On the right sidebar, you’ll see a link to a longer explanation of this blog.  Suffice it to say here that there won’t be any more blog posts — this is it, unless one of these ideas turns out to be unworkable, in which case I’ll replace it with another idea to keep the total number at 100.

I hope people feel free to comment, debate and argue these ideas — this project is a small attempt to increase discussions about concrete things we can do as a community.

And thanks to New Paltz Gadfly, whose blog and the debates there gave me the idea to set this forum up.

Jason West

New York State requires that the New York State Power Authority charge local power authorities wholesale rates for the electricity they use.  The Town would negotiate a wholesale bulk purchase of electricity from either the NYPA or from Central Hudson.  Running a non-profit, locally-controlled power authority will save New Paltz ratepayers a significant amount of money – the national average being 30-40% savings.

• Here’s a list of New York municipalities with some form of public power
• “Forming a Public Power Authority”, courtesy of the American Public Power Association
• “Public Power Saves”, letter to the editor from the New York Times

Once owned, it should be possible to upgrade or replace the existing lights with solar streetlights, and eventually to replace the big ugly lights we have now with lights more in keeping with the aesthetics of the village.

• Florida Town invests in solar-powered street lights

And it may even be possible to have a combo solar/wind streetlight that also doubles (or triples?) as a Wi-Fi relay:

• Wind, Solar Powered Streetlights Only Need a Charge Once Every Four Days
• Sunlight Powers Streetlights, Wi-Fi Access

From the San Francisco Department of the Environment:

“San Francisco has created the first large scale urban collection of food scraps for composting in the country. Today, hundreds of thousands of residents and over 3,000 restaurants and other businesses send over 400 tons of food scraps and other compostable material each day to Recology’s Jepson-Prairie composting facility, shown above. Food scraps, plant trimmings, soiled paper, and other compostables are turned into a nutrient-rich soil amendment, or compost, that is used to produce the organic food and wine that San Francisco is famous for serving.”

• “West Works Sludge Solution” from the Times-Herald Record
• Reedbeds – Alternative Method for Sludge Treatment

phragmites reeds

In 2005 I revised the wetlands law passed by the Town to fit the needs of the Village – notably strengthening the enforcement provisions by eliminating the option to pay a fee in order to mitigate damage to wetlands.  I brought that law to the Village Board, where Michael Zierler suggested that we set up a task force to review the law and see if it met the village’s needs and if, in fact, we needed a law at all.  That task force – made up of myself, Colin Apse of the Nature Conservancy, Rachel Lagodka of the Environmental Commission and Laura Heady of the Hudson River Estuary Program – unanimously recommended that a local law was our best option for protecting wetlands.

Simply put, the law requires that anyone who wants to build near a wetland has to have that wetland checked out first — if there is no harm in building whatever is in question, then the project goes through the normal process.  If there would be harm to the project, the project has to be redesigned to avoid that harm, or the person in question can’t build what they want.

In order to find where there may be wetlands, we hired Hudsonia, Ltd to perform two wetland habitat assessments - one for the proposed Millbrook Greenway area, and one for the village as a whole.  Hudsonia’s maps showed several areas of the village where there were potentially important wetlands complexes — on the Woodland Pond/Stoneliegh Woods properties, along the Wallkill River, especially the Harcourt Wildlife Sanctuary and around the Rail Trail south of Water Street and others.

Due to criticism that the law could be difficult to understand procedurally, I created a simple flow chart to guide prospective builders through the process.

Finally, in order to make sure there were no unnecessary hoops for builders, I wrote a seperate Wetlands Protection Overlay District law that made sure that the wetlands law itself only applied to specific properties.  Those properties were the ones that had potential wetland, streams, river or buffer area somewhere on the property, according to Hudsonia.

• Conservation Thresholds for Land Use Planners by the Metropolitan Conservation Alliance

• Hudsonia, Ltd. ‘s 2003 “Wetland Assessment of the Proposed Millbrook Greenway, Village and Town of New Paltz”
• Orthophoto map of the location of potential wetlands and watercourses in the Village, from Hudsonia, Ltd.’s wetland assessment of the Village of New Paltz. (here’s wikipedia’s explanation of what an orthophoto is.)
• Parcel map showing the location of potential wetlands and watercourses in the Village, from Hudsonia, Ltd.’s wetland assessment of the Village of New Paltz

• Proposed Local Law Protecting Wetlands and Watercourses in the Village of New Paltz
• Proposed Wetland Protection Overlay District Law
• Flow chart showing the permiting process in the proposed Local Law Protecting Wetlands and Watercourses in the Village of New Paltz.

