessment must be made of the environmental consequencies of a d e c i s i o n , mandamus w i l l c l e a r l y not i s s u e f o r a f a i l u r e t o perform these t a s k s . Mandamus could be a very u s e f u l environmental remedy, s i n c e i t has the p o t e n t i a l t o f o r c e agencies to perform those tasks made mandatory by the e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n . However, where the l e g i s l a t i o n does not impose mandatory d u t i e s on the agency, mandamus becomes i r r e l e v a n t . The f a i l u r e of our l e g i s l a t i o n t o pr o v i d e such mandatory d u t i e s e f f e c t i v e l y removes mandamus as a remedy t o e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s . In any event, the s t a n d i n g requirements are such t h a t environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s would not be i n a p o s i t i o n t o e s t a b l i s h s t a n d i n g even i f mandatory d u t i e s d i d e x i s t . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the one type of o r g a n i z a t i o n which i s most l i k e l y t o a c t as a watchdog t o ensure t h a t agencies are f u l f i l l i n g t h e i r environmental o b l i g a t i o n s i s excluded from so doing by a h i s t o r i c a l concept which seems to have scant j u s t i f i c a t i o n i n the context o f the problems a t i s s u e . D e c l a r a t i o n . The d e c l a r a t o r y judgment, although i t does n o t h i n g more than d e c l a r e the p o s i t i o n o f the p a r t i e s , i s a very v a l u a b l e remedy f o r those seeking to q u e s t i o n the a c t i o n s o f an agency. The l a c k o f accompanying enforcement p r o v i s i o n s does not seem to be c r u c i a l , s i n c e i n most i n s t a n c e s where the c o u r t d e c l a r e s an agency a c t i o n i l l e g a l or improper, the agency w i l l comply with t h a t d e c l a r a t i o n . Most j u r i s d i c t i o n s p r o v i d e t h a t the d e c l a r a t i o n may be sought without an attendant c l a i m f o r any other r e l i e f such as 37 damages or an i n j u n c t i o n . T h i s i s a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n environmental cases, s i n c e the o r g a n i z a t i o n c h a l l e n g i n g the agency may possess no grounds upon which to seek other r e l i e f . 45 Another s i g n i f i c a n t advantage of the d e c l a r a t i o n i s the f a c t t h a t i t can be brought by o r d i n a r y a c t i o n , thereby a v o i d i n g the more s t r i n g e n t time l i m i t a t i o n s and p r o c e d u r a l r u l e s common to the p r e r o g a t i v e w r i t s . The remedy, d e s p i t e i t s c l e a r advantages as a method of q u e s t i o n i n g an agency d e c i s i o n , i s f o r the most p a r t u n a v a i l a b l e t o " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The reasons are t w o f o l d . Environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s p u r p o r t to a c t i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . A c c o r d i n g l y , an a c t i o n by such an o r g a n i z a t i o n would of n e c e s s i t y be based on t h a t i n t e r e s t . 3 8 Yet the c o u r t has e x p r e s s l y s t a t e d i n Cowan v C.B.C. t h a t the Attorney-General, as the c u s t o d i a n of the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , was the proper p a r t y to b r i n g the a c t i o n f o r the i n j u n c t i o n and damages sought. A c c o r d i n g l y , the p l a i n t i f f , an i n d i v i d u a l not s u f f e r i n g g r e a t e r damages than the g e n e r a l p u b l i c , had no s t a n d i n g t o seek the d e c l a r a t i o n i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . The r e s u l t o f t h i s d e c i s i o n i n environmental cases seems to be t h a t o n l y the A ttorney-General can seek a d e c l a r a t i o n on the v a l i d i t y of agency a c t i o n . T h i s seems a q u e s t i o n a b l e s i t u a t i o n i n t h a t both the Attorney-General and the agency must be i n e v i t a b l y bound up with the i n t e r e s t s of the government they serve. The i s s u e can be r e s o l v e d i n t o whether we are s a t i s f i e d with l e a v i n g such enforcement procedures to the A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l . Furthermore, the Supreme Court has h i s t o r i c a l l y h e l d the p o s i t i o n t h a t the p l a i n t i f f i n a d e c l a r a t o r y a c t i o n must be able to e s t a b l i s h a special i n t e r e s t i n having the declaration 39 made or that i t stands i n a position of possible jeopardy. Again, the standing requirements are such that environmental control organizations, representing the public i n t e r e s t , would scarce ever be i n a position to demonstrate the necessary i n t e r e s t to successfully seek a declaration. Canadian environmental l e g i s l a t i o n simply does not vest legal rights i n anyone or any organization lacking a proprietory or other tangible i n t e r e s t . Without some vested public i n t e r e s t under the l e g i s l a t i o n , the declaration, despite i t s obvious advantages as an agency control, remains an unavailable remedy for those seeking to advance the public i n t e r e s t . C e r t i o r a r i and Prohibition. If our present system of j u d i c i a l review can be said to be of any assistance to environmental control organizations, that assistance probably l i e s i n the writs of c e r t i o r a r i and p r o h i b i t i o n . These writs are very s i m i l a r in t h e i r operation and are distinguishable largely on the basis of the stage of the proceeding at which review i s sought. Prohibition i s brought to p r o h i b i t an agency from acting or deciding improperly. C e r t i o r a r i , on the other hand, i s brought to quash a decision where the agency has already acted or decided improperly. Because of t h e i r s i m i l a r i t y , time can be spent most e f f e c t i v e l y examining the operation of the writ of c e r t i o r a r i since t h i s writ has received the greatest j u d i c i a l attention to date in environmental matters. 47 The c o u r t s i n both the United Kingdom and Canada have adopted a r e s t r i c t i o n on the a v a i l a b i l i t y of c e r t i o r a r i which i s of paramount s i g n i f i c a n c e t o environmental c o n t r o l law. Agency f u n c t i o n s have been c l a s s i f i e d as j u d i c i a l , q u a s i -j u d i c i a l , and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e . C e r t i o r a r i w i l l l i e i n the f i r s t two i n s t a n c e s , but not i n the l a s t : "Whenever any body of persons having l e g a l a u t h o r i t y to determine q u e s t i o n s a f f e c t i n g the r i g h t s of s u b j e c t s , and having the duty to a c t j u d i c i a l l y , a c t i n excess of t h e i r l e g a l a u t h o r i t y , they are s u b j e c t to the c o n t r o l l i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n o f the King's Bench D i v i s i o n e x e r c i s e d i n these w r i t s . " A c c o r d i n g l y , the f i r s t h u r d l e i n any c e r t i o r a r i a p p l i c a t i o n i s to e s t a b l i s h t h a t the agency i s a c t i n g i n a j u d i c i a l or q u a s i - j u d i c i a l manner. One important precedent has been s e t i n t h i s r e gard i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Mr. J u s t i c e Wooton, i n Re P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l 41 Act, 1967; Re A p p l i c a t i o n of Hooker Chemicals (Nanaimo) L t d . h e l d t h a t i n c o n s i d e r i n g whether a h e a r i n g was to be h e l d t o c o n s i d e r o b j e c t i o n s to the permit a p p l i c a t i o n , the D i r e c t o r not o n l y had to observe the r u l e s of n a t u r a l j u s t i c e , but was a l s o bound to proceed i n a j u d i c i a l manner. In t h i s i n s t a n c e , the D i r e c t o r had made h i s d e c i s i o n without g i v i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n to the evidence f i l e d i n support of the o b j e c t i o n s , and c e r t i o r a r i i s s u e d on the a p p l i c a t i o n of a commercial fisherman to quash the D i r e c t o r ' s d e c i s i o n . Thus the j u d i c i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e dichotomy i s not n e c e s s a r i l y a bar to a c e r t i o r a r i a p p l i c a t i o n i n environmental s t a t u t e s . However, i t may w e l l be i n some i n s t a n c e s , 48 depending on the wording i n the e n a b l i n g s t a t u t e , and each c e r t i o r a r i a p p l i c a t i o n must overcome t h i s h u r d l e . The q u e s t i o n o f who has standing to seek c e r t i o r a r i remains. The p o t e n t i a l of the w r i t was made very c l e a r i n the d i s s e n t of Mr. J u s t i c e N o r r i s of the B r i t i s h Columbia Court of Appeal i n R. v Vancouver Zoning Board of Appeal, Ex 42 p a r t e North West P o i n t Grey Home Owners' A s s o c i a t i o n . Because of the gr e a t s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s d e c i s i o n to p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n through j u d i c i a l review, a b r i e f statement of the f a c t s i s warranted. The owner of a home i n the P o i n t Grey area o f Vancouver which was zoned f o r s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s , sought an exemption from the by-law i n order to c o n s t r u c t s e r v a n t s ' q u a r t e r s i n the basement. The Zoning Board granted the exemption and a homeowner and homeowners' a s s o c i a t i o n i n the area a p p l i e d f o r c e r t i o r a r i to have the Board's d e c i s i o n quashed. The m a j o r i t y h e l d t h a t n e i t h e r a p p l i c a n t had sta n d i n g s i n c e n e i t h e r was a person aggrieved by an order of the Board. The a s s o c i a t i o n owned no pr o p e r t y , and the i n d i v i d u a l f a i l e d to show t h a t her pr o p e r t y was a f f e c t e d , e i t h e r as to amenities or va l u e , by the order. The m a j o r i t y c l e a r l y reached t h e i r d e c i s i o n on a t r a d i t i o n a l , p r o p e r t y -o r i e n t e d view o f locus s t a n d i . The a p p l i c a n t s , r e p r e s e n t i n g only a p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n p r e v e n t i n g m u l t i - f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s , l a c k e d the r e q u i s i t e i n t e r e s t under t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . I t i s the d i s s e n t o f Mr. J u s t i c e N o r r i s which r e p r e s e n t s some small v i c t o r y f o r the concept of " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " 49 s t a n d i n g . He c l e a r l y found t h a t the a p p l i c a n t s were persons aggrieved, even though t h e i r i n t e r e s t was p u r e l y p u b l i c i n nature. A f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g s e v e r a l a u t h o r i t i e s , he concluded: "1. Where the a p p l i c a t i o n f o r c e r t i o r a r i i s by the A t torney-General as r e p r e s e n t i n g the g e n e r a l p u b l i c , the w r i t w i l l i s s u e as of course. 2. Where the a p p l i c a t i o n i s by a person "aggrieved" the w r i t i s i s s u e d ex d e b i t o j u s t i t i a e . 3. Where the a p p l i c a t i o n i s by a person who does not show t h a t he has a s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t , the c o u r t has a d i s c r e t i o n as t o the order. As the d i s c r e t i o n must be e x e r c i s e d j u d i c i a l l y , where i t i s apparent t h a t the body a g a i n s t which the order i s a p p l i e d f o r l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n , the Judge i n the e x e r c i s e of such d i s c r e t i o n w i l l o r d e r the w r i t to i s s u e . In such case the Court " w i l l l i s t e n to the person who i s a s t r a n g e r " , and i n t e r f e r e s to p o i n t out t h a t some oth e r body has exceeded i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n whereby some wrong or grievance has been s u s t a i n e d . The a p p l i c a n t s here, even p u t t i n g t h i s case at i t s lowest, are not i n t h a t class."43 Two important p o i n t s a r i s e from h i s d e c i s i o n f o r f u t u r e environmental agency c h a l l e n g e s by way of c e r t i o r a r i . G e n e r a l l y , environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s can e s t a b l i s h no g r e a t e r i n t e r e s t than was e x h i b i t e d i n t h i s case by the homeowners' a s s o c i a t i o n , y e t the reasoning of Mr. J u s t i c e N o r r i s might w e l l r e s u l t i n a f i n d i n g of s u f f i c i e n t i n t e r e s t . Furthermore, the o r g a n i z a t i o n may s t i l l , as s t r a n g e r s , seek the remedy of c e r t i o r a r i d e s p i t e the absence of a g r i e v a n c e . A f t e r q u o t i n g from R. v Surrey J u s t i c e s (1870) L.R.Q.B. 466, the l e a r n e d J u s t i c e concluded t h a t where the a p p l i c a n t i s a member of the p u b l i c , the i s s u e of the w r i t i s d i s c r e t i o n a r y and w i l l be r e f u s e d i f i t s i s s u e w i l l do the g e n e r a l p u b l i c no good. While t h i s d i s c r e t i o n a r y f e a t u r e by no means negates the p o t e n t i a l so e v i d e n t i n t h i s d i s s e n t , i t must be borne i n mind as a p o s s i b l e h u r d l e . 50 I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that the majority agreed with the propositions advanced i n the dissent, but concluded that the applicants would receive no benefit i f c e r t i o r a r i issued. They apparently based t h e i r decision of no benefit on the ground that no monetary or tangible loss had been established. However, the dissenting opinion, based not on proprietory or monetary in t e r e s t s , but on a genuine public i n t e r e s t , presents many encouraging p o s s i b i l i t i e s to the concept of "public i n t e r e s t " standing, and may as a r e s u l t receive further j u d i c i a l consideration. Unless the position adopted by Mr. Justice Norris gains j u d i c i a l acceptance, the p o s s i b i l i t y of environmental control organizations successfully establishing locus standi for j u d i c i a l review seems remote indeed. F a i l i n g such acceptance, public protests w i l l continue to be rejected on the seemingly i r r e l e v a n t basis of the absence of a proprietory or other tangible i n t e r e s t . 3. Locus Standi Under Environmental L e g i s l a t i o n . The general rules regarding locus standi have been stated above. However, decisions made by environmental agencies are generally made pursuant to the provisions of relevant l e g i s l a t i o n . Accordingly, to complete the picture on locus standi, i t becomes necessary to determine the extent to which our l e g i s l a t i o n provides rights not generally available under the common law. It has been demonstrated e a r l i e r that our environmental l e g i s l a t i o n does not frequently recognize the public i n t e r e s t , while i t invariably gives f u l l recognition to those with a 51 p r o p r i e t o r y or o t h e r t a n g i b e l i n t e r e s t i n the c o n t r o v e r s y . Examples abound. Under the P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l Act, any person r e s i d e n t w i t h i n f i v e m i l e s of the proposed or e x i s t i n g d i s c harge may f i l e an o b j e c t i o n t o the issuance of the 44 permit. S i m i l a r l y , s e c t i o n 16(d) of the Clean Environment 45 Act of Manitoba r e q u i r e s t h a t , p r i o r to h o l d i n g a h e a r i n g , the commission s h a l l n o t i f y the a p p l i c a n t or l i c e n s e e whose l i c e n c e i s under c o n s i d e r a t i o n , the m u n i c i p a l i t y i n which the s u b j e c t p l a n t i s l o c a t e d , and any other persons whom the commission c o n s i d e r s should be given n o t i c e . C l e a r l y these p r o v i s i o n s have the e f f e c t of c o n f e r r i n g locus s t a n d i on c e r t a i n s p e c i f i e d p a r t i e s . By i m p l i c a t i o n , those who do not q u a l i f y under the enumeration of those e n t i t l e d to n o t i c e have no r i g h t t o n o t i c e and* have no l e g a l r i g h t s under the l e g i s l a t i o n . Hence the s c r e e n i n g process under the P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l A c t , 196 7, which g i v e s the Board the power to determine whether a " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " o b j e c t o r s h a l l be heard. Our l e g i s l a t i o n seems to draw a c l e a r l i n e between those who are t a n g i b l y i n t e r e s t e d and those who are not. T h i s f a c t o r assumes great s i g n i f i c a n c e t o environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s which can scarce ever demonstrate a p r o p r i e t o r y i n t e r e s t which w i l l be a f f e c t e d by a p a r t i c u l a r p r o p o s a l . A s i m i l a r r e s u l t occurs i f a group of s c i e n t i s t s or u n i v e r s i t y p r o f e s s o r s , f o r example, wished to i n t e r v e n e i n a proceeding to o b j e c t to a p r o p o s a l . The l i s t i s indeed very long of those i n d i v i d u a l s and o r g a n i z a t i o n s which simply do not have any r i g h t s under much of our environmental l e g i s l a t i o n . S u f f i c e i t to say t h a t our p r e s e n t l e g i s l a t i o n f a i l s to e s t a b l i s h any p u b l i c r i g h t s . We continue to r e s o l v e environmental i s s u e s , a very p u b l i c matter, on a very p r i v a t e and r e s t r i c t e d b a s i s , i n c l u d i n g i n the proceedings only those with a s p e c i f i c and i d e n t i f i a b l e i n t e r e s t i n the outcome. To some e x t e n t the p u b l i c disadvantage has been m o d i f i e d by l i b e r a l j u d i c i a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of l e g i s l a t i v e p r o v i s i o n s . 46 The a p p l i c a t i o n of Hooker Chemicals, c i t e d e a r l i e r , p r o v i d e s one such example. The a p p l i c a n t , a commercial fisherman, and o t h e r s , f i l e d o b j e c t i o n s to a permit a p p l i c a t i o n q u e s t i o n i n g the s a f e t y of salmon and s h e l l f i s h , e x p r e s s i n g the concern of w a t e r f r o n t owners, and q u e s t i o n i n g the s a f e t y of swimmers i n the water th a t would be p o l l u t e d i f the permit was granted. The D i r e c t o r of the P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l Branch then advised the o b j e c t o r s t h a t the o b j e c t i o n s would not be the s u b j e c t of a h e a r i n g . The a p p l i c a n t then sought c e r t i o r a r i to quash t h a t d e c i s i o n . The r e s u l t s were encouraging. Even though s e c t i o n 13(4) of the Act gave the D i r e c t o r the s o l e d i s c r e t i o n to decide whether an o b j e c t i o n warranted a h e a r i n g , Mr. J u s t i c e Wooton concluded: "Nov; i t must be r e a d i l y conceded t h a t the h o l d i n g of a h e a r i n g i s a matter of some c o n s i d e r a b l e s i g n i f i c a n c e and t h a t t h e r e f o r e there must be proper c o n s i d e r a t i o n given by the D i r e c t o r to t h a t q u e s t i o n b e f o r e he denies the o b j e c t o r s the r i g h t to a p u b l i c h e a r i n g or i n q u i r y . " 4 7 Mr. J u s t i c e Wooton a l s o commented on the D i r e c t o r ' s d i s c r e t i o n : "Although the D i r e c t o r has been given power to f i x h i s own procedure, such procedure must be, i n my 53 respectful opinion, of such an order as to give at l e a s t the semblance of a j u d i c i a l inquiry into the matter, that i s to say something established on the p r i n c i p l e audi alteram  partem."48 This decision serves to point out that the l e g i s l a t i v e intent to exclude "public i n t e r e s t " intervention does not always succeed. I t must be remembered, however, that t h i s r e s u l t was at least p a r t i a l l y made possible by the peculiar nature of the P o l l u t i o n Control Act, 196 7, which gives s p e c i f i c , a l b e i t half-hearted, recognition to objections i n the public i n t e r e s t . The B r i t i s h Columbia l e g i s l a t i o n seems somewhat more cognizant of a "public i n t e r e s t " concept than most Canadian environmental statutes, thereby making generalizations on j u d i c i a l pronouncements i n that province somewhat precarious. The same r e s u l t i s not possible where the governing l e g i s l a t i o n makes no allowance whatever for "public i n t e r e s t " objections. This, unfortunately, must be considered the p r e v a i l i n g s i t u a t i o n i n Canada. Even the B r i t i s h Columbia act, perhaps the most responsive to the public voice, i s f a r from s a t i s f a c t o r y i n i t s present state. 4. Recent Ontario L e g i s l a t i o n Affecting Administrative  Procedure. Ontario has recently enacted l e g i s l a t i o n dealing s p e c i f i c a l l y with administrative procedure. While th i s l e g i s l a t i o n has not conferred any new standing r i g h t s , i t has to a certain extent removed many of the procedural problems which make many of our present administrative proceedings so inadequate. 54 A d e t a i l e d examination of these s t a t u t e s i s not warranted at t h i s time, but they deserve mention i n the p r e s e n t context to the e x t e n t t h a t they c o n t r i b u t e i n any way to the concept of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . On May 21, 1964, a Royal Commission I n q u i r y i n t o C i v i l Rights was i n i t i a t e d by the Province of Ontario to i n q u i r e i n t o any matter connected with or a f f e c t i n g the good govern-ment of O n t a r i o or the conduct of any p a r t of business t h e r e o f or o f the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of j u s t i c e t h e r e i n . The Commission produced a massive r e p o r t c o v e r i n g a wide range of s u b j e c t s , but those recommendations r e l e v a n t to A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Procedure may be found i n summary form i n Report No. 1, Volume 3, a t 4 9 page 1255 and f o l l o w i n g . L a r g e l y as a r e s u l t of these recommendations, the Pro v i n c e of O n t a r i o has enacted s e v e r a l s t a t u t e s a l t e r i n g e x i s t i n g r u l e s of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e procedure. 50 The most s i g n i f i c a n t f o r p r e s e n t purposes i s B i l l 54 e n t i t l e d "An Act to p r o v i d e a S i n g l e Procedure f o r the J u d i c i a l Review of the E x e r c i s e or the F a i l u r e to E x e r c i s e a S t a t u t o r y Power". T h i s s t a t u t e has the e f f e c t of i n v o k i n g by O r i g i n a t i n g N o t i c e the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the Court to review an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n : s . 2 ( l ) On any a p p l i c a t i o n by way of o r i g i n a t i n g n o t i c e , which may be s t y l e d "Notice of A p p l i c a t i o n f o r J u d i c i a l Review", the c o u r t may, n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g any r i g h t of appeal, by order grant any r e l i e f t h a t the a p p l i c a n t would be e n t i t l e d to i n any one or more of the f o l l o w i n g : 1. Proceedings by way of a p p l i c a t i o n f o r an order i n the nature of mandamus, p r o h i b i t i o n , or c e r t i o r a r i . 2. Proceedings by way of an a c t i o n f o r a d e c l a r a t i o n or an i n j u n c t i o n , or both, i n r e l a t i o n t o the e x e r c i s e , r e f u s a l to e x e r c i s e or proposed or p u rported e x e r c i s e of a s t a t u t o r y power. 