Question

The legislature of Washingboard State adopted this statute:

There is hereby created a Power Line Routing Commission (PLRC) which shall have the authority, following public hearing and the development of an environmental and health-impact assessment, to recommend the best the location of new electrical transmis­sion corridors in this state. The Commission's action may be appealed to the PLRC Hearings Board in the state capital, and then to the Superior Court. Otherwise, the decision will be referred to the Governor’s office for consideration.

The PLRC was formed, studied power line routes, did an environ­mental and health assessment and held two public hearings. It determined that a new line should run through Hapless Valley, and that the rear access and freight-loading road leading to the back of Dubious' Used (and New!) Cars (his property) would unacceptably close to the proposed power-line corridor. It notified Dubious that this road would be closed.

He complained to the agency; a spokeswoman came to his business to chat about it. She said, “Well, just build a new access road around the side of your building--it won't cost you much.”

Meanwhile, the residents of Hapless Valley organized Residents Against Transmission Systems (RATS). Concerned about the health effects of living near high-voltage power lines, they threaten suit in Superior Court. They presented no evidence that power lines pose any threat to health.

At the public hearings, residents also complained about the through-transmission of foreign electricity (that is, transmission of electricity not generated or used within the state). They said it was bad enough to have to live near power lines, worse that the electrically coursing overhead was on its way to California. The PLRC issued a regulation banning the through transmission of electricity and mandating that only electricity for use in-state be transmitted through populated areas.

Dubious (a citizen of Washingboard) said to one of his friends in RATS: “Oh, there’s no problem with high-powered electrical transmission lines! Shoot, I was in San Francisco, California, last week and at a little local Health-Supplement Company there I bought these pills for $20: guaranteed to protect against electrical radiation by recalibrating the body’s reducto-electrical pathways. I’m taking one right now!” And he did. Ten minutes later he was sick: throwing up and watering at the eyes, and cramps. The pills were just pepper and caffeine.

1. Dubious doesn't want the back-access road closed. What arguments, if any, can he make to oppose the agency's action here?    

                                 

2. RATS sued in Superior Court to overturn the routing decision, claiming it was “ill-advised”; the better place would along Sullen Valley, two miles south, where there are many fewer houses.

            (a) Do they have standing to sue? Explain.

            (b) Assuming so, would the court agree with them that the agency's decision is "ill-advised" and overturn it? Explain.

Answer 1

Answer 1:

If Dubious doesn't want the back-access road closed, he can present the following arguments:

1. The proposed power line corridor would be passing through the area which is very nearer to his house and thus this new corridor will pose a greater amount of threat of electrical radiations to him as compared to the other citizens of the Hapless Valley.

2. If the road is closed than dubious will be required to incur the cost of building a new access road around the side of his house and he is neither ready to build that road nor he is financially stable to invest in building the road.

3. Dubious can propose the argument that in order to cope up with the negative effect of electrical radiation; he would be required to consume the pills which would resist the effect of electrical radiation. But these pills are having side effects and by consuming them he becomes sick. Hence, the corridor should not be built at the back access road to his house by taking into consideration his health issues.

Answer 2:

RATS sued in Superior Court to overturn the routing decision, claiming it was “ill-advised”; the better place would along Sullen Valley, two miles south, where there are many fewer houses.

a) RATS have no standing to sue since the RATS who are the residents of hapless valley believe that the high voltage electrical lines pose a health threat to the residents but they have no evidence to prove their belief of health threat. In order to sue PLRC in the superior court that the routing decision was “ill advised”, RATS need to collect the sufficient evidences to prove that the electrical line has an adverse effect on their health and on the environment and they need to present these evidences to the superior court to prove that they are “ill advised”.

b) If we assume that agency has “ill advised” regarding the routing decision, the court will not agree with the RATS for their claim of being ill advised and will not overturn the agency’s decision of laying the electrical corridor through the hapless valley since the RATS is not having any evidence to prove their claim. RATS should collect the sufficient evidence regarding the threat posed by the electrical lines to the residents and the environment and should present these evidences to the court and should prove their claim of being “Ill advised”.