A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 210 OF THE CODE OF

THE VILLAGE OF NEW PALTZ, COUNTY OF ULSTER IMPLEMENTING A WETLANDS PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT

BE IT ENACTED BY THE VILLAGE BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF NEW PALTZ AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1.    The Village of New Paltz Code, Chapter 210 shall be amended to add the following:

ARTICLE XIX

Wetlands Preservation Overlay District
§     Title.

This District shall be known as the New Paltz “Wetlands Preservation Overlay District” and can be generally referred to as the “Wetlands Preservation Overlay District.  (WPOD).”
§     Intent and Purpose.

The WPOD is intended to implement the policies in the New Paltz Comprehensive Plan in conjunction with the recently completed studies of Hudsonia, Inc., and to promote, preserve, and enhance important aesthetic, biological, ecological, hydrologic, and recreational functions provided by the Village’s streams and rivers, as well as to protect life and prevent property damage from flooding.  It is therefore the purpose of these provisions to establish a Wetlands Preservation Overlay District that encourages planning and development of land that will protect and preserve designated areas.  The WPOD is specifically intended to:

1. Regulate and provide reasonable controls over the land use, siting, and engineering of all development to be consistent with the intent and objectives of this section.

2. Recognize that the protected natural features contribute to the welfare and quality of life of the Village of New Paltz residents.

3. Improve and maintain the water quality and minimize the addition of pollutants deposited in protected watercourses through the natural capacity of the riparian areas to filter stormwater runoff.

4. Comply with federal and state water quality and wetlands regulations.

5. Preserve and protect the natural state and scenic values of the protected watercourse areas and the Village of New Paltz.
§     Application.

The Wetlands Protection Overlay District encompasses all parcels within the Village of New Paltz which     contain all or part of a wetlands, wetland buffer, watercourse or watercourse buffer as designated on the     official Wetlands Protection Overlay District Map
§     Official Maps.

The boundaries of the WPOD shall be delineated on the official Village of New Paltz maps.
§      Permitted Uses.

1. The uses and restrictions in the WPOD are supplementary to, and do not replace, underlying established district use and bulk regulations.

2. In the event that this provision conflicts with any requirement or provision in the underlying district, the more restrictive requirement or provision shall apply.

3. Those uses outlined in §210-8, §210-9 and §210-10 of the Village of New Paltz Wetlands and Watercourse Protection Law shall be allowed in accordance with the procedures set forward in the Village of New Paltz Wetlands and Watercourse Protection Law
§     Prohibited Uses.

Those uses outlined in §210-6 and §210-7 of the Village of New Paltz Wetlands and Watercourse     Protection     Law shall be prohibited and/or regulated  in accordance with the procedures set forward in the Village of New     Paltz Wetlands and Watercourse Protection Law
§    Special Permit Uses.

1. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall seek the advice of the Wetlands Inspector when making its determination as to whether to grant a request for a special permit.

2. The Zoning Board of Appeals must condition any such special permit granted to insure that such use shall not conflict with the Village of New Paltz Wetlands and Watercourse Protection Law.

3. The following uses may be permitted in the WPOD by special permit:

1.    Marinas for non-powered boats, public and private boat entry points.

2.    Structures or uses required for the operation of a public utility, such as utility rights-of-way and crossings.
§    Inspection, Enforcement, and Penalties.

1.    Inspection.  Lands within or adjacent to a designated WPOD will be inspected by the Wetlands Inspector when:

i.    A subdivision or site plan is submitted.

ii.     A building permit is requested.

iii.    A change or resumption of a nonconforming use is proposed.

iv.    A written complaint alleging a violation is submitted to the Wetlands Inspector.

2.    Enforcement.

i.    Any person may submit a written complaint to the Wetlands Inspector alleging a violation of the WPOD.

ii.    Upon receipt of the complaint, the Wetlands Inspector shall conduct an investigation of the complaint including, but not limited to, a site inspection and meeting with the property owner.

3.    Penalties.

Any violation of the WPOD must cease upon a determination that a violation has occurred.  If upon written notification to the violating party, that party does not cause the violation to be discontinued, the fines shown in subsections (i)-(iii) below will be additionally assessed for each day thereafter until the violation  ceases.

