observing that “the Legislature began using [Lease Fund] revenue to support the overall budget of DCNR, rather than obtaining that budget money from the [G]eneral [F]und and using [Lease Fund] money for conservation purposes related to oil and gas extraction”
How later courts described this case
- observing that “the Legislature began using [Lease Fund] revenue to support the overall budget of DCNR, rather than obtaining that budget money from the [G]eneral [F]und and using [Lease Fund] money for conservation purposes related to oil and gas extraction”
- concurring and dissenting op. by Baer, J., recognizing that the drafters of Section 27 contemplated “the continued, but judicious, use of the resources rather than ‘some form of environmental absolutism’”
- relying on 1 Pa.C.S. §1922(3) as “providing that in interpreting legislative intent, courts may presume ‘[t]hat the General Assembly does not intend to violate the Constitution’”
- attempting to glean public trust principles available at the time of the adoption of Section 27 and finding private trust principles inapt
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DISSENTING OPINION
CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR
I join the central analysis of the dissenting opinion authored by Justice Baer, based on the recognition that the Environmental Rights Amendment is an embodiment of the public trust doctrine.