55 X This statute effects two many important changes to ex i s t i n g administrative procedure. I t provides for one simple procedure to invoke the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the court for j u d i c i a l review, thereby eliminating the procedural p i t f a l l s so prevalent i n the operation of the prerogative writs. Secondly, i t allows the applicant to seek review notwithstand-ing any r i g h t of appeal. While the Act does not remove any of the standing laws which presently r e s t r i c t "public i n t e r e s t " standing, i t makes j u d i c i a l review a much simpler and more meaningful procedure to those able to establish the necessary legal standing. I t may well prove to be the necessary impetus to eliminate many ex i s t i n g rules of standing which seem both i r r e l e v a n t and u n j u s t i f i a b l e . The second Ontario statute which affects administrative 51 proceedings i s B i l l 53 e n t i t l e d "An Act to provide Procedures governing the Exercise of Statutory Powers granted to Tribunals by the Legislature wherein the Rights, Duties or P r i v i l e g e s of Persons are to be decided at or following a Hearing." I t i s not the intent of t h i s statute to provide new rights to a hearing to those who did not possess such rights p r i o r to i t s enactment. Rather, i t i s to provide s p e c i f i c procedural rules which w i l l govern i n those cases where a public hearing i s being or must be held. Accordingly, i t s p r i n c i p a l value l i e s i n the procedural safeguards which i t implements. Section 10(a), for example, gives a party to proceedings a r i g h t to c a l l and examine witnesses and present arguments 56 and submissions. S e c t i o n 10(c) p r o v i d e s a r i g h t to c r o s s -examine wi t n e s s e s . S e c t i o n 9(1) pr o v i d e s t h a t hearings s h a l l be open t o the p u b l i c except where p u b l i c s e c u r i t y or i n t i m a t e f i n a n c i a l o r p e r s o n a l matters are be i n g c o n s i d e r e d . While these p r o v i s i o n s may seem t o be of no gre a t import, i t must be r e c o g n i z e d t h a t none of these very b a s i c p r o c e d u r a l safeguards are i n any way assured i n the absence of s p e c i f i c l e g i s l a t i o n . T h i s Act would seem to be a f i r s t step i n a long s t r u g g l e to reach a s i t u a t i o n where a l l p a r t i e s to a h e a r i n g have an equal o p p o r t u n i t y to pr e s e n t t h e i r case. As such i t has gre a t p o t e n t i a l to be of a s s i s t a n c e t o anyone wit h a s u f f i c i e n t i n t e r e s t to be accepted as a p a r t y to an environmental agency h e a r i n g . Canada's p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n on locu s s t a n d i f o r j u d i c i a l review i s c l e a r l y unacceptable. Few environmental s t a t u t e s impose any mandatory o b l i g a t i o n s on agencies t o assess the environmental consequences of t h e i r d e c i s i o n s . Acts which p r o v i d e r e a l i s t i c and f a i r h e a r i n g p r o v i s i o n s are e q u a l l y r a r e . As a r e s u l t , p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n f o r the most p a r t simply does not e x i s t i n Canada. At p r e s e n t , the p u b l i c has a l e g a l r i g h t to p a r t i c i p a t e o n l y when the agency so d e c i d e s . We w i l l have t r u e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n r i g h t s only when the p u b l i c can advise the agency when i t wishes t o be i n v o l v e d i n the d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s , and can enforce t h a t d e c i s i o n through the j u d i c i a l process of review i f necessary. S u r e l y the time has come when we must rec o g n i z e environmental q u a l i t y as the p u b l i c i s s u e i t r e a l l y 57 i s , and cease to treat i t as merely another issue of competing private property rig h t s . C. Environmental Control Organizations and Environmental Tort Actions. S t r i c t l y speaking, environmental control organizations, representing only the "public i n t e r e s t " , have no proprietory interests upon which to bring a c i v i l s u i t in nuisance or negligence. Accordingly, the simple answer i s that they have no le g a l standing i n the t o r t area at present. However, this subject i s worthy of b r i e f mention i n the context of t h i s paper because environmental control organizations represent one potential representative p l a i n t i f f to conduct l i t i g a t i o n on behalf of the members of a class seeking damages or an injunction for injury or loss suffered as a r e s u l t of a tortious act having environmental consequences. The conclusion was reached i n Chapter 1 that environmental control organizations stand in a much superior position to individuals with respect to t h e i r a b i l i t y to p a r t i c i p a t e e f f e c t i v e l y i n environmental controversies. Those reasons apply equally to the concept of the representative action for damages. There are clear and well developed rules of law which allow individuals to sue for injury or loss suffered as a r e s u l t of a tortious act. Applications of these rules to cases of property loss have enabled individuals to sue success-52 f u l l y for environmental damages. However, there are instances where i t i s both u n r e a l i s t i c and undesirable to 58 r e q u i r e t h a t the i n d i v i d u a l b r i n g s u i t i n h i s i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y . The r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s u i t has c o n s i d e r a b l e p o t e n t i a l i n these i n s t a n c e s . Where a number of people s u f f e r the same damage from the same a c t , s u i t s by i n d i v i d u a l s merely f l o o d the courts with numerous proceedings o f an i d e n t i c a l nature, whereas a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s u i t has the p o t e n t i a l t o dispose of the claims of a l l those a f f e c t e d i n one proceeding. T h i s type of a c t i o n has the added advantage of s a v i n g the members of the c l a s s a grea t d e a l of time, expense and ve x a t i o n which would be i n e v i t a b l e i f each member a f f e c t e d had to commence an a c t i o n i n an i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y . In environmental t o r t a c t i o n s , the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e concept assumes a p a r t i c u l a r s i g n i f i c a n c e . The i n j u r e d p a r t y i s u s u a l l y s u i n g e i t h e r an i n d u s t r y or government as defendant, a c o n s i d e r a b l y awesome task f o r most i n d i v i d u a l s . The problem of p r o o f i s p a r t i c u l a r l y complex s i n c e t e c h n i c a l evidence i s g e n e r a l l y a p r e r e q u i s i t e to p r o v i n g the a l l e g e d environmental damage and e s t a b l i s h i n g the defendant's l i a b i l i t y f o r t h a t 53 damage. A.R. Lucas has examined the p r o c e d u r a l problems and concluded t h a t the p r i v a t e t o r t a c t i o n s have a number of d e f i c i e n c i e s with r e s p e c t to environmental s u i t s . In the f i n a l a n a l y s i s , t o deny the members of a c l a s s the r i g h t t o j o i n f o r c e s to conduct the necessary l i t i g a t i o n i s i n many i n s t a n c e s tantamount to denying them a remedy. One of the most e f f e c t i v e methods of a l l o w i n g members of a c l a s s to seek a common remedy would be to allow 59 environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s t o r e p r e s e n t the c l a s s . T h i s r e s u l t i s very u n l i k e l y , however, under p r e s e n t Canadian laws, s i n c e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a c t i o n s are not f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e . Where they are a v a i l a b l e , i t seems u n l i k e l y t h a t environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s would have the necessary s t a n d i n g t o a c t as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p l a i n t i f f s f o r the i n j u r e d c l a s s . Most p r o v i n c e s c o n t a i n some p r o v i s i o n s i n t h e i r r u l e s of c i v i l procedure to allow a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a c t i o n . B r i t i s h Columbia's r u l e s c o n t a i n the f o l l o w i n g p r o v i s i o n : "Where there are numerous persons having the same i n t e r e s t i n one cause or matter, one or more of such persons may sue or be sued, or may be a u t h o r i z e d by the Court or a judge to defend i n such cause or matter, on b e h a l f o f , or f o r the b e n e f i t of a l l persons so i n t e r e s t e d . " 5 4 O n t a r i o has a s i m i l a r p r o v i s i o n which has been the s u b j e c t of c o n s i d e r a b l e j u d i c i a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n : "Where there are numerous persons having the same i n t e r e s t , one or more may sue or be sued, or may be a u t h o r i z e d by the Court to defend, on b e h a l f o f or f o r the b e n e f i t of a l l . " 5 5 A b r i e f examination o f the j u d i c i a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n given t h i s r u l e demonstrates a l l too c l e a r l y the extent to which i t s u s e f u l n e s s has been r e s t r i c t e d . In Watch Tower B i b l e and T r a c t S o c i e t y E t a l v The  Attorney-General f o r C a n a d a , ^ the c o u r t had to determine whether the r e l i g i o u s or s p i r i t u a l b e l i e f of an i n d i v i d u a l seeking to r e p r e s e n t the s o c i e t y e n t i t l e d the p l a i n t i f f to the b e n e f i t of the r u l e . A f t e r c i t i n g an e a r l i e r d e c i s i o n , the Court concluded: 60 "This e x p o s i t i o n of the p r i n c i p l e on which the Rule i s based seems to c o n f i r m the view t h a t the i n t e r e s t s of the persons r e f e r r e d t o i n the r u l e must be a m a t e r i a l or f i n a n c i a l i n t e r e s t or based on some s t a t u t e , r e g u l a t i o n , or order ... "57 The p l a i n t i f f s were h e l d not to be e n t i t l e d to the o p e r a t i o n o f the r u l e . T h i s case would seem to have the c l e a r e f f e c t of removing any p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t an environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n would ever r e c e i v e s u f f i c i e n t s t a t u s t o ac t as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p l a i n t i f f , s i n c e t h e i r i n t e r e s t i s scarce ever more than a e s t h e t i c and r e c r e a t i o n a l , and they r e c e i v e no l e g a l i n t e r e s t o f any s o r t under our present s t a t u t e s , r e g u l a t i o n s and o r d e r s . Two f u r t h e r d e c i s i o n s appear t o pr e c l u d e any p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the p r o c e d u r a l p r o v i s i o n a l l o w i n g f o r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a c t i o n s w i l l e ver have any meaning as an instrument of p u b l i c c o n t r o l over e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y t o r t i o u s a c t i o n s . In Preston v H i l t o n ^ the court concluded t h a t t o the extent t h a t the i n j u r y a f f e c t s each one of the c l a s s as a member of the p u b l i c , r e l i e f can only be had at the s u i t of the At t o r n e y - G e n e r a l , and t h a t t h i s r u l e cannot be avoided by the p l a i n t i f f s s e t t i n g up a c l a i m t o r e p r e s e n t a l l those members of 59 the p u b l i c who are a f f e c t e d by the wrongful a c t . A s i m i l a r c o n c l u s i o n was reached i n a d e c i s i o n on the e q u i v a l e n t New 6 0 Brunswick p r o v i s i o n . The e f f e c t o f these p r o v i s i o n s seems t o be t h a t once a problem becomes s i g n i f i c a n t l y p u b l i c i n terms of the number of people i t a f f e c t s , then the only person e n t i t l e d to b r i n g the a c t i o n i s the Attorn e y - G e n e r a l as the p r o t e c t o r o f the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . We seem to be back to square 61 one, i n the sense t h a t we must again r e l y on a very p o l i t i c a l l y conscious government department to take a c t i o n a g a i n s t a p o l l u t e r c a u s i n g g r e a t inconvenience and perhaps i n j u r y t o a s u b s t a n t i a l p o r t i o n of the p u b l i c . F o l l o w i n g Preston v H i l t o n , a nuisance a c t i o n i s not a proper s u b j e c t f o r a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a c t i o n , s i n c e each person c l a i m i n g i n j u r y beyond t h a t s u f f e r e d by the g e n e r a l p u b l i c must b r i n g an a c t i o n i n h i s i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y and e s t a b l i s h t h a t s p e c i a l i n j u r y . Again we have a s i t u a t i o n where a p o t e n t i a l l y v a l u a b l e remedy has been n u l l i f i e d by somewhat a r t i f i c i a l r e s t r i c t i o n s to the p o i n t where i t i s of q u e s t i o n a b l e v a l u e . Present r e s t r i c t i o n s prevent r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a c t i o n s i n most i n s t a n c e s concerning environmental t o r t s , s i n c e nuisance, the most fr e q u e n t b a s i s f o r such a c t i o n s , i s not c o n s i d e r e d a p p r o p r i a t e f o r the concept. I t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s w i l l ever be considered a p p r o p r i a t e r e p r e s e n t a t -i v e s under the p r e s e n t r u l e , s i n c e they l a c k the necessary i n t e r e s t to q u a l i f y . T h i s d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t t h e i r s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t makes them the l o g i c a l and i n some i n s t a n c e s the o n l y i d e n t i f i a b l e e n t i t y capable of adequately conducting such l i t i g a t i o n . Admittedly there are problems of a very s p e c i a l nature connected w i t h the o p e r a t i o n of the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a c t i o n . I d e n t i f y i n g the members of the c l a s s i s sometimes very d i f f i c u l t , y e t very necessary s i n c e the c l a s s a c t i o n i s only b e n e f i c i a l i f a l l those a f f e c t e d are r e p r e s e n t e d t o p r e c l u d e the n e c e s s i t y of f u r t h e r l i t i g a t i o n . N o t i c e t o the c l a s s i s 62 always a d i f f i c u l t problem where the c l a s s i s very l a r g e . Where damages are recovered, apportionment among members of the c l a s s can become a very complex problem. However, many of these problems can be overcome by keeping the c l a s s a c t i o n concept w i t h i n reasonable l i m i t s . For i n s t a n c e , where the c l a s s i n c l u d e s v i r t u a l l y every member of a p r o v i n c e , any damages recovered c o u l d be d i r e c t e d t o the government to be c r e d i t e d t o the c i t i z e n s ' tax l o a d , or t o be spent i n r e c t i f y i n g the damage complained o f . We may wish to r e s t r i c t the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a c t i o n to those i n s t a n c e s where the c l a s s can be d e f i n e d s u f f i c i e n t l y t o allow proper n o t i c e and r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of each member's c l a i m . These problems are c l e a r l y very s e r i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n s and cannot be l i g h t l y d i s m i s s e d . However, what i s r e q u i r e d i s an updating of the laws we a l r e a d y have to adapt them t o c u r r e n t problems. I f a f t e r a c l o s e examination i t should be concluded i n good f a i t h t h a t the environmental c l a s s a c t i o n i n t o r t i s not a workable s o l u t i o n , then some oth e r remedy w i l l have to be found. I t seems u n j u s t i f i e d t o continue to r e s t r i c t the o p e r a t i o n o f the c l a s s a c t i o n , however, u n t i l such examination has been made. 63 CHAPTER 111 THE AMERICAN APPROACH TO "PUBLIC INTEREST" STANDING There e x i s t s a s u b s t a n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e between the American and Canadian approaches t o p u b l i c i n t e r e s t s t a n d i n g . Canadian law has continued to r e q u i r e a p r o p r i e t o r y or other t a n g i b l e i n t e r e s t to e s t a b l i s h l e g a l s t a n d i n g to sue. We have seen few l e g i s l a t i v e changes i n the t r a d i t i o n a l s t anding requirements. A c c o r d i n g l y , there are extremely few o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n Canada to l i t i g a t e the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n environmental matters, and the p u b l i c environmental c o n t r o l movement has never reached a p l a c e of prominence i n the environmental d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s . However, l i b e r a l j u d i c i a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Procedure Act and v a r i o u s l e g i s l a t i v e p r o v i s i o n s a f f e c t i n g s t a n d i n g , have allowed f o r the growth of a s t r o n g environmental c o n t r o l movement i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s . Environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s have been granted the necessary s t a n d i n g t o c h a l l e n g e d e c i s i o n s of agencies having j u r i s d i c t i o n over matters a f f e c t i n g the environment. Acts have been passed at both the F e d e r a l and State l e v e l s which i n e f f e c t remove a l l s t a n d i n g requirements and allow anyone to sue to enf o r c e e x i s t i n g environmental standards. Canada has f a i l e d t o reco g n i z e t h a t the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n a h e a l t h y environment i s d e s e r v i n g of l e g a l p r o t e c t i o n . T h i s f a i l u r e i s not i r r e v e r s i b l e , however, and the experience i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s p r o v i d e s a ready model upon which to p a t t e r n p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Canada. Those f a c e t s of the American experience which have had a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on s t a n d i n g requirements are d e s e r v i n g of c a r e f u l s c r u t i n y . Because the American tendency to r e l a x p u b l i c s t a n d i n g requirements has not been without r e s t r i c t i o n s , some attempt must be made to determine the extent to which environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s are now able to e s t a b l i s h the necessary s t a n d i n g to l i t i g a t e environmental i s s u e s . F i n a l l y , the American experience under r e l a x e d s t a n d i n g r u l e s must be e v a l u a t e d to determine whether p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n has enhanced s i g n i f i c a n t l y the a b i l i t y of t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n to c o n t r o l environmental q u a l i t y . A. 1. Standing and the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Procedure A c t . The American j u d i c i a r y has accepted, a t l e a s t i n p a r t , the p u b l i c a c t i o n as a l e g i t i m a t e and proper method of l i t i g a t i n g and p r o t e c t i n g the " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " . Many in s t a n c e s e x i s t where environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s have s u c c e s s f u l l y e s t a b l i s h e d l e g a l s t a n d i n g to c h a l l e n g e an a l l e g e d l y improper agency a c t i o n a f f e c t i n g the environment where those o r g a n i z a t i o n s claimed a p u r e l y a e s t h e t i c i n t e r e s t 61 i n r e c r e a t i o n a l or c o n s e r v a t i o n a l v a l u e s . There i s , however, c o n s i d e r a b l e l a c k of c l a r i t y as to the p r e c i s e type of i n t e r e s t which must be a l l e g e d to e s t a b l i s h l e g a l s t a n d i n g . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the most r e c e n t d e c i s i o n of The U n i t e d 6 2 S t a t e s Supreme Court i n S i e r r a Club v Morton does l i t t l e t o r e s o l v e t h i s u n c e r t a i n t y . In order to understand and assess t h i s now governing d e c i s i o n , i t i s necessary t o examine b r i e f l y a number of s i g n i f i c a n t d e c i s i o n s which preceded i t . H i s t o r i c a l l y , American law r e q u i r e d a p r i v a t e c i t i z e n t o show t h a t he had been d e p r i v e d of a l e g a l r i g h t b e f o r e t h a t c i t i z e n would be granted l e g a l s t a n d i n g to seek j u d i c i a l review of the agency d e c i s i o n . The 1924 d e c i s i o n of 6 3 B a l t i m o r e & O.R.R. v U n i t e d S t a t e s e s t a b l i s h e d a s i g n i f i c a n t d eparture from the t r a d i t i o n a l approach to l e g a l s t a n d i n g by h o l d i n g t h a t where the s t a t u t e g i v i n g the agency i t s powers re c o g n i z e d c e r t a i n r i g h t s i n i n d i v i d u a l s , such r i g h t s were e n t i t l e d t o l e g a l p r o t e c t i o n , and the agency was r e q u i r e d to given them due c o n s i d e r a t i o n p r i o r to t a k i n g any a c t i o n . F a i l u r e t o do so c o n s t i t u t e d a d e p r i v a t i o n of a l e g a l r i g h t , and gave l e g a l s t a n d i n g to the i n d i v i d u a l d e p r i v e d . 64 F.C.C. v Sanders Bros. Radio S t a t i o n e f f e c t i v e l y removed the requirement t h a t a l e g a l r i g h t must be d e p r i v e d b e f o r e s t a n d i n g would be c o n f e r r e d . A r a d i o s t a t i o n was given s t a n d i n g to seek review of an agency d e c i s i o n because the s t a t u t e which a l l e g e d l y had been v i o l a t e d allowed an appeal from the commission's orders by anyone aggrieved or whose i n t e r e s t s were ad v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d . The c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n Abbott L a b o r a t o r i e s v Gardner^ 5 f u r t h e r extended the Sanders r u l i n g by c o n c l u d i n g t h a t the r e l e v a n t p r o v i s i o n of the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Procedure A c t ^ governing the procedure of a l l F e d e r a l agencies, guaranteed a r i g h t to j u d i c i a l review to those aggrieved or a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d whether or not the e n a b l i n g s t a t u t e so p r o v i d e d . S e c t i o n 702 p r o v i d e s : "A person s u f f e r i n g l e g a l wrong because of agency a c t i o n , or a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d or 66 aggrieved by agency a c t i o n w i t h i n the meaning of a r e l e v a n t s t a t u t e , i s e n t i t l e d t o j u d i c i a l review t h e r e o f . " American co u r t s have c o n s i s t e n t l y f o l l o w e d t h i s d e c i s i o n , with the r e s u l t t h a t one need not show a r i g h t i n the s t a t u t e i t s e l f to j u d i c i a l review. However, i t i s necessary i n each i n s t a n c e to show a d v e r s i t y or grievance as a r e s u l t of agency a c t i o n under the s t a t u t e . A c c o r d i n g l y , whether the r i g h t to review i s sought on the b a s i s of a p r o v i s i o n i n the r e l e v a n t s t a t u t e , or under the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Procedure Act, the a d v e r s i t y or grievance necessary t o e s t a b l i s h s t a n d i n g must be found i n the r i g h t s and i n t e r e s t c r e a t e d by the r e l e v a n t s t a t u t e . I f the s t a t u t e c l e a r l y does not p r o t e c t the r i g h t or i n t e r e s t claimed, then s t a n d i n g w i l l not be c o n f e r r e d , and no r i g h t to j u d i c i a l review e x i s t s . T h i s p o i n t becomes extremely s i g n i f i c a n t i n environmental matters, s i n c e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t groups can o n l y hope to e s t a b l i s h s t a n d i n g to seek review i f the r i g h t o r i n t e r e s t claimed by the group i s r e c o g n i z e d by the s t a t u t e under which the agency a c t i o n i s b e i n g taken. The q u e s t i o n of " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " s t a n d i n g has r e c e i v e d c o n s i d e r a b l e a t t e n t i o n i n the environmental f i e l d , where environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s have f r e q u e n t l y sought to e s t a b l i s h themselves as proper p a r t i e s to c h a l l e n g e agency a c t i o n . 6 7 In the S c e n i c Hudson d e c i s i o n , s t a n d i n g was c o n f e r r e d on the Scenic Hudson P r e s e r v a t i o n Conference on the b a s i s t h a t the F e d e r a l Power Act r e c o g n i z e d the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n a e s t h e t i c a l l y d e s i r a b l e r e c r e a t i o n a l and c o n s e r v a t i o n a l lands. The c o u r t h e l d that the F e d e r a l Power Commission should have co n s i d e r e d those values i n determining whether to grant the s u b j e c t l i c e n c e s necessary to the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the proposed power f a c i l i t i e s . On the q u e s t i o n of who should be c o n s i d e r e d aggrieved: "[T]hose who by t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s and conduct have e x h i b i t e d a s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t i n such [ c o n s e r v a t i o n a l ] areas must be h e l d t o be gg i n c l u d e d i n the c l a s s of 'aggrieved p a r t i e s ' . " While the r e l e v a n t s t a t u t e i n S c e n i c Hudson contained a s p e c i f i c p r o v i s i o n a l l o w i n g j u d i c i a l review, the s t a t u t e 69 under c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n Road Review League v Boyd was s i l e n t as to j u d i c i a l review. In the l a t t e r d e c i s i o n , the c o u r t simply concluded t h a t 'aggrieved' had the same meaning under the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Procedure Act as under the F e d e r a l Power A c t , and t h a t j u d i c i a l review was a v a i l a b l e unless 70 there was a c l e a r c o n g r e s s i o n a l i n t e n t to the c o n t r a r y . The above d e c i s i o n s were completely i n accord with e x i s t i n g law on s t a n d i n g , s i n c e both e n a b l i n g s t a t u t e s r e c o g n i z e d environmental v a l u e s , thereby a l l o w i n g a f i n d i n g t h a t those concerned with environmental values had l e g a l s t a n d i n g to p r o t e c t them. The s t a t u t e i n S c e n i c Hudson s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e d f o r j u d i c i a l review, while the l a t t e r f a i l e d t o do so, thereby n e c e s s i t a t i n g a c o n f e r r a l of l e g a l s t a n d i n g under the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Procedure Ac t . Both d e c i s i o n s r e f l e c t an unquestionable j u d i c i a l acceptance of " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " s t a n d i n g , s i n c e i n n e i t h e r case were the o r g a n i z a t i o n s c l a i m i n g more than a p u r e l y p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n the environment. S u r p r i s i n g l y , the c o u r t i n Road Review 68 c o n f e r r e d l e g a l s t a n d i n g on the o r g a n i z a t i o n d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t i t hadn't p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e proceedings l e a d i n g to the agency d e c i s i o n . Since the above d e c i s i o n s both d e a l t with l o c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , i t was reasonable to conclude t h a t i n 1967, f o l l o w i n g the Road Review d e c i s i o n , l o c a l environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s had l e g a l s t a n d i n g to c h a l l e n g e agency d e c i s i o n s a f f e c t i n g the environment. The f i r s t o p p o r t u n i t y f o r the United S t a t e s Supreme Court to extend t h i s r u l i n g t o n a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s came 71 i n C i t i z e n s Committee f o r the Hudson V a l l e y v Volpe. The c o u r t upheld the d e c i s i o n of the Second C i r c u i t , which had extended the S c e n i c Hudson and Road Review d e c i s i o n s to c o n f e r s t a n d i n g on the S i e r r a Club, a n a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n seeking to c h a l l e n g e a d e c i s i o n to i s s u e the permits necessary to c o n s t r u c t a proposed expressway. N e i t h e r the C i t i z e n s Committee nor the S i e r r a Club a l l e g e d t h a t the proposed expressway or the issuance of the dredge and f i l l p ermit threatened any d i r e c t p e r s o n a l or economic harm t o them. They simply a s s e r t e d the i n t e r e s t of the p u b l i c i n the n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s , s c e n i c beauty, and h i s t o r i c a l value of the area immediately threatened with d r a s t i c a l t e r a t i o n , c l a i m i n g they were aggrieved when the Corps acted a d v e r s e l y 72 to the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . Here the c o u r t was once again faced with a pure " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " a c t i o n . A f t e r r eviewing the S c e n i c  Hudson and Road Review d e c i s i o n s , the Supreme Court adopted the f o l l o w i n g statement of the Second C i r c u i t : "We h o l d , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n environmental resources - an i n t e r e s t c r e a t e d by S t a t u t e s a f f e c t i n g the issuance of t h i s permit - i s a l e g a l l y p r o t e c t e d i n t e r e s t a f f o r d i n g those r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of the p u b l i c s t a n d i n g to o b t a i n j u d i c i a l review of agency a c t i o n a l l e g e d to be i n c o n t r a v e n t i o n of t h a t p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . " 7 3 As a r e s u l t of t h i s d e c i s i o n , the p l a i n t i f f s must show t h a t the e n a b l i n g s t a t u t e p r o v i d e d f o r j u d i c i a l review or t h a t the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Procedure Act was a p p l i c a b l e . In a d d i t i o n , the c o u r t r e q u i r e d a showing t h a t those seeking to e s t a b l i s h s t a n d i n g were r e s p o n s i b l e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . The l a t t e r requirement has been c r i t i c i z e d i n an A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law Note: " I f the p u b l i c has been wrongly damaged, any i n d i v i d u a l should have s t a n d i n g t o c o r r e c t such wrong. The h o l d i n g i n C i t i z e n s Committee, while not e l i m i n a t i n g the p o s s i b i l i t y of t h i s r e s u l t , leaves i t open."74 T e c h n i c a l l y , a p u b l i c wrong should be capable of c o r r e c t i o n by any i n t e r e s t e d i n d i v i d u a l . However, i n t h i s i n s t a n c e , the requirement o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y would seem to s i g n i f y n o t h i n g more than an attempt by the Court to r e s t r i c t s t a n d i n g to those o r g a n i z a t i o n s which e x h i b i t a s e r i o u s i n t e r e s t i n the c o n t r o v e r s y . T h i s should s u r e l y be a requirement i n any i n s t a n c e where an o r g a n i z a t i o n seeks to l i t i g a t e i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , and as such i s not i n any sense repugnant to the concept of the p u b l i c a c t i o n . In any event t h i s d e c i s i o n had the obvious e f f e c t of extending " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " s t a n d i n g to n a t i o n a l c o n s e r v a t i o n groups with broad environmental i n t e r e s t s i n a v a r i e t y of areas. • 70 In f a c t , the S i e r r a Club had e a r l i e r o b t ained s t a n d i n g i n 75 Parker v U n i t e d S t a t e s a 1969 d e c i s i o n i n which they were allowed to seek a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment t h a t a proposed timber s a l e from a n a t i o n a l f o r e s t was unlawful because c e r t a i n s t a t u t o r y procedures were not met. The Supreme Court d e c i s i o n i n C i t i z e n s Committee appeared to c o n f i r m t h a t n a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s c o u l d s u c c e s s f u l l y e s t a b l i s h s t a n d i n g i n a p p r o p r i a t e circumstances. 