Environmental Law Cases report
Download as DOCX, PDF1 like1,465 views
The document presents various case studies related to environmental lawsuits, including local cases against companies for improper waste disposal and an international case concerning religious rights of Native Americans. It details specific incidents where companies violated environmental regulations, resulting in court rulings and penalties. Additionally, it discusses the impact of government actions on sacred lands and the legal implications surrounding the free exercise of religion under U.S. law.
![Environmental Lawsuit
Land Law and Planning Regulations
Environmental Lawsuit | 8
Case Detail :
In 1982, the United States Forest Service drew up a report known as the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) that examined the environmental impact of constructing a road through and possibly
harvesting timber in the Six Rivers National Forest. Due to the religious importance of the area, the
studyfoundthat if the U.S. ForestService’splanswentforward,the damage done to the land would be
severe and irreparable. Therefore, the report advised against both the road and timber harvesting.
Additionally,the EISsuggestedpossible alternative routesthatavoidedkeyreligioussites.However,this
recommendation and the rest of the report was rejected by the U.S. Forest Service. The report
commissioned by the United States Forest Service recognized that the construction of the road would
destroy the religion of the American Indian tribes.
AmericanIndiangroups(ledbythe NorthwestIndianCemeteryProtectiveAssociation) and the State of
California sued for an injunction, challenging both the road building and timber harvesting decisions.
The court issued a permanent injunction that prohibited the Government from constructing the
ChimneyRock section of the road or putting the timber harvesting plan into effect, holding, inter alia,
that such actions would violate respondent Indians' rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First
Amendment and would violate certain federal statutes.
The Trial Court found for Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association and issued an injunction.
The USFS appealed.The Appellate Courtaffirmedandthe USFS appealed again bringing the case to the
U.S. Supreme Court.
As a case before the U.S. Supreme Court,Lyngv. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective was argued on
November 30, 1987. The petitioner, Richard E. Lyng, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture at the time,
claimed that constructing a road and harvesting timber through lands considered sacred by Native
American tribes violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States
Constitution.[3] The respondentinthe case wasthe NorthwestIndianCemetery Protective Association,
et al.
With the claim at hand, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to rule on the question of whether the First
Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause prohibited the government from harvesting or developing the
Chimney Rock Area](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/reportlaw-141116141803-conversion-gate01/85/Environmental-Law-Cases-report-8-320.jpg)
![Environmental Lawsuit
Land Law and Planning Regulations
Environmental Lawsuit | 9
Judges Process
After much deliberation, the holding of the court was released on April 19, 1988. In a vote of 5-3
(AnthonyM.Kennedydidnotparticipate),the courtruledthat“constructionof the proposed road does
not violate the First Amendment regardless of its effect on the religious practices of the respondents
because it compels no behavior contrary to their belief”.
In support of the decision, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor cited Bowen V. Roy (1986), a previous U.S.
Supreme Courtcase that involvedafamilywhodidnot wish to give their child a social security number
for religiousreasons.Alsoarguedwithregardtothe Free Exercise Clause,thisholdingof the courtin this
case was that the government could not change its system and make an exception for an individual
because of religiously based reasons. Judging by the parallels in this case with that of Lyng, Justice O’
Connorfoundthat althoughdamage wouldcertainly be done to the Six Rivers/Chimney Rock area, the
road constructionandtimberharvestingwouldnotforce individualstoviolate theirbeliefsor be denied
of the equal rights shared by other citizens of the United States.[6] In deciding the case, the Supreme
Court hadto determine whether a government action would cause a "substantial burden" on religion.
Since the United States Forest Service's report had recognized that the religion of tribes would
effectively be irreparably harmed, the tribes had a strong argument that they met this element of the
law.
Court Judgements
However,the Supreme Courtsetoutnew requirementsforprovingsubstantialburden.The Courtstated
that a substantial burdenonlyexistwherethe governmentimposesasanction(fineorimprisonment)or
deniesabenefittoindividualsthattheywouldotherwise be entitledtoreceive.Since this case involved
neither, the decision found that no substantial burden existed.
Justice William J. Brennan Jr. disagreed with the majority opinion and, with a citation of the case
Sherbert v. Verner (1963), declared that the holding of Lyng stripped Native Americans of their
Constitutional protection against threats to their religious practices.
