Protecting private property rights is critical to protecting environmental resources because private landowners respond to incentives.
Public access to rivers, lakes, and streams seems like a good idea in the abstract. Why not allow access to anyone who wants to enjoy the recreational opportunities associated with water?
Since 1980, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has had the authority to clean up hazardous waste sites that pose an imminent and substantial danger to public welfare and the environment.
The St. Paul Port Authority is pursuing a scheme that could gut Minnesota’s popular 2006 comprehensive eminent domain reforms that protect homes, small businesses, and farms from government takings for private gain.
While the economy sputters and stalls, whiskey makers are on cruise control.
The oily red flesh of southern bluefin tuna makes the finest sashimi on the planet.
Admittedly, most people don’t leap at the chance to read about human waste. But sometimes we must.
What's your opinion on stream access? In the West, private landowners often provide much of the natural resource management at their own expense, which in turn benefits the public with healthy fisheries and prolific game.
When the battles over water in Oregon’s Klamath River Basin were at their peak, PERC organized a meeting in Portland to bring competing parties to the table in search of common ground for reducing the conflict.
Anglers are doing back flips over a recent Utah Supreme Court Decision that makes public all waters in the state and permits recreationists to use streams that cross private property.