The Public Trust Doctrine is an agreement between the public and the government. The government’s duty is to hold and manage wildlife, fish, and waterways for its resources and the public. The Public Trust Doctrine is also recognized as the foundation for the “North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.” This model is viewed as an important concept of the law, policy and scientific research that has led to the protection, conservation and restoration of resources in the United States. The core of the Public Trust Doctrine is the concept that the law treats resources as public commons that belong to all and cannot be privately owned. A trust is a collection of assets entrusted to one to be managed or cared for in the interest of another.
…show more content…
According to the court one of the most important purposes of the public trust today is to preserve tidelands “in their natural state, so that they may serve as ecological units for scientific study, as open space and as environments which provide food and habitat for birds and marine life and which favorably affect the scenery and climate of the area.” However, not every state applies the public trust doctrine in the same way. Maine for example has decided that the Public Trust Doctrine only protects fishing, fowling and navigation. In Hawaii the Supreme Court held that the Public Trust Doctrine extends to groundwater and protects the interest not only of current generation but of future generation as well. California Supreme Court held that the Public Trust Doctrine restricts the amount of water that can be withdrawn from navigable waterways. The Public Trust Doctrine applies as much to the waters in a navigable waterway as it does to the lands underlying the waterway. The governmental does not own these resources but they are owned by the public and are entrusted in the care of government to be safeguarded for the public’s long-term …show more content…
They fear that developers and other commercial interests enjoy undue influence in many state legislatures. They also argue that the Public Trust Doctrine is essential to safeguard the public’s interest in preservation. And it should apply today as a shield against threats to national parks, forests, wetlands, wildlife and other environmental resources. However courts have shown minimal interest in extending the public trust doctrine beyond its traditional setting, although the federal court suggested in the 1970s that national parks are subject to common-law public trust. Critics of the Public Trust Doctrine have argued that the courts have been effective in legislating. In addition the legal basis for the Public Trust Doctrine has never been entirely clear and is difficult to execute. The controversy is not whether we need to expand, we protect numerous environmental resources – the issue is that we need to better protect these resources for future generations to enjoy. Natural resources are important in the lives of people and the public should have an opportunity to access these resources for purposes such as fishing, hunting and
According to the court one of the most important purposes of the public trust today is to preserve tidelands “in their natural state, so that they may serve as ecological units for scientific study, as open space and as environments which provide food and habitat for birds and marine life and which favorably affect the scenery and climate of the area.” However, not every state applies the public trust doctrine in the same way. Maine for example has decided that the Public Trust Doctrine only protects fishing, fowling and navigation. In Hawaii the Supreme Court held that the Public Trust Doctrine extends to groundwater and protects the interest not only of current generation but of future generation as well. California Supreme Court held that the Public Trust Doctrine restricts the amount of water that can be withdrawn from navigable waterways. The Public Trust Doctrine applies as much to the waters in a navigable waterway as it does to the lands underlying the waterway. The governmental does not own these resources but they are owned by the public and are entrusted in the care of government to be safeguarded for the public’s long-term …show more content…
They fear that developers and other commercial interests enjoy undue influence in many state legislatures. They also argue that the Public Trust Doctrine is essential to safeguard the public’s interest in preservation. And it should apply today as a shield against threats to national parks, forests, wetlands, wildlife and other environmental resources. However courts have shown minimal interest in extending the public trust doctrine beyond its traditional setting, although the federal court suggested in the 1970s that national parks are subject to common-law public trust. Critics of the Public Trust Doctrine have argued that the courts have been effective in legislating. In addition the legal basis for the Public Trust Doctrine has never been entirely clear and is difficult to execute. The controversy is not whether we need to expand, we protect numerous environmental resources – the issue is that we need to better protect these resources for future generations to enjoy. Natural resources are important in the lives of people and the public should have an opportunity to access these resources for purposes such as fishing, hunting and