page_72 < previous page page_72 next page > Page 72 regulations by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) (Grimes 1996). In a case in Travis County district court, opponents of a proposed 11,000-head swine farm are challenging the TNRCC's interpretation that the law applies only to parties seeking a permit to operate a regulated business and not to adjacent landowners whose property values are reduced by the permitted activity (Elliott 1996). Environmental advocates in Texas have a fallback position to frustrate government moves to repeal or soften regulations. Relying on a provision that confers standing on property owners affected by a government action, they contend that a property owner who has not suffered a taking can still sue to invalidate an action performed without a required takings assessment (Grimes 1996). Because takings assessments were not tailored to protect environmental interests, they must be stretched to reach the claims discussed in this section, and the fit will not always be as tight as in cases where property owners are claiming a taking based on the burdens of environmental regulation. But these laws have gaps that limit property rights advocates as well as environmentalists. By and large, these laws avoid the problems of municipal zoning, which has a greater impact on the average landowner than state action. They also do not reach federal regulation, such as the protection of endangered species, that generates much of the demand for property rights reform (ibid.). Nonetheless, environmentalists could take advantage of the opportunities to appropriate takings assessments as a vehicle for protecting the environment. Framing questions of environmental degradation in terms of property values can expand the realm of claims available to those seeking redress for environmental injuries. In cases such as claims based on the harmful effects of electromagnetic fields, landowners living near power lines may not be able to prove the elements of traditional tort cases. Science cannot establish that harm results from exposure to this hazard. With this type of exposure, the extent of personal injuries cannot be readily anticipated. Potential plaintiffs, however, can press their claims by showing the link between power lines and reduced property values (Brown 1992). Of course, the strategy of tying environmental protection to property rights has its limits. These laws do not address important environmental values, such as biodiversity, that are not reflected in property values. This approach also denies people without property the standing to raise claims that they and their homes suffer from environmental degradation. Yet confronting the property rights movement on this level is unavoidable, particularly if more states pass legislation that authorizes judicial review or if courts on their own initiate review. As was true with NEPA, the supervisory power of the courts may add a powerful dimension to these impact assessments. Â < previous page page_72 next page >