Monetary fines shall be assessed for violations as follows:

i.    Level One.  ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,000) for violations that are easily correctable and have not resulted in any adverse affect on the water quality of the designated wetland area.

ii.    Level Two.  TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000) for violations that have resulted in an adverse effect on the water quality of the designated wetland area.

iii.    Level Three.  FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS ($4,000) for violations that are deemed a flagrant abuse of the WPOD and have a serious affect on the quality of life and environment of the WPOD and surrounding area.

Thanks to Terence Ward for pointing out that only certain breeds of goats like poison ivy — Spanish and Angorra goats to be precise.

a spanish goat

• Beyond Pesticides in Ulster County on Facebook
• Beyond Pesticides in Ulster County on MySpace
• New Paltz Healthy Lawns Project

• U.S. Green Building Council’s “Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design” Standards

Hire an architect to design the buildings to be built on the former Village Hall property, (keeping a small fire station on-site), and make the projects shovel-ready by having the Village Board work with the Planning Board to get all necessary approvals. That way, a builder has simply to buy the right to build this pre-approved building.

• Behan Planning’s B3 Zoning Presentation

• “Understanding Smart Growth Savings” by Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Institute

• From the Ohio State University Fact Sheet on Cost of Community Services, “Many of the early studies providing estimates of [Cost Of Community Services] ratios were either sponsored or conducted by the American Farmland Trust. But in recent years a great number of other researchers from a variety of backgrounds have undertaken such studies. The results seem to corroborate each other. Virtually all of the studies show that for residential land, the COCS ratio is substantially above 1. That is, residential land is a net drain on local government budgets. The average estimate ranges from about 1.15 to 1.50, which means that for every dollar collected in taxes and non-tax revenue, between $1.15 and $1.50 gets returned in the form of services by the local government and school district.“

• From SmartGrowth America, “…sprawling development rarely brings about the economic benefits anticipated. While it is true that an acre of land with a new house generates more total revenue than an acre of hay or corn, the cost of providing infrastructure and services to that property is greater for residential development than for commercial, farm, or forest land. Cost of Community Services (COCS) studies conducted in more than 83 communities show that owners of farm, forest and open lands pay more in local tax revenues than it costs local government to provide services to their properties. Residential land uses, in contrast, are a net drain on municipal coffers: It costs local governments more to provide services to homeowners than residential landowners pay in property taxes.”

“A method of regulating development to achieve a specific urban form. Form-based codes create a predictable public realm primarily by controlling physical form, with a lesser focus on land use, through city or county regulations.

Form-based codes address the relationship between building facades and the public realm, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and types of streets and blocks. The regulations and standards in Form-based codes, presented in both diagrams and words, are keyed to a regulating plan that designates the appropriate form and scale (and therefore, character) of development rather than only distinctions in land-use types. This is in contrast to conventional zoning’s focus on the micromanagement and segregation of land uses, and the control of development intensity through abstract and uncoordinated parameters (e.g., FAR, dwellings per acre, setbacks, parking ratios, traffic LOS) to the neglect of an integrated built form. Not to be confused with design guidelines or general statements of policy, Form-based codes are regulatory, not advisory.”

• Form-based Code Institute
• Form-based codes at Planningwiki

One fine example of a form-based code is the SmartCode.  The developers of the SmartCode explain it’s use this way,

“Conventional zoning separates uses, forcing everyone to drive to work and shopping and creating traffic congestion, while only minimally regulating form. Parking lots and curb cuts are allowed to dominate the frontages, creating a hostile environment for pedestrians and cyclists.

The SmartCode regulates form more strongly to enhance pedestrian safety and enjoyment, and to structure networks of streets that relieve traffic congestion. The SmartCode does address use, but the Transect zones signify different intensities of mixed use. Notice that in the Retail illustration, which shows a typical T-5 zone, the SmartCode allows Residential along with the Retail, in the form of apartments over shops. This helps keep housing affordable and enables “eyes on the street,” walkability, and vibrant downtowns.”

• “Assessment of the Direct, Indirect and Induced Economic Effects of Chain Stores on the Regional Economy of Cape Cod”
• “The Andersonville Study of Retail Economics”
• “Economic Impact Analysis: Local Merchants vs. Chain Retailers”
• “The Impact of Chain Stores on Community”
• “Economic Impact of Local Business Versus Chains”
• “An Analysis of the Potential Economic Impact of Austin Unchained”
• “The Economic Impact of Locally Owned Businesses vs. Chains: A Case Study of Mid-Coast Maine”

• “Nantucket Votes to Ban Chain Stores”
• “Maine Town Votes to Ban Chain Stores”

LOCAL BUSINESS PROTECTION LAW

A Local Law Relating to the Protection of the Village Economy by Protecting Local Businesses in the Village, Amending Parts of Chapter 212 of the Village Code.

