refer only to the natural resources, natural
environment, natural beauty. He is not
saying that that does not take into account
the effect of these natural conditions on
human beings.
DELEGATE BOYER: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Taylor.
DELEGATE L. TAYLOR: From your
report, it does not include anything about
the effects on human beings in terms of the
natural environment. Was this intentional
or an oversight?
DELEGATE BOYER: It was not in-
tentional. In fact, to the contrary, it was
deliberately our intention that human
needs were included when it refers to air
pollution, water pollution and other natural
resources.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Delegate Boyer,
your response with regard to whether or
not this would forbid the State from put-
ting a road through a park suggests a
more general question to me. Is this in any
way intended to restrict the General As-
sembly from taking account of needs not
referred to here, human needs, various
needs, when those needs may come in con-
flict with some of the matters referred to
here?
DELEGATE BOYER: May I ask you to
define what you mean by human needs?
DELEGATE CHABOT: Let us take the
need for a road at a particular place.
DELEGATE BOYER: The answer to
that would be no. It is not our intention to
restrict the General Assembly's action
there.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chobat
DELEGATE CHABOT: Any of the
other matters that some of the people here
have referred to, such as the environmental
needs of people in the cities and the con-
cern of human beings with regard to air
and water pollution, should require the
taking of some action which might, at least
in a short range point of view, seem to con-
flict with this provision. The General As-
sembly, 1 gather, would not be forbidden
to take those other needs into considera-
tion?
DELEGATE BOYER: No.
DELEGATE CHABOT: The General
Assembly under those circumstances would |
be permitted to go contrary to the provi-
sions here, if human needs were para-
mount?
DELEGATE BOYER: Your assumption
is our intention.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Koss.
DELEGATE KOSS: Delegate Boyer, 1
am having some problem understanding the
extent to which this law would apply. 1
understand that the birds, bees, the flowers,
and the air are not owned by any one of
us. To what extent could this law apply to
private property and at what point would
this mandate take precedence over economic
considerations in terms of, say, conserva-
tion of trees or fish or anything else like
that?
DELEGATE BOYER: Delegate Koss, I
think it would be rash or brash of me to
make a broad statement as to the extent
of effect or to anticipate the conflicts which
might arise. It appears to me that you
would almost have to look at it on a case-
by-case basis and determine what is going
to be the best for the most and what is
going to be for the public good when it
comes to the area of conservation.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Koss.
DELEGATE KOSS: Well, would this
authorize, for instance, the General Assem-
bly to pay damages or reimbursement to
any individual who felt that his economic
interests were aggrieved by the operation
of a conservation measure?
DELEGATE BOYER: I think Judge Ad-
kins raised a similar question, and my an-
swer there was that it was never our in-
tention to take any property or damage
anyone's property without just compensa-
tion, and knowing that the personal rights
provision was going to include something
about just compensation, we felt we would
not spell out in detail that matter here.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: I think I have
communicated my problem to Delegate
Boyer. Let me ask it, though, for the rec-
ord: is it not true, Delegate Boyer, that in
the reapportionment cases mandamus was
not issued against the legislature, but
rather injunctions against administrative
officials?
DELEGATE BOYER: Injunctions, yes,
and threats of further action if the legis-
lature did not act, which they did.
DELEGATE HANSON: But my point,
however, being that is it not true that in |
