Editors' Summary: All Americans should have the opportunity to enjoy the beauty and wonder that our nation's lands have to offer. Yet while the number of public lands remains somewhat constant, the number of visitors to these places is rapidly increasing. Consequently, as America's recreational resources become more crowded, they are also becoming more degraded, less peaceful, and subject to more use limits. Meanwhile, several recreational opportunities exist on private lands.

Editors' Summary

Effective conservation is at times frustrated by a lack of balance between regulation and payment, the two tools most often used for land protection. Efforts to determine which protection tool to use should consider factors such as the proper roles of payment and regulation, use of eminent domain or permanent easements, the temptations of political expediency, and public participation in the decisionmaking process.

I. Introduction

This Article will characterize how one area of property law, title rules for coastal and riverfront property, represents particular views of nature. In doing so it will examine how the law in this area defines the line between natural and non-natural. What does "natural" mean in riparian law? How do humans fit into that picture? In what ways do differing ideas of "nature" inform property rights? Does property law reflect any coherent notion or ethic of nature, or deliberately invoke a particular notion of nature to justify its institutions?

Throughout the United States, local governments have begun to recognize responsibilities relating to the health and function of the natural environments within their boundaries. Land use ordinances--including planning, zoning, and subdivision regulations--must in many places address issues of habitat conservation, ecological function, watershed management, and conservation of diverse plants and animals. Unfortunately, there has been a long-standing disconnect between biological understanding and land use regulation.

Editors' Summary: Development and urban sprawl threaten biodiversity by displacing and fragmenting habitat with roads, commercial structures, and private homes. In this Article, authors Robert B. McKinstry Jr., James McElfish, Michael Jacobson, and Coreen Ripp look at the potential for using land use law and laws regulating development activities to address these threats to biodiversity.

I. Introduction

This Article will characterize how one area of property law, title rules for coastal and riverfront property, represents particular views of nature. In doing so it will examine how the law in this area defines the line between natural and non-natural. What does "natural" mean in riparian law? How do humans fit into that picture? In what ways do differing ideas of "nature" inform property rights? Does property law reflect any coherent notion or ethic of nature, or deliberately invoke a particular notion of nature to justify its institutions?

In the early 19th century, most metropolitan areas were compact, with strong downtown areas that provided not only retail, government, and other services, but also a variety of cultural activities. Although some of rich society lived in rural areas to escape the city's crime and health hazards, the demarcation between city and countryside was clear. Most people were forced to live and work in one area because of the lack of reasonable transport between city and country. It was not until the railroad linked the city to the countryside that suburbs began to develop.

Editors' Summary: A number of innovative smart growth programs are being used to battle urban sprawl and protect environmentally sensitive land. This Article advocates for the use of conservation easements as an effective growth management technique, and demonstrates how the benefits greatly outweigh the disadvantages. Four conservation easement programs are described, which have been very effective in preserving land, historical structures, wildlife habitats, and scenic views.

The George W. Bush Administration's approach to federal public land management was suspect from the outset. With its Secretary of the Interior a former James Watt disciple and its Secretary of Agriculture from agribusiness, the new Administration signaled a sharp break from the conservationist policies of the Clinton Administration.

[Off-road vehicles] are domineering, exclusive, destructive and costly; it is they and their operators who would deny the enjoyment of the backcountry to the rest of us. About 98% of the land surface of the contiguous USA already belongs to heavy metal and heavy equipment. Let us save the 2%--that saving remnant. --Edward Abbey