The Heyday of the Environmental Movement, 1960–1979 125
Respondent argues that “petitioners do not
have standing to obtain review” because they
“make no claim of any personal economic injury
resulting from the Commission’s action.”
In order to insure that the Federal Power
Commission will adequately protect the public
interest in the aesthetic, conservational and rec-
reational aspects of power development, those
who by their activities and conduct have exhib-
ited a special interest in such areas, must be
held to be included in the class of “aggrieved”
parties.
The “case: or “controversy” requirement
of Article III section 2 of the Constitution does
not require that an “aggrieved” or “adversely
affected” party have a personal economic interest.
* * *
In this case, as in many others, the Commis-
sion has claimed to be the representative of the
public interest. This role does not permit it to act
as an umpire blandly calling balls and strikes for
adversaries appearing before it; the right of the
public must receive active and affirmative protec-
tion at the hands of the Commission.
Source: Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference, Town of
Cortland, Town of Putnam Valley and Town of Yorktown,
Petitioners v. Federal Power Commission, Respondent, and
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.,
Intervener, Docket 29853, United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit, 354 Federal Reporter, 2nd series, No. 106
(1965), pp. 608-9, 612, 613, 615, 620.Document 104: California Land Conservation Act (1966) and Article
XXVIII of the California Constitution (1967)In the post-World War II years, farmland and open space began to disappear rapidly as a result of pressures
from population growth, commercial expansion, and property tax increases. The California Land Conservation
Act of 1965, usually referred to as the Williamson Act, was one of the first legislative attempts to address the
loss of open space to development. The implementation of the Williamson Act was made possible by the
addition, in November 1966, of Article XXVIII to the California Constitution. Article XXVIII (now section
8 of Article XIII) provided tax incentives to discourage farmers and landowners from selling their land to
developers because of financial pressures. As townships, counties, and states across the nation established their
own land conservation programs, they followed California’s lead in using financial incentives (which in time
came to include such things as tax abatements and easements as well as the sale of development rights) as a
major method of controlling suburban sprawl and encouraging the continuance of family farms.A. California Land Conservation Act
The Legislature finds:
(a) That the preservation of a maximum
amount of the limited supply of agricultural
land is necessary to the conservation of the
state’s economic resources, and is necessary
not only to the maintenance of the agricultural
economy of the state, but also for the assurance
of adequate, healthful and nutritious food for
future residents of this state and nation.
(b) That the discouragement of premature
and unnecessary conversion of prime agricul-
tural land to urban uses is a matter of public
interest and will be of benefit to urban dwell-
ers themselves in that it will discourage dis-
contiguous urban development patterns which
unnecessarily increase the costs of community
services to community residents.
(c) That in a rapidly urbanizing society
agricultural lands have a definite public value
as open space, and the preservation in agri-
cultural production of such lands, the use of
which may be limited under the provisions of
this chapter, constitutes an important physi-
cal, social, esthetic and economic asset to
existing or pending urban or metropolitan
developments.