The United States Supreme Court reversed and allowed the road to be built.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/reportlaw-141116141803-conversion-gate01/85/Environmental-Law-Cases-report-9-320.jpg)
Environmental Law Cases report
- 1. FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING AND SURVEYING DEPARTMENT OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LAS 654- LAND LAW AND PLANNING REGULATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL LAWSUIT PREPARED BY: SAZUAN AFIFI BIN NAWI (2013690006) CHECKED BY: PUAN SITI ZABEDA HAJI MOHAMMAD ENCIK DZARUL HARDY SUBMISSION DATE: 6 JUNE 2014
- 2. Environmental Lawsuit Land Law and Planning Regulations Environmental Lawsuit | 2 Table Of Contents No Cases Page 1. Local Cases 3 - 4 Sarwodi Abdul Ghani VS Jabatan Alam Sekitar 2. Local Cases 5 - 6 Kilang jubin lepas sisa industri. 3. International Cases 7 - 10 Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association. 4. References 11
- 3. Environmental Lawsuit Land Law and Planning Regulations Environmental Lawsuit | 3 LOCAL CASES CASE STUDY 1: Sarwodi Abdul Ghani VS Jabatan Alam Sekitar. Maklumat Ringkas Kes Lokasi dan Tarikh Kesalahan: Pemeriksaan dibuat pada 6 Ogos 2007 di Kilang Getah Palong 8, Gemas dan pada 3 September 2007 keputusan analisis kimia dikeluarkan. Jenis Kesalahan: Felda Rubber Industries Sdn. Bhd. didakwa melepaskan air buangan mengandungi bahan kimia,yangdi manakandungannya melebihi kepekatan yang ditentukan Peraturan Kualiti Alam Sekeliling, ke dalam pengairan darat. Pihak yang Terlibat Hakim: Nik Nasimah Nik Mohammad Pendakwa: Pegawai Jabatan Alam Sekitar Responden: Sarwodi Abdul Ghani (Pengurus Felda Rubber Industries Sdn. Bhd.) Fakta Kes Mengikutfaktakes,semasapemeriksaandilakukan ke premis berkenaan yang terletak di Jalan Minyak Beku mendapati telah melakukan kesalahan seperti aduan yang dilaporkan.Hasil siasatan dalam kawasan premis mendapati terdapat aliran air daripada aktiviti perindustrian mengalir masuk ke longkang kilang sebelum memasuki longkang awam tanpa dirawat terlebih dahulu. Sampel aliran itu telah dianalisa di Jabatan Kimia Malaysia, Johor menunjukkan efluen tersebut mengandungi paras kepekatan melebihi had yang ditetapkan. Turut ditemui PepejalTerampai iaitu2,900 mg/l melebihi hadkepekatanyang dibenarkan iaitu 100mg/l dan turut terdapat kandungan COD iaitu 10,300mg/l melebihi had kepekatan yang dibenarkan iaitu 200mg/l.
- 4. Environmental Lawsuit Land Law and Planning Regulations Environmental Lawsuit | 4 Proses Penghakiman Syarikatitudidakwa dengan Peraturan 11(1)(b) dan Peraturan 12(b), Peraturan-Peraturan Kualiti Alam Sekeliling (Efluen Perindustrian) 2009, Akta Kualiti Alam Sekeliling, 1974 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Peraturan 32, Peraturan-Peraturan Kualiti Alam Sekeliling (Efluen Perindustrian) 2009, akta sama. Keputusan Mahkamah SyarikatitudidakwadenganPeraturan11(1)(b) danPeraturan12(b),Peraturan-PeraturanKualiti Alam Sekeliling(EfluenPerindustrian) 2009, AktaKualiti AlamSekeliling,1974 dan bolehdihukumdi bawah Peraturan32, Peraturan-PeraturanKualitiAlamSekeliling(EfluenPerindustrian) 2009, akta sama. PengarahUrusan,Tan SienNian, mewakili syarikatitumengakubersalahdandikenakandenda sebanyakRM24,000 dan jikagagal membayarsamanakan dikenakanhukumanpenjaraselamatiga bulan.
- 5. Environmental Lawsuit Land Law and Planning Regulations Environmental Lawsuit | 5 CASE STUDY 2: Kilang jubin lepas sisa industri. Maklumat Ringkas Kes Lokasi dan Tarikh Kesalahan: Perbuatan itu dibuat di Lot 10807, Kawasan Perindustrian Tuanku Ja'afar, pada 21 September 2011, antara pukul 2.25 petang hingga 5.30 petang. JenisKesalahan: KimHinCeramic(Seremban) Sdn.Bhd.telahmelepaskanefluenperindustrianke dalam perairan dan kandungannya melebihi kepekatan dengan parameter tidak mematuhi peraturan yang dibenarkan ke dalam perairan Pihak yang Terlibat Hakim: Datin M Kunasundari Pendakwa: Abdul Razak Yasin (Pegawai Jabatan Alam Sekitar Responden: S Visnu (Pengurus Kim Hin Ceramic) Fakta Kes Case Summary : Mengikut pertuduhan, kilang Kim Hin Ceramic didakwa melepaskan efluen perindustrian ke dalam perairan dan kandungannya melebihi kepekatan dengan parameter tidak mematuhi peraturan iaitu pepejal terampai mempunyai kepekatan 56,280 miligram per liter (mg/l) iaitu melebihi had piawai 100 mg/l.Kilangitumelepaskanefluenperindustrianke dalamperairandaratandengankandunganmelebihi kepekatan yang ditentukan di bawah Peraturan 11(1)(b) dan Peraturan 12(1)(b), Peraturan-Peraturan Kualiti Alam Sekeliling (Efluen Perindustrian) 2009. Parameter yang tidak mematuhi peraturan itu ialah pepejal terampai yang mempunyai kepekatan sebanyak56,280 miligram/literiaitumelebihi hadpiawai 100 mg/l yangditetapkan.Selain itu, zink yang mempunyai kepekatan sebanyak 13 mg/l iaitu melebihi had piawai 2 mg/l yang ditetapkan. Juga
- 6. Environmental Lawsuit Land Law and Planning Regulations Environmental Lawsuit | 6 penggunaanminyakdangrisyangmempunyai kepekatansebanyak12 mg/l iaitumelebihihad piawai 10 mg/l yang ditetapkan.Jugabesi yangmempunyai kepekatansebanyak80mg/l iaitumelebihi hadpiawai 5 mg/l yangditetapkandanOksigenKimiaYangDiperlukan(COD) yangmempunyai kepekatan 314 mg/l iaitu melebihi had piawai 200 mg/l yang ditetapkan Proses Penghakiman Kim Hin Ceramic dituduh di bawah Seksyen 25 (1) Akta Kualiti Alam Sekeliling 1974 iaitu melepaskan efluenperindustrian ke dalam perairan daratan dengan kandungan melebihi kepekatan ditentukan di bawahPeraturan11(1)(b) dan Peraturan12(1)(b),yangdibaca bersamaPeraturanperaturanKualiti Alam Sekeliling (efluen perindustrian) 2009. Keputusan Mahkamah Kim Hin Ceramic didenda RM20,000 setelah mengaku bersalah atas tuduhan dan turut berdepan hukuman enam bulan penjara sekiranya gagal membayar denda.
- 7. Environmental Lawsuit Land Law and Planning Regulations Environmental Lawsuit | 7 INTERNATIONAL CASES CASE STUDY 3: Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association. Case Brief Location: : Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation Type of Offence:Itwas a UnitedStatesSupreme Courtcase inwhichthe Court ruledonthe applicability of the Free Exercise Clause tothe practice of religiononNative Americansacredlands,specificallyinthe Chimney Rock area of the Six Rivers National Forest in California. This area, also known as the High Country was used since time immemorial by the Yurok, Karuk, and Tolowa tribes as a religious site. Parties Involved Judges : Sandra Day O'Connor *Rehnquist Court (1987-1988) Plaintiff : Richard E. Lyng, Secretary of Agriculture, et al., Petitioners Respondent : Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association Advocates : Marilyn B. Miles (Argued the cause for the respondents), Andrew J. Pincus (Argued the cause for the petitioners Case Facts Case Summary : The UnitedStatesForestService wasconsidering building a paved roadway that would cut through the Chimney Rock area of the Six Rivers National Forest. It was also considering timber harvesting in the area. A study commissioned by the Forest Service reported that harvesting the Chimney Rock area would irreparably damage grounds that had historically been used by Native Americans to conduct religious rituals. After the Forest Service decided to construct a road, the Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association took action against Secretary of Agriculture Richard Lyng.