7 6 Two Supreme Court d e c i s i o n s handed down on the same day p r o v i d e d a t w o - f o l d t e s t f o r s t a n d i n g which has been the governing t e s t to date. F i r s t l y , the p l a i n t i f f s must a l l e g e i n j u r y i n f a c t , and secondly, the i n j u r y had to be to an i n t e r e s t arguably w i t h i n the zone of i n t e r e s t s to be p r o t e c t e d or r e g u l a t e d by the s t a t u t e t h a t the agency was a l l e g e d l y v i o l a t i n g . At f i r s t glance, t h i s t e s t does not appear t o a l t e r s u b s t a n t i a l l y the s t a n d i n g r u l e s to be a p p l i e d to p u b l i c i n t e r e s t groups. The second requirement merely r e i t e r a t e d the long e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e t h a t the s t a t u t e must express an i n t e n t on the p a r t of Congress t o p r o t e c t the r i g h t or i n t e r e s t on which the c l a i m f o r j u d i c i a l review i s based. I t i s the f i r s t requirement t h a t the p l a i n t i f f a l l e g e an i n j u r y i n f a c t , which has r e c e i v e d subsequent j u d i c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n most unfavourable to the environmental c o n t r o l movement. The pre s e n t t r e n d t o r e v e r t to a more r e s t r i c t e d view of s t a n d i n g i n environmental cases began i n the C a l i f o r n i a 77 Ninth C i r c u i t . The S i e r r a Club, adamantly opposed t o a 71 proposed r e c r e a t i o n a l r e s o r t to be c o n s t r u c t e d i n the M i n e r a l King V a l l e y i n C a l i f o r n i a , sought a d e c l a r a t i o n and temporary i n j u n c t i o n to prevent issuance of the permits necessary t o commence c o n s t r u c t i o n on the development and access road. The S i e r r a Club a l l e g e d a s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t i n the c o n s e r v a t i o n and sound maintenance i n the n a t i o n a l parks, game ref u g e s , and f o r e s t s o f the country. The F e d e r a l D i s t r i c t Court c o n f e r r e d s t a n d i n g on the p l a i n t i f f S i e r r a Club and granted the requested temporary i n j u n c t i o n . T h i s d e c i s i o n was r e v e r s e d on appeal t o the 7 8 N i n t h C i r c u i t , which concluded t h a t the S i e r r a Club l a c k e d a s u f f i c i e n t i n t e r e s t i n the use t o which n a t i o n a l parks and f o r e s t s are put to e s t a b l i s h l e g a l s t a n d i n g . Since the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Procedure Act r e q u i r e s more than concern t o be aggrieved, the p l a i n t i f f ' s concern over the proposed development was i n s u f f i c i e n t to c o n s t i t u t e an a l l e g a t i o n of i n j u r y i n f a c t . The Ninth C i r c u i t simply chose t o d i s t i n g u i s h d e c i s i o n s such as C i t i z e n s Committee, Scenic  Hudson and Road Review, and d i d so on grounds ranging from v a r i a t i o n s i n the s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g j u d i c i a l review, t o the f a c t t h a t i n p r i o r i n s t a n c e s the S i e r r a Club had been j o i n e d by l o c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s made up o f l o c a l r e s i d e n t s , at l e a s t some of whom used the d i s p u t e d areas. Although i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o g e n e r a l i z e , the c o u r t was q u i t e o b v i o u s l y j u s t i f y i n g i t s r e f u s a l to c o n f e r s t a n d i n g on the f a c t t h a t the S i e r r a Club was not a l o c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n and a c c o r d i n g l y had not e s t a b l i s h e d i n t e r f e r e n c e with i t s members' use of the area i n q u e s t i o n . T h i s p o i n t i s 72 extremely s i g n i f i c a n t s i n c e i t has the e f f e c t of r e s t r i c t i n g or p a r t i a l l y r e s t r i c t i n g group p a r t i c i p a t i o n t o l o c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s . A f t e r s p e c i f i c a l l y r e c o g n i z i n g C i t i z e n s and Parker v Un i t e d S t a t e s as p r i o r i n s t a n c e s where s t a n d i n g had been c o n f e r r e d on the S i e r r a Club, the co u r t s t a t e d : "In both of these cases, however, the S i e r r a Club was j o i n e d by l o c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s made up o f l o c a l r e s i d e n t s and users of the area a f f e c t e d by the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a c t i o n . No such persons or o r g a n i z a t i o n s w i t h a d i r e c t and obvious i n t e r e s t have j o i n e d i n t h i s action."79 T h i s reasoning has the obvious e f f e c t of p r e v e n t i n g e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s from making s u c c e s s f u l c h a l l e n g e s with r e s p e c t to remote and p r e s e n t l y u n i n h a b i t e d areas. The d i s t i n c t i o n s of these cases has r e c e i v e d c r i t i c i s m : "Furthermore, adoption of a l o c a l r e s i d e n t y requirement f o r s t a n d i n g i n environmental cases would bar any cha l l e n g e t o an agency a c t i o n t h a t a f f e c t e d an u n i n h a b i t e d area such as the C o n t i n e n t a l S h e l f or p a r t s of Alaska."80 At very l e a s t , t h i s d e c i s i o n ensures t h a t the l a r g e r , n a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , which are i n many i n s t a n c e s i n the be s t p o s i t i o n t o presen t an adequate case, w i l l be f o r c e d t o e n l i s t the support of l o c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s wherever p o s s i b l e . The Ninth C i r c u i t ' s r e l u c t a n c e to accept environmental concern as a s u f f i c i e n t i n t e r e s t t o con f e r s t a n d i n g was again i n evidence i n a subsequent d e c i s i o n , Alameda Conservation 81 A s s o c i a t i o n v C a l i f o r n i a where the st a n d i n g o f the . s u b j e c t a s s o c i a t i o n was a t i s s u e . E i g h t i n d i v i d u a l s and one l o c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n sought to e s t a b l i s h l e g a l s t a n d i n g t o 73 review an agency d e c i s i o n a l l o w i n g land f i l l s to the San F r a n c i s c o Bay area [emphasis mine]. The m a j o r i t y concluded t h a t f o u r of the e i g h t i n d i v i d u a l s who owned p r o p e r t y near the Bay had s t a n d i n g , and t h a t the c o n s e r v a t i o n o r g a n i z a t i o n d i d not. No o p i n i o n was expressed by the m a j o r i t y with r e s p e c t to the remaining f o u r i n d i v i d u a l s who owned no p r o p e r t y near the Bay. The o r g a n i z a t i o n was denied s t a n d i n g because "the a s s o c i a t i o n does not a s s e r t t h a t any of g i t s r i g h t s or p r o p e r t i e s are being i n f r i n g e d or threatened." In d i r e c t accord with i t s e a r l i e r d e c i s i o n i n S i e r r a v H i c k e l , the m a j o r i t y r e f u s e d to r e c o g n i z e a p u r e l y p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n the s t a t e of the environment. However, the d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n of two judges gave st a n d i n g to a l l e i g h t i n d i v i d u a l s , on the b a s i s t h a t "the bay area was not the e x c l u s i v e preserve of those who own p r o p e r t y t h e r e , and those c l a i m i n g p e r s o n a l damage should be able to 8 3 l i t i g a t e those g r i e v a n c e s . " Judge Hamley would have c o n f e r r e d s t a n d i n g on the A s s o c i a t i o n as w e l l . A f t e r a c c e p t i n g the t w o - f o l d t e s t f o r s t a n d i n g enunciated i n Data P r o c e s s i n g , he concluded: "In my o p i n i o n these a l l e g a t i o n s concerning i n t e r f e r e n c e with p l a i n t i f f ' s enjoyment of the a e s t h e t i c , c o n s e r v a t i o n a l and r e c r e a t i o n a l values a s s o c i a t e d with San F r a n c i s c o Bay amply g^ e s t a b l i s h t h e i r s t a n d i n g t o prosecute t h i s s u i t . " Even the Judge most disposed to the e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s ' p o s i t i o n granted s t a n d i n g i n t h i s d e c i s i o n only because the a s s o c i a t i o n a l l e g e d i n t e r f e r e n c e with t h e i r enjoyment of the area. The m a j o r i t y , on the other hand, were disposed only to p r o t e c t ' t a n g i b l e p r o p e r t y ' i n t e r e s t s . 74 F o l l o w i n g the H i c k e l and Alameda d e c i s i o n s , two opposing l i n e s of F e d e r a l Court d e c i s i o n s were c l e a r l y d i s c e r n a b l e with r e s p e c t to environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s and the p u b l i c a c t i o n . Scenic Hudson, Road  Review, and C i t i z e n s , a l l accepted the p u b l i c a c t i o n by ' environmental organization's as a l e g i t i m a t e v e h i c l e f o r e x p r e s s i o n of p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n the environment. The N i n t h C i r c u i t , both i n H i c k e l and Alameda, sought to reverse t h i s t r e n d by r e v e r t i n g to a p r o p e r t y and use concept of s t a n d i n g . I t i s with t h i s background t h a t S i e r r a v H i c k e l 8 5 (sub nom S i e r r a v Morton) reached the Supreme Court from the N i n t h C i r c u i t . I t appeared t h a t the p u b l i c a c t i o n by c o n s e r v a t i o n o r g a n i z a t i o n s had gained g e n e r a l acceptance i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s F e d e r a l Courts, and t h a t the N i n t h C i r c u i t had i n e f f e c t become out of l i n e with the p r e v a i l i n g t r e n d . I f the Supreme Court chose to adopt t h i s view, the M i n e r a l King q u e s t i o n gave i t an e x c e l l e n t o p p o r t u n i t y to g e n t l y c h a s t i s e the N i n t h C i r c u i t and to r e s t o r e acceptance of p u b l i c a c t i o n s by environmental o r g a n i z a t i o n s . However, t h i s was not to be the case. In a r a t h e r h a l f - h e a r t e d f a s h i o n , the Supreme Court a c t u a l l y sanctioned the d e c i s i o n s reached i n H i c k e l and Alameda. Seven judges took p a r t i n the d e c i s i o n . Four a f f i r m e d the N i n t h C i r c u i t d e c i s i o n , while three d i s s e n t e d and would have given the S i e r r a Club s t a n d i n g to sue. The S i e r r a Club d i d not a l l e g e t h a t the c h a l l e n g e d development would a f f e c t the c l u b or i t s members i n t h e i r 75 a c t i v i t i e s or t h a t they used M i n e r a l King, but maintained t h a t the p r o j e c t would a d v e r s e l y change the area's a e s t h e t i c s and ecology. The Club sued as a membership c o r p o r a t i o n w i t h a s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t i n the c o n s e r v a t i o n and sound maintenance of the n a t i o n a l parks, game refu g e s , and f o r e s t s of the country. The m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n , d e l i v e r e d by Mr. J u s t i c e Stewart, r e s t e d upon the f a c t t h a t the S i e r r a Club had f a i l e d t o a l l e g e i n j u r y i n f a c t : "But the 1 i n j u r y i n f a c t 1 t e s t r e q u i r e s more than an i n j u r y t o a co g n i z a b l e i n t e r e s t . I t r e q u i r e s t h a t the p a r t y seeking review be h i m s e l f among the i n j u r e d . " 8 6 He concluded t h a t the cl u b ' s f a i l u r e t o a l l e g e a c t u a l i n j u r y t o the club o r i t s membership was based on a misunderstanding of the " p u b l i c a c t i o n " . He conceded t h a t there i s no longer a requirement of e s t a b l i s h i n g economic harm, and t h a t the i n t e r e s t s capable o f p r o t e c t i o n have been broadened to i n c l u d e i n j u r i e s which a f f e c t a e s t h e t i c , c o n s e r v a t i o n a l and r e c r e a t i o n a l as w e l l as economic v a l u e s . However, Mr. J u s t i c e Stewart d i s t i n g u i s h e d between broadening the type of i n j u r y capable of p r o t e c t i o n and removing the n e c e s s i t y of any i n j u r y to the p a r t y seeking review. The l a t t e r p r o p o s i t i o n , he suggests, has never been the law. C l e a r l y the S i e r r a Club f a i l e d because i t expressed only concern, and a l l e g e d no i n j u r y t o i t s membership. For i n s t a n c e , no a l l e g a t i o n was made t h a t the membership a c t u a l l y used the d i s p u t e d area. N e i t h e r was i t suggested t h a t the club ' s e x i s t e n c e was threatened or even i n j u r e d i f the 76 development came to pass. The m a j o r i t y r e c o g n i z e d the s u s t a i n e d i n t e r e s t of the S i e r r a Club i n environmental matters, but con s i d e r e d pure i n t e r e s t i n s u f f i c i e n t : "But i f a ' s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t ' i n t h i s s u b j e c t were enough to e n t i t l e the S i e r r a Club t o commence t h i s l i t i g a t i o n , there would appear to be no o b j e c t i v e b a s i s upon which to d i s a l l o w a s u i t by any other bona f i d e ' s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t ' o r g a n i z a t i o n , however smal l o r s h o r t -l i v e d . And i f any group with a bona f i d e ' s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t ' could i n i t i a t e such l i t i g a t i o n , i t i s d i f f i c u l t to p e r c e i v e why any i n d i v i d u a l c i t i z e n with the same bona f i d e s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t would not be allowed t o do so."87 The m a j o r i t y i s i n very c l e a r terms r e j e c t i n g the p u b l i c a c t i o n i n i t s pure form, s i n c e they r e j e c t the n o t i o n t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l c i t i z e n with a bona f i d e s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t should be allowed to sue. What i s most s u r p r i s i n g , however, i s t h e i r r e f u s a l of standing t o a l a r g e , r e s p o n s i b l e o r g a n i z a t i o n l i k e the S i e r r a Club because of the r e s u l t a n t danger t h a t s m a l l , s h o r t - l i v e d o r g a n i z a t i o n s would then be f r e e to commence s i m i l a r l i t i g a t i o n . There seem to be s e v e r a l i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n t h i s c o n c l u s i o n . Assuming an acceptance of the p u b l i c a c t i o n , one would expect t h a t a major f u n c t i o n o f the c o u r t would be to ensure t h a t the group seeking t o e s t a b l i s h s t a n d i n g had a l e g i t i m a t e i n t e r e s t i n the outcome of the l i t i g a t i o n . In f a c t , t h i s f u n c t i o n had alre a d y been e x e r c i s e d i n a t l e a s t one d e c i s i o n , where the S i x t h C i r c u i t r e f u s e d t o f o l l o w S c e n i c Hudson and co n f e r s t a n d i n g on the n o n - p r o f i t o r g a n i z a t i o n seeking t o i n t e r v e n e because the o r g a n i z a t i o n came i n t o e x i s t e n c e too r e c e n t l y to have developed a s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t i n the area. T h i s seems a much p r e f e r a b l e method of p r e v e n t i n g unwarranted 77 l i t i g a t i o n than to r e f u s e a l l o r g a n i z a t i o n s s t a n d i n g as the m a j o r i t y suggested i n the i n s t a n t d e c i s i o n . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the c o u r t r e f u s e d an e x c e l l e n t o p p o r t u n i t y t o weight the b e n e f i t s and detriments of the p u b l i c a c t i o n . They simply assumed t h a t p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t -i o n i n the absence of an a l l e g a t i o n of a c t u a l i n j u r y was unacceptable because i t opened the c o u r t s to p o t e n t i a l l y e x c e s s i v e l i t i g a t i o n . I t can s c a r c e l y be argued t h a t acceptance of the p u b l i c a c t i o n causes some hardships to both the c o u r t s and government a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . However, the c r u c i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n would seem t o be whether the extent of environmental degradation has f o r c e d us t o a p o s i t i o n where the r e s u l t a n t h a r d s h i p i s both worthwhile and necessary. The m a j o r i t y simply f a i l e d to grapple with t h i s i s s u e . In any event, the m a j o r i t y d e c i s i o n probably w i l l not reduce the a v a i l a b i l i t y of the p u b l i c a c t i o n to any great e x t e n t . There are s e v e r a l reasons f o r t h i s c o n c l u s i o n . S i e r r a v Morton was a c h a l l e n g e of a proposed government a c t i o n which had long been on the p l a n n i n g board. V a r i o u s i n t e r e s t s i n c l u d i n g those of numerous s k i o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n the area were s t r o n g l y i n f a v o r of the proposed development. The S i e r r a Club, on the o t h e r hand, sought to p r o t e c t the environmental c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the v a l l e y . T h i s was not a s i t u a t i o n where the r e s p o n s i b l e o f f i c i a l s were a l l e g e d l y i n v i o l a t i o n of any environmental o b l i g a t i o n s . Rather i t was a c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t between l a r g e segments of the p o p u l a t i o n which f a v o r e d the development and l a r g e segments which d i d not. A c c o r d i n g l y , i n t e r f e r e n c e by e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s 78 was not as c l e a r l y i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t as might be a n t i c i p a t e d at f i r s t g lance. Presumably a much d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t might have ensued i f circumstances i n d i c a t e d t h a t the r e s p o n s i b l e o f f i c i a l s had been i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e i r environmental r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Secondly, the m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n does not preclu d e s u c c e s s f u l i n t e r v e n t i o n i n the f u t u r e by the S i e r r a Club and other environmental o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Where the a p p l i c a n t o r g a n i z a t i o n i s able t o show i n j u r y e i t h e r to the o r g a n i z a t i o n or i t s members, or i n t e r f e r e n c e with the o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s use of the d i s p u t e d area, the requirement of i n j u r y i n f a c t would seem to be met. In those i n s t a n c e s where a n a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n i s unable t o a l l e g e i n j u r y , the support of a l o c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n w i l l cure the st a n d i n g d e f e c t . Only i n i s o l a t e d areas does t h i s d e c i s i o n seem i m p o s s i b l e t o circumvent. F i n a l l y , only seven judges took p a r t i n the d e c i s i o n , three o f whom would have c o n f e r r e d s t a n d i n g . A d i f f e r e n t l y c o n s t i t u t e d c o u r t might i n the f u t u r e see f i t to r e s t o r e the v i r i l i t y o f the p u b l i c a c t i o n . T h i s view gains some support i n the very s t r o n g d i s s e n t s of Mr. J u s t i c e s Douglas and Blackmun. These d i s s e n t s show c o n s i d e r a b l y g r e a t e r awareness of the s i g n i f i c a n t i s s u e s at stake. Mr. J u s t i c e Douglas, a f t e r expending c o n s i d e r a b l e e f f o r t to p o i n t out the c o n s i d e r a b l e e x t e n t to which agencies become r e g u l a t e d by those they seek to r e g u l a t e , makes a s t r o n g argument i n favour of h e a r i n g out the e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s : 79 "The v o i c e o f the inanimate o b j e c t should not be s t i l l e d . That does not mean t h a t the j u d i c i a r y takes over the managerial f u n c t i o n s from the F e d e r a l agency. I t merely means t h a t b e f o r e these p r i c e l e s s b i t s of Americana (such as a v a l l e y , an a l p i n e meadow, a r i v e r o r a lake) are f o r e v e r l o s t or so transformed as to be reduced t o the ev e n t u a l rubble of our urban environment, the v o i c e of the e x i s t i n g b e n e f i c i a r i e s o f these environmental wonders should be heard."89 One o f the most p e r c e p t i v e statements a r i s i n g out of the d e c i s i o n i s to be found i n the d i s s e n t o f Mr. J u s t i c e Blackmun: "Must our law be so r i g i d and our p r o c e d u r e a l concepts so i n f l e x i b l e t h a t we render o u r s e l v e s h e l p l e s s when the e x i s t i n g methods and the t r a d i t i o n a l concepts do not f i t and do not prove t o be e n t i r e l y adequate f o r new issues?"90 He was f u l l y aware t h a t the f a t e o f the M i n e r a l King V a l l e y had probably been decided by the m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n without any examination o f the merits of the i s s u e s r a i s e d . He suggested t h a t the S i e r r a Club be given an o p p o r t u n i t y to make the necessary a l l e g a t i o n s of i n j u r y , o r, i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , t h a t the laws of s t a n d i n g be r e l a x e d t o allow such o r g a n i z a t i o n s t o be heard. Despite the s t r o n g d i s s e n t s , the m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n now governs the i s s u e of " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " s t a n d i n g . Because of the m a j o r i t y ' s f a i l u r e to grapple with b a s i c i s s u e s , i t i s extremely d i f f i c u l t to s t a t e the p r e s e n t s t r e n g t h of the p u b l i c a c t i o n i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s with any c e r t a i n t y . T h i s d e c i s i o n w i l l not l i k e l y s p e l l the end of the p u b l i c a c t i o n . However, i t d i d s e t up r e s t r i c t i o n s on i t s use which seem both a r b i t r a r y and unwarranted. While these 80 r e s t r i c t i o n s may be a hindrance to p a r t i c i p a t i o n by environmental o r g a n i z a t i o n s , such p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l undoubtedly c o n t i n u e . However, Mr. J u s t i c e Blackmun's q u e s t i o n remains unanswered to some extent i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s and to a much g r e a t e r extent i n Canada. 2. Group Standing i n Environmental C l a s s A c t i o n s  f o r Damages. The U n i t e d S t a t e s F e d e r a l Rules of C i v i l Procedure c o n t a i n i n Rule 23 s p e c i f i c procedures f o r c l a s s a c t i o n s f o r damages. To the extent t h a t environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s have st a n d i n g to r e p r e s e n t a c l a s s i n an a c t i o n f o r damages or an i n j u n c t i o n , Rule 23 i s d e s e r v i n g of mention i n the context of t h i s paper. J u d i c i a l review c l e a r l y has the advantage over a c l a s s a c t i o n f o r damages s i n c e the former occurs e a r l i e r i n time, and i f s u c c e s s f u l , has the e f f e c t of p r e v e n t i n g the o f f e n s i v e o p e r a t i o n and r e s u l t a n t damage from o c c u r r i n g . However, i t simply i s not r e l e v a n t when an i n d u s t r y or government p r o j e c t i s o p e r a t i n g on the necessary permits and o s t e n s i b l y w i t h i n the law, s i n c e no agency d e c i s i o n i s being made. Yet t h a t p r o j e c t may be c a u s i n g g r e a t h a r d s h i p s , l o s s of economic advantages, or h e a l t h hazards to a l a r g e c l a s s o f people. Where the number of i n d i v i d u a l s i n the c l a s s of i n j u r e d are too numerous or the i n d i v i d u a l claims are too s m a l l to warrant i n d i v i d u a l l i t i g a t i o n of each c l a i m , the c l a s s a c t i o n f o r damages or an i n j u n c t i o n t o r e d r e s s p a s t damages and to prevent f u r t h e r occurrences becomes a very u s e f u l remedy. 81 The v a r i o u s p r o c e d u r a l l i m i t a t i o n s on c l a s s a c t i o n s f o r damages are too numerous and complex to warrant 91 c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r the purposes of t h i s paper. However, a g e n e r a l examination o f the p o t e n t i a l r o l e of environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n t h i s type of l i t i g a t i o n i s i n o r d e r . E x i s t i n g a u t h o r i t i e s are c l e a r t h a t groups and a s s o c i a t i o n s e x h i b i t i n g the r e q u i s i t e i n t e r e s t i n the l i t i g a t i o n have s t a n d i n g t o l i t i g a t e the i n t e r e s t s of a 92 c l a s s under Rule 23. S e v e r a l d e c i s i o n s on environmental 93 i s s u e s have adopted t h i s r u l e with the r e s u l t t h a t environmental o r g a n i z a t i o n s can now s u c c e s s f u l l y a l l e g e s t a n d i n g to l i t i g a t e , as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p l a i n t i f f s , the i n t e r e s t s of a c l a s s . The a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d i n g t e s t must once again be taken 93a 94 from Data P r o c e s s i n g and Barlow v C o l l i n s , where the c o u r t h e l d t h a t the p l a i n t i f f must s a t i s f y the "case or c o n t r o v e r s y " requirement of A r t i c l e 111 of the C o n s t i t u t i o n by having the "personal stake and i n t e r e s t t h a t impart the 95 concrete adverseness r e q u i r e d by A r t i c l e 111." A c c o r d i n g l y , the environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n , when seeking t o e s t a b l i s h s t a n d i n g to sue as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p l a i n t i f f i n a c l a s s a c t i o n f o r damages, must e x h i b i t a s i m i l a r i n t e r e s t to t h a t r e q u i r e d to e s t a b l i s h s t a n d i n g f o r j u d i c i a l review. There are, however, some f u r t h e r c o m p l i c a t i o n s under Rule 23. The Supreme Court has r u l e d t h a t p l a i n t i f f s i n a c l a s s a c t i o n "cannot r e p r e s e n t a c l a s s of whom they are not 82 96 a p a r t " . T h i s r u l i n g would appear to prevent environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s from e s t a b l i s h i n g the necessary i n t e r e s t to sue as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p l a i n t i f f s where n e i t h e r the o r g a n i z a t i o n nor i t s members are among those s u f f e r i n g the damages upon which the l i t i g a t i o n i s based. The c o u r t has h e l d , however, t h a t the above i s only a r u l e o f p r a c t i c e , and may be "outweighted by the need t o p r o t e c t the fundamental r i g h t s which would [otherwise] be 97 denied ...." Th i s reasoning becomes extremely important i n environmental c l a s s a c t i o n s , s i n c e i t allows the o r g a n i z a t i o n to e s t a b l i s h t h a t fundamental r i g h t s are at stake and t h a t i t i s the only p o t e n t i a l p l a i n t i f f with the resources and e x p e r t i s e to e x e r t those r i g h t s on b e h a l f o f the i n j u r e d c l a s s . 