Should the atmosphere be considered part of the public trust, a resource essential for our collective survival? An Iowa judge, for one, thinks that there is good reason andย precedent.
You may recall the story of a group of kids, working together with Our Childrenโs Trust, who are suing the federal government and various state governments to ensure that the atmosphere is protected under the so-called Public Trust Doctrine. Weโve covered the story of Alec Loorz, who has helped organize the campaign, and who put his name on the suit before the federal government. Similar suits have been filed in ten states now, including Iowa, where a decision was offered last week in the Court ofย Appeals.
But before we get to the court’s finding, a quick refresher on the public trust doctrine and the atmosphereโs relation to it. Over the past few years, University of Oregon Law professor Mary Wood has been developing a legal theory around an โatmospheric trust.โ As I wrote in that earlierย post:
The theory is based on the premise, according to Wood, โthat all governments hold natural resources in trust for their citizens and bear the fiduciary obligation to protect such resources for futureย generations.โ
For you lawyers out there, โatmospheric trust litigationโ is rooted in the Public Trust Doctrine, an evolution of old British โCommons Lawโ that has been used successfully in the past to preserve and protect natural resources โ like air and water โ for publicย use.
Using this atmospheric trust theory, Glori Dei Fillippone, a 14-year-old from Des Moines, petitioned the Iowa Department of Natural Resources to adopt new greenhouse gas emissions rules, citing the public trust doctrine. The DNR denied her petition, so she sought judicial review. The district court first affirmed the DNRโs denial, and last week the Court of Appeals affirmed that decision.
So on its face, the Courtโs decision deals a blow to Fillipponeโs cause, but not all the news is bad. One of the judges to hear the case, Judge Doyle, ceded the question to the State Supreme Court, and offered some very lucid support for the idea of protecting the atmosphere as a public trust, saying that there is a โsound public policy basisโ for extending the public trust doctrine to include the atmosphere. His comments follow inย full:
I concur specially. I agree there is no Iowa case law for extending the public trust doctrine to include the atmosphere. But, I believe there is a sound public policy basis for doing so.ย
In 1989, in enacting the Resources Enhancement and Protection (REAP) program, the legislatureย stated:
The general assembly findsย that:
1. The citizens of Iowa have built and sustained their societyย on Iowaโs air, soils, waters, and rich diversity of life. The well-beingย and future of Iowa depend on these naturalย resources.
โฆย .
4. The air, waters, soils, and biota of Iowa areย interdependent and form a complex ecosystem. Iowans have theย right to inherit this ecosystem in a sustainable condition, withoutย severe or irreparable damage caused by human activities.ย 1989 Iowa Acts ch. 236, ยง 2 (now codified at Iowa Code ยง 455A.15 (2013))ย (emphasis added).ย Furthermore,
It is the policy of the state of Iowa to protect its natural resource heritage of air, soils, waters, and wildlife for the benefit of present and future citizens with the establishment of a resource enhancement program.ย Id. ยง 3 (now codified at ยง 455A.16) (emphasisย added).
The legislature, the voice of the people, has spoken in terms as clear as a crisp, cloudless, autumn Iowaย sky.
[Note: italicized emphasis was added by Judge Coyle. Bold emphasis was added by author. You can read the entire original judgement here (PDF).]
To translate this from legalese (with the help of my wife, a professor of environmental law), the judge is essentially saying that it is sound judgement to protect the atmosphere, but itโs up to the state legislature to make it into explicit law – which it should because it aligns with existing statutes andย laws.
Judge Doyle isnโt the first to take this public position. State court judges in Texas and New Mexico made very similar statements in remarks about their respectiveย cases.
Glori Deiโs lawyer, Channing Dutton, has already committed to appeal the decision and take Judge Doyleโs concurrence to the Iowa Supremeย Court.
Our courts have never held that the atmosphere is a public trust resource because they have never had occasion to do soโฆBut there is abundant precedent that the air and atmosphere have always fallen squarely within the legal doctrine. ย Given the threats climate disruption poses to our waterways, our wildlife, our land, and our children it is time the Supreme Court recognizes the atmosphere as a fundamental public trust, on which all of usย depend.
While we wait for the Iowa Supreme Court to hear the case, you can check out this very inspirational video ofย Filippone:
Updated 4/4: On April 2, Filipone officially filed her appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa. Her lawyer, Channing Dutton, said, โIt is fitting that the Iowa appeal was filed the day after Dr. James Hansen, a native of Dennison, Iowa, and the chief science advisor to Our Childrenโs Trust announced his retirement. Although the legal basis for the lawsuit in Iowa is contested, the Iowa DNR and the Iowa court system have accepted the science on climate change, provided by Dr. Hansen for the litigation, asย fact.โ
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts