It Only Hurts When I Use It: The Payne Test and Pennsylvania's Environmental Rights Amendment

• Date: 01 July 2016

46 ELR 10594 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 7-2016

It Only Hurts

When I Use It:

The Payne Test

and Pennsylvania’s

Environmental

Rights

Amendment

by Kenneth T. Kristl

Kenneth Kristl is Associate Professor of Law and Director

of the Environmental and Natural Resources Law

Clinic at Widener University Delaware Law School.



Article I, §27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution

creates public rights in natura l resources, and tasks

the Commonwealth government with conserving and

maintaining them for the benet of all. e section’s

expansive language was restricted by the 1973 Payne

decision, which created a three-part test focusing on

statutory compliance, eorts to reduce environmental

eects, and a balancing of harms and benets; under

that test, most §27 claims have failed. In 2013, a

plurality of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in

 

questioned Payne’s continued viability. is Article

analyzes and develops the judicial and scholarly

criticisms of the Payne test, and concludes that it cannot

be salvaged. e author develops a new test based on

the principles articulated by the Robinson Township

plurality, arguing that it would allow Commonwealth

agents and judges to ensure that §27 plays a vital role

in protecting the environment.

In 1971, the citizens of Pennsylvania amended the

Commonwealth’s Constitution to create specic rights

and responsibilities in public natural resources.1 is

amendment—sometimes referred to as the Environmen-

tal Rights Amendment—added §27 to the articulation of

fundamental rights set forth in Article I of the Pennsylva-

nia Constitution. Section 27 states:

e people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the

preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and es thetic

values of the environment. Pennsy lvania’s public nat u-

ral res ources a re the common property of a ll the people,

including generations yet to come. As trustee of these

resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and main-

tain them for the benet of all the people.2

Although grand in its scope and promise, §27 was soon

signicantly restricted by judicial interpretations that lost

its origina l meaning, in a manner that “had the eect of

demonstrably and signicantly limiting” the public rights

set forth in the section.3 Just two years after §27’s passage,

the C ommonwealth C ourt’s decision in Payne v. Kassab4

articulated a three-part test for disposing of claims made

under §27 that focused on statutory compliance, eorts to

reduce environmental eects, and a balancing of environ-

mental harm against t he benets of the challenged action

1. For the details of how the amendment came about, see John C. Dernbach

& Edmund J. Sonnenberg,   

, 24 W L.J. 181

(2015); Franklin L. Kury, e Environmental Amendment to the Pennsylvania

 , 1 V. E. L.J.

123 (1990). Franklin Kury, the legislative author and champion of Article

I, §27, spoke about the history during a lecture at the Widener University

Commonwealth Law School. e talk can be seen at https://widenerenvi-

ronment.wordpress.com/speakers-and-conferences/speakerseries/.

2. P. C. art. I, §27.

3.  John C. Dernbach & Ma rc Prokopchak ,   -

               ,

53 D . L. R . 335, 338 (201 5). This article provides a n analys is of

Pennsylva nia cou rt and admin istrative agency decisio ns in suppor t of

its con clusion.

4. 312 A.2d 86 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1973), , 361 A.2d 263, 6 ELR 20796

(Pa. 1976).

         

          

unending encouragement, patience, and support. e author also

Funk v.

Wolf

        



 and greenhouse

            

Pennsylvania Constitution. e legal strategy and arguments in that

  



Copyright © 2016 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120.