Public trust doctrine
The public trust doctrine is a legal principle asserting that the government acts as the custodian of certain natural resources for the benefit of the public. Rooted in Roman law and developed through English common law, this doctrine encompasses various public assets such as tidal waters, lakes, rivers, wetlands, and ecosystems. It mandates that state governments manage these resources responsibly, ensuring public access and sustainable use, particularly for activities like navigation, recreation, and wildlife conservation. The doctrine also imposes restrictions on the transfer of public trust assets, preventing their alienation or detrimental alteration by private entities. Judicial interpretations have expanded the doctrine's scope over time, reinforcing the obligation of state authorities to prioritize environmental protection and public interest in their planning and decision-making processes. Additionally, the public trust doctrine influences state constitutions and environmental laws, establishing a framework that advocates for the preservation of natural resources for current and future generations. Overall, it emphasizes the government's role in safeguarding shared environmental assets, reflecting a commitment to ecological stewardship and public welfare.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Public trust doctrine
DEFINITION: Legal principle that government is the custodian of common properties for the use of the public
The public trust doctrine, an important concept in environmental law, has been the basis of legal arguments regarding access of the public to beaches and streams on private land. The doctrine also limits the uses of privately held wetlands.
The origins of the public trust doctrine can be traced to Roman law, and the development of the doctrine can be seen in English common-law decisions. The public trust, in common with the better-known private trust, involves an asset managed by a trustee in accordance with the wishes of the trustor for named beneficiaries. Unlike the private trust, however, the public trust is based not on a written document but on the legal fiction that the creator gave trust assets to government to hold for the people.
In Shively v. Bowlby (1894), the US Supreme Court concluded that the original states held the tidewaters and their lands in trust and that states subsequently admitted to the union held the same title. In the hands of state and federal judges, the public trust doctrine has become a continually growing and sometimes conflicting body of state common law that has defined the meaning of trust assets and terms, the extent of state governments’ trustee duties, and the identity of trust beneficiaries.
Judicial decisions have expanded the scope of state trust assets beyond tidal waters and their use for navigation. Now the public trust assets include all tidal waters, not just navigable ones, and their use extends to recreation, fishing, and wildlife habitat. The state trust assets also include rivers, wetlands, lakes, parks, trees, and wildlife, and may even include entire ecosystems. The public trust also lies latent within private property rights and provides the public with access to beaches and streams on private land. The doctrine also limits the uses of privately held wetlands. In Marks v. Whitney (1971), the California Supreme Court held that the state’s public trust easement for navigation, commerce, and fisheries forbids an owner to and develop such wetlands.
State governments, as trustees, have an obligation to regulate, manage, develop, and preserve trust property for the benefit of the public. State legislatures and agencies may not make decisions that merely reflect current political, economic, and social needs because they have a fiduciary duty to a present and future public constituency. This duty does not, however, restrict trust assets to their present use but requires state governments to identify the impacts on trust assets in their planning processes and balance competing trust interests in their decision making. In National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (1983), the California Supreme Court held that the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power did not have the unrestricted right to appropriate the waters of streams that flowed into Mono Lake and to divert them to the Los Angeles Aqueduct. The state Water Resources Board had a duty to take public trust interests into account in the planning and allocation of water resources in a manner that would protect the lake’s trust uses.
State governments may violate their trust responsibilities in three ways. First, they may alienate trust assets by selling them to a private party. In Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois (1892), the US Supreme Court held that the state legislature had violated its public trust duty when it made a grant to the railroad of 405 hectares (1,000 acres) of submerged Chicago waterfront property. When the legislature subsequently withdrew the grant, it did not take private property without just compensation because the railroad had held only a revocable title.
State governments may also divert ownership of public trust assets from one public use to another by transferring them from one government agency holding public trust lands to another agency with a mission to develop public property. In Robbins v. Department of Public Works (1968), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the state park agency’s transfer of the Fowl Meadows to the state department of public works for highway use violated the agency’s responsibility to protect the parklands for the public.
Finally, state agencies may derogate trust assets by destroying them. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power could not destroy Mono Lake by its continued appropriation of lake waters, nor may private people or corporations pollute trust assets. When a privately owned oil barge dumped thousands of gallons of into coastal marshes, killing wildlife and destroying ecosystems, the court in In re Steuart Transportation Company (1980) held that Virginia had the sovereign right, derived from the public trust doctrine, to protect the public interest in the preservation of wildlife resources.
Public trust doctrine and its principles have been incorporated into state constitutional provisions and environmental statutes. Pennsylvania’s state constitution, like the constitutions of ten other states, recognizes that the state government is the trustee of the state’s public resources, with the power to maintain and preserve the natural environment. The Michigan Environmental Protection Act, which has served as a model for similar statutes in other states, provides that the government hold in trust the air, water, and public resources of the state and bestows upon the courts the authority to decide whether those resources have been or are likely to be polluted, impaired, or destroyed. The public trust doctrine may even apply to the federal government because it holds in trust the public lands and waters of the nation, and, as In re Steuart Transportation Company has suggested, it has a duty to protect and preserve the public’s interest in those natural resources.
Bibliography
Archer, Jack, et al. The Public Trust Doctrine and the Management of America’s Coasts. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1994.
Goldstein, Robert Jay. “The Social Evolution of American Real Property Law.” In Ecology and Environmental Ethics: Green Wood in the Bundle of Sticks. Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate, 2004.
Hart, John. Storm over Mono: The Mono Lake Battle and the California Water Future. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996.
Light, Andrew, and Avner De-Shalit, eds. Moral and Political Reasoning in Environmental Practice. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2003.
Lyness, Sean. "Localizing the Public Trust." Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, vol. 49, no. 1, 19 Jan. 2024, doi.org/10.52214/cjel.v49i1.12369. Accessed 22 July 2024.
Michael J. Manfredo et al. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2009.
Organ, John F., and Gordon R. Batcheller. “Reviving the Public Trust Doctrine as a Foundation for Wildlife Management in North America.” In Wildlife and Society: The Science of Human Dimensions, edited by
Ryan, Erin. "The Public Trust Doctrine, Property & Society." Florida State University College of Law, 2022, ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1726&context=articles. Accessed 22 July 2024.