Abstract
Abstract Seaport expansion often generates tensions between the national interest in efficient transport and local interests in water quality and habitat preservation. The governing American permitting system, however, establishes an extraordinarily cumbersome, legalistic, and costly method for balancing environmental and economic considerations. A case study of the Port of Oakland illustrates the tendency. For four years, plans to find an environmentally acceptable site for dredged material have been stymied by a sequence of inconclusive regulatory and judicial proceedings. Meanwhile, large container ships can enter and leave Oakland harbor only at high tide, and not fully loaded. Despite the absence of any authoritative determination concerning environmental risks, the port was compelled to accede to progressively more expensive disposal methods. Such “adversarial legalism”; is not unique to the Oakland harbor case, but recurs in other policy spheres. It stems from a governmental structure that fragment...
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.