Law is the application of authority. Authority exists in a hierarchy. Higher authorities govern lower authorities. Sometimes the ultimate authority lies with a majority of a jury. Sometimes it is the decision of a majority of nine Supreme Court justices that controls.
If men were capable of completely knowing what happened in the world at all times and places, all perceptions would be objectively verifiable. We still wouldn’t know every microscopic reason behind things, but we would at least have a common perception about what was observed. This would make the application of law much easier because no questions of fact would exist to confuse matters.
Instead, we live with imperfect knowledge and competing factual interpretations. Our system of law begins with the assumption that, over any factual dispute, one side or the other may be correct, and we decide this question democratically. The lawyer who succeeds in convincing a majority of the deciding body to agree with their client’s version of the facts wins the case for their client.
A lawyer is a zealous advocate for their client. The client’s interest controls the lawyer and the lawyers job is to find some basis in law and fact to uphold the client’s interest. In our theoretical world of perfect knowledge, if a client’s interest were not objectively true or worthy, all would see it and no trial would be necessary. In the real world, objective truth only reveals itself at the end of the legal process, though OJ proved there are no guarantees to a just outcome. In the real world, when facts cannot be resolved, when there is no right answer to be found, the courts are still open, and lawyers may still zealously pursue their client’s interest.
In reading the complaint to the EPA and other parties about the Peaceful Valley Scout Ranch, however, Mr. Morgan’s complaint does not appear to represent a client. The complaint mentions no damaged parties adversely affected by the Scout’s shooting range, other than an oblique reference to the interest of “public safety” if the Scouts comply with Mr. Morgan’s many enumerated and expensive demands. The lack of a client no more specific than the “public safety” probably indicates how difficult it is to connect the cause of lead contamination at the Scout’s shooting range, to the effect of any real person damaged by such contamination.
Moreover, after spending the morning researching the state of the science of lead remediation at shooting ranges, it became apparent that even if Peaceful Valley were to comply with all of Mr. Morgan’s demands, the hoped-for outcome of reducing lead contamination at the Scout’s range would be uncertain. A great deal of time and effort could be spent with little certainty that it would make any difference in materially reducing lead contaminants in the soil. And even if all the soil in the vicinity of the shot-drop zone of the shooting range were to be removed, all this might do is create a hazardous waste disposal problem at another location.
While this would, no doubt, be the preference of “the public” in the vicinity of the present shooting range, “the public” near the receiving end of this contaminated waste, should it be moved, might have other ideas about the best course of action. The two public interests might, indeed, cancel each other out.
Perhaps more to the point, my layman’s research led me to conclude that the best course of action with regard to environmental lead remediation may not yet be determined. Large efforts in science and academia are underway today to find solutions to this very problem. These efforts are expensive, speculative, and ongoing. Yet Mr. Morgan presents his list of directives as though the resolution and best practices for lead remediation have already been scientifically settled.
To be sure, the unresolved state of the art in this field has not stayed the hand of regulators in issuing schemes for shooting range lead remediation. And while these schemes may indeed help matters over the long run, those outcomes have yet to be demonstrated. If the problem of lead remediation were truly solved, you probably wouldn’t find so many contemporary studies still devoted to finding a solution for the problem.
It seems the effect of Mr. Morgan’s directives concerning the Scout’s shooting range is to divert substantial Boy Scout resources into the scientific search for a solution to lead contamination. In the larger public interest, is this a just application for charitable funds given with the intent of helping young boys develop their character? Certainly, a solution for lead contamination at shooting ranges should, and not doubt will eventually be found. And certainly, the Scouts should practice such resolved measures when they are ultimately settled. But if the Scouts are to become a significant financial resource and test case for this research, they probably need to go back to their donors and explain the change in the mission of the Peaceful Valley Scout Ranch.