PA Env. Defense Fdn., Aplt. v. Gov. Wolf
PA Env. Defense Fdn., Aplt. v. Gov. Wolf - No. 10 MAP 2015
| Pa. | Jun 20, 2017Background
- This is Justice Baer’s concurring and dissenting opinion in Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation v. Commonwealth, addressing interpretation of Article I, Section 27 (Environmental Rights Amendment).
- Baer concurs with the majority that Section 27 is self-executing, abandons the long-standing Payne test, and treats the Commonwealth as a trustee under the public trust doctrine.
- The contested legal question is whether proceeds from sale/lease of public natural resources (royalties, rents) constitute trust “corpus” that must be used exclusively for conservation and maintenance.
- The Foundation challenged budgetary and Fiscal Code enactments that diverted Lease Fund monies (royalties/rents) from dedicated conservation use to the General Fund, arguing constitutional trust duties were violated.
- Baer contends the Amendment’s language and legislative history invoke the public trust doctrine (protecting use/access of resources), not private trust accounting rules that mandate that sale proceeds be locked into an environmental corpus.
- Baer would affirm the Commonwealth Court in substantial part: require trustee-like consideration of environmental effects, but reject inflexible private-trust constraints on use of resource proceeds once conservation needs are met.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether proceeds from sale/lease of public natural resources are Section 27 trust “corpus” | Proceeds (royalties, rents) are corpus and must be used solely for conservation/maintenance | Section 27 is silent on proceeds; focus is on conserving resources themselves; proceeds need not be locked into corpus | Baer: Rejects plaintiff; proceeds are not necessarily trust corpus; Section 27 does not impose private-trust corpus rules |
| Whether Section 27 incorporates private trust rules (dedication of revenues) | Section 27’s trustee language requires private-trust duties (dedication of funds) | Language and history reflect public trust, not private trust accounting; no textual dedication of funds | Baer: Holds Section 27 embodies public trust principles, not private trust accounting; majority’s private-trust application is erroneous |
| Whether governors/legislature breached fiduciary duties by not investigating budget impacts on conservation agencies | Governors failed to consider DCNR’s ability to conserve/maintain when diverting funds | Executive/legislative budget decisions rest in political branches; general duty to consider is not a judicially manageable standard | Baer: Court should dismiss justiciable fiduciary claims; duty to consider exists but is non-justiciable in specifics; affirm Commonwealth Court dismissal |
| Proper scope of remedies and separation-of-powers concerns when courts impose constraints on budgetary allocations | Court can enforce Section 27 by restricting use of proceeds to protect trust | Imposing rigid private-trust constraints overrides legislative budget authority and ignores public trust flexibility | Baer: Cautions against judicially imposed inflexible fiscal rules; courts should not usurp legislative budgeting once conservation/maintenance needs are addressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson Township v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 901 (Pa. 2013) (plurality recognizing Section 27’s enforceability and public trust principles)
- Illinois Central R.R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892) (seminal public trust decision limiting alienation of trust lands)
- National Audubon Soc. v. Superior Court, 658 P.2d 709 (Cal. 1983) (application of public trust doctrine to protect public uses and require consideration of public interest)
- College Sav. Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666 (1999) (distinguishing public use rights from private property rights)
- Payne v. Kassab, 312 A.2d 86 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1973) (prior Commonwealth Court test for Section 27 discarded by court)
- Stilp v. Commonwealth, 905 A.2d 918 (Pa. 2006) (standard for striking down statutes: must clearly, palpably, and plainly violate the Constitution)
- In re Water Use Permit Applications, 9 P.3d 409 (Haw. 2000) (interpreting a state constitutional public-trust amendment to preserve public access and uses rather than permit private commercial gain)