9 8 I f , as suggested e a r l i e r , S i e r r a v Morton has not s t r u c k a f a t a l blow to the e n t i r e concept of the p u b l i c a c t i o n and " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " s t a n d i n g , then the p o t e n t i a l i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s f o r group l i t i g a t i o n of c l a s s damage a c t i o n s i s c o n s i d e r a b l e . Assuming t h a t a p a r t i c u l a r f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n i s s u i t a b l e t o the c l a s s a c t i o n concept, there are again some compel l i n g reasons to allow environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s to serve as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p l a i n t i f f s . Damage a c t i o n s p r e s e n t some a d d i t i o n a l burdens t o those g e n e r a l l y c o n f r o n t i n g p l a i n t i f f s seeking j u d i c i a l review. In a d d i t i o n t o the c o n s i d e r a b l e task o f e s t a b l i s h -i n g the defendant's l i a b i l i t y , each p l a i n t i f f must prove h i s 83 measure o f damages. In many i n s t a n c e s , the i n d i v i d u a l s s u f f e r i n g the damages are in c a p a b l e of mustering the s u s t a i n e d i n t e r e s t , e x p e r t i s e and f i n a n c i a l resources necessary to adequately conduct the l i t i g a t i o n . An added burden can be seen i n the f a c t t h a t many such a c t i o n s i n v o l v e l i t i g a t i o n a g a i n s t l a r g e i n d u s t r i e s or government departments. The i n d i v i d u a l claims may be so i n s i g n i f i c a n t as to prevent any of the claimants from p e r s o n a l l y seeking r e d r e s s . There may be so many small claims t h a t i n d i v i d u a l l i t i g a t i o n i s i m p r a c t i c a b l e . Where no i n d i v i d u a l i n the c l a s s i s s u f f i c i e n t l y a f f e c t e d i n terms of the amount of damage, the claims may never be l i t i g a t e d even though the aggregate damage i s very h i g h . These r e p r e s e n t some of the i n s t a n c e s where i t i s simply not f e a s i b l e t o expect each of the members of a c l a s s to seek t h e i r own r e d r e s s . To do so i s i n many i n s t a n c e s tantamount to r e f u s i n g those i n d i v i d u a l s a remedy. The n e c e s s i t y of c o n s o l i d a t i n g claims i n a p p r o p r i a t e circumstances where an i d e n t i f i a b l e c l a s s has s u f f e r e d common damages has been re c o g n i z e d i n Rule 23. There seems no more l o g i c a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p l a i n t i f f than the environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n . The American experience t o date with environmental c l a s s a c t i o n s seeking damages or i n j u n c t i o n s i s i n s u f f i c i e n t to allow any c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n s o f the f u t u r e of t h i s type of l i t i g a t i o n . However, i t i s a v a i l a b l e i n the Un i t e d States and serves as y e t another example of the American 84 w i l l i n g n e s s to adapt o l d procedures t o new s i t u a t i o n s . I t a l s o i n d i c a t e s another area where Canada, by c l i n g i n g to outmoded t r a d i t i o n a l concepts, has f a i l e d t o make a v a i l a b l e a very u s e f u l and necessary remedy. B. The N a t i o n a l Environmental P o l i c y A c t of 1969 -I t s E f f e c t on " P u b l i c I n t e r e s t " Standing. On January 1, 1970, P r e s i d e n t Nixon gave formal 99 approval t o the N a t i o n a l Environmental P o l i c y Act ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d to as NEPA), to date the most sweeping and f a r - r e a c h i n g l e g i s l a t i v e attempt to ensure a " f a i r shake" f o r the environment. NEPA i s most s i g n i f i c a n t i n the context of t h i s paper f o r the extent t o which i t enhanced the p o t e n t i a l o f " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " s t a n d i n g i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s . However, i t has so much p o t e n t i a l as an a d d i t i o n a l t o o l of environmental l e g i s l a t i o n i f enacted i n Canada t h a t a b r i e f examination o f the l e g i s l a t i v e frame-work i s i n o r d e r p r i o r to examining i t s e f f e c t on s t a n d i n g . 1. The L e g i s l a t i v e Framework. NEPA i s d i v i d e d i n t o two d i s t i n c t s e c t i o n s headed T i t l e 1 and T i t l e 11. T i t l e 1 co n t a i n s a statement of n a t i o n a l environment-a l p o l i c y and the a c t i o n - f o r c i n g procedure by which t h a t p o l i c y i s t o be implemented. S e c t i o n 102(2) co n t a i n s d i r e c t i v e s t o a l l F e d e r a l agencies o u t l i n i n g the procedures to be used t o f u l f i l l t h e i r environmental r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . S e c t i o n 102(2)(c) i s the h e a r t o f the l e g i s l a t i o n , r e q u i r i n g 85 a l l F e d e r a l agencies t o f i l e impact statements o u t l i n i n g the environmental consequences of proposed F e d e r a l l e g i s l a t i o n and other major F e d e r a l a c t i o n s and sug g e s t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s where p o s s i b l e . I t i s t h i s s e c t i o n which s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n c r e a s e s the p o s s i b i l i t y of e s t a b l i s h i n g s t a n d i n g t o seek j u d i c i a l review o f agency d e c i s i o n s . A c c o r d i n g l y , the o p e r a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 102(2)(c) w i l l form the c e n t e r o f a t t e n t i o n i n t h i s examination. T i t l e 11 b r i n g s i n t o e x i s t e n c e the C o u n c i l on Environmental Q u a l i t y i n the Exe c u t i v e O f f i c e of the P r e s i d e n t . The C o u n c i l has no powers to enforce compliance with NEPA, and e x e r c i s e s f u n c t i o n s of an a d v i s o r y and c o - o r d i n a t i n g nature. NEPA does not seek to prevent p o l l u t i o n or c o n t r o l environmental degradation per se. I t does not s e t standards to be f o l l o w e d or environmental p o l l u t i o n l i m i t s . N e i t h e r does i t p r o v i d e f o r any p u b l i c h e a r i n g s . I t i s important to note t h a t the phi l o s o p h y o f the Act i s t o prevent any F e d e r a l agency from t a k i n g a c t i o n which w i l l have environmental consequences without a s s e s s i n g those consequences and examining p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s . S e c t i o n 102 governs t h e i r o p e r a t i o n s , and f a i l u r e t o proceed i n accordance with the requirements of t h a t s e c t i o n leaves the agency open t o p u b l i c c h a l l e n g e by j u d i c i a l review. 2. S e c t i o n 102 P r o c e d u r a l Requirements. S e c t i o n 102(1) d i r e c t s t h a t "to the f u l l e s t e xtent p o s s i b l e , the p o l i c i e s , r e g u l a t i o n s and p u b l i c laws of the 86 U n i t e d S t a t e s s h a l l be i n t e r p r e t e d i n accordance with NEPA". I t was c l e a r l y the i n t e n t of Congress t h a t NEPA p o l i c y should assume a dominant p o s i t i o n i n the op e r a t i o n s of a l l F e d e r a l laws. What then are the requirements of the Act? S e c t i o n 102(2), Subparagraphs (A) to (H) c o n t a i n d i r e c t i v e s t o a l l F e d e r a l agencies, which i n e f f e c t r e q u i r e them to di s c h a r g e s e v e r a l n o v e l o b l i g a t i o n s i n the disc h a r g e of t h e i r d u t i e s . These i n c l u d e : d e v e l o p i n g an i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y approach to ensure i n t e g r a t e d use of the n a t u r a l and s o c i a l s c i e n c e s i n decision-making; i d e n t i f y i n g and d e v e l o p i n g methods and procedures which w i l l ensure a p p r o p r i a t e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of environmental amenities and value s as w e l l as economic and t e c h n i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s ; p r e p a r i n g an environmental impact statement on l e g i s l a t i o n and o t h e r major F e d e r a l a c t i o n s s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t i n g the q u a l i t y of the human environment; s t u d y i n g , developing and d e s c r i b i n g proposed a l t e r n a t i v e s to recommended courses of a c t i o n ; and making a v a i l a b l e to s t a t e s , c o u n t i e s , m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , i n s t i t u t i o n s and i n d i v i d u a l s , advice and i n f o r m a t i o n u s e f u l i n r e s t o r i n g , m a i n t a i n i n g and enhancing the q u a l i t y o f the environment. These d i r e c t i v e s are a l l d i r e c t e d t o producing a s i t u a t i o n i n which a l l d e c i s i o n s are made with a f u l l awareness of environmental consequences. However, of g r e a t e s t s i g n i f i c a n c e to the environment-a l c o n t r o l movement i s the impact statement requirement. P r i o r t o NEPA, i t was extremely d i f f i c u l t to e s t a b l i s h t h a t an agency had f a i l e d to f u l f i l l i t s environmental 87 r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . For the most p a r t , those r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s were undefined and agency o f f i c i a l s had few mandatory o b l i g a t i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t to environmental assessment. Challenge was extremely d i f f i c u l t . NEPA has now s e t out s p e c i f i c o b l i g a t i o n s , and agency f a i l u r e t o meet those o b l i g a t i o n s c l e a r l y leaves the agency open to c h a l l e n g e . The impact statement procedure can be d e s c r i b e d very b r i e f l y . S e c t i o n 102(2)(c) s e t s out those c o n s i d e r a t i o n s which must be i n c l u d e d i n an impact statement. These i n c l u d e statements by the r e s p o n s i b l e o f f i c i a l on: the environmental impact o f the proposed a c t i o n ; adverse environmental e f f e c t s which cannot be avoided i f the p r o p o s a l i s implemented; a l t e r n a t i v e s to the proposed a c t i o n ; the r e l a t i o n s h i p between shor t - t e r m uses of the environment and maintenance and enhancement of long-term p r o d u c t i v i t y ; and any i r r e v e r s i b l e and i r r e t r i e v a b l e commitments of resou r c e s which would be i n v o l v e d i f the proposed a c t i o n should be implemented. The r e s p o n s i b l e o f f i c i a l , a f t e r c o n s u l t i n g with any other agency having j u r i s d i c t i o n or s p e c i a l e x p e r t i s e , s h a l l prepare the statement and copies s h a l l be made a v a i l a b l e t o the P r e s i d e n t , the C o u n c i l , and the p u b l i c . The statement s h a l l accompany the p r o p o s a l through the e x i s t i n g agency review p r o c e s s e s . On A p r i l 23, 1971, the C o u n c i l on Environmental Q u a l i t y i s s u e d f i n a l guidelines"'"'"^ r e s p e c t i n g the p r e p a r a t i o n and d i s t r i b u t i o n of impacts statements. A d r a f t statement i s to be prepared, ten copies of which are to be gi v e n to the C o u n c i l , and f u r t h e r c opies are to be c i r c u l a t e d f o r comment. 88 No a c t i o n i s t o be taken u n t i l 90 days a f t e r the d r a f t statement has been c i r c u l a t e d . No a c t i o n i s to be taken u n t i l 30 days a f t e r the f i n a l statement has been c i r c u l a t e d f o r comment, although the 30 and 90 day p e r i o d s may run c o n c u r r e n t l y where the f i n a l statement i s ready before the e x p i r a t i o n of the 90 day p e r i o d . D r a f t statements must be made a v a i l a b l e t o the p u b l i c unless advanced p u b l i c d i s c l o s u r e w i l l r e s u l t i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n c r e a s e d c o s t s of procurement to the government. A f t e r the agency makes an i n i t i a l environmental assessment, i t i s then empowered t o decide whether an impact statement i s r e q u i r e d . However, a negative d e c i s i o n a t t h i s p o i n t i s s u b j e c t to c h a l l e n g e by j u d i c i a l review, although the c o u r t w i l l not s u b s t i t u t e i t s view f o r t h a t of the agency. T h i s i s undoubtedly the key to the e n t i r e l e g i s l a t i o n , s i n c e i t c r e a t e s an event on which to base an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l review. I f no statement i s prepared, or i f a statement i s inadequate, the c o u r t may r e q u i r e a statement to be prepared or completed: "We conclude, then, t h a t s e c t i o n 102 of NEPA mandates a p a r t i c u l a r s o r t of c a r e f u l and informed decision-making process and c r e a t e s j u d i c i a l l y e n f o r c e a b l e d u t i e s . The reviewing c o u r t s probably cannot review a s u b s t a n t i v e d e c i s i o n on i t s m e r i t s under s e c t i o n 102 unless i t be shown t h a t the a c t u a l balance of c o s t s and b e n e f i t s t h a t was s t r u c k was a r b i t r a r y and c l e a r l y gave i n s u f f i c i e n t weight to environmental values."101 The s i g n i f i c a n c e of the r i g h t t o j u d i c i a l review cannot be overestimated where an adequate impact statement i s not f i l e d on a proposed a c t i o n as p o t e n t i a l l y d e s t r u c t i v e 89 102 to the environment as an 800 mile o i l p i p e l i n e . One d e f e c t i n NEPA centers around the f a i l u r e t o pr o v i d e s p e c i f i c a l l y both the ways and means of e n s u r i n g t h a t the p u b l i c has access to the environmental impact statements as they are prepared. Subparagraph (F) i n s e c t i o n 102(2) d i r e c t s t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n be made a v a i l a b l e to i n d i v i d u a l s and o r g a n i z a t i o n s , but p r o v i d e s no mechanism by which t h i s can be accomplished. However, t h i s d e f e c t i s cured to a l a r g e extent by g e n e r a l laws o f the U n i t e d States 103 e n s u r i n g p u b l i c access to agency i n f o r m a t i o n . G e n e r a l l y speaking, the American p u b l i c should be i n a p o s i t i o n t o determine p r e c i s e l y what a c t i o n s the agencies are contemplat-i n g and the methods they propose t o use. There are, o f course, some problems a s s o c i a t e d with NEPA's o p e r a t i o n s . Perhaps the major one i s i n g e t t i n g the agencies t o comply not onl y with the l e t t e r o f the law but with the s p i r i t as w e l l . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , f a i l u r e t o p r o v i d e the C o u n c i l on Environmental Q u a l i t y with p o l i c e powers has r e s u l t e d i n l e g i s l a t i o n without any r e a l enforcement p r o v i s i o n s . Problems of r e c a l c i t r a n c e among agencies have a r i s e n . For example, the Department of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n would appear t o accept the impact statement procedure wholeheartedly: "The Department of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n d r a f t procedure f o r the implementation of s e c t i o n 102(2) (c) makes the environmental statement, which t h a t s e c t i o n r e q u i r e s , the v e h i c l e f o r a l l environmental f i n d i n g s p r e s c r i b e d by any l e g i s l a t i o n a p p l i c a b l e t o that Department."104 Compare t h a t statement to a d e c i s i o n of counsel f o r 90 the Atomic Energy Commission: [C]ounsel f o r the Atomic Energy Commission has decided t h a t such statements w i l l not be given p r o b a t i v e value."105 The problem of e n f o r c i n g s t r i c t compliance i s major under the p r e s e n t l e g i s l a t i v e framework. However, with f a m i l i a r i t y may come compliance. I f agencies do not do so v o l u n t a r i l y , only s l i g h t l e g i s l a t i v e changes would be r e q u i r e d t o give the C o u n c i l on Environmental Q u a l i t y the necessary p o l i c e powers over NEPA p r o v i s i o n s . Despite i t s inadequacies, NEPA has a g r e a t many d e s i r a b l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . I t promotes a s i t u a t i o n where a l l F e d e r a l agencies must operate i n an atmosphere of environmental awareness. I d e a l l y , no f u t u r e d e c i s i o n s a f f e c t i n g the environment should be made i n ignorance of the environmental consequences. The r e s u l t w i l l be a v a s t r e c o r d of environmental i n f o r m a t i o n which w i l l undoubtedly be developed much more q u i c k l y than i f NEPA had not been enacted. Agencies now have a c l e a r mandate to develop environmental e x p e r t i s e and can no longer be excused from t h e i r environmental o b l i g a t i o n s because of p r o f e s s e d ignorance. I d e a l l y , the agencies may w e l l become so accustomed to the environmental c o n s i d e r a t i o n s necessary p r i o r t o making a d e c i s i o n t h a t they w i l l f u l f i l l t h e i r o b l i g a t i o n s without the n e c e s s i t y of p u b l i c s u p e r v i s i o n . That day has not y e t a r r i v e d , however, and NEPA pr o v i d e s a s i t u a t i o n where j u d i c i a l review of agency a c t i o n becomes much e a s i e r than was the case p r i o r to i t s enactment. The impact statement i n e f f e c t p r o v i d e s an event upon which t o base an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l review. P r i o r t o NEPA, the F e d e r a l agencies had to be concerned with environmental i s s u e s only t o the exte n t r e q u i r e d by t h e i r e n a b l i n g s t a t u t e s . Some s t a t u t e s c r e a t e d no such o b l i g a t i o n s and were s i l e n t on environmental i s s u e s . In these i n s t a n c e s , an environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n could not succeed on an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l review r e g a r d l e s s of the i s s u e o f st a n d i n g , s i n c e the agency had no o b l i g a t i o n to c o n s i d e r environmental i s s u e s , and c o u l d not be c h a l l e n g e d f o r not having done so. Under NEPA, i t i s necessary t o show only t h a t NEPA p r o v i s i o n s have not been complied wit h , r e g a r d l e s s of the wording of the e n a b l i n g s t a t u t e . NEPA does not de a l s p e c i f i c a l l y with s t a n d i n g . In a s t r i c t l y t e c h n i c a l sense i t deals e x c l u s i v e l y with F e d e r a l agency procedure i n environmental matters. Yet the e f f e c t i s to i n c r e a s e c o n s i d e r a b l y those i n s t a n c e s i n which j u d i c i a l review by environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s i s p o s s i b l e . 3. NEPA's E f f e c t i v e n e s s Examined. Nea r l y two years have passed s i n c e the A c t was passed. Some f i f t y - e i g h t d e c i s i o n s have been handed down i n which one or more NEPA p r o v i s i o n s were construed. T h i s f i g u r e does not i n c l u d e those cases which have not been the s u b j e c t of a judgement, or i n which the judgement was not re p o r t e d . I t i s both i n t e r e s t i n g and s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t v i r t u a l l y a l l the above-mentioned d e c i s i o n s were the r e s u l t of a c h a l l e n g e by e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s of an agency's a l l e g e d non-compliance with NEPA p r o v i s i o n s . NEPA p r o v i s i o n s have been s u c c e s s f u l l y a p p l i e d by e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s to s t a l l and i n some i n s t a n c e s prevent agency a c t i o n u n t i l adequate c o n s i d e r a t i o n has been g i v e n to the environmental consequences o f a proposed a c t i o n . 106 Examples i n c l u d e a proposed p i p e l i n e , a proposed highway p r o j e c t } ^ and o f f s h o r e o i l l e a s e s 1 * ^ Many more examples c o u l d be c i t e d where f u r t h e r assessment o f environmental consequences was r e q u i r e d as a r e s u l t of c h a l l e n g e s by e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s under NEPA p r o v i s i o n s . T h i s phenomenon must be c o n s i d e r e d b e n e f i c i a l u n t i l we reach the stage where we can a s s e r t t h a t we know enough about the environmental consequences of our a c t i o n s . I t i s a l s o important t o note i n t h i s regard t h a t the e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s can only ensure t h a t NEPA has been complied with. They cannot block a p r o p o s a l once the agency has complied with NEPA p r o v i s i o n s , and the agency i s then f r e e t o proceed with the p r o p o s a l r e g a r d l e s s of the environmental consequences. The f u t u r e of our environment may w e l l l i e i n dev e l o p i n g a s o c i a l conscience i n those o f f i c i a l s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r environmental p r o t e c t i o n , i n order t h a t a comprehensive, c o - o r d i n a t e d approach to the e n t i r e problem may be developed. NEPA p r o v i d e s a double impetus designed t o achieve t h i s end. On the one hand i t f o r c e s , at l e a s t p o t e n t i a l l y , every F e d e r a l o f f i c i a l i n the Un i t e d States Government t o give c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o , and be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r , the environmental consequences of h i s a c t i o n s . I f we ever reach the p o i n t where our governing o f f i c i a l s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s acknowledge and accept with s i n c e r i t y t h e i r p u b l i c r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to p r o t e c t and enhance the environment, the p r e s e n t environmental c r i s i s would l a r g e l y d i s a p p e a r . NEPA has gone a long way to a c h i e v i n g t h i s end. In the meantime, i t c r e a t e s a c l e a r mandate t o agency o f f i c i a l s t o accept t h e i r environmental r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and e s t a b l i s h e s an event upon which to base a p u b l i c c h a l l e n g e o f the d e c i s i o n s of those o f f i c i a l s who f a i l to do so. C. A d d i t i o n a l L e g i s l a t i v e R e l a x a t i o n of American Standing Requirements. NEPA can be seen as a s t a t u t e of gen e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n to F e d e r a l agency proceedings which does not s p e c i f i c a l l y a l t e r the r u l e s of sta n d i n g , but s u b s t a n t i a l l y enhances the a b i l i t y of environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s t o seek and o b t a i n j u d i c i a l review. However, acts have been passed at both s t a t e and F e d e r a l l e v e l s which i n e f f e c t remove the st a n d i n g requirements o u t l i n e d i n p a r t A. of t h i s chapter. They s p e c i f i c a l l y a llow c i t i z e n s s u i t s i n s p e c i f i e d i n s t a n c e s to c o n t r o l environmental degradation or t o f o r c e compliance with e x i s t i n g environmental standards. In order t h a t the complete p i c t u r e of " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " s t a n d i n g i n the Un i t e d S t a t e s might be conveyed, examples of t h i s r a t h e r n o v e l t r e n d deserve examination. 1. F e d e r a l L e g i s l a t i o n Removing Standing Requirements. S e c t i o n 304 of the 1970 Amendments to the Clean A i r 109 Act allows any person to commence a c i v i l a c t i o n on h i s own b e h a l f a g a i n s t any person ( i n c l u d i n g the United S t a t e s and any other government agency or i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y of government) who i s a l l e g e d to be i n v i o l a t i o n of e i t h e r an 94 emission standard or l i m i t a t i o n or an o r d e r of the A d m i n i s t r a t o r with r e s p e c t to such standard or l i m i t a t i o n . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t has j u r i s d i c t i o n without regard to the amount i n v o l v e d or the c i t i z e n s h i p of the p a r t i e s [emphasis mine]. The e f f e c t of t h i s p r o v i s i o n i s to allow u n i v e r s a l s t a n d i n g . The l a c k of c i t i z e n s h i p r e s t r i c t i o n s undoubtedly means a Canadian would have f u l l s t a n d i n g t o be heard i n a U n i t e d S t a t e s F e d e r a l D i s t r i c t Court. Congress must be taken t o have r e c o g n i z e d t h a t everyone has the r i g h t to c l e a n a i r , and to the e x t e n t t h a t standards are being v i o l a t e d , should be i n a p o s i t i o n t o e n f o r c e t h a t r i g h t i n a c o u r t of law. 2. S t a t e L e g i s l a t i o n Removing Standing Requirements. There now e x i s t s e v e r a l S t a t e s acts which have l e g i s l a t e d s t a n d i n g requirements out of e x i s t e n c e i n environmental matters. For the purposes of t h i s paper i t i s necessary to d e s c r i b e only two such p r o v i s i o n s . The Michigan Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Act of 1 9 7 0 . 1 1 0 S e c t i o n 691.1202 p r o v i d e s t h a t v i r t u a l l y any person, government or o r g a n i z a t i o n can sue any person, government or o r g a n i z a t i o n i n the C i r c u i t c o u r t having j u r i s d i c t i o n where the a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n o c c u r r e d f o r d e c l a r a t o r y and e q u i t a b l e r e l i e f f o r the p r o t e c t i o n of the a i r , water and other n a t u r a l resources and the p u b l i c t r u s t t h e r e i n from p o l l u t i o n , impairment or d e s t r u c t i o n . The e f f e c t i s c l e a r l y t o remove a l l s t a n d i n g requirements and allow any i d e n t i f i a b l e p a r t y or e n t i t y to maintain an a c t i o n a g a i n s t any other i d e n t i f i a b l e p a r t y or e n t i t y . Chapter 732 of the Laws of M a s s a c h u s s e t s . 