Preview

Public Trust Doctrine: Indian Contours

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
6235 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Public Trust Doctrine: Indian Contours
INTRODUCTION

Who owns the Earth and its resources? To what extent may the general public claim the pure water, clean air, rich soil, and the myriad services Earth provides to sustain human life?
Across continents and spanning centuries, a dynamic tension continues between those who would circumscribe the Earth’s bounty for private use and those who would carefully allot Earth’s riches to satisfy human needs. Private property—sequestering Earth’s resources for personal, exclusive use—has its zealous advocates, and in many locales its legal status is unimpeachable, and its ideology is unquestioned. But a competing ideology, dating from antiquity[1], holds that some of Earth’s riches should never be sequestered for private use, must be left for the public’s enjoyment, and must be stewarded by those in power. Codified 1,500 years ago during the Roman Empire, legal scholars labeled this the “Public Trust Doctrine.” The Public Trust Doctrine perseveres as a value system and an ethic as its expression in law mutates and evolves. More recently, scholars, activists, and lawyers have begun discussing the rights of people to access and enjoy various essential resources and services the Earth so generously yields.

The Public Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, waters and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The said resources being a gift of nature should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. Three types of restrictions on governmental authority are often thought to be imposed by the public trust: first, the property subject to the trust must not only be used for a public purpose, but it must be

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Best Essays

    Bay Tidelands Doctrine

    • 3273 Words
    • 14 Pages

    Across most of the world Common Law states that navigable waters are owned by the public at large. Tidelands fall under the category of navigable waters and are therefore protected up to the high high tide line. The protection of public lands has historically fallen on the government and is referred to as the Public Trust Doctrine (PTD). The history of this common law comes from many historical sources including, the Institutes of Justinian in Rome, the Magna Carta in England, and the Siete Partides in Spain (State Lands Commission 2001). The public’s ownership of navigable waters and their protection for the benefit of the public have also been set forth in past court cases and documents issues by numerous state and federal agencies including the State Lands Commission and the Army Corps of Engineers. The responsibility of both the state and local municipalities has been established in past court cases e.g. the Nature Conservancy’s suit regarding Mono Lake diversions. Martin v. Waddell 1842 brought the common law regarding navigable waters to North America. The protection of tidelands was entrusted to the original 13 colonies. The Equal Footing Doctrine that resulted from Pollard’s Lesee v. Hagan 1845 gave all states the responsibility to protect the public’s interest in navigable waters i.e. tidelands. Consequently the California State Legislature was entrusted with protecting the tidelands of California at its inception in 1850. The California State Legislature’s sale of the tidelands from 1858 to 1872 runs contrary to the Public Trust Doctrine. The legislature’s recognition that selling the tidelands was an egregious violation of the PTD can be inferred from the amendments to the state constitution in 1879 and 1910 that expressly protected the public’s right to access and fish the waterways (Article 1 section 25, Article X section 4). None the less abuse of the PTD has resulted in a mass…

    • 3273 Words
    • 14 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Is the government allowed to take place of private property if it benefits the economic good and overall good of the…

    • 2443 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    In the Unites States the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution imposes limitations on the exercise of eminent domain. In a landmark eminent domain case that was presented to the US Supreme Court in 2005, the limitations have been greatly expanded giving the federal, state and local government the ability to take private land and then sell it to private developers. Eminent domain has always been a tool at the government’s disposal and was used to establish things like the transcontinental railroad. Eminent domain, as described by the Constitution, states that the government must use the land for public use. The public uses clause has been broadened over the years. The United States is not the only country that allows for eminent domain, although called different things the principals are the same. Countries such as the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, Canada, South Africa, etc. all allow for land to be taken for “the greater good”. The laws and protections vary greatly. I plan to look at some of the benefits of Eminent Domain as well as the many downsides of eminent domain. I will explore several sovereign nations and how eminent domain has helped and hindered growth, private property rights, and the true cost of exercising eminent domain. I will also explore the use of eminent domain in developing countries, and contrast that to developing countries who have strict law pertaining to property rights.…

    • 301 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The primary thesis of this article is that the common ownership formula would create higher equality amongst individuals. The author, Timothy Hinton, advocates that there should not be individuals in a community who are not provided for. He believes that every person is an equal co-owner of the Earth, and should reap its benefits equally. Therefore, if someone in a community cannot provide for themselves, then it is the rest of the community’s responsibility to care for that person. This is important within the field of philosophy in regards to moral and ethical obligations of members in a society. It is also important because this ideology could alter societal structure as we know it.…

    • 304 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Pevnick and Cafaro say that social and political resources cannot be equally owned by all people because they are the accomplishments of certain individual people. Pevnick and Cafaro do agree that there’s a moral case for collective ownership of natural resources, but not of social and political…

    • 791 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Environmental Views of Anwr

