•  
  •  
 

Journal of Comparative Urban Law and Policy

Abstract

It is now unlikely that meaningful federal legislation on climate destruction will be advanced in a second Trump administration. If “no action” is the alternative for the federal government, it will be up to the states to develop measures to counteract this challenge. These measures — in response to a trend in Supreme Court rulings that restrict or deny federal environmental action without explicit congressional approval – could include, among other things, new air and water quality standards, fishing restrictions, and changes to water allocations in our rivers. Yet these potential changes may be themselves limited by federal actions that would preempt state and local environmental measures. But that federal power has not been historically exercised in the planning and land use regulatory powers that traditionally lie with the states and their local governments.

This paper examines one state’s attempt to use its planning and land use regulatory powers to respond to climate destruction as a template for other states to respond to a “no action” alternative. This introduction deals with the political and regulatory background of the state of Oregon leading to adoption of the “Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities” (CFEC) Rules. Following the introduction, Section II sets out the rules themselves. Further sections discuss the (largely unsuccessful) challenge to those rules, approaches taken by other states, and an evaluation of Oregon’s efforts to avert climate destruction.

First Page

23

Last Page

70

Download

Share

COinS