restorative plan, it has fulfilled only a part of the mission, making the environment whole. But it is when further and additional compensation is recovered for diminution in use and non-use value pending restoration that the public is made whole. Consequently, failure to claim the vast amount of non-use value caused damages to environmental property, constitute a monumental abdication of responsibility and a fundamental breach of trust. As a commentator rightly observed: ―Americans have long had some sense that the environment is worth more than its market value, that it has some value beyond the commercial. The United States was the first country to establish a system of national parks. Instead of relying on entrance fees to support the parks as would seem to be dictated by the market, the government chose to subsidize the parks and keep entrance costs low. Part of the reason for this is a sense that these areas of natural beauty enhance our country regardless of whether any particular person ever sees them. This is an expression of our deep-rooted sense that natural resources have non-use values, values that go beyond an individual’s use of the resource, and that those non-use values must be protected.‖282 NOAA’s exclusion of these classes of value from the natural resources damages computation (thereby making only the environment whole) is an act of executive miscalculation, and a gross disservice to the public. Perhaps it is time to have the trustees render account. BIBLIOGRAPHY Law and Regulations: –The Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990, 33 U. S. C. §2701-2752 (1990). –Rules and Regulations of the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Natural Resources Damage Assessment, 61 F. R. 440 (1996) and 15 C. F. R. § 990 (2002). –Florida Statute Title XXVIII, Natural Resources; Conservation, Reclamation and Use; Chapter 376, Fl. St. §376.121 (2001). Cases: – – – – – –
U. S. v. Locke, 529 U. S. 89 (2000) Kumho Tire Co., v. Ltd. V. Carmichael, 526 U. S. 137 (1999). Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U. S. 579 (1993). Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. State of Illinois, 146 U. S. 387 (1892). General Elec. Co. V. U. S. Dept. of Commerce, 128 F. 3d. 767 (U. S. App. D. C. Circ. 1997) Ohio v. U. S. Dept. of Interior, 880 F. 2d. 432 (U. S. App. D. C. Cir. 1989) Black v. Food Lion Inc., 171 F. 3d 308 (Fifth Circ. 1999)
International Ass/n of Independent Tanker Owners (Intertanko) v. Locke, 148 F. 3d. 1053
– – – – –
(Ninth Circ. Wash. 1998) Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc. 972 S.W. 2d. 713 (Tex.1998) Chemical Mfrs. Ass’n. v. Dept. Of Transp., 105 F. 3d. 702 (D.C. Cir.1997) Com. Of Puerto Rico v. SS Zoe olocotroni, 628 F. 2d. 652 (First Cir. 1980) Marks v. Whitney, 491 P. 2d 374 (Cal. 1971) Muench v. Public Service Commission, 52 N.W. 2d. 514 (Wis.1952)
See, Robinson, supra note 106, at 214.