Be it enacted by the Board of Trustees of the Village of New Paltz, Ulster County, State of New York, as follows:

Section 1.    Findings.
1.    A 2004 study of local vs. chain businesses in the Andersonville neighborhood of Chicago known, like New Paltz, as a center of unique, locally owned businesses, found that, “When asked to express a preference of the type of businesses shoppers patronize, over 70 percent preferred locally-owned businesses while less than three percent preferred chain businesses.  Additionally, an overwhelming 80 percent of respondents identified Andersonville’s traditional neighbor-hood district, with locally-owned, independent businesses, as their preferred shopping environment.”
2.    In studies comparing local businesses with equivalent chain store competition in four areas – Austin, Texas, the Andersonville neighborhood of Chicago, Mid-coast Maine, and Toledo, Ohio – researchers discovered that local businesses have a demonstrable economic multiplier effect on the local economy; local businesses create on average three times as much revenue circulating in the local economy as chain stores offering similar goods and/or services.
3.    The Village of New Paltz Comprehensive Master Plan states on page 4.11 that, “In order to maintain the Village as the commercial center of all of New Paltz, the Village should encourage businesses and tourist opportunities that serve the needs of the area and are compatible in scale and character with the existing community.”
4.    Given that the overwhelming majority of businesses in the Village are small, locally-owned enterprises, protecting existing such businesses and encouraging the creation of more local businesses constitutes ‘encouraging businesses…that…are compatible in scale and character with the existing community.”
5.    By creating and protecting a Village dominated by locally-owned, independent businesses, the Village will be able to continue to rely on our those locally-owned, independent businesses as a tourist draw in and of itself, as well as acting as a supplemental tourist destination for those visiting the area for our scenic, wilderness, historic and agricultural draws, thereby meeting the goals of the Comprehensive Master Plan as stated above.
6.    Formula businesses have an unfair competitive advantage over independent operators due to the fact that they can absorb larger startup costs, pay more for lease space, and commit to longer lease contracts.  This can put pressure on existing businesses and potentially price out new startup independent businesses.
7.     Notwithstanding the marketability of a retailer’s goods or services or the visual attractiveness of the storefront, the standardized architecture, color schemes, decor and signage of many formula retail businesses can detract from the distinctive character of the village.
8.    The increase of formula retail businesses in the village, if not monitored and regulated, will hamper the village’s goal of a diverse retail base comprised of a mix of businesses.  Specifically, the unregulated and unmonitored establishment of additional formula retail uses may unduly limit or eliminate business establishment opportunities for smaller or medium-sized businesses, many of which tend to be non-traditional or unique, and change this mix of businesses towards national retailers in lieu of local or regional retailers, thereby decreasing the diversity of merchandise available to residents and visitors and the diversity of purveyors of merchandise.

Section 2.
The Village of New Paltz Municipal Code, hereby is amended as follows:
§ 212-5         Definitions, add:
FORMULA BUSINESS – A ‘Formula Business’ is hereby defined as any of the following:
(a)    a type of retail sales activity or retail sales establishment which, along with five or more other retail sales establishments, is required by contractual or other arrangement to maintain two or more of the following features:
(1)     Standardized menu or standardized array of merchandise with 50% or more of in-stock merchandise from a single distributor bearing uniform markings.
(2)     Trademark or service mark, defined as a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination or words, phrases, symbols or designs that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods from one party from those of others, on products or as part of store design.
(3)     Standardized interior décor including but not limited to style of furniture, wall-coverings or permanent fixtures.
(4)     Standardized color scheme used throughout the interior or exterior of the establishment.
(5)     Standardized uniform including but not limited to aprons, pants, shirts, smocks or dresses, hat, and pins (other than name tags).
(6)    Standardized architecture, façade, signage or other similar feature
(b)    a type of retail sales activity or retail sales establishment which adopts a name, appearance or other presentation format which causes it to be substantially identical to another business regardless of ownership or location.
(c)    any publicly traded corporation.