    • 2708 Words
    • 11 Pages

    Three different environmental ethic views will be addressed, Utilitarian, Deontology, and Lockean. The Utilitarian argument is that the greatest function of ANWR will be reached through drilling. It implies that the intrinsic qualities of the land are of lesser value, and that ANWR serves the people better by being given over to the purpose of oil production. Deontology views ANWR rationally. The question is asked: what would a rational person do when developers propose to convert an unspoiled landscape to commercial use? In the Lockean view, man has a right to use property and the various resources of the earth as he wills, to support his life and values.…

    • 2708 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    The definition topoi, is an important invention because it used to educate the reader what eminent domain means. The principle states that the “government has the right to confiscate property provided that it uses the property for the common good, and that it compensates the owner for the fair market value of the property.” This helps style the article by giving clarification to readers that this editorial is about the policy and it also serves as a reference to compare reality with theory. Next, Davies and Harrigan use the definition to strengthen their argument by incorporating it into the comparison and quality topoi. The use of eminent domain is used to show that this principle is causing more problems than benefits. Case in point, they express that the properties the government confiscates are “most often undervalued.” Then comparing it to civil asset forfeiture laws which states that the national government “confiscate[s] more property than is stolen in robberies.” This leaves Americans with a bad taste in their mouth causing them to challenge this policy more and more. This establishes a negative resistance for eminent domain, or that eminent domain is of bad quality, by persuading the readers that they’re being robbed or taken advantage of, which in turn strengthens and develops Davies and…

    • 1234 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The philosophical tragedy of the commons occurs when individuals overuse (for their personal benefit) the commons to the point where it impedes on the use and future use of others and future generations. This overuse also leads to devaluation. Hardin proposed an analogy of a field “open to all,” in which common ownership leads to environmental degradation. In terms of pollution, the problem of the commons deals with adding to the commons rather than taking from the commons.…

    • 2254 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Numerous problems can arise in a society which emphasizes both individual rights and the common good because the two goals are often conflicting in nature. Everyone desires individual rights, but to protect the common good a social contract must be in effect. This means that some personal rights must be sacrificed for the good of the community. The natural rights philosophy considered the rights of the individual to be of primary…

    • 592 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The right to exclude others or to have control over the access of strangers from the benefits of a property is hence the key in identifying what is (or is not) property, and in defining the ‘propertiness’ of property.[5]…

    • 835 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Questions regarding one’s right to ownership of land and property has been an issue much discussed, debated and responsible in creating a stir of conflict in the attempt to find a conclusive answer on subject. In John Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Government, published in 1690, Locke addresses the matter in question in the fifth chapter titled: ‘Of Property’. In his work, Locke builds an argument that displays how an individual obtains an ownership of property by means of labor. Locke is able to justify his position on the point at issue through the word of God and through simplistic scenarios he illustrates to his reader. Moving forward, in 1874, Chief Seattle conducted a powerful speech to Govenor Isaac Stevens and to the nation, a speech…

    • 1437 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    land, and the fact that man is selling part of the earth from which we all share.To quote George “…

    • 1462 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    The Indian Act is one of the most outdated and irrelevant pieces of legislature ever written. In 1876, the Crown consolidated all existing laws pertaining to Indians, and called this new document the Indian Act. They did not solicit input from Aboriginal people and in fact, at that time, Aboriginal people were not even allowed to vote for or against the politicians who were creating this Act. If this Act was written in 1876, what effect could it possibly have on anyone today? The answer to this is complex and requires an analysis of what is contained within the Act.…

    • 2239 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    2. A natural area will receive protection only if the value a society assigns to services provided in its natural state is higher than the value the society assigns to converting it to a more direct human use.…

    • 1361 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    “What good is there in working out to a nicety the dimensions of an acre… if I am embittered when an ill-tempered neighbor merely scrapes off a bit of my land?” Seneca emphasizes a point that deals with property and the pettiness of how “nicety the dimensions of an acre” are. It is trivial to measure to the finest detail of owned property as it displays selfish intentions and creates unwanted distress for the owner. This act can entitle an individual to be ungenerous and stingy, ultimately leaving the individual to decadence. Moreover, Seneca claims that “What good is there for me in knowing how to parcel out a piece of land, if I know not how to share it with my brother?” The knowledge of knowing how to parcel out land makes it counter intuitive if it is conclusively not shared by a brother. Sharing with a brother holds a more sentimental value than a parcel which entails it to a higher regard than such officiated matters. Branching off officiated matters Seneca states that “The lawyers say that public property cannot be acquired privately by possession; what you hold and call your own is public — indeed, it belongs to mankind at large.” The fret over private property and ensuring the safety of possessions are essentially for naught. What is found on this earth and beyond are not meant to be claimed, but to be shared with mankind at large. God didn’t put man on this earth to live out in isolation, but decided to provide man with companionship and…

    • 1133 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays