575
Fukushima Daichi nuclear disaster in Japan, it too faced claims in arbitration for
this decision. The outcome of any of these arbitration cases can be quite costly and
affect national policy, but not necessarily in a way that is readily seen or understood.
20.3.7 Adjudication in the Courts
Courts at various levels are also used to determine the outcomes in the context of the
FEW nexus. In the USA at the state level, state agencies focused on water or energy
often have administrative law judges (ALJ) who may hear a preliminary dispute.
There are also specialized courts that may hear environmental cases such as an
environmental hearings board or pollutions control hearing board. Two states—
Montana and Colorado—have specialized water courts. Washing State has a specialized Energy Facilities Siting Commission to review potential new energy
projects. Appeal from decisions by a specialized tribunal like these go to a trial court
(often called a superior court); judges at a trial court hear both civil and criminal
cases and generally do not specialize in environmental issues. Appeals from this
level are reviewed by an appellate court and finally to a state’s supreme court for
what is usually final determination of a case. Processing an environmental case
through this set of courts can take many years, which is one reason that parties will
sometimes try to resolve a dispute outside the court system.
There is also a parallel system at the federal level (see Chap. 8). A conflict
brought under a federal law like the Clean Water Act can be heard by an administrative law judge within the federal agency charged with implementing the law. For the
Clean Water Act, this would be the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
EPA has ALJs who “conduct hearings and render decisions in proceedings between
the EPA and persons, businesses, government entities, and other organizations that
are or are alleged to be regulated under environmental laws” (U.S. EPA n.d.).
Appeals of a decision at this level go through one of the 94 U.S. District Courts in
the relevant state or area, then to one of the 13 U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals, and
potentially to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court is asked to review
around 10,000 cases per year but accepts fewer than 100 each year, so the odds are
that the decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals will be a final judgment or
outcome of a case (Fig. 20.11).
An example set of cases that have fundamentally altered water, energy, and food
production relate to the management of both the Columbia River (Pacific Northwest)
and California’s Bay Delta region. In both regions, declines in endangered fish species have been challenged in court, where federal judges decided that insufficient
water for declining fish populations requires reallocation of water otherwise used to
generate energy along the Columbia or irrigation water in California. Management
of large river systems in both regions depends on the outcome of these on-going and
challenging cases.
For disputes between states, which can arise in the case of water allocation
between states, the U.S. Supreme Court hears a case directly and acts as a trial court.
20 Managing Human Conflicts
Fukushima Daichi nuclear disaster in Japan, it too faced claims in arbitration for
this decision. The outcome of any of these arbitration cases can be quite costly and
affect national policy, but not necessarily in a way that is readily seen or understood.
20.3.7 Adjudication in the Courts
Courts at various levels are also used to determine the outcomes in the context of the
FEW nexus. In the USA at the state level, state agencies focused on water or energy
often have administrative law judges (ALJ) who may hear a preliminary dispute.
There are also specialized courts that may hear environmental cases such as an
environmental hearings board or pollutions control hearing board. Two states—
Montana and Colorado—have specialized water courts. Washing State has a specialized Energy Facilities Siting Commission to review potential new energy
projects. Appeal from decisions by a specialized tribunal like these go to a trial court
(often called a superior court); judges at a trial court hear both civil and criminal
cases and generally do not specialize in environmental issues. Appeals from this
level are reviewed by an appellate court and finally to a state’s supreme court for
what is usually final determination of a case. Processing an environmental case
through this set of courts can take many years, which is one reason that parties will
sometimes try to resolve a dispute outside the court system.
There is also a parallel system at the federal level (see Chap. 8). A conflict
brought under a federal law like the Clean Water Act can be heard by an administrative law judge within the federal agency charged with implementing the law. For the
Clean Water Act, this would be the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
EPA has ALJs who “conduct hearings and render decisions in proceedings between
the EPA and persons, businesses, government entities, and other organizations that
are or are alleged to be regulated under environmental laws” (U.S. EPA n.d.).
Appeals of a decision at this level go through one of the 94 U.S. District Courts in
the relevant state or area, then to one of the 13 U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals, and
potentially to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court is asked to review
around 10,000 cases per year but accepts fewer than 100 each year, so the odds are
that the decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals will be a final judgment or
outcome of a case (Fig. 20.11).
An example set of cases that have fundamentally altered water, energy, and food
production relate to the management of both the Columbia River (Pacific Northwest)
and California’s Bay Delta region. In both regions, declines in endangered fish species have been challenged in court, where federal judges decided that insufficient
water for declining fish populations requires reallocation of water otherwise used to
generate energy along the Columbia or irrigation water in California. Management
of large river systems in both regions depends on the outcome of these on-going and
challenging cases.
For disputes between states, which can arise in the case of water allocation
between states, the U.S. Supreme Court hears a case directly and acts as a trial court.
20 Managing Human Conflicts