§ 212-13        District regulations, add:
D.    H  Historic District
- add-
(4)    Prohibited Uses
(a)    Formula Business

E.    B-1     Limited Business District
- add-
(4)    Prohibited Uses
(a)    Formula Business

F.    B-2     Core Business District
- add-
(4)    Prohibited Uses
(a)    Formula Business

G.    B-3     Highway Business District
- add-
(4)    Prohibited Uses
(a) Formula Business

H.    F     Floodplain District
- add-
(4) Prohibited Uses
(a)    Formula Business

I.    P-B Professional and Limited Business District
- add-
(4)    Prohibited Uses
(a) Formula Business

J.    Gateway District
- add-
(3)    Prohibited Uses
(a)    Formula Business

• “Paid Sick Leave”, DMI blog
• “Connecticut House Backs Mandatory Paid Sick Days”, Businessweek
• “California Lawmaker Sign Off On Madatory Paid Sick Leave”, California Healthline

• “DARE Doesn’t Work, Study Finds”, NBC News
• “Just Say No Again: The Old Failures of New and Improved Anti-drug Education”, Reason.com
• “If DARE Doesn’t Work, Why Pay?”, The Patriot-News and LawOfficer.com
• “The Problem With DARE Is That It Doesn’t Work”, The Vancouver Sun
• “DARE-free Communities”

• “Options for Small-Scale Biodiesel Production to Self-Supply the Energy Needs of Isolated Communities in Amazonia” (pdf)
• Biodiesel 101
• Make Your Own Biodiesel
• Small Scale Biodiesel Production and Use
• Colorado Springs Has Nation’s Top Biodiesel Fleet

About the Clean Air and Climate Protection (CACP) software:

“CACP 2009 is a new product that replaces the CACP Software, originally released in 2003. CACP 2009 has been updated to support emissions inventorying and climate action planning based on the principles and methods of the Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP). To learn more about how to use this software, please refer to our FAQs.

CACP 2009 is a one-stop emissions management tool that calculates and tracks emissions and reductions of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide) and criteria air pollutants (NOx, SOx, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, PM10, PM 2.5) associated with electricity, fuel use, and waste disposal. This tool can help you do the following:

• Create emissions inventories for the community as a whole or for the government’s internal operations.
• Quantify the effect of existing and proposed emissions reduction measures.
• Predict future emissions levels.
• Set reduction targets and track progress towards meeting those goals.”

More links about ICLEI:

• ICLEI: Local Governments for Sustainability
• ICLEI Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region
• ICLEI’s “Clean Air and Climate Protection” software
• ICLEI’s “Climate and Air Pollution Planning Assistant (CAPPA) tool”

• Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States

Here’s the text of the Accords:

• United Nations Urban Environmental Accords

and some related material:

• Urban Environmental Accords FAQ
• “The Power of Mayors, Multiplied” Utne Reader
• “Urban Environmental Accords: Greening Cities One Star At a Time”, Greenoptions
• “Mayors From Across the World to Mark World Environment Day”, United Nations Environment Program

• U.S. Green Building Council’s “Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design” green building rating system
• Green Building Certification Institute
• New York State Green Building Tax Credit

• stamped asphalt

• One-Way Pair Initial Draft Feasibility Study

a quarter mile radius around the proposed one-way pair. this is the distance that experts have said is the optimal size for pedestrian-oriented development.

• “Crossroads, Hamlet, Village, Towns” by Randall Arendt

• NYPRIG Fuel Buyers Group
• Co-op Power Heating Oil Buying Group

The ICIB is created pursuant to Section 485(b) of the New York State Real Property Tax Law.  The basic responsibilities of the ICIB are to set the terms of property tax reductions and incentives to attract business to the community.  In legalese, this translates to the followng, taken from section 485(b) linked above:

(b) The industrial and commercial incentive board shall present a plan to the appointing local legislative body concerning the various types of business real property which should be granted eligibility for an exemption pursuant to subdivision one of this section. Such plan shall make recommendations concerning the applicability of the exemption to specific sectors and subsectors, as defined in the North American Industry Classification System published by the United States Government. Such plan shall also make a recommendation as to whether the exemption be computed as provided in subdivision two or twelve of this section. In addition, such plan shall identify specific geographic areas within which such exemptions should be offered. In developing the plan required by this paragraph, the board shall consider the planning objectives of each municipality within which such exemptions may be offered, the necessity of the exemption to the attraction or retention of such business and the economic benefit to the area of providing exemptions to various types of businesses.
(c) In addition, the board may make recommendations to the appointing local legislative body with respect to actions it deems desirable to improve the economic climate therein.

