Administrative law in climate resilience planning
What is Climate Resilience Planning in Administrative Law?
Agencies at federal, state, and local levels create plans and rules to protect infrastructure, communities, and ecosystems against climate change effects.
This includes zoning regulations, building codes, disaster preparedness, environmental impact assessments, and funding allocations.
Administrative law governs how these agencies make decisions, involve the public, and can be challenged in court.
It ensures agencies act within their statutory authority, follow fair procedures, and make reasonable decisions.
Key Themes in Administrative Law & Climate Resilience Planning
Rulemaking and Guidance – Agencies issue regulations or guidance on resilient infrastructure standards.
Public Participation – Laws like the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) require public comment and transparency.
Judicial Review – Courts review agency actions for compliance with law, reasonableness, and fairness.
Inter-agency Coordination – Agencies must often coordinate, e.g., EPA with FEMA or local planners.
Balancing Interests – Agencies weigh economic, environmental, and social factors.
Important Cases Illustrating Administrative Law in Climate Resilience Planning
1. Massachusetts v. EPA (2007)
While primarily about greenhouse gases, this case underpins agency obligations related to climate impacts, including resilience.
Background: EPA initially refused to regulate greenhouse gases.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and that EPA must consider regulating them.
Relevance to Resilience: Recognizing EPA’s responsibility to address climate impacts lays the groundwork for resilience planning regulations (e.g., emissions reduction plus adaptation).
Administrative Law Angle: Affirmed that agencies cannot ignore scientific evidence and have a mandatory duty to act when statutory criteria are met.
2. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. (1977)
Although a zoning case, it sets standards for judicial review of agency decisions in planning contexts.
Issue: Whether zoning decisions discriminated against minority housing.
Holding: Courts may review the purpose and effects of administrative zoning decisions for discrimination.
Relevance: In climate resilience, zoning decisions affecting vulnerable populations must be scrutinized for fairness.
Administrative Law Angle: Shows how courts use substantive and procedural review to ensure agencies consider equity in resilience planning.
3. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Hintz (9th Cir. 1991)
Background: Agency adopted a forest management plan with potential environmental impacts.
Holding: The court emphasized that agencies must prepare adequate Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) under NEPA for plans affecting environmental resilience.
Relevance: Robust EISs are essential for resilience planning, ensuring climate risks are analyzed before agency approval.
Administrative Law: Reinforces procedural requirements agencies must follow during planning.
4. County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund (2020)
Issue: Whether pollution from underground injection wells requires a Clean Water Act permit.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that agencies must regulate pollution that is the functional equivalent of direct discharge.
Relevance: Demonstrates how administrative agencies can be required to regulate indirect environmental impacts—a key in managing climate resilience infrastructure (like wastewater systems vulnerable to flooding).
Administrative Law: Expands agency’s enforcement authority to protect environmental systems.
5. NRDC v. FEMA (2019)
Background: NRDC challenged FEMA’s approval of floodplain management programs.
Holding: Court found FEMA’s failure to consider climate change impacts violated the National Environmental Policy Act.
Relevance: Agencies must consider future climate risks in their planning and approvals, especially for disaster preparedness.
Administrative Law: Courts enforce that agencies include climate resilience considerations in environmental assessments.
6. Baltimore v. BP P.L.C. (ongoing, climate litigation involving administrative law)
Though still unfolding, this case and others like it push agencies to incorporate climate resilience in permitting and planning through administrative channels.
Summary: What These Cases Show About Administrative Law in Climate Resilience
Agencies have a mandatory duty to address climate-related risks (Massachusetts v. EPA).
Courts require agencies to follow fair, transparent procedures and consider climate impacts comprehensively (NEPA cases, NRDC v. FEMA).
Decisions must not discriminate or ignore vulnerable populations (Arlington Heights).
Agencies’ enforcement power can extend to indirect or complex environmental impacts (Maui case).
Courts increasingly demand that agencies anticipate future climate conditions, not just current risks.
Quick Recap Question for You:
Why do you think courts insist that agencies consider future climate impacts in resilience planning, rather than just present conditions?
Take a moment to think and tell me your take!
RELATED Blog
0 comments