1 1 1 T h i s amendment to General Law C.214, d e f i n e s damage to the environment and p r o v i d e s t h a t the s u p e r i o r c o u r t f o r the county i n which damages occur may, upon the p e t i t i o n of not l e s s than ten persons d o m i c i l e d w i t h i n the commonwealth, or upon the p e t i t i o n o f any p o l i t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n of the commonwealth, determine the i s s u e i n e q u i t y i n a p e t i t i o n f o r d e c l a r a t o r y r e l i e f , and may, before the f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the cause, r e s t r a i n the person causing or about to cause such damage, p r o v i d e d t h a t such damage c o n s t i t u t e s a v i o l a t i o n of a law the major purpose of which i s to prevent or minimize damage to the environment. While i n d i v i d u a l s have no s t a n d i n g as i n d i v i d u a l s , ten people c o n s t i t u t e a s u f f i c i e n t number to e s t a b l i s h s t a n d i n g . T h i s p r o v i s i o n ensures f r e e c o u r t access to any environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s with ten members d o m i c i l e d w i t h i n the commonwealth. 3. State Adoption of NEPA's "Impact Statement"  Procedure. 112 At l e a s t f o u r s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e s have adopted impact statement procedures s i m i l a r t o those p r e s c r i b e d by NEPA. The importance of these enactments must not be underestimated. A l l F e d e r a l agencies, r e g a r d l e s s o f the s t a t e i n which a p r o p o s a l i s b e i n g undertaken, must f o l l o w impact statement procedure. In those s t a t e s which adopt the impact statement 96 procedure, a s i m i l a r mandate to assess environmental consequences w i l l apply to a l l s t a t e agencies. The end r e s u l t i s to ensure t h a t every a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agency, whether F e d e r a l or s t a t e , w i l l be allowed to take no a c t i o n of any k i n d which w i l l have an e f f e c t on the environment u n t i l the environmental consequences have been assessed. By adopting the impact statement procedure, s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e s are f i l l i n g a most obvious gap, s i n c e many a c t i v i t i e s o f s t a t e agencies, not s u b j e c t to NEPA, have very s u b s t a n t i a l and f a r - r e a c h i n g environmental consequences. As more s t a t e s adopt t h i s procedure, the p o s s i b i l i t y o f p u b l i c c h a l l e n g e by environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s grows ever g r e a t e r . D. The Relaxed American Approach t o Standing - Is i t Working? The p r e c i s e l i m i t s o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n to which American environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s are s u b j e c t are f a r from c l e a r . However, a l i b e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Procedure A c t , NEPA and i t s s t a t e c o u n t e r p a r t s and s p e c i f i c p r o v i s i o n s such as the amendments to the Clean A i r A c t evidence s u b s t a n t i a l progress i n e n t r e n c h i n g the concept of " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " s t a n d i n g to l i t i g a t e environmental i s s u e s . Despite the l i m i t a t i o n s a r i s i n g out of S i e r r a Club v Morton, environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s now have c o n s i d e r a b l e power i n the d e c i s i o n process as a r e s u l t o f t h e i r much i n c r e a s e d o p p o r t u n i t y f o r i n t e r v e n t i o n . T h i s power i s p a r t i c u l a r l y i n evidence when one c o n t r a s t s the American approach t o the very s t r i n g e n t s t a n d i n g requirements which govern l i t i g a t i o n i n Canada. The major reason f o r examining the American experience i s t o glean whatever i s p o t e n t i a l l y u s e f u l i n Canada. There i s no q u e s t i o n t h a t the American approach suggests a much l e s s s t r i n g e n t s e t of s t a n d i n g requirements than the governing r u l e s i n Canada. What remains i s to determine how the " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " s t a n d i n g concept i n the Un i t e d S t a t e s has worked i n p r a c t i c e . For i n s t a n c e , are the r e s u l t s o f p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n g e n e r a l l y d e s i r a b l e ? Has the c o s t of i n t r o d u c i n g another power group to the d e c i s i o n process been achieved at a detriment which exceeds the b e n e f i t gained? Has the concept produced a deluge of environmental l i t i g a t i o n ? Has environmental q u a l i t y c o n t r o l been s i g n i f i c a n t l y enhanced by the advent of the p u b l i c a c t i o n ? These and other q u e s t i o n s deserve at l e a s t some attempted answers. Many of the laws d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r are too r e c e n t to allow any d e f i n i t e c o n c l u s i o n s . Some qu e s t i o n s do not admit of ready answers, and w i l l be r e s o l v e d only on a t r i a l and e r r o r b a s i s . The immediate r e s u l t s are f a i r l y obvious. Increased " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " s t anding has c r e a t e d f a r g r e a t e r p u b l i c awareness of environmental i s s u e s . Perhaps the most obvious example i s the proposed Trans-Alaska P i p e l i n e . I f f o r a moment one assumes t h a t t h i s p r o p o s a l had r a i s e d no o b j e c t i o n from e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s , p u b l i c knowledge of the dangers o f 98 shipping Alaskan o i l by tanker down the west coast to Washington would undoubtedly have been very scant. However, a great hue and cry arose from a great number of sources. Environmentalists forced the responsible o f f i c i a l s to suggest and explore alternatives. V i r t u a l l y everyone i n Canada and the United States i s now aware of the great danger to the P a c i f i c coastline from the inevitable o i l s p i l l s i f the tanker route becomes a r e a l i t y . For months every edition of most Canadian newspapers had one or more a r t i c l e s on the proposal. Much of this public awareness can be attributed d i r e c t l y to the varied e f f o r t s of environmental control organizations to prevent the pipeline and tanker route from becoming a r e a l i t y . I t now appears that i t w i l l be constructed, but i n the f u l l r e a l i z a t i o n of the possible environmental consequences. If i t should prove to be a disaster, those responsible w i l l have no opportunity to claim ignorance and w i l l be f u l l y account-able for t h e i r actions. The time i s quickly passing when either the general public or those i n power can ignore the pressing environmental problems which confront us. A good deal of t h i s awareness must be attributed to a strong environmental control movement. The increased concern and awareness has also resulted i n the development of new methods of evaluating environmental amenities. These methods are increasingly becoming an i n t e g r a l part of the decision-making process. Again, some cr e d i t for t h i s phenomenon must go to environmental control organizations which have consistently assumed the role of environmental watchdogs. 99 The end r e s u l t i s t h a t the U n i t e d States can be s a i d t o have accepted r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the environment i n a f a i r l y comprehensive sense. Although environmental degradation w i l l undoubtedly continue at what many c o n s i d e r a dangerous pace, t h i s d egradation w i l l no longer be p e r p e t r a t e d because of environmental ignorance. Proposed p r o j e c t s w i l l be shelved i n many i n s t a n c e s f o r e c o l o g i c a l l y p r e f e r a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s . Some pr o p o s a l s w i l l be h a l t e d permanently because the r e s u l t a n t b e n e f i t would not j u s t i f y the i n e v i t a b l e environmental damage. Present r e l a x e d s t a n d i n g requirements i n the United St a t e s have given environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s c o n s i d e r a b l e power to ensure t h a t the above o b j e c t i v e s are b e i n g met. I t can s c a r c e l y be argued t h a t environmental i s s u e s r e c e i v e f a r g r e a t e r a t t e n t i o n under the w a t c h f u l eye of s t r o n g environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s than would otherwise be the case. However, these b e n e f i t s were not gained without some accompanying detriment to the smooth and e f f i c i e n t o p e r a t i o n of the decision-making p r o c e s s . One of the most obvious concerns i s the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t r e l a x e d s t a n d i n g requirements w i l l r e s u l t i n a deluge of l i t i g a t i o n on every imaginable environmental i s s u e . Another i s the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s now possess the power to g r i n d the n a t i o n ' s business to a h a l t . One example of such concern i s the o b s t r u c t i o n by e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s o f proposed power f a c i l i t i e s i n the Hudson V a l l e y , at a time when New York c i t y i s f a c i n g the p o s s i b i l i t y o f f u r t h e r power brown-outs. Another i s the delay i n p i p e l i n e p lans when the 100 U n i t e d S t a t e s faces a severe energy c r i s i s . Both q u e s t i o n s can be r e s o l v e d i n t o a s i n g l e i s s u e -i s the i n c r e a s e d p u b l i c environmental a c t i v i s m being allowed at a c o s t so great as t o be u n j u s t i f i e d i n the " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " ? One must ask whether the a p p r o p r i a t e balance between environmental p r o t e c t i o n and reasonable progress can be achieved and i s be i n g achieved under the American system which allows p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n c o n s i d e r a b l e scope. The present system has not been o p e r a t i v e f o r a s u f f i c i e n t l e n g t h of time to allow any d e f i n i t e c o n c l u s i o n s to be drawn. NEPA has been the s u b j e c t of a c t u a l l i t i g a t i o n f o r a p e r i o d o f l e s s than two y e a r s . Most s t a t e acts a f f e c t i n g s t a n d i n g have been enacted subsequent to NEPA, many w i t h i n the past year. The Supreme Court has had only one o p p o r t u n i t y t o r u l e on the l e g a l s t a n d i n g of environmental 113 o r g a n i z a t i o n s , and f o r the most p a r t f a i l e d to meet the i s s u e s . To date, no one has suggested t h a t the system i s capable o f f i n a l e v a l u a t i o n , and the author w i l l not be so presumptuous as to d i s a g r e e . However, an i n t e r i m judgment of the system does not seem out of p l a c e . C o n s i d e r a b l e i n s i g h t can be gained by d e f i n i n g the i s s u e s and examining the o p i n i o n s o f some of those i n v o l v e d i n the system, i n an attempt to determine what the r e s u l t i s l i k e l y to be. The i s s u e s can bes t be presented by examining two s i t u a t i o n s where the power of " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s has manifested i t s e l f very c l e a r l y . One i s the power shortage i n the e a s t e r n U n i t e d S t a t e s which has r e s u l t e d i n power "brown-outs" to v a r i o u s areas i n 101 and around New York C i t y . The Hudson R i v e r r e p r e s e n t s a p o t e n t i a l power source t o a l l e v i a t e t o some ex t e n t the problem of an inadequate power supply. I t a l s o r e p r e s e n t s to e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s , v a c a t i o n e r s , and people who l i v e along i t s banks, a source of a e s t h e t i c and r e c r e a t i o n a l p l e a s u r e . Proposals to b u i l d power f a c i l i t i e s on the Hudson have been s u c c e s s f u l l y b l o c k e d by e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s s i n c e 196 7, when the c o u r t r u l e d , i n S c e n i c Hudson P r e s e r v a t i o n Conference v 114 F.P.C. t h a t the F e d e r a l Power Commission had f a i l e d to c o n s i d e r v a r i o u s a l t e r n a t i v e s i n r e a c h i n g t h e i r d e c i s i o n on the means by which a d d i t i o n a l power should be s u p p l i e d t o New York C i t y . P o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s i n c l u d e d the use o f : gas t u r b i n e s , underground t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e s , i n t e r c o n n e c t e d power from New England and steam ge n e r a t i o n p l a n t s l o c a t e d i n Pe n n s y l v a n i a . T h i s example i s not b e i n g c i t e d t o show which, i f any, of the a l t e r n a t i v e s was f e a s i b l e . Rather i t s purpose i s to show t h a t environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s do i n some i n s t a n c e s have the power t o prevent c e r t a i n p r o p o s a l s from becoming a r e a l i t y , d e s p i t e the i n s i s t e n c e by r e s p o n s i b l e o f f i c i a l s t h a t these p r o p o s a l s are necessary to f i l l a p r e s s i n g need. There i s a c l e a r n e c e s s i t y to balance i n t e r e s t s to bes t s u i t the s i t u a t i o n . Any r i s e i n the c o s t of power as a r e s u l t of e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t a c t i v i t y may w e l l c r e a t e a s e r i o u s problem f o r those r e s i d e n t s o f New York C i t y l e a s t able t o a f f o r d an i n c r e a s e . I r o n i c a l l y , they r e p r e s e n t an element of s o c i e t y to whom the r e c r e a t i o n a l , a e s t h e t i c and c o n s e r v a t i o n a l values 102 of the Hudson p r o v i d e the l e a s t b e n e f i t because of t h e i r i n a b i l i t y to leave the c i t y and enjoy the r i v e r environment. On the oth e r hand, the e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s who s u c c e s s f u l l y delayed c o n s t r u c t i o n of the Hudson power f a c i l i t i e s d i d not argue t h a t New York C i t y had s u f f i c i e n t power. What they o b j e c t e d t o was the commission's d e c i s i o n to c o n s t r u c t the f a c i l i t i e s without g i v i n g adequate c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s . Had the environmental a c t i v i t y not been allowed, presumably the power f a c i l i t i e s would have been c o n s t r u c t e d on the Hudson with no c o n s i d e r a t i o n whatever f o r o t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e s which might have been capable of p r o v i d i n g the necessary power without d e s t r o y i n g the a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t i e s of p a r t s o f the Hudson. Th i s r e s u l t , a p p l i e d to other s i t u a t i o n s on a nationwide b a s i s , would i n e v i t a b l y , and i n many i n s t a n c e s u n n e c e s s a r i l y , destroy the a e s t h e t i c , c o n s e r v a t i o n a l and r e c r e a t i o n a l value of v a s t areas o f the United S t a t e s . S i m i l a r problems a r i s e i n the con t r o v e r s y surrounding the U n i t e d S t a t e s p r o p o s a l t o b u i l d a Tr a n s - A l a s k a p i p e l i n e from Prudhoe Bay t o Valdez, from which p o i n t the o i l would be shipped by tanker down the West coast to the Cherry P o i n t r e f i n e r y i n Washington. Few people seem w i l l i n g t o argue t h a t the Un i t e d S t a t e s does not r e q u i r e an i n c r e a s e d supply of petroleum, or t h a t Alaskan o i l should not form p a r t of t h a t i n c r e a s e d supply. However, the method of s u p p l y i n g the o i l to the c o n t i n e n t a l U n i t e d S t a t e s has r e s u l t e d i n a head-on c o n f r o n t a t i o n between e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s and the U.S. Department of the I n t e r i o r 103 which i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i s s u i n g the necessary p e r m i t s . The major cause of concern has been the p o s s i b i l i t y o f l a r g e o i l s p i l l s along the tanker r o u t e . E n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s have s u c c e s s f u l l y delayed the issuance o f the permits necessary to commence c o n s t r u c t i o n . B r i t i s h Columbia M.P. David Anderson (L.-Esquimalt-Saanich) and the Canadian W i l d l i f e F e d e r a t i o n w i l l j o i n the American e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s i n the s t r u g g l e as a r e s u l t of a r u l i n g by the United S t a t e s Court of Appeals i n Washington which allows t h e i r . . . 115 p a r t i c i p a t i o n . NEPA p r o v i s i o n s were s u c c e s s f u l l y invoked by the Wilderness S o c i e t y and oth e r e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s t o r e q u i r e the S e c r e t a r y o f the I n t e r i o r t o c o n s i d e r a l t e r n a t i v e s to the 116 proposed p i p e l i n e and tanker route. The most s i g n i f i c a n t a l t e r n a t i v e was a p i p e l i n e south through the Mackenzie V a l l e y to the Un i t e d S t a t e s , a p r o p o s a l favoured by the Canadian government.''""'"^ An impact statement of 3,200 pages was prepared showing, i n e f f e c t , t h a t the Mackenzie V a l l e y route, which r e q u i r e s no accompanying tanker route, presented l e s s e c o l o g i c a l danger than the Trans-Alaska p i p e l i n e . However, NEPA does not r e q u i r e the r e s p o n s i b l e F e d e r a l o f f i c i a l to choose the a l t e r n a t i v e l e a s t e c o l o g i c a l l y d e s t r u c t i v e . I t only r e q u i r e s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a l t e r n a t i v e s and environmental consequences before a d e c i s i o n i s reached. A c c o r d i n g l y , on May 12, 19 72, the S e c r e t a r y of the I n t e r i o r announced the d e c i s i o n of the United S t a t e s government 118 to b u i l d the Trans-Alaskan p i p e l i n e as o r i g i n a l l y proposed. 104 U l t i m a t e l y , the i s s u e w i l l l i k e l y be r e s o l v e d by the Supreme Court. Again, as i n S c e n i c Hudson, the e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s have succeeded i n d e l a y i n g the c o n s t r u c t i o n of what i s c o n s i d e r e d by many to be a very u r g e n t l y needed p i p e l i n e . Have they done a d i s s e r v i c e t o the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t by p l a c i n g o b s t a c l e s i n the way of the S e c r e t a r y of the I n t e r i o r ? I t i s submitted t h a t the environmental a c t i v i t y here, as i n S c e n i c Hudson, has p r o v i d e d a v a l u a b l e p u b l i c s e r v i c e i f viewed i n i t s proper p e r s p e c t i v e . In n e i t h e r i n s t a n c e were the e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s s u g g e s t i n g t h a t the goods and s e r v i c e s to be s u p p l i e d by the proposed f a c i l i t i e s were unnecessary. T h e i r o b j e c t i o n s c e n t e r e d around the methods chosen to p r o v i d e these s e r v i c e s . I t seems s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t the e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s succeeded i n both i n s t a n c e s i n c h a l l e n g i n g the r e s p e c t i v e d e c i s i o n s not because of the nature of the proposed a c t i o n s , but because of the r e s p e c t i v e f a i l u r e s on the p a r t of the r e s p o n s i b l e o f f i c i a l s to adequately c o n s i d e r p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s to the proposed a c t i o n s . This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y a s t o n i s h i n g i n the p i p e l i n e example, s i n c e NEPA c l e a r l y d i r e c t e d the f o r m u l a t i o n and d e s c r i p t i o n of a l t e r n a t i v e s , and one can s c a r c e l y imagine a proposed major F e d e r a l a c t i o n with g r e a t e r e c o l o g i c a l consequences than an 800 mile p i p e l i n e supplemented by a tanker route down the West c o a s t . Yet the Department of the I n t e r i o r showed l i t t l e concern f o r a l t e r n a t i v e s u n t i l f o r c e d by the e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s to examine other p o s s i b i l i t i e s . T h i s f a c t o r becomes even more i n c r e d i b l e when one 10 5 r e a l i z e s t h a t the Mackenzie V a l l e y route presented an obvious a l t e r n a t i v e with l e s s environmental d i s r u p t i o n and the support o f the Canadian government. Undoubtedly there are many who w i l l condemn the e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s ' t a c t i c s as being l a r g e l y o b s t r u c t i o n i s t i n n a t u r e . However, i t i s of paramount importance to note t h a t e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s have never had, nor do they now have, the power to a c t u a l l y prevent permanently any proposed government a c t i o n . They do have the power, however, to ensure t h a t the government department or o f f i c i a l i s w i t h i n s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y and i n compliance with e x i s t i n g requirements. I t i s only when the r e s p o n s i b l e o f f i c i a l seeks to i g n o r e the NEPA d i r e c t i v e s or other s t a t u t o r y d u t i e s t h a t a " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " o r g a n i z a t i o n has a foundation upon which to c h a l l e n g e t h a t a c t i o n . I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t i n the absence of e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t a c t i v i t y , NEPA d i r e c t i v e s would r e c e i v e only t h a t compliance which each agency v o l u n t a r i l y undertook, s i n c e the p r e s e n t l e g i s l a t i v e scheme prov i d e s no i enforcement procedure. There i s no s e r i o u s doubt t h a t i n c r e a s e d power i n " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " groups has r e s u l t e d i n c o n s i d e r a b l e delay i n both agency and c o u r t proceedings. However, much of t h a t delay must be c r e d i t e d t o the agencies' r e l u c t a n c e to f u l f i l l t h e i r s t a t u t o r y environmental o b l i g a t i o n s , thereby making p o s s i b l e a p u b l i c c h a l l e n g e . Again the p i p e l i n e i s s u e p r o v i d e s an example. The only p o i n t decided i n the s u i t by the Wilderness S o c i e t y was t h a t the Department of the I n t e r i o r f a i l e d to adequately c o n s i d e r a l t e r n a t i v e s . In 106 view of the c l e a r mandate i n NEPA to c o n s i d e r such a l t e r n a t i v e s , one wonders whether such f a i l u r e s should be condoned. In any event, these delays can be e l i m i n a t e d i n only two ways. One i s to prevent " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " groups from p o i n t i n g out the inadequacies of agency assessment of the environmental consequences and p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s . The second i s to continue to allow environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s to f o r c e f u l l compliance. The f i r s t method seems to ensure t h a t agencies w i l l continue to circumvent e x i s t i n g environmental o b l i g a t i o n s when i t i s convenient, s i n c e they would be under no p r e s s u r e to do otherwise. The second, and more p r e f e r a b l e method, i s to continue to coerce the agencies to f u l l compliance u n t i l such time as they recognize the f u t i l i t y of anything l e s s . I f agencies ever reach t h a t p o i n t , then the environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s would s c a r c e ever succeed i n l i t i g a t i o n , s i n c e there would be no b a s i s f o r c h a l l e n g e . U n t i l the agencies reach t h a t l e v e l of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , c ontinued p u b l i c p r e s s u r e seems a necessary i n g r e d i e n t i n the environmental d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s . There are many o b j e c t i o n s to the e x t e n s i o n of s t a n d i n g requirements to i n c l u d e the " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " . There i s a f e a r t h a t l i t i g a t i o n would be undertaken by hordes of l i t i g a n t s . T h i s very f e a r was expressed by Mr. J u s t i c e Stewart i n S i e r r a Club v H i c k e l . T h i s would then r e s u l t i n an unmanageable backlog i n the c o u r t s . There was a l s o the f e a r t h a t f r i v o l o u s and v e x a t i o u s a c t i o n s would become common p l a c e . 