It would take a bit of research to figure out how to target green industries in particular, but I believe this would be feasible under the general principle of Home Rule Law that localities may make laws more restrictive than enabling legislation, but not less restrictive.  For example, the State of New York protects wetlands of one hectare (12.4 acres) or larger.  So a municipality may pass laws that supercede state law to protect wetlands that are smaller than one hectare, but may not pass  a law superceding state law to eliminate protection of wetlands altogether, or that only mandates protection of wetlands larger than one hectare.

• Instant Runoff Voting
• the Muppets explain IRV (powerpoint)

• U.S. Green Building Council’s “Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design” Green Building Rating System
• LEED for Schools

The smaller the district, the more democratic the election.  Pretty simple.

It’s un-democratic to have 100% of our elected officials come from a party in which only about 30% of Town residents are members.  A party should have the percentage of seats in government as the percentage they get at the polls.  If this were the case, our local government would accurately reflect the full diversity of political opinion in the community, rather than a small group pretending to represent everyone.

• The Center for Voting and Democracy

• an explanation of proportional representation voting systems
• John Cleese explains proportional representation

• The E.F. Schumacher Society Local Currency Program
• Ithaca HOURS

• “Greens Back Local Currency”, Times-Herald Record
• “Communities Print Their Own Currency to Keep Cash Flowing”, USA Today
• “Some Communities Are Printing Their Own Currency”, CNN
• “Local Currencies Aren’t Small Change”, Utne Reader
• “Greensboro Group Explores Local Currency”, Greensboro News & Record

• asphalt: the sustainable pavement
• a case for porous asphalt pavement

• Here is a very good explanation of corporate personhood in a review of Thom Hartman’s book Unequal Protection: the Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights.

• Here is a local law from Blaine Township, Pennsylvania revoking corporate personhood, courtesy of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund

• 100 Pennsylvania Towns Revoke Corporate Constitutional Rights
• Maine Town Passes Ordinance Asserting Local Self Governance and Stripping Corporate Personhood

“SO WHAT WOULD A RADICALLY DIFFERENT law-driven consciousness look like?” The question was posed over three decades ago by a University of Southern California law professor as his lecture drew to a close. “One in which Nature had rights,” he continued. “Yes, rivers, lakes, trees. . . . How could such a posture in law affect a community’s view of itself?” Professor Christopher Stone may as well have announced that he was an alien life form. Rivers and trees are objects, not subjects, in the eyes of the law and are by definition incapable of holding rights. His speculations created an uproar.

Stone stepped away from that lecture a little dazed by the response from the class but determined to back up his argument. He realized that for nature to have rights the law would have to be changed so that, first, a suit could be brought in the name of an aspect of nature, such as a river; second, a polluter could be held liable for harming a river; and third, judgments could be made that would benefit a river. Stone quickly identified a pending appeal to the United States Supreme Court against a decision of the Ninth Circuit that raised these issues. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had found that the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund was not “aggrieved” or “adversely affected” by the proposed development of the Mineral King Valley in the Sierra Nevada Mountains by Walt Disney Enterprises, Inc. This decision meant that the Sierra Club did not have “standing” so the court didn’t need to consider the merits of the matter. Clearly, if the Mineral King Valley itself had been recognized as having rights, it would have been an adversely affected party and would have had the necessary standing.

Fortuitously, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas was writing a preface to the next edition of the Southern California Law Review. Stone’s seminal “Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects” (“Trees”) was hurriedly squeezed into the journal and read by Justice Douglas before the Court issued its judgment. In “Trees,” Stone argued that courts should grant legal standing to guardians to represent the rights of nature, in much the same way as guardians are appointed to represent the rights of infants. In order to do so, the law would have to recognize that nature was not just a conglomeration of objects that could be owned, but was a subject that itself had legal rights and the standing to be represented in the courts to enforce those rights. The article eventually formed the basis for a famous dissenting judgment by Justice Douglas in the 1972 case of Sierra Club v. Morton in which he expressed the opinion that “contemporary public concern for protecting nature’s ecological equilibrium should lead to the conferral of standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation.”

• Sierra Club v. Morton (1972)

The Community Environmental Defense Fund has written a sample local law that would guarantee the rights of nature:

• Local Law Acknowledging the Rights of Nature

• “Ecuador Adopts New Constitution: Voters Approve Rights of Nature”
• “Tamaqua Law is First in Nation to Recognize Rights of Nature”
• “The Emancipated Earth: Ecuador’s Constitution Grants Rights to Nature, It’s Time for the Rest of the World to Follow Suit.”