Abstract
Environmental policy in North Carolina has primarily been within the discretion of the General Assembly. There has been little judicial determination as to what duty, if any, the state has in maintaining its natural resources for public use. North Carolina courts have provided limited judicial input on the General Assembly’s minimum, constitutionally required duty to protect the state’s natural resources. The courts’ sparse decisions have been inconsistent on what the legislature’s minimal obligations are. A recent and ongoing case has brought this issue to a head. The courts will soon be required to rule on the merits of this issue, and their decision may have ramifications that could reach many aspects of North Carolina’s environmental policy. The courts could establish a new method for litigants to challenge state action and protect both the state’s natural resources and the wildlife that call North Carolina’s diverse ecosystem home. The decision will either be a major victory for North Carolina environmentalists and conservationists, or the courts could rule that natural resource management is within the sole discretion of the General Assembly. This Comment discusses the case that brings this monumental issue to the forefront and discusses the precedent of judicial decisions that implicate the constitutionality of natural resource management. This Comment argues that the courts should uphold the traditional role of the legislature by recognizing that environmental policy decisions are best left to the legislative branch.
Recommended Citation
Dylan Long, Tides of Power: Coastal Conservation Association v. State and the Clash of Environmental Rights, Legislative Authority, and Judicial Limits in North Carolina, 48 Campbell L. Rev. 139 (2025).