107 For the most p a r t , these o b j e c t i o n s have not been borne out i n the American ex p e r i e n c e . This i s s u e r e c e i v e d s p e c i f i c j u d i c i a l comment i n S c e n i c Hudson: "We see no j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the commission's f e a r t h a t our d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i l l encourage ' l i t e r a l l y thousands' to i n t e r v e n e and seek j u d i c i a l review i n f u t u r e proceedings. We r e j e c t e d a s i m i l a r c o n t e n t i o n i n A s s o c i a t e d  I n d u s t r i e s v Iekes, .... n o t i n g t h a t "no such horrendous p o s s i b i l i t i e s ' e x i s t . Our experience with p u b l i c a c t i o n s confirms the view t h a t the expense and the v e x a t i o n of l e g a l proceedings i s not l i g h t l y undertaken."119 S c e n i c Hudson was decided i n 1967. The environmental cases decided between 1967 and 1972 (with the e x c e p t i o n of those decided by The Ninth C i r c u i t ) appeared to accept t h i s l i n e of r e a s o n i n g . I t i s extremely d i f f i c u l t t o assess what i s meant by a "horde of l i t i g a n t s " or a "deluge of l i t i g a t i o n " . However, there does not seem to be any reason to suggest t h a t the e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s have taken undue advantage of the r e l a x e d s t a n d i n g requirements. For example, s i n c e NEPA's enactment on January 1, 1970, some f i f t y - e i g h t judgments have been handed down i n which NEPA p r o v i s i o n s were construed. I f one assumes t h a t no l i t i g a t i o n was undertaken f o r the f i r s t s i x months f o l l o w i n g i t s passage i n t o law, then f i f t y - e i g h t d e c i s i o n s r e p r e s e n t an average of j u s t over one-half a judgment per year per s t a t e . T h i s can h a r d l y be c o n s i d e r e d a deluge when one c o n s i d e r s the number of e c o l o g i c a l l y d i s r u p t i v e p r o p o s a l s brought f o r t h d u r i n g a twelve year p e r i o d i n a n a t i o n as l a r g e as the U n i t e d S t a t e s . Furthermore, most environmental d e c i s i o n s which d i d 108 reach the c o u r t concerned major developments which prompted genuine environmental concern. In s h o r t , the ex t e n s i o n o f " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " s t a n d i n g does not appear to have r e s u l t e d e i t h e r i n a horde of l i t i g a n t s or an unusual number of f r i v o l o u s or vexatious a c t i o n s . However, the Supreme Court i n S i e r r a v Morton d e c l i n e d to examine the f i v e year p e r i o d s i n c e S c e n i c Hudson allowed " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " s t a n d i n g , and merely concluded i n the a b s t r a c t t h a t to allow s t a n d i n g on a p u r e l y p u b l i c i n t e r e s t would open wide the f l o o d g a t e s . I t i s unfortunate indeed t h a t the c o u r t missed an e x c e l l e n t o p p o r t u n i t y to weight the v a r i o u s f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d and to make a d e f i n i t i v e statement on the fu t u r e p o t e n t i a l f o r " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " s t a n d i n g . I t i s necessary to note that the court i s not powerless to d e a l with vexatious or f r i v o l o u s s u i t s , a f a c t o r which the 120 Supreme Court seemed not to c o n s i d e r . In South H i l l the cour t d e c l i n e d to con f e r s t a n d i n g because the o r g a n i z a t i o n had not been i n e x i s t e n c e long enough to have developed the necessary s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t i n the area. 121 The N i n t h C i r c u i t i n Alameda expressed concern t h a t the r i g h t s of the i n d i v i d u a l s i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n were not tendered f o r l i t i g a t i o n , and a c c o r d i n g l y each member would be f r e e to r e l i t i g a t e . Where necessary, the c o u r t s have s o l v e d t h i s problem by g r a n t i n g the defendant's motion t h a t the p l a i n t i f f s be r e q u i r e d to proceed under Rule 23 as a c l a s s a c t i o n to f o r e c l o s e the t h r e a t of harassment through 122 c o n s e c u t i v e l a w s u i t s . The p l a i n t i f f environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n then l i t i g a t e d the i s s u e s as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e 109 p l a i n t i f f f o r those c l a i m i n g t o be among the c l a s s of i n j u r e d . In a d d i t i o n to these s p e c i f i c c o n t r o l s , the c o u r t i s always i n a p o s i t i o n t o e n t e r t a i n a motion to d i s m i s s where the p l a i n t i f f ' s p l e a d i n g s d i s c l o s e no cause of a c t i o n or are c l e a r l y of a f r i v o l o u s or vexatious nature. To suggest t h a t the c o u r t i s powerless t o prevent a f l o o d of l i t i g a t i o n i s simply to ignore both the s p e c i f i c and g e n e r a l powers possessed by a l l c o u r t s to s u p e r v i s e and c o n t r o l the l i t i g a t i o n which a r i s e s . The Supreme Court may have been p a r t i a l l y j u s t i f i e d i n t h e i r concern over i n d i v i d u a l s l i t i g a t i n g environmental i s s u e s . T h i s p o s s i b i l i t y seems a very p r i v a t e and piecemeal approach to environmental l i t i g a t i o n and as such may not be d e s i r a b l e . There may a l s o be good reason to r e q u i r e an o r g a n i z a t i o n to demonstrate the necessary s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t s i n c e the o r g a n i z a t i o n , i f given s t a n d i n g , w i l l i n e f f e c t be r e p r e s e n t i n g the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . I t i s much more d i f f i c u l t to j u s t i f y t h e i r r e f u s a l to c o n f e r s t a n d i n g i n the S i e r r a Club, however, s i n c e i t r e p r e s e n t e d a huge membership with a demonstrated and l o n g -s t a n d i n g s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t i n environmental matters. Others i n p o s i t i o n s of power i n the environmental d e c i s i o n process have a c o n s i d e r a b l y more k i n d l y a t t i t u d e to a c t i v i t i e s of environmental " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The C o u n c i l on Environmental Q u a l i t y , a p r e s t i g o u s i f not powerful environmental body i n the government s t r u c t u r e , commented on " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " l i t i g a t i o n : 110 "The c i t i z e n l i t i g a t i o n has not only c h a l l e n g e d s p e c i f i c government and p r i v a t e a c t i o n s which were e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y u n d e s i r a b l e . I t has speeded cou r t d e f i n i t i o n of what i s r e q u i r e d of F e d e r a l agencies under environmental p r o t e c t i o n s t a t u t e s . The s u i t s have f o r c e d g r e a t e r s e n s i t i v i t y i n both government and i n d u s t r y to environmental c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . And they have educated lawmakers and the p u b l i c to the need f o r new environmental l e g i s l a t i o n . " 1 2 3 The C o u n c i l adopted the f o l l o w i n g r e s o l u t i o n of i t s L e g a l A d v i s o r y Committee: "Where an o r g a n i z a t i o n or group of c i t i z e n s devoted t o , or with a demonstrated i n t e r e s t i n environmental p r o t e c t i o n a s s e r t s a c l a i m a g a i n s t an agency of the Government i n r e l i a n c e on the p r o v i s i o n s of the N a t i o n a l Environmental P o l i c y A c t , or of other l e g i s l a t i o n designed to p r o t e c t the environment, the i n t e r p o s i t i o n by the Government of the defense of lack of s t a n d i n g i s i n c o n s i s t e n t with F e d e r a l Government p o l i c y , as e x e m p l i f i e d i n the N a t i o n a l Environmental P o l i c y Act and i n other l e g i s l a t i o n . " 1 2 4 The above r e s o l u t i o n i s tantamount to sug g e s t i n g t h a t the Government i s a c t i n g improperly by even r a i s i n g the defense of lack of s t a n d i n g . The C o u n c i l on Environmental Q u a l i t y has very l i t t l e a c t u a l power under p r e s e n t NEPA p r o v i s i o n s . However, i t s l o c a t i o n i n the E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e of the P r e s i d e n t and i t s c a p a c i t y as environmental a d v i s o r to the P r e s i d e n t g i v e s i t great p r e s t i g e and i n f l u e n c e i n environmental matters. No group o u t s i d e the e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t c i r c l e s has spoken out more s t r o n g l y i n f a v o r of continued a c t i v i t y by environmental o r g a n i z a t i o n s . One might go so f a r as to suggest t h a t f u r t h e r l e g i s l a t i o n r e l a x i n g s t a n d i n g requirements may w e l l be deemed by the C o u n c i l to be necessary i f the p u b l i c a c t i o n continues to be emasculated by d e c i s i o n s such as S i e r r a v Morton. The C o u n c i l ' s p r o x i m i t y to the I l l P r e s i d e n t makes t h i s a very r e a l p o s s i b i l i t y . In f a c t the 125 Senate i s now c o n s i d e r i n g such l e g i s l a t i o n . I t seems c l e a r t h a t " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " o r g a n i z a t i o n s have r e c e i v e d wide acceptance i n the United States environmental power s t r u c t u r e . Some i n d u s t r i e s and govern-ment agencies may f e e l , f o r what seem to be obvious reasons, t h a t these o r g a n i z a t i o n s have too much o b s t r u c t i o n i s t power. On the other hand, environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s would no doubt a p p r e c i a t e even g r e a t e r powers to ensure t h a t environmental consequences are given adequate c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Despite the u n c e r t a i n t y as to the p r e c i s e l i m i t s which should be p l a c e d on e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t a c t i v i t y , the concept of " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " s t a n d i n g seems d e s t i n e d to remain an i n t e g r a l p a r t of the American environmental decision-making p r o c e s s . The f u t u r e of environmental group s t a n d i n g depends l a r g e l y on the a b i l i t y of the v a r i o u s o r g a n i z a t i o n s to continue to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a r e s p o n s i b l e f a s h i o n . To date the expected "bogey man" b r i n g i n g a f l o o d of l i t i g a t i o n has not a r r i v e d . I t i s u n l i k e l y at t h i s p o i n t t h a t he w i l l ever a r r i v e . Most of the i s s u e s which have been l i t i g a t e d are of general concern t o the p u b l i c . There can be no doubt t h a t the a c t i v i t i e s of the o r g a n i z e d e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s has produced g r e a t e r s e n s i t i v i t y , awareness and understanding of environmental i s s u e s . There simply do not appear to be v a l i d arguments to r e s t r i c t t h i s a c t i v i t y . One f i n a l p o i n t deserves mention. We are o f t e n concerned about any a c t i v i t i e s which delay the f a s t , e f f i c i e n t 112 conduct o f our p e r s o n a l , l o c a l and n a t i o n a l b u s i n e s s . We seem to d e f i n e progress as the a b i l i t y to o b t a i n as much as p o s s i b l e as q u i c k l y as p o s s i b l e . We i n North America consume at a r a t e which i s incomprehensible t o many na t i o n s of the world. T h i s a t t i t u d e has taken a s e r i o u s t o l l on our environmental r e s o u r c e s , the extent of which has j u s t r e c e n t l y been r e a l i z e d . There may be no a l t e r n a t i v e but to slow down and r e f l e c t on our p a s t while we ponder our f u t u r e . Perhaps the a v i d e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t i s merely a man with g r e a t e r f o r e -s i g h t than we have reason to expect. I t seems u n l i k e l y we need ever t o i n c r e a s e our al r e a d y l u x u r i o u s l i f e s t y l e a t the expense of our environment. The answer depends on our response to the environmental c r i s i s , and the e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s have s u c c e s s f u l l y f o r c e d us to pause and c o n s i d e r what t h a t response should p r o p e r l y be. Canada has f o r the most p a r t f a i l e d t o take advantage of the views of e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s and has l o s t p r e c i o u s years i n the s t r u g g l e t o c o n t r o l environmental degradation. T h i s p a s t f a i l u r e can be r e c t i f i e d and should be r e c t i f i e d by the necessary l e g i s l a t i o n , to ensure t h a t the Canadian environment r e c e i v e s maximum p r o t e c t i o n i n our haste t o consume. 113 CHAPTER IV A PROPOSED FORMULA FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN CANADA There can be l i t t l e doubt t h a t environmental standards c o u l d be g r e a t l y improved by a s t r o n g Canadian environmental c o n t r o l movement. There i s e q u a l l y l i t t l e doubt t h a t environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n Canada w i l l slowly erode the r i g i d s t a n d i n g laws p r e s e n t l y i n e x i s t e n c e . I f we f a i l t o i n c l u d e i n our p l a n s f o r environmental c o n t r o l an adequate v e h i c l e f o r p u b l i c e x p r e s s i o n , t h i s e r o s i o n may come about i n a very haphazard way through the l a b o r i o u s case method. Regardless of the method by which p r e s e n t standing laws are d i s p a t c h e d , i t seems i n e v i t a b l e t h a t they must go. In r e c o g n i t i o n of t h i s f a c t , a model w i l l be proposed which w i l l enable the p u b l i c to express adequately i t s concern f o r environmental q u a l i t y . The American experience would seem to i n d i c a t e t h a t f e a r s of r e s u l t a n t chaos f o l l o w i n g the advent of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n environmental matters were l a r g e l y unfounded. I t i s both d e s i r a b l e and t i m e l y , then, to seek to develop a system which p r o v i d e s f o r p u b l i c e x p r e s s i o n with a minimum o f d i s r u p t i o n to th a t system. Two p o i n t s assume paramount s i g n i f i c a n c e i n any c o n s i d e r -a t i o n o f i n t r o d u c i n g p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n to the Canadian environmental d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s . F i r t l y , some determination should be made as to the r o l e o f a s t a t u t e s i m i l a r to the N a t i o n a l Environmental P o l i c y Act i n the Canadian context. Secondly, i f p r e s e n t r u l e s o f l e g a l s t a n d i n g are to be r e l a x e d , 114 some formula i s needed to determine what i n d i v i d u a l s o r which environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s should have l e g a l s t a n d i n g i n a given s i t u a t i o n . S u c c e s s f u l r e s o l u t i o n of these p o i n t s w i l l have .considerable b e a r i n g on the u l t i m a t e e f f i c i e n c y o f the p u b l i c s t a n d i n g concept i n Canada. A. NEPA i n Canada. NEPA i s e a s i l y the most f a r - r e a c h i n g environmental s t a t u t e to date i n North America. While i t i s gen e r a l i n i t s terms, and se t s no environmental standards, i t i s amazingly comprehensive i n i t s e f f e c t on environmental q u a l i t y . T h i s i s l a r g e l y a r e s u l t of i t s a p p l i c a t i o n to every agency and department of the government of the j u r i s d i c t i o n i n which i t i s enacted. E q u a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i s the f a c t t h a t NEPA c r e a t e s a c l e a r event upon which t o base a ch a l l e n g e o f an agency a c t i o n . Every agency under F e d e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n (and those agencies i n S t a t e s where a s i m i l a r s t a t u t e has been passed) must make a d e t a i l e d environmental assessment i n each proposed major a c t i o n which i s l i k e l y to have environmental consequences. F a i l u r e to prepare an adequate environmental impact statement, or an improper d e c i s i o n not to prepare such a statement, s u b j e c t s the agency d e c i s i o n to j u d i c i a l review at the i n s t a n c e of any e n t i t y having the necessary l e g a l s t a n d i n g . Despite the f a c t t h a t NEPA does not s p e c i f i c a l l y a l t e r the e x i s t i n g laws of s t a n d i n g , i t does c l e a r l y c r e a t e an event upon which t o base an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l review when NEPA i s not complied w i t h , r e g a r d l e s s of the s p e c i f i c wording of the s t a t u t e from which the agency d e r i v e s i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n . 115 T h i s f a c t o r , perhaps more than any other, makes the NEPA concept i n v a l u a b l e i n the concept o f the Canadian system. P r e s e n t l y , as demonstrated i n Chapter 11, Canadian agencies are s u b j e c t to few mandatory environmental o b l i g a t i o n s under e x i s t i n g l e g i s l a t i o n . T h i s d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t an i n c r e a s i n g p r o p o r t i o n of government business i s being t r a n s a c t e d by a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agencies. I f the e n a b l i n g s t a t u t e f a i l s to recognize the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n the environment, or f a i l s t o r e q u i r e the agency to c o n s i d e r environmental consequences i n a r r i v i n g at i t s d e c i s i o n s , then no o p p o r t u n i t y e x i s t s to take the agency t o task f o r i g n o r i n g those f a c t o r s . A Canadian NEPA has the p o t e n t i a l to n u l l i f y these d e f i c i e n c i e s and to ensure t h a t our a d m i n i s t r a t o r s develop the a b i l i t y and i n t e r e s t to remain ever conscious of t h e i r enormous environmental r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Under NEPA, each agency, as a matter of course, must c o n s t a n t l y assess the environmental impact of i t s d e c i s i o n s , s i n c e f a i l u r e to do so a u t o m a t i c a l l y c o n s t i t u t e s a reviewable breach r e g a r d l e s s of the e n a b l i n g s t a t u t e . E s s e n t i a l l y , NEPA p r o v i d e s a means of i n t r o d u c i n g mandatory assessment of environmental consequences of d e c i s i o n s . The e f f e c t would be s i m i l a r to p l a c i n g such mandatory requirements i n each s t a t u t e having environmental consequences. However, NEPA achieves t h i s r e s u l t i n one simple, comprehensive s t a t u t e . There are, of course, a g r e a t many other advantages to NEPA which have r e c e i v e d d e t a i l e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n e a r l i e r i n t h i s paper and need only be r e f e r r e d t o i n p a s s i n g f o r pr e s e n t 116 purposes. No p r i o r s t a t u t e has e x h i b i t e d an equal a b i l i t y to f o r c e an e n t i r e government to be r e g u l a r l y conscious of i t s environmental o b l i g a t i o n s . From the moment of i t s passage, NEPA became a f o r c e t o be reckoned with i n each and every department and agency under i t s purview. Even those o f f i c i a l s not p a r t i c u l a r l y d i s p o s e d to environmental awareness co u l d not ig n o r e i t s requirements. Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , r e a c t i o n s to NEPA were v a r i e d , and the degree of v o l u n t a r y compliance seems e q u a l l y to be l a c k i n g i n u n i f o r m i t y . Yet i n the f i n a l a n a l y s i s , NEPA has proved to be a very i n f l u e n t i a l t o o l i n i n c r e a s i n g the degree of r o u t i n e and w i l l i n g response to environmental problems among government o f f i c i a l s and members of the general p u b l i c a l i k e . The b e n e f i t s of NEPA so obvious i n the American experience would be most welcome i n Canada. No good reasons e x i s t why a Canadian NEPA cou l d not produce s i m i l a r environment-a l c o n t r o l b e n e f i t s . However, Canada has a very d i f f e r e n t p o l i t i c a l s t r u c t u r e than the U n i t e d S t a t e s , as a r e s u l t of which NEPA i n i t s American form would l i k e l y prove q u i t e i n e f f e c t i v e as an instrument of environmental c o n t r o l i n Canada. The b a s i c p h i l o s o p h y of the A c t seems u n a s s a i l a b l e i n any j u r i s d i c t i o n . However, to achieve the o b j e c t i v e s of the Act i n Canada, c e r t a i n changes i n i t s s t r u c t u r e seem e s s e n t i a l . 1. The C o u n c i l on Environmental Q u a l i t y . In any Canadian v e r s i o n of NEPA, i t seems e s s e n t i a l t h a t the C o u n c i l on Environmental Q u a l i t y be given s u b s t a n t i a l enforcement p r o v i s i o n s to ensure compliance with NEPA p r o v i s i o n s . The American C o u n c i l has no p o l i c i n g power of any s o r t , and 117 serves b a s i c a l l y c o - o r d i n a t i n g and a d v i s o r y f u n c t i o n s . Despite t h i s lack of enforcement power, the American C o u n c i l ' s l o c a t i o n i n the E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e of the P r e s i d e n t g i v e s i t a p o s i t i o n of p r e s t i g e and- i n f l u e n c e which may be of equal or g r e a t e r s i g n i f i c a n c e . I t i s d i f f i c u l t to imagine any comparable arrangement i n Canada at e i t h e r the f e d e r a l o r p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l which would p r o v i d e the C o u n c i l with s u f f i c i e n t p r e s t i g e and i n f l u e n c e to n u l l i f y the absence of any r e a l power under the l e g i s l a t i o n . A c c o r d i n g l y , i t seems reasonably e s s e n t i a l t o the e f f e c t i v e o p e r a t i o n of NEPA i n Canada t h a t the C o u n c i l on Environmental Q u a l i t y occupies a p o s i t i o n r e l a t i v e l y f r e e of p o l i t i c a l i n f l u e n c e and possesses s p e c i f i c enforcement powers under the l e g i s l a t i o n t o ensure that government agencies and departments comply s t r i c t l y with NEPA requirements. S e v e r a l suggestions can be made to achieve t h i s o b j e c t i v e . Canada's p o l i t i c a l s t r u c t u r e , composed of at l e a s t three major p a r t i e s seeking votes at both f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l s , would seem t o d i c t a t e C o u n c i l s at both l e v e l s which were composed of members of v a r y i n g p o l i t i c a l views. T h i s would ensure a g r e a t e r c r o s s s e c t i o n of views among C o u n c i l members, wh i l e e n s u r i n g t h a t the f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l c o u n c i l s were not merely rubberstamping the views of the p a r t i c u l a r p a r t y then i n power. Appointees c o u l d be from v a r i o u s backgrounds, with each p o s s e s s i n g a demonstrated i n t e r e s t i n environmental matters and b r i n g i n g to the C o u n c i l a p a r t i c u l a r e x p e r t i s e on matters a f f e c t i n g environmental c o n t r o l . P r e f e r a b l y , appointments 118 c o u l d be made by a vote of the f u l l p a r l i a m e n t o r l e g i s l a t u r e on a non-party b a s i s , which would help t o ensure that appointments were made on the b a s i s o f q u a l i f i c a t i o n s and i n t e r e s t i n environmental matters r a t h e r than on the b a s i s o f the p o l i t i c a l l e a n i n g s of the p o t e n t i a l appointees. A s u i t a b l e term might be f i v e y e a r s , with p r o v i s i o n f o r renewal f o r a f u r t h e r f i v e y e a r s . T h i s would prevent the i n e v i t a b l e s t a l e n e s s which develops i n a guaranteed permanent appointment, while a l l o w i n g the appointees s u f f i c i e n t time t o develop s p e c i a l e x p e r t i s e i n the a f f a i r s of the C o u n c i l . The major problem remains t h a t of forming a C o u n c i l reasonably f r e e of p o l i t i c a l i n f l u e n c e . No easy answer suggests i t s e l f , s i n c e the l e g i s l a t i o n necessary to b r i n g NEPA and the C o u n c i l i n t o e x i s t e n c e must of n e c e s s i t y emanate from the governing p a r t y . However, assuming some s i n c e r i t y i n the government asked to i n t r o d u c e such l e g i s l a t i o n , the problem i s not i n s u p e r a b l e . One p o s s i b i l i t y which deserves c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s a C o u n c i l o r g a n i z e d i n a manner s i m i l a r t o the f e d e r a l A u d i t o r -General's Department. The Au d i t o r - G e n e r a l a u d i t s the f e d e r a l books, and i n e f f e c t a c t s as the f i n a n c i a l watchdog on p u b l i c spending. The p o s i t i o n i s somewhat unique i n Canada i n t h a t i t p r o v i d e s p u b l i c funds to a department which s c r u t i n i z e s and o f t e n c r i t i c i z e s the spending r e c o r d of the government. The p o s i t i o n i s not e n t i r e l y f r e e o f p o l i t i c a l i n f l u e n c e , due i n p a r t to the f a c t t h a t Parliament a u t h o r i z e s the funds to be made a v a i l a b l e t o the A u d i t o r - G e n e r a l to c a r r y out h i s f u n c t i o n . F r e q u e n t l y , the complaint i s made th a t inadequate funding has 119 made the department l e s s e f f e c t i v e than i t might o t h e r w i s e 127 be. However, d e s p i t e t h e s e c o m p l a i n t s , no o t h e r o f f i c i a l can so d i v o r c e h i m s e l f from the wo r k i n g s o f p a r l i a m e n t and s i t back and c r i t i c i z e t h e a c t i o n s o f t h a t p a r l i a m e n t . T h i s c oncept might w e l l be a d a p t a b l e t o produce what c o u l d p r e d i c i t a b l y be termed an E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o u n c i l - G e n e r a l , which would f i l e an annual r e p o r t b e f o r e f u l l P a r l i a m e n t o u t l i n i n g the e x t e n t t o which t h e government has s p e n t , o r m i s s p e n t , o ur e n v i r o n m e n t a l r e s o u r c e s . I n c l u d e d i n the r e p o r t would be a statement on t h e degree t o which government a g e n c i e s , departments and o f f i c i a l s c o m p l i e d w i t h NEPA r e q u i r e m e n t s d u r i n g t h e p r e c e d i n g p e r i o d . The A u d i t o r -G e n e r a l ' s r e p o r t i n e v i t a b l y embarrases the government by d e t a i l i n g some i n c r e d i b l e f i n a n c i a l b l u n d e r s . Such b l u n d e r s are bound t o be e q u a l l y f r e q u e n t i n e n v i r o n m e n t a l m a t t e r s , and the above may su g g e s t one method t o b r i n g t h e s e t o the a t t e n t i o n o f the p u b l i c . However, i t i s not e n t i r e l y r e a l i s t i c t o s u g g e s t t h a t i t i s p o s s i b l e i n Canada t o e s t a b l i s h a C o u n c i l w i t h s u f f i c i e n t p o l i t i c a l independence t o be s u b s t a n t i a l l y e f f e c t i v e i n i m p r o v i n g e n v i r o n m e n t a l q u a l i t y . I t i s e q u a l l y u n r e a l i s t i c t o sug g e s t t h a t a s t r o n g C o u n c i l c o u l d , w i t h o u t o u t s i d e a s s i s t a n c e , ensure t h a t NEPA p r o v i s i o n s were s u b s t a n t i a l l y c o m p l i e d w i t h . Such o u t s i d e a s s i s t a n c e must come from i n t e r e s t e d members o f the p u b l i c and e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s and can most e a s i l y be i n t r o d u c e d through the co n c e p t s o f the p u b l i c h e a r i n g . 