Invoking Private Property Rights for Environmental Purposes: The Takings Implications of Government-Authorized Aerial Pesticide Spraying

42 Pages Posted: 7 May 2008

See all articles by Royal C. Gardner

Royal C. Gardner

Stetson University - Institute for Biodiversity Law and Policy

Date Written: 1999

Abstract

Part II of this article summarizes the history of medfly eradication efforts in the United States and the events surrounding Florida's 1997 infestation and eradication experience. Part III reviews private property rights in light of physical takings cases. Applying the principles examined in Part III to wide-scale aerial pesticide spraying, Part IV explains why these invasions constitute takings, despite their minimal size and limited duration. Part IV also examines the possible government defenses of nuisance and necessity, and notes the difference between governmental intervention to protect public health and safety and invasive action to protect a specific industry. Part V assesses the implications of a takings challenge to wide-scale aerial pesticide spraying.

Keywords: private property rights, takings, 5th Amendment's Takings Clause, government-authorized aerial pesticide spraying, medfly eradication, nusiance and necessity, public health and safety

Suggested Citation

Gardner, Royal C., Invoking Private Property Rights for Environmental Purposes: The Takings Implications of Government-Authorized Aerial Pesticide Spraying (1999). Stanford Environmental Law Journal, Vol. 18, p. 65, 1999. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1130017

Royal C. Gardner (Contact Author)

Stetson University - Institute for Biodiversity Law and Policy ( email )

1401 61st Street South
Gulfport, FL 33707-3299
United States

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
56
Abstract Views
907
rank
366,666
PlumX Metrics