- 8. Environmental Lawsuit Land Law and Planning Regulations Environmental Lawsuit | 8 Case Detail : In 1982, the United States Forest Service drew up a report known as the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that examined the environmental impact of constructing a road through and possibly harvesting timber in the Six Rivers National Forest. Due to the religious importance of the area, the studyfoundthat if the U.S. ForestService’splanswentforward,the damage done to the land would be severe and irreparable. Therefore, the report advised against both the road and timber harvesting. Additionally,the EISsuggestedpossible alternative routesthatavoidedkeyreligioussites.However,this recommendation and the rest of the report was rejected by the U.S. Forest Service. The report commissioned by the United States Forest Service recognized that the construction of the road would destroy the religion of the American Indian tribes. AmericanIndiangroups(ledbythe NorthwestIndianCemeteryProtectiveAssociation) and the State of California sued for an injunction, challenging both the road building and timber harvesting decisions. The court issued a permanent injunction that prohibited the Government from constructing the ChimneyRock section of the road or putting the timber harvesting plan into effect, holding, inter alia, that such actions would violate respondent Indians' rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and would violate certain federal statutes. The Trial Court found for Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association and issued an injunction. The USFS appealed.The Appellate Courtaffirmedandthe USFS appealed again bringing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. As a case before the U.S. Supreme Court,Lyngv. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective was argued on November 30, 1987. The petitioner, Richard E. Lyng, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture at the time, claimed that constructing a road and harvesting timber through lands considered sacred by Native American tribes violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.[3] The respondentinthe case wasthe NorthwestIndianCemetery Protective Association, et al. With the claim at hand, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to rule on the question of whether the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause prohibited the government from harvesting or developing the Chimney Rock Area
- 9. Environmental Lawsuit Land Law and Planning Regulations Environmental Lawsuit | 9 Judges Process After much deliberation, the holding of the court was released on April 19, 1988. In a vote of 5-3 (AnthonyM.Kennedydidnotparticipate),the courtruledthat“constructionof the proposed road does not violate the First Amendment regardless of its effect on the religious practices of the respondents because it compels no behavior contrary to their belief”. In support of the decision, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor cited Bowen V. Roy (1986), a previous U.S. Supreme Courtcase that involvedafamilywhodidnot wish to give their child a social security number for religiousreasons.Alsoarguedwithregardtothe Free Exercise Clause,thisholdingof the courtin this case was that the government could not change its system and make an exception for an individual because of religiously based reasons. Judging by the parallels in this case with that of Lyng, Justice O’ Connorfoundthat althoughdamage wouldcertainly be done to the Six Rivers/Chimney Rock area, the road constructionandtimberharvestingwouldnotforce individualstoviolate theirbeliefsor be denied of the equal rights shared by other citizens of the United States.[6] In deciding the case, the Supreme Court hadto determine whether a government action would cause a "substantial burden" on religion. Since the United States Forest Service's report had recognized that the religion of tribes would effectively be irreparably harmed, the tribes had a strong argument that they met this element of the law. Court Judgements However,the Supreme Courtsetoutnew requirementsforprovingsubstantialburden.The Courtstated that a substantial burdenonlyexistwherethe governmentimposesasanction(fineorimprisonment)or deniesabenefittoindividualsthattheywouldotherwise be entitledtoreceive.Since this case involved neither, the decision found that no substantial burden existed. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. disagreed with the majority opinion and, with a citation of the case Sherbert v. Verner (1963), declared that the holding of Lyng stripped Native Americans of their Constitutional protection against threats to their religious practices. The United States Supreme Court reversed and allowed the road to be built.
- 10. Environmental Lawsuit Land Law and Planning Regulations Environmental Lawsuit | 10 The Supreme Court cited Bowen v. Roy (476 U.S. 693 (1986)) and, it is found that the Free Exercise Clause affordsanindividualprotectionfromcertainformsof governmental compulsions,butit does not afford an individual a right to dictate the conduct of the government's internal procedures. *After the case was decided, Congress intervened and designated the area a "wilderness" under the Wilderness Act, and the road was not built. The Act protected the High Country, by adding it to the Siskiyou Wilderness Area.
- 11. Environmental Lawsuit Land Law and Planning Regulations Environmental Lawsuit | 11 REFERENCES 1. http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/info.asp?y=2008&dt=0103&pub=Utusan_Malaysia&sec=M ahkamah&pg=ma_04.htm 2. http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/Selatan/20120615/ws_03/Kilang-lepas-sisa-industri- didenda 3. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/485/439 4. http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~rfrey/329lyng.htm