120 2. P u b l i c Hearings Under NEPA. The American v e r s i o n of NEPA does not make any p r o v i s i o n f o r p u b l i c h e a r i n g s , although i t does s t i p u l a t e t h a t an environmental impact statement, i f prepared, must accompany the p r o j e c t through each stage of the agency review p r o c e s s . The f a i l u r e to p r o v i d e f o r p u b l i c hearings under NEPA i s perhaps one of i t s g r e a t e s t d e f e c t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the context o f Canadian environmental c o n t r o l . I t seems e s s e n t i a l t h a t any enactment i n Canada s i m i l a r t o NEPA should i n c l u d e s p e c i f i c p r o v i s i o n s f o r p u b l i c h e a r i n g s . The arguments i n favour of t h i s step are many. During a p e r i o d when c o u r t s are having severe problems h e a r i n g the many cases a w a i t i n g t r i a l , i t becomes imperative to prevent as much l i t i g a t i o n as p o s s i b l e . The h e a r i n g concept has a v a l i d r o l e to p l a y i n a t t a i n i n g t h i s o b j e c t i v e . Hearings p r o v i d e an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r i n t e r e s t e d environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the decision-making process a t a very e a r l y stage i n the proceedings surrounding a proposed p r o j e c t . Although t h i s f a c t o r does not i n i t s e l f p revent l i t i g a t i o n , o r g a n i z a t i o n s w i l l g e n e r a l l y f e e l l e s s compelled t o l i t i g a t e i f t h e i r views have r e c e i v e d a f a i r h e a r i n g a t the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l e v e l . Without p r o v i s i o n s f o r p u b l i c h e a r i n g s , o r g a n i z a t i o n s have only one o p p o r t u n i t y to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s . That o f course i s through l i t i g a t i o n c h a l l e n g i n g the agency d e c i s i o n . P u b l i c h e a r i n g s p r o v i d e one e f f e c t i v e method of p r o v i d i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agencies with some e x p r e s s i o n of the general p u b l i c o p i n i o n on environmental matters. I t would 121 seem e s s e n t i a l t h a t agencies which g e n e r a l l y p u r p o r t to be a c t i n g i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t should have some i d e a of what the p u b l i c c o n s i d e r s t h a t i n t e r e s t to be. Of much g r e a t e r s i g n i f i c a n c e i s the a s s i s t a n c e which p u b l i c h e a r i n g s can p r o v i d e to the e f f e c t i v e o p e r a t i o n of a s t a t u t e l i k e NEPA. Environmental impact statements have no r e a l use i f they are merely prepared and f i l e d , without forming p a r t of the agency c o n s i d e r a t i o n l e a d i n g to a f i n a l d e c i s i o n on the p r o j e c t i n q u e s t i o n . C o n s i d e r a b l e problems a r i s e i f an agency need only decide not to prepare an impact statement, without the accompanying o b l i g a t i o n to p u b l i s h reasons f o r t h a t d e c i s i o n . Impact statements must become p a r t of the a c t u a l d e c i s i o n process i f they are to be e f f e c t i v e . Agencies must make t h e i r contents a v a i l a b l e f o r p u b l i c s c r u t i n y and c h a l l e n g e . Reasons f o r f a i l u r e to produce an impact statement must be s u b j e c t e d to a s i m i l a r f a t e . Then and only then w i l l NEPA's p r o v i s i o n s have any s u b s t a n t i a l e f f e c t on environmental q u a l i t y . The p u b l i c h e a r i n g concept p r o v i d e s an i n s t a n t forum f o r examining and a s s e s s i n g the probable environmental consequences of a p a r t i c u l a r p r o p o s a l as out-l i n e d i n the accompanying environmental impact statement. F a i l u r e t o p r o v i d e such an o p p o r t u n i t y has two c l e a r consequences. F i r s t l y , NEPA c o u l d be e f f e c t i v e l y s k i r t e d on many occasions by the p r e p a r a t i o n of an inadequate impact statement or a d e c i s i o n not to prepare a statement. Secondly, environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , i n the absence of mandatory h e a r i n g p r o v i s i o n s i n which they can p a r t i c i p a t e , have no a l t e r n a t i v e but to immediately seek a remedy through 122 l i t i g a t i o n . F i n a l l y , p u b l i c hearings are a c o n s i d e r a b l e f a c t o r i n b r i n g i n g e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y c o n t r o v e r s i a l q u e s t i o n s t o p u b l i c a t t e n t i o n . In a d d i t i o n to p r o v i d i n g some scant form of democratic p a r t i c i p a t i o n by c i t i z e n s ' environmental o r g a n i z a t i o n s , they have the i n d i s p u t a b l e e f f e c t of p u b l i c -i z i n g the environmental i s s u e s which have become an everyday problem. There are some problems with the h e a r i n g concept however. Obvious problems cen t e r around the time and expense of f u l l s c a l e p u b l i c h e a r i n g s . Massive documentation becomes a problem f o r a l l p a r t i e s . I t becomes necessary to g i v e some c o n s i d e r a t i o n to l i m i t i n g the time a l l o t t e d t o each p r e s e n t a t i o n . Not a l l c o n t r o v e r s i e s are s u i t a b l e to r e s o l u t i o n through the h e a r i n g concept, n e c e s s i t a t i n g some dete r m i n a t i o n as to when hearings s h a l l be h e l d . These problems cannot be ignor e d , s i n c e they w i l l i n e v i t a b l y appear where the p u b l i c h e a r i n g concept i s widely adopted. However, they can be a l l e v i a t e d t o some e x t e n t . One method i s to appoint a h e a r i n g t r i b u n a l which would conduct a l l p u b l i c hearings on environmental matters coming w i t h i n i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n . C o u n c i l s on Environmental Q u a l i t y c o u l d appoint members to s i t on t r i b u n a l s i n each o f the p r o v i n c e s and at the f e d e r a l l e v e l . These t r i b u n a l s would be empowered to conduct hearings on any matter of environmental import, i n c l u d i n g the adequacy of environmental impact statements and the p r o p r i e t y of a d e c i s i o n by an agency not to prepare a statement. Coupled with s t r i n g e n t p u b l i c a t i o n 123 requirements i n NEPA with r e s p e c t to impact statements o r d e c i s i o n s not to prepare statements, a h e a r i n g procedure as o u t l i n e d above would be an e f f i c i e n t and u s e f u l phenomenon. I f i t should prove p o s s i b l e to assemble p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l C o u n c i l s on Environmental P o l i c y which were en v i r o n m e n t a l l y , and not p o l i t i c a l l y , motivated, then the d e c i s i o n as to whether a p r o j e c t warranted a p u b l i c h e a r i n g to ensure f u l l compliance with NEPA co u l d most a p p r o p r i a t e l y l i e w i t h t h i s body. Because of the u n c e r t a i n t y of such an arrangement, there would be c o n s i d e r a b l e m e r i t i n p r o v i d i n g an appeal p r o v i s i o n to an a p p r o p r i a t e c o u r t i n the j u r i s d i c t i o n , although such a step should not be l i g h t l y taken. One f i n a l p o i n t deserves c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n t h i s c o ntext. Any l e g i s l a t i o n i n t r o d u c i n g the p u b l i c h e a r i n g concept must of n e c e s s i t y p r o v i d e some means of determining who s h a l l be allowed to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a given s i t u a t i o n . C o n s i d e r a t i o n s as to reasonable time and expense make t h i s a very important q u e s t i o n which admits of no easy answer. However, an attempt w i l l be made i n p a r t B of t h i s chapter to propose a formula which w i l l p r o v i d e one p o s s i b l e answer. NEPA has a great d e a l to o f f e r i n the Canadian context as an instrument of i n c r e a s e d environmental c o n t r o l . The changes suggested above seem e s s e n t i a l to i t s e f f i c i e n t o p e r a t i o n i n Canada. While NEPA has the p o t e n t i a l to g r e a t l y enhance our e f f o r t s to come to terms with our environment, i t s enactment without a simultaneous r e l a x a t i o n of our s t a n d i n g r u l e s would g r e a t l y l e s s e n i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Much of NEPA's success i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s must be a t t r i b u t e d t o the s t a n d i n g 124 r u l e s i n e x i s t e n c e i n t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n which have allowed v a r i o u s environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s to f o r c e through l i t i g a t i o n f u l l compliance with the p r o v i s i o n s . Canada does not have such r e l a x e d s t a n d i n g r u l e s , with the r e s u l t t h a t environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s have few o p p o r t u n i t i e s to e x e r t any i n f l u e n c e i n the d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s . NEPA i n Canada at both f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l s with s t r o n g C o u n c i l s on Environmental Q u a l i t y and broad h e a r i n g p r o v i s i o n s would produce s u b s t a n t i a l b e n e f i t s . However, n e i t h e r a s t r o n g C o u n c i l nor broad h e a r i n g p r o v i s i o n s w i l l have much e f f e c t i n themselves unless we i n c o r p o r a t e i n t o the l e g i s l a t i o n s p e c i f i c s t a n d i n g r i g h t s which w i l l allow the one e f f e c t i v e environmental v o i c e , as r e p r e s e n t e d i n environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , f u l l e x p r e s s i o n i n the d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s . The balance of t h i s c hapter w i l l be devoted to proposing a system of r e g i s t r a t i o n of environmental c o n t r o l groups designed to a s s i s t i n a t t a i n i n g t h a t o b j e c t i v e . B. Who Should Have L e g a l Standing? A Proposed R e g i s t r a t i o n System. C e r t a i n very c l e a r o b j e c t i v e s must be achieved i f r e l a x a t i o n of l e g a l s t a n d i n g i s to prove to be a d e s i r a b l e phenomenon. These o b j e c t i v e s r e q u i r e c l e a r d e f i n i t i o n . Long, unproductive hours are p r e s e n t l y expended on l e g a l b a t t l e s designed to decide nothing more than whether an i n d i v i d u a l or o r g a n i z a t i o n has the necessary l e g a l s t a n d i n g to be r e c o g n i z e d as a proper p a r t y to an environmental 125 c o n t r o v e r s y . Many d e c i s i o n s are made on the b a s i s of l a c k o f s t a n d i n g without ever c o n s i d e r i n g the e c o l o g i c a l m e r i t s of the s i t u a t i o n . I t becomes of paramount s i g n i f i c a n c e , then, not o n l y to r e l a x the p r e s e n t r i g i d s t a n d i n g requirements but to p r o v i d e a c l e a r formula to determine the p a r t i c i p a n t s and thereby a v o i d any f u r t h e r s t a n d i n g c o n t r o v e r s i e s . The formula must enable p a r t i e s to e s t a b l i s h t h e i r s t a t u s very e a r l y i n the c o n t r o v e r s y . I t i s e q u a l l y important t h a t those who are l e g a l l y e n t i t l e d to p a r t i c i p a t e be i n a p o s i t i o n to do so from the o u t s e t of the c o n t r o v e r s y . I d e a l l y , environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s should be g i v e n the same r i g h t s to n o t i c e and i n f o r m a t i o n as any o t h e r p a r t y to the c o n t r o v e r s y . We must seek to get away from a s k i n g whether an o r g a n i z a t i o n should be allowed to p a r t i c i p a t e . Rather we must ask - which o r g a n i z a t i o n s s h a l l be allowed to p a r t i c i p a t e ? P u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n , t o be t r u l y e f f e c t i v e , must be accepted a u t o m a t i c a l l y as an i n t e g r a l and v a l u a b l e f a c e t of each and every environmental c o n t r o v e r s y . The problem i s to p r o v i d e a system whereby automatic p a r t i c i p a t i o n becomes a r e a l i t y . I t i s submitted t h a t a system of r e g i s t r a t i o n of i n t e r e s t e d environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s as r e g i s t e r e d or l i c e n s e d p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the environmental d e c i s i o n process p r o v i d e s an answer both easy to adopt and comprehensive i n scope. E s s e n t i a l l y , environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s would be r e q u i r e d to be r e g i s t e r e d with the a p p r o p r i a t e body i n order to be e n t i t l e d to r e p r e s e n t the p u b l i c at h e a r i n g s or to 126 l i t i g a t e i n the public i n t e r e s t . Successful r e g i s t r a t i o n would give the registered organization l e g a l l y enforcable p a r t i c i p a t o r y rights i n the decision process, and would v i r t u a l l y remove the necessity to l i t i g a t e the standing issue which presently presents so many problems and occupies so much court time. There are of course, many d e t a i l s to be incorporated into appropriate l e g i s l a t i o n before a r e g i s t r a t i o n scheme as suggested above could become operational. Questions immediately a r i s e . Where would such a scheme most appropriately be placed i n our l e g i s l a t i o n ? Which body or department would most e f f e c t i v e l y administer the r e g i s t r a t i o n system? What should the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of an organization be to allow registration? How many organizations should be on the r e g i s t e r at any given time? How many organizations should be e n t i t l e d to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a p a r t i c u l a r controversy? Should p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n environmental controversies be r e s t r i c t e d to those holding v a l i d r e g i s t r a t i o n s , or are there situations involving environmental damage which should remain outside the system to be handled by interested parties i n the t r a d i t i o n a l manner? The above represent only the major questions which arise under the proposed system. Frankly, one can only speculate i n many instances as to the most appropriate answer, and some of the following suggestions w i l l not prove workable i n prac t i c e . However, the r e g i s t r a t i o n system proposed presents one possible solution to the problems accompanying public p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and i t seems worthwhile to try and suggest ways in which problems can be avoided. The suggestions to follow are not presented as 127 f i r m and i n f l e x i b l e g u i d e l i n e s . They should be viewed r a t h e r as p o s s i b l e g u i d e l i n e s to a s s i s t i n making the proposed system of r e g i s t r a t i o n both o p e r a t i o n a l and e f f i c i e n t . 1. Where Should the L e g i s l a t i o n be Placed? One obvious p o s s i b i l i t y would be t o enact a separate p i e c e o f l e g i s l a t i o n s e t t i n g out p r e c i s e r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s under which r e g i s t r a t i o n i s to be conducted. However, the most l o g i c a l p l a c e f o r such l e g i s l a t i o n might w e l l be i n the Canadian v e r s i o n of NEPA. T h i s Act has such an o v e r - r i d i n g e f f e c t i n environmental matters, s i n c e i t a f f e c t s v i r t u a l l y every a c t i o n having environmental consequences, t h a t i t seems a proper complement to a comprehensive r e g i s t r a t i o n scheme as proposed. The advantage of p l a c i n g r e g i s t r a t i o n l e g i s l a t i o n i n NEPA l i e s i n the f a c t t h a t both the p h i l o s o p h i c a l o b j e c t i v e s and methods of enforcement would be found i n the same a c t . I f one envisages one f e d e r a l and ten p r o v i n c i a l NEPA's, then i n c l u s i o n of the r e g i s t r a t i o n system under the p r o v i s i o n s of each a c t would p r o v i d e n e a r l y complete coverage of a l l environmental i s s u e s i n both the f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l areas of j u r i s d i c t i o n . C o n s i d e r a t i o n might a l s o be given to amending the Rules of Court governing c o u r t procedure i n Canada where such amendment would enhance the e f f i c i e n c y of the r e g i s t r a t i o n approach. 2. The A d m i n i s t e r i n g Body Assuming the Canadian e q u i v a l e n t s of the C o u n c i l on Environmental Q u a l i t y c o u l d be given some p o l i t i c a l independence under both p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l l e g i s l a t i o n , r e g i s t r a t i o n 128 c o u l d most a p p r o p r i a t e l y be p a r t of each C o u n c i l ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n . Developed e x p e r t i s e and a demonstrated i n t e r e s t i n and f a m i l i a r i t y with environmental problems would p l a c e the C o u n c i l s i n a very s t r o n g p o s i t i o n to e v a l u a t e requests f o r r e g i s t r a t i o n and to determine an o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s s u i t a b i l i t y . A p o l i t i c a l l y independent C o u n c i l c o u l d be c o n s i d e r a b l y b e t t e r informed and more e f f e c t i v e i n t h i s regard than the c o u r t s which are p r e s e n t l y c a l l e d upon to make t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s . 3. Necessary Q u a l i f i c a t i o n s to R e g i s t e r . T h i s q u e s t i o n i s extremely d i f f i c u l t , and must be answered i n g e n e r a l terms. I t seems unduly r e s t r i c t i v e to r e q u i r e t h a t an o r g a n i z a t i o n i n e f f e c t prove i t s e l f f o r a c e r t a i n p e r i o d of y e a r s , or have a c e r t a i n number of members to q u a l i f y f o r r e g i s t r a t i o n . Yet some r e s t r i c t i o n s seem a p r a c t i c a l n e c e s s i t y , s i n c e the advantages of r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n by r e g i s t e r e d o r g a n i z a t i o n s would be l o s t e n t i r e l y i f v i r t u a l l y every o r g a n i z a t i o n with a p r o f e s s e d environmental i n t e r e s t were allowed to r e g i s t e r . I t does not seem unreasonable to suggest t h a t an o r g a n i z a t i o n demonstrate an a c t i v e and r e s p o n s i b l e approach to environmental c o n t r o l before i t becomes e n t i t l e d to r e g i s t e r . A minimum of t h r e e years e x i s t e n c e might be a s u i t a b l e s t a r t i n g p o i n t . T h i s approach would e f f e c t i v e l y remove the n e c e s s i t y of s e v e r e l y r e s t r i c t i n g the number of o r g a n i z a t i o n s given r e g i s t r a t i o n p r i v i l e g e s a t any p a r t i c u l a r time. Each j u r i s d i c t i o n i n Canada has s u f f i c i e n t numbers of o r g a n i z a t i o n s a t p r e s e n t which c o u l d q u a l i f y to make t h i s sytem o p e r a t i v e immediately upon 129 enactment o f a p p r o p r i a t e l e g i s l a t i o n . There does not seem to he any p r e s s i n g need to l i m i t the number of r e g i s t e r e d groups a t any g i v e n time. However, two approaches can be adopted. One i s to allow o r g a n i z a t i o n s with a p p r o p r i a t e c r e d e n t i a l s to r e g i s t e r f r e e l y , with a p r o v i s i o n i n the l e g i s l a t i o n t h a t the o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n t e r e s t e d i n a p a r t i c u l a r c o n t r o v e r s y choose one r e g i s t e r e d o r g a n i z a t i o n among those i n t e r e s t e d to a c t as the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e spokesman f o r a l l o r g a n i z a t i o n s . F a i l i n g such c h o i c e , the body r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a d m i n i s t e r i n g r e g i s t r a t i o n would designate the o r g a n i z a t i o n which demonstrated an i n t e r e s t most c l o s e l y a l i g n e d to the problem a t hand. The second approach would be to l i m i t r e g i s t r a t i o n to f o u r or f i v e major o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n each j u r i s d i c t i o n , l e a v i n g to them the o p t i o n to combine f o r c e s or make i n d i v i d u a l p r e s e n t a t i o n s as t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s appear. While the second approach would p r o v i d e f o r a more v a r i e d p r e s e n t a t i o n , the f i r s t seems p r e f e r a b l e , s i n c e i t allows more o r g a n i z a t i o n s p a r t i c i p a t i o n r i g h t s and p r o v i d e s a more s t r e a m l i n e d p r e s e n t a t i o n procedure which i s l e s s l i k e l y to b r i n g the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e process to a g r i n d i n g h a l t . I t i s r e c o g n i z e d t h a t the above procedure would i n e f f e c t prevent many o r g a n i z a t i o n s from r a i s i n g an e f f e c t i v e p r o t e s t i f they were u n r e g i s t e r e d and had views s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t from those of the o r g a n i z a t i o n with p a r t i c i p a t i o n r i g h t s . However, the very purpose of the proposed r e g i s t r a t i o n system i s to p r o v i d e s t r o n g r e g u l a r environmental r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n environmental q u e s t i o n s without d e s t r o y i n g the a b i l i t y of the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e system to continue f u n c t i o n i n g i n a r e s p o n s i v e 130 manner. Under the above p r o p o s a l s , o r g a n i z a t i o n s would be r e q u i r e d to r e s o l v e any i n t e r - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s p r i o r t o e n t e r i n g the p u b l i c forum. Cost s h a r i n g would be an i n t e r n a l matter among o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The advantages of a system s i m i l a r to the one proposed above are obvious. Environmental concerns would be heard by the r e s p o n s i b l e o f f i c i a l s as a matter of course. No time would be wasted e i t h e r a t the agency or j u d i c i a l review l e v e l a r guing about the r i g h t of an o r g a n i z a t i o n to be t h e r e , s i n c e l e g a l s t a n d i n g would be predetermined and no longer would be an i s s u e . A l l c o u r t or agency proceedings would r e l a t e to arguments on the m e r i t s of the p r o p o s a l and the adequacy of the accompanying environmental assessment. C o n s i d e r a b l e time would be saved by having the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n r e p r e s e n t the c o l l e c t i v e views of a l l i n t e r e s t e d o r g a n i z a t i o n s and i n d i v i d u a l s . The important p o i n t seems to be to have adequate r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of environmental c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . I t does not seem p a r t i c u l a r l y d e s i r a b l e t h a t we adopt the U n i t e d S t a t e s system where o r g a n i z a t i o n s and i n d i v i d u a l s o f t e n p r e s e n t o v e r l a p p i n g arguments with each demonstrating the o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s or i n d i v i d u a l ' s p a r t i c u l a r area of concern. I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t the r e g i s t r a t i o n system suggested i s capable of s e r v i n g the i n t e r e s t s of v a r i o u s e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s i n an adequate manner while p l a c i n g few u n d e s i r a b l e s t r a i n s on our system of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e government. 4. Should I n d i v i d u a l s be Allowed Standing i n Environmental Cases. 131 I f a r e g i s t r a t i o n system should be adopted, i t must, to be e f f e c t i v e , operate i n s u b s t i t u t i o n f o r and i n p l a c e o f whatever t r a d i t i o n a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n r i g h t s e x i s t . T h i s r a i s e s a s e r i o u s q u e s t i o n with r e s p e c t t o i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s to p a r t i c i p a t e at p u b l i c h e a r i n g s , to seek j u d i c i a l review o f agency d e c i s i o n s a f f e c t i n g the environment, and t o commence t o r t a c t i o n s f o r p e r s o n a l i n j u r y o r p r o p e r t y damage s u f f e r e d as a r e s u l t o f an environmental t r a n s g r e s s i o n . Again, i t becomes necessary to d e f i n e the two types of i n t e r e s t under which an i n d i v i d u a l can seek t o e x e r t h i s i n f l u e n c e . One i s an i n t e r e s t based s o l e l y on an a l l e g e d r i g h t as a c i t i z e n , with no attendant c l a i m of i n j u r y t o a p r o p r i e t o r y o r t a n g i b l e i n t e r e s t , to be a p a r t i c i p a n t i n environmental c o n t r o v e r s i e s . C l e a r l y , an e f f e c t i v e r e g i s t r a t i o n system would prevent an i n d i v i d u a l ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n as a spokesman f o r the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . I n d i v i d u a l s , and f o r t h a t matter, u n r e g i s t e r e d o r g a n i z a t i o n s , would be r e q u i r e d to e n l i s t the a i d of a r e g i s t e r e d o r g a n i z a t i o n which would a c t as t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i n agency proceedings and any subsequent l i t i g a t i o n . The second type o f i n t e r e s t does not f i t so w e l l i n t o a r e g i s t r a t i o n approach. I f an i n d i v i d u a l s u f f e r s i n j u r y or damage to p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , should the r e g i s t r a t i o n system apply to exclude h i s r i g h t to seek r e d r e s s as an i n d i v i d u a l f o r i n j u r y to person o r p r i v a t e r i g h t s ? I n e v i t a b l y , i n cases o f p r i v a t e l o s s , the i n d i v i d u a l i s f a c i n g as an adversary e i t h e r a l a r g e i n d u s t r i a l concern or an arm o f government. The odds a g a i n s t success i n agency proceedings, j u d i c i a l review, or t o r t l i t i g a t i o n are h e a v i l y 132 weighted a g a i n s t the i n d i v i d u a l . A r e g i s t e r e d environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n , r e p r e s e n t i n g the i n d i v i d u a l , would be i n a much b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t o e f f e c t i v e l y p r e s e n t the i n d i v i d u a l ' s case than would the i n d i v i d u a l . E q u a l l y important, the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n c o u l d r e p r e s e n t a number of i n d i v i d u a l s seeking redress f o r s i m i l a r i n j u r i e s as a r e s u l t of the same event, thereby re d u c i n g the p o s s i b i l i t y of a m u l t i p l i c i t y of a c t i o n s on the same f a c t s . The above r e p r e s e n t several, good reasons why an i n d i v i d u a l should be able t o c a l l on a r e g i s t e r e d o r g a n i z a t i o n to be i t s champion i n cases of environmental damage. However, there may be e q u a l l y good reason f o r r e t a i n i n g the i n d i v i d u a l ' s h i s t o r i c r i g h t to engage i n environmental l i t i g a t i o n where there has been p e r s o n a l i n j u r y o r l o s s of p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y , but t h i s should not remain as the i n d i v i d u a l ' s only method of r e d r e s s . Perhaps the b e s t s o l u t i o n i s to leave the o p t i o n to the i n d i v i d u a l or i n d i v i d u a l s a f f e c t e d , but the o p t i o n should c e r t a i n l y e x i s t . There does not seem any p r e s e n t j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r continuance of the p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a c t i o n s i n Canada. R e g i s t e r e d o r g a n i z a t i o n s should be given l e g a l s t a n d i n g to rep r e s e n t i n d i v i d u a l s or c l a s s e s w i s h i n g to commence environmental t o r t a c t i o n s f o r damages. Such s t a n d i n g c o u l d be p r o v i d e d f o r i n Canada's e q u i v a l e n t of NEPA. App r o p r i a t e amendments can be made t o the v a r i o u s Rules of Court i n Canada t o s p e c i f i c a l l y allow f o r c l a s s a c t i o n s i n a manner s i m i l a r t o Rule 23 of the F e d e r a l Rules of C i v i l Procedure i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s . These amendments would have to be s u f f i c i e n t l y e x p l i c i t t o a v o i d the r e s t r i c t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s governing 133 e x i s t i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a c t i o n p r o v i s i o n s i n the r u l e s of c o u r t . 5. A S i m p l i f i e d Review Procedure. Now t h a t O n t a r i o has taken the much needed step t o p r o v i d e a simple, one-step procedure to invoke the c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o review an agency d e c i s i o n , i t i s not a t a l l u n l i k e l y t h a t o t h e r p r o v i n c e s w i l l f o l l o w s u i t . T h i s type of l e g i s l a t i o n seems necessary i f " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " s t a n d i n g i s to operate smoothly and e f f e c t i v e l y . What i s needed i s a f a s t , simple review procedure which allows f o r e f f i c i e n t r e s o l u t i o n o f a c o n t r o v e r s y , without the attendant p r o c e d u r a l n i c e t i e s surrounding the o l d p r e r o g a t i v e w r i t s . The O n t a r i o l e g i s l a t i o n should produce the d e s i r e d r e s u l t . Suggestions made i n t h i s chapter are not represented as b e i n g the t o t a l or complete answers to Canada's environmental c o n t r o l problems. They r e f e r to only one aspect, t h a t of p u b l i c i n p u t i n t o the environmental d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s . Nor i s i t suggested t h a t a l l aspects of the suggested model would prove workable i f implemented. However, Canada has too long i g n o r e d p u b l i c p r o t e s t s a g a i n s t environmental d e g r a d a t i o n . The suggested model r e p r e s e n t s one v e h i c l e whereby those p r o t e s t s can be brought to bear on the system, with a minimum of d i s r u p t i o n to a l l concerned. 134 CONCLUSION Canadians f o r the most p a r t have had to be content t o read about what the p u b l i c environmental c o n t r o l movement can accomplish i n improving environmental q u a l i t y . Much of t h i s r e a d i n g m a t e r i a l comes from the U n i t e d S t a t e s , where st a n d i n g r u l e s have given c i t i z e n s a s u b s t a n t i v e o p p o r t u n i t y to i n f l u e n c e the d i r e c t i o n i n which the system i s heading. We i n Canada have not reached t h a t p o i n t , and consequently have missed a very r e a l o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o n t r i b u t e to c l e a n i n g up our environment. Those who have e x h i b i t e d the energy and i n t e r e s t t o f i g h t a g a i n s t s e n s e l e s s d e c i s i o n s which ravage the environment have found s c a n t a s s i s t a n c e from our p r e s e n t l e g a l s t r u c t u r e . Yet we can s c a r c e l y deny t h a t there i s room f o r improvement i n our standards of environmental c o n t r o l . Our p r e s e n t s t a n d i n g r u l e s , based l a r g e l y on the premise of p r o t e c t i o n of p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y r i g h t s , have l i t t l e a p p l i c a t i o n to environmental c o n t r o l , a very p u b l i c matter. We can no longer j u s t i f y laws which r e f u s e to allow i n d i v i d u a l s t o u n i t e to seek r e d r e s s f o r a common environmental wrong. We are prepared to r e c o g n i z e t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l should have, i n c e r t a i n i n s t a n c e s , a method of r e d r e s s , y e t we have f a i l e d t o allow such i n d i v i d u a l s t o band together to give them a reasonable o p p o r t u n i t y of o b t a i n i n g t h a t r e d r e s s a g a i n s t l a r g e i n d u s t r i e s and governments. The end r e s u l t i s t o make the remedy meaningless i n many i n s t a n c e s . We p r o h i b i t the e f f e c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n of s t r o n g , w e l l - f i n a n c e d environmental c o n t r o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n the environmental d e c i s i o n process because they do not possess the necessary i n t e r e s t to e s t a b l i s h l e g a l s t a n d i n g . S u r e l y the American experience, i f i t has taught us not h i n g e l s e , has shown us t h a t c i t i z e n s ' groups have a g r e a t d e a l to o f f e r and should be given the o p p o r t u n i t y to make t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n to the d e c i s i o n process i n a d i g n i f i e d and e f f i c i e n t manner. I f we are to continue t o ignore t h i s very v i t a l f o r c e , we must re c o g n i z e t h a t we do so f o r no j u s t i f i a b l e reason. C i t i z e n s ' environmental o r g a n i z a t i o n s p r e s e n t l y e x i s t i n Canada, although t h e i r presence i s i n f r e q u e n t l y f e l t . T h i s paper has o u t l i n e d one method t o e f f e c t the necessary changes to make them a v i a b l e f o r c e . I t seems c l e a r t h a t a h e a l t h y environment may depend on t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the system. That p a r t i c i p a t i o n can no lon g e r be denied i n good c o n s c i e n c e . 136 FOOTNOTES 1 A.R. Lucas, "Legal Techniques f o r P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l : The Role of the P u b l i c " , (1971) 6 U.B.C. L. Rev. No. 1, 167. 2 F i g u r e s c i t e d i n the Second Annual Report of the C o u n c i l on Environmental Q u a l i t y , August, 1971, 92. 3 The Vancouver P r o v i n c e , March 25, 1972, " P o l l u t i o n F i g h t Costs Jobs". 4 The Vancouver P r o v i n c e , March 24, 1972, " P o l l u t i o n o r Jobs: Davis T r i e s t o Balance S c a l e s " . 5 The B r i t i s h North America Act, 1867, 30 & 31 V i c t o r i a , C.3, s. 92 (13). 6 Lucas, note 1, 173. 7 David Anderson, "Government and the Environment", (1971) 6 U.B.C. L. Rev. No. 1, 111 at 112-113. 8 A.R. Lucas, "The Utah Controversy: A Case Study of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l " (unpublished). 9 C i t e d i n Lucas, i b i d , 49. 10 C i t e d i n Anderson, note 7, 112. 11 L o u i s L. J a f f e , "The A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Agency and Environmental C o n t r o l " , (1970-71) 20 B u f f . L. Rev. 231 12 See g e n e r a l l y : Turner, The Chemical Feast, Ralph Nader's Study Group Report on the Food and Drug A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , Grossman P u b l i s h e r s , New York, 19 70. See a l s o : F e llmeth, The I n t e r s t a t e Commerce Commission, Ralph Nader's Study Group Report on the I n t e r s t a t e Commerce Commission, Grossman P u b l i s h e r s , New York, 19 70. 13 G. De B e l l , "Become a L o b b y i s t f o r the Environment", r e p r i n t e d i n The Vote r ' s Guide to Environmental P o l i t i c s , A F r i e n d s of the E a r t h / B a l l a n t y n e Book, New York, 1970, 197 at 199. 14 J a f f e , note 11, 237. 15 W.F. Baxter, "The Good Environment: One of a Set of Human O b j e c t i v e s " , U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Alumni Summer C o l l e g e L e c t u r e s , (1970), Lecture 1, 5. 16 Chrisman Hanes, " C i t i z e n P a r t i c i p a t i o n and I t s Impact Upon Prompt and Responsible A d m i n i s t r a t i v e A c t i o n " , (1970) 24 S.W.L.J. 731 at 740. 137 17 Ante, note 2, 89. 18 Ante, note 2, 90, Table 5. 19 S.K. Gove, "The P u b l i c Hearing Symposium: A P o s t s c r i p t " , (1969), 21 Ad. L. Rev. 187. 20 The P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l A c t , 1967, S.B.C. 1967 C. 34 and amendments. The Environment Conservation Act, R.S.A. 1970 C. 125. The Clean Environment Act, R.S.M. 1970 C. C130. 21 The N a t i o n a l Energy A c t , R.S.C. 1970 C. N-6. 22 The P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l A c t , 1967, S.B.C. 1967 C. 34 s. 14. 23 The Environment Conservation Act, R.S.A. 1970 C. 125 s. 7(1) (e) . 24 The Clean Environment A c t , R.S.M. 1970 C. C130 s. 12. 25 Ante, note 21. 26 The P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l Act, 1967, S.B.C. 1967 C. 34 s. 13 as amended by the P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l (Amendment) Act, S.B.C. 196 8 C. 38 s. 5 and the P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l (Amendment) Act, S.B.C. 1970 C. 36 s. 11. 27 I b i d . 28 See, f o r example: Re P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l Act, 196 7; Re  A p p l i c a t i o n o f Hooker Chemicals (Nanaimo) L t d . (197.0) , 75 W.W.R. 354 (B.C.S.C), where the c o u r t granted c e r t i o r a r i because the d i r e c t o r had f a i l e d t o give c o n s i d e r a t i o n to the evidence i n support of the o b j e c t i o n s i n re a c h i n g h i s d e c i s i o n not to h o l d a h e a r i n g . T h i s f a i l u r e was h e l d to be a breach of n a t u r a l j u s t i c e . See a l s o : Western Mines L t d . v Greater Campbell R i v e r  Water D i s t r i c t (1967), 58 W.W.R. 705 (B.C.C.A.), where the c o u r t r e c o g n i z e d the Board's d i s c r e t i o n as to whether an o b j e c t i o n warranted a hea r i n g , but h e l d t h a t the Board had the duty to supply t o the o b j e c t o r the evidence submitted by the permit a p p l i c a n t and to allow the o b j e c t o r t o r e p l y t o t h a t evidence by w r i t t e n submission. 29 Lucas, Ante, note 8, pr o v i d e s the f a c t u a l m a t e r i a l f o r t h i s account. 30 K.C. Davis, D i s c r e t i o n a r y J u s t i c e : A P r e l i m i n a r y I n q u i r y , L o u i s i a n a State U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , Baton Rouge, 1969, p r e f a c e , p.v. 31 The Vancouver P r o v i n c e , May 19, 1972, 2. 32 The Vancouver P r o v i n c e , September 11, 19 72, p. 5. 138 33 Jennet v S i n c l a i r (1876), 10 N.S.R. 392 (N.S.S.C.). 34 Re P r o v i n c i a l Board of Hea l t h and Toronto (1970) , 46 O.L.R. 587 (Ont. CA.) . 35 Re I n t e r n a t i o n a l Union of Operating Engineers (1952) , 5 W.WTFTI (N.S.) 264; on appeal (1952), 6 W.W.R. (N.S.) 49 (Man. C A.) . 36 For a d i s c u s s i o n of the d i s c r e t i o n a r y aspect of much of our environmental l e g i s l a t i o n see g e n e r a l l y p a r t A of t h i s chapter. 37 See, f o r example, The J u d i c a t u r e A ct, R.S.O. 1960 C. 197 s. 15 (2) . 38 (1966), 56 D.L.R. (2d) 578 (Ont. C A . ) . 39 Smith v A-G ( O n t a r i o ) , [1924] S.C.R. 331. 40 R. v E l e c t r i c i t y Commissioners, [1924] 1 K.B. 171 at 205, 41 (1970), 75 W.W.R. 354 (B.C.S.C). 42 [1967] 60 D.L.R. 331 (B.C.C.A.). 43 I b i d , 339. 44 Ante, note 26. 45 Ante, note 24. 4 6 Ante, note 28. 47 I b i d , 357. 48 I b i d , 360. 49 The McRuer Royal Commission. I n q u i r y i n t o C i v i l R i g h t s , (1971), C o n s o l i d a t e d Summary of Recommendations, Report No. 1, V o l . 3, pp. 1255-12 85, c o n t a i n i n g recommendations 1-208. 50 B i l l 54, 4th S e s s i o n , 28th L e g i s l a t u r e , O n t a r i o 20 E l i z a b e t h 11, 1971. 51 B i l l 53, 4th S e s s i o n , 28th L e g i s l a t u r e , O n t a r i o 20 E l i z a b e t h 11, 1971. 52 See, f o r example: Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co. L t d . , [1961] 2 A l l E.R. 145 (Q.B.), an E n g l i s h d e c i s i o n i n which the p l a i n t i f f landowner succeeded i n e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t the escape of r e f i n e r y by-products onto h i s l a n d c a u s i n g damage was the r e s u l t of an unnatural use of land by defendants f o r which they were l i a b l e . For f u r t h e r examples see Lucas, ante, note 1, c i t e d i n footnote 5, p. 169. 139 53 Lucas, ante, note 1. 54 B r i t i s h Columbia Supreme Court Rules, Order XVI, M a r g i n a l Rule 131. 55 Rules of C i v i l Procedure, O n t a r i o , Rule 75. 56 [1945] O.W.N. 537 (High C t . ) . 57 I b i d , 539. 58 (1920), 48 O.L.R. 172 (Ont. S.C.). 59 I b i d , 180. 60 R. v The Board of Commissioners of P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s ; Ex p a r t e New Brunswick Power Company (1927), 54 N.B.R. (N.B.C.A.), 228. 61 See, f o r example: S c e n i c Hudson P r e s e r v a t i o n Conference v F.P.C. (1965) 354 F. 2d 608 (2d C i r . ) ; and Road Review  League v Boyd (1967) 270 F. Supp. 650 (S.D.N.Y.) 62 (1972) 40 L.W. 4397 (S.C.). 63 (1924) 264 U.S. 258. 64 (1940) 308 U.S. 470. 65 (1967) 387 U.S. 136. 66 5 U.S.C. s. 702 (Supp. 11, 1967). 6 7 S c e n i c Hudson, ante, note 61. 68 I b i d , 619. 69 Road Review, ante, note 61. 70 I b i d , 661. 71 (1970) 425 F. 2d 97, 1 E.R.C. 1237 (2d C i r . ) , c e r t , denied (1971) 2 E.R.C. 1909 (S.C.). 72 I b i d , 1239. 73 I b i d , 1241. 74 A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law Note, (1970-71), 37 Brook. L. Rev. 192, 199. 75 (1969) 307 F. Supp. 685 (D. C o l o . ) . 76 A s s o c i a t i o n of Data P r o c e s s i n g S e r v i c e O r g a n i z a t i o n s , Inc. v Camp (1970) 397 U.S. 150. Barlow v C o l l i n s (1970) 397 U.S. 159. 140 77 S i e r r a Club v H i c k e l (1970) 433 F. 2d 24 (9th C i r . ) , c e r t , granted, sub nom, S i e r r a Club v Morton (1971) 91 S.Ct. 870. 78 1 E.R.C. 1609, 1672-3. 79 I b i d , 1674. 80 D e t a i l s o f the methods the c o u r t used to d i s t i n g u i s h p r i o r cases are noted and c r i t i c i z e d i n Note e n t i t l e d : "Concern of C o n s e r v a t i o n i s t Group Held Not S u f f i c i e n t to Confer Standing t o Challenge Agency A c t i o n " , (1971) 71 C o l . L. Rev. 172, 177. 81 Alameda Conservation A s s o c i a t i o n v C a l i f o r n i a (1971) 437 F . 2d 1087; 2 E.R.C. 1175 (9th C i r . ) . 82 I b i d , 1177. 83 I b i d , 1181. 84 I b i d , 1181-82. 85 Ante, note 62. 86 I b i d , 4400 . 87 I b i d , 4401. 88 South H i l l Neighbourhood A s s o c i a t i o n v Romney (19 70) F. 2d 454 (6th C i r . ) , c e r t , denied 398 U.S. 952. 89 S i e r r a v Morton, ante, note 62. 90 I b i d , 4406 . 91 For general d i s c u s s i o n see: R.D. Feldman, "Class A c t i o n s Under Amended Rule 23: Three Years of J u d i c i a l I n t e r p r e t a t i o n " , (1969) 49 B.U.L. Rev. 682. See a l s o : Lamm and Davison, "Environmental C l a s s A c t i o n s Seeking Damages", (1971) 16 Rocky Mt. M.L. I n s t . 59. 92 See, f o r example: N.A.A.CP. v P a t t y (1958) 159 F. Supp. 503 (E.D. Va.), where a c i v i l r i g h t s o r g a n i z a t i o n had s t a n d i n g to l i t i g a t e the i n t e r e s t o f the c l a s s i t represented. See a l s o : Smith v Board of Education (1966) 365 F. 2d 270 (8th C i r . ) , where a teacher's a s s o c i a t i o n was h e l d t o have s t a n d i n g to e n j o i n d i s c r i m i n a t o r y p r a c t i c e s i n the h i r i n g and a s s i g n i n g of t e a c h e r s . 93 See, f o r example, Crowther v Seaborg (1970) 312 F. Supp. 1205 (D. C o l o . ) , and Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v Hardin (1970) 428 F. 2d 1093 (C.A.D.C), where i n a proceeding by the Environmental Defense Fund to o b t a i n j u d i c i a l review of a c t i o n s of the S e c r e t a r y of 141 A g r i c u l t u r e , the c o u r t s t a t e d at 1097: "Like o t h e r consumers, those who consume - however u n w i l l i n g l y -the p e s t i c i d e r e s i d u e s p e r m i t t e d by the S e c r e t a r y to accumulate i n the environment are persons 'aggrieved by agency a c t i o n , w i t h i n the meaning of a r e l e v a n t s t a t u t e ' . Furthermore, the consumers' i n t e r e s t i n environmental p r o t e c t i o n may p r o p e r l y be r e p r e s e n t e d by a membership a s s o c i a t i o n with an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t i n the problem". 93a Data P r o c e s s i n g , ante, note 76. 94 Barlow v C o l l i n s , ante, note 76. 95 I b i d , 164. 96 B a i l e y v P a t t e r s o n (1962) 369 U.S. 31, 32-33, c i t e d i n Lamm & Davison, ante, note 91, 73. 97 Barrows v Jackson (1953) U.S. 249, 257. 98 (1972) 40 L.W. 4397 (S.C.). 99 83 S t a t . 852. 100 36 Fed. R e g i s t e r , 7724 - 7729, A p r i l 23, 1971. 101 C a l v e r t C l i f f s ' C o o r d i n a t i n g Committee, Inc. v A.E.C. (1971) 2 E.R.C. 1779, 1783 (D.C.Cir.) 102 Wilderness S o c i e t y e t a l v H i c k e l (1970) 1 E.R.C. 1335 ( D . C ) , wherein the c o u r t granted a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n a g a i n s t issuance of the necessary permits f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n of the Trans-Alaska P i p e l i n e and haulage roads because of the f a i l u r e of the S e c r e t a r y of the I n t e r i o r to adequately examine a l t e r n a t i v e s to the proposed p i p e l i n e . 103 See, f o r example: E x e c u t i v e Order No. 11514, 3 CF.R. C. 11, a t 104 (March 5, 1970, c i t e d i n the Second Annual Report of the C o u n c i l on Environmental Q u a l i t y , August, 1971 a t 164). See a l s o : The Freedom of Information Act, P.L. 89-554 as amended, 5 U.S.C. s. 552. 104 1 E.R. (Current Dev.) 164 (1970). 105 Memorandum to Counsel f o r P a r t i e s , Long I s l a n d L i g h t i n g Co., A.E.C. No. 50322 at 2, September 14, 1970, c i t e d i n Sandler, "The N a t i o n a l Environmental P o l i c y A c t : A Sheep i n Wolf's C l o t h i n g ? " , (1970-71) 37 Brook. L. Rev. 139, 142. 106 Wilderness S o c i e t y , ante, note 102. 107 Brooks v Volpe (1972) 3 E.R.C 1858 (D. Minn.) . 142 108 N a t u r a l Resources Defense C o u n c i l v Morton (1972) 3 E.R.C. 1558 (C.A.D.C). 109 42 U.S.C. s. 1857 h-2. 110 Anderson and Rockwell Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Act of 1970, Mich. Comp. Laws, S e c t i o n 691.1201 - 691.1207. 111 Massachussets Laws, Chapter 732, S e c t i o n 10A, (1971) amending General Law C. 214. 112 Montana Environmental P o l i c y A c t, Ch. 238 [1971] Montana Laws March 9, 1971. Ch. 109 [1971] Washington Laws (Senate B i l l 545), August 9, 1971. Ch. 70, T i t l e 7, [1971] Delaware Laws (House B i l l 300) June 28, 1971. C a l . P u b l i c Resources Code 55. 21000 e t . seq. 113 S i e r r a v Morton, ante, note 9 8. 114 (1965) 354 F. 2d 608 (2d C i r . ) . 115 The Wilderness S o c i e t y e t a l , David Anderson and the  Canadian W i l d l i f e F e d e r a t i o n v Rogers C.B. Morton, S e c r e t a r y of the I n t e r i o r , e t a l , No. 72-1090, judgment entered May 11, 1972 (C.A.D.C.) 116 Wilderness S o c i e t y , ante, note 102. 117 The Vancouver P r o v i n c e , May 12, 19 72, p. 1. .,. 118 I b i d . 119 S c e n i c Hudson, ante, note 61. 120 Ante, note 88. 121 Ante, note 81. 122 S i e r r a Club v Hardin (1971) 2 E.R.C. 1385 (D. A l a s k a ) , 1392, c i t e d i n " B r i e f f o r the Environmental Defense Fund as Amicus C u r i a e " , S i e r r a Club v Rogers C.B. Morton e t a l No. 9 39 S. Ct. October term, (1970), page 44. 123 Ante, note 2, 155-6. 124 Statement of Timothy Atkeson, General Counsel, C o u n c i l on Environmental Q u a l i t y , i n "Hearings on S. 1032 Before the Subcommittee on the Environment of the Senate Commerce Committee", 92 Cong. 1st Sess. ( A p r i l 15, 1971, r e p r i n t e d i n 1 E.R. 1459.) 143 125 An amended s e c t i o n 10.32, a B i l l to permit c l a s s a c t i o n s u i t s on environmental i s s u e s has been approved f o r f u l l Committee a c t i o n by the Senate Subcommittee on Energy, N a t u r a l Resources and the Environment. The Subcommittee B i l l would: 1. r e p e a l S i e r r a Club v H i c k e l which r e s t r i c t e d s t a n d i n g to sue unless damage to an i n d i v i d u a l or i n d i v i d u a l s c o u l d be e s t a b l i s h e d , 2. remove some r e s t r i c t i o n s on j u d i c i a l review o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a c t i o n s , 3. give any person the r i g h t to enforce i n court any f e d e r a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d or approved standards or l e g i s l a t i o n , and 4. where no f e d e r a l standards e x i s t , p r o v i d e a c i t i z e n with a r i g h t to e n j o i n the conduct of a c t i v i t y on the b a s i s of reasonable conduct. Reported i n Law Information S e r v i c e , N a t i o n a l F o r e s t Products A s s o c i a t i o n , Government A f f a i r s D i v i s i o n , J u l y 6, 1972. 126 The Vancouver P r o v i n c e , March 17, 19 72, p. 7. 144 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Davis, K.C., D i s c r e t i o n a r y J u s t i c e : A P r e l i m i n a r y I n q u i r y Baton Rouge, L o u i s i a n a State U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1969. de Smith, S.A., J u d i c i a l Review of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e A c t i o n London, Stevens' & Sons L i m i t e d , 196 8. Fel l m e t h , The I n t e r s t a t e Commerce Commission, Ralph Nader's Study Group Report on the I n t e r s t a t e Commerce Commission, New York, Grossman P u b l i s h e r s , 1970. Reid, Robert F., A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law and P r a c t i c e , Toronto, Butterworth and Co. (Canada) L i m i t e d , 1971. Turner, The Chemical Feast, Ralph Nader's Study Group Report on the Food and Drug A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , New York, Grossman P u b l i s h e r s , 1970. The Voter's Guide to Environmental P o l i t i c s , ed. by G a r r e t t de B e l l , New York, A F r i e n d s of the E a r t h / B a l l a n t y n e Book, 1970 . P e r i o d i c a l s Anderson, David, "Government and the Environment", (1971) 6 U.B.C. L. Rev. No. 1, 111. Baxter, W.F., "The Good Environment: One of a Set of Human O b j e c t i v e s " , U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Alumni Summer C o l l e g e L e c t u r e s , (1970), Lecture 1.5. Eddy, H.R., "Locus St a n d i and Environmental C o n t r o l : A P o l i c y f o r Comparison", (1971) 6 U.B.C. L. Rev. No. 1, 193. Gove, S.K., "The P u b l i c Hearing Symposium: A P o s t s c r i p t " , (1969), 21 Ad. L. Rev. 187 Hanes, Chrisman, " C i t i z e n P a r t i c i p a t i o n and I t s Impact Upon Prompt and Responsible A d m i n i s t r a t i v e A c t i o n " , 24 S.W.L.J. 731. Hanks, Eva H. and John L., "An Environmental B i l l of R i g h t s : The C i t i z e n S u i t and the N a t i o n a l Environmental P o l i c y Act of 1969", (1970) 24 Rut. L. Rev. 230 . J a f f e , L o u i s L., "The A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Agency and Environmental C o n t r o l " , (1970-71), 20 B u f f . L. Rev. 231. Lamm and Davison, "Environmental Damages", (1971), 16 Rocky Mt. C l a s s A c t i o n s Seeking M.L. I n s t . , 59. 145 P e r i o d i c a l s (continued) Lucas, A.B., "Legal Techniques f o r P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l : The Role of the P u b l i c " , (1971), 6 U.B.C. L. Rev. No. 1, 16 7. Lucas, A.R., "The Utah Controversy: A Case Study of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l " , (unpublished). Note, "Class A c t i o n s Under Amended Rule 23: Three Years of J u d i c i a l I n t e r p r e t a t i o n " , (1969), 49 B.U.L. Rev. 682 Sandler, John R., "The N a t i o n a l Environmental P o l i c y A c t : A Sheep i n Wolf's C l o t h i n g ? " , (1970-71) 37 Brook L. Rev. 139. Thio, "Locus S t a n d i i n R e l a t i o n to Mandamus", [1966] P u b l i c Law 133. Thio, "Locus Standi i n R e l a t i o n to P r o h i b i t i o n " , [1965] P u b l i c Law 88. White, Henry R., "A Panoramic View of the N a t i o n a l Environmental P o l i c y A c t " , (1970), 16 How. L . J . 116. Yard l e y , C e r t i o r a r i and the Problem of Locus S t a n d i " , (1955), 71 L.Q.R. 388. P u b l i s h e d Reports The McRuer Royal Commission I n q u i r y i n t o C i v i l R i g h t s , Ont. The Second Annual Report of the C o u n c i l on Environmental Q u a l i t y , August, 1971. Cases C i t e d Abbott L a b o r a t o r i e s v Gardner (1967) 387 U.S. 136. Alameda Con s e r v a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n v C a l i f o r n i a (1971) 437 F. 2d 1087; 2 E.R.C. 1175 (9th C i r . ) . A s s o c i a t i o n of Data P r o c e s s i n g S e r v i c e O r g a n i z a t i o n s , Inc. v. Camp (1970) 397 U.S. 150. B a i l e y v P a t t e r s o n (1962) 369 U.S. 31. Baltimore & O.C.C. Co. v U n i t e d S t a t e s (1924) 264 U.S. 258. Barlow v C o l l i n s (1970) 397 U.S. 157. Barrows v Jackson (1953) 346 U.S. 249. Brooks v Volpe (1972) 3 E.R.C. 1858 (D. Minn.). 146 Cases C i t e d (continued) C a l v e r t C l i f f s ' C o o r d i n a t i n g Committee, Inc. v AEC (1971) 2 E.R.C. 1779. C i t i z e n s ' Committee f o r the Hudson V a l l e y v Volpe (1969) 302 8. Supp. 1083 (S.D.N.Y.) a f f ' d (1970) 425 F. 2d 97 (2d C i r . ) . Cowan v C.B.C. (1966), 56 D.L.R. (2d) 578 (Ont. C.A.). Crowther v Seaborg (1970) 312 F. Supp. 1205 (D. C o l o . ) . Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v Hardin (19 70) 42 8 F. 2d 1093 (C.A.D.C.). FCC v Sanders Bros. Radio S t a t i o n (19 40) 30 8 U.S. 470. Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co. L t d . , [1961] 2 A l l E.R. 145 (Q.B.) . Re I n t e r n a t i o n a l Union of Operating Engineers (1952), 5 W.W.R. (N.S.) 264 on appeal (1952), 6 W.W.R. (N.S.) 49 (Man. C.A.). J e n n e t t v S i n c l a i r (1876), 10 N.S.R. 392 (N.S.S.C.). N.A.A.CP. v Pat t y (1958) 159 F. Supp. 503 (E.D. Va.). N a t u r a l Resources Defense C o u n c i l v Morton (1972) 3 E.R.C. 1558 (C.A.D.C). Parker v Un i t e d S t a t e s (1969) 307 F. Supp. 685 (D. C o l o . ) . Re P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l Act, 196 7; Re A p p l i c a t i o n of Hooker Chemicals (Nanaimo) L t d . (1970), 75 W.W.R. 354 (B.C.S.C.). P r e s t o n v H i l t o n (1920) , 48 O.L.R. 172 (Ont. S . C ) . Re P r o v i n c i a l Board of Health and Toronto (1970), 46 O.L.R. 587. (Ont. CA.) . R. v The Board of Commissioners of P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s ; Ex pa r t e New Brunswick Power Company (1927), 54 N.B.R. 222 (N.B.C.A.). R. v E l e c t r i c i t y Commissioners, [1924] 1 K.B. 171. R. v Vancouver Zoning Board of Appeal, Ex pa r t e North West P o i n t Grey Homeowners' A s s o c i a t i o n , [1967] 60 D.L.R. 331 (B.C.CA.) . Road Review League v Boyd (1967) 270 F. Supp. 650 (S.D.N.Y.). S c e n i c Hudson P r e s e r v a t i o n Conference v FPC (1965) 354 F. 2d 608 (2d C i r . ) . 147 Cases C i t e d (continued) S i e r r a Club v Hardin (1971) 2 E.R. 1385 (D. A l a s k a ) . S i e r r a Club v H i c k e l (1970) 433 F. 2d 24 (9th C i r . ) ; C e r t , granted, sub, nom, S i e r r a Club v Morton (1971) 91 S. Ct. 870; (1972) 40 L.W. 4397. Smith v A.-G. ( O n t a r i o ) , [1924] S.C.R. 331. Smith v Board of Educat i o n (1966) 365 F. 2d 270 (8th C i r . ) . South H i l l Neighborhood A s s o c i a t i o n v Romney (1970)421 F. 2d 454 (6th C i r . ) , c e r t , denied 398 U.S. 952. Watch Tower B i b l e and T r a c t S o c i e t y e t a l v The A t t o r n e y -General f o r Canada, [1945] O.W.N. 537 (High C t . ) . Western Mines L t d . v Greater Campbell R i v e r Water D i s t r i c t (1967), 58 W.W.R. 705 (B.C.C.A.). The Wilderness S o c i e t y et a l , David Anderson and the Canadian W i l d l i f e F e d e r a t i o n v Rogers C.B. Morton, S e c r e t a r y o f the I n t e r i o r e t a l , No. 72 - 1090, judgment entered May 11, 1972 (C.A.D.C.). The Wilderness S o c i e t y et a l v H i c k e l (1970) 1 E.R.C. 1335 (D.C.). S t a t u t e s The A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. s s . 700 e t seq. The Anderson-Rockwell Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Act of 1970, Michigan Comp. Laws S e c t i o n s 691. 1201 - 691. 1207. B i l l 5 3 , 4th Se s s i o n , 28th L e g i s l a t u r e , O n t a r i o 20 E l i z a b e t h 11, 1971. B i l l 54, 4th Se s s i o n , 28th L e g i s l a t u r e , O n t a r i o 20 E l i z a b e t h 11, 1971. The B r i t i s h Columbia Supreme Court Rules. The B r i t i s h North America Act, 1867, 30 & 31 V i c t o r i a , C.3. The C a l i f o r n i a P u b l i c Resources Code, s s . 21000 e t seq. Clean A i r A c t Amendments, 1970, 42 U.S.C. s. 1857h-2. The Clean Environment Act, R.S.M.C. C130. Delaware Environmental P o l i c y A ct, C. 70 T i t l e 7, [1971] Delaware Laws (House B i l l 300) June 28, 1971. S t a t u t e s (continued) The Environment Conservation Act, R.S.A. 1970 C. 125. F e d e r a l Rules of C i v i l Procedure, United S t a t e s , Rule 23 The J u d i c a t u r e A ct, R.S.O. 1960 C. 197. Massachussets Laws, C. 732, amending General Law C-214. Montana Environmental P o l i c y A c t , C. 238 [1971] Montana Laws, March, 19 71. The N a t i o n a l Energy Board Act, B.S.C. 19 70 C. N-6. The N a t i o n a l Environmental P o l i c y Act, 83 S t a t . 852. The P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l A c t , 1967, S.B.C. 1967 C. 34 and amendments. Washington Environmental P o l i c y Act, C. 109 [19 71] Washington Laws (Senate B i l l 545), August 9, 1971. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0077741/manifest

Comment

Related Items