Green wood in the bundle of sticks: Fitting environmental ethics and ecology into real property law

because it does not diminish the owner's right to use or enjoy property during his lifetime, and does not affect the right to transfer property at death through non-probate means." Babbit v. Youpee, 117 S.Ct. 727, 733 (1997).

166 See Wheeling Dollar Say. & Trust Co. v. Yoke, 204 F.2d 410, 413 (4th Cir. 1953). The crucial question is whether the settlor of the trusts retained so much of "the bundle of rights" that make up ownership of property as to justify the District Court in concluding that he continued to be the owner of the property . . . the right to sell the property at any price he might determine, the right to reinvest the proceeds in any property he might think desirable, the right to rent the property for terms of any duration, and the right to borrow money and secure the loan by mortgage of the property; in other words ... the right to manage ....

Id. at 412-13. 167 See id. at 413. 168 Commissioner v. Estate of Church, 335 U.S. 632, 641 (1949). See also Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Smith, 356 U.S. 274, 279 (1958). 169 Phinney v. Kay, 275 F2d 776, 779 (5th Cir. 1960). 170 See Bell v. Harrison, 212 F2d 253, 254 (7th Cir. 1954).

171 See United States v. Virginia Elec. & Power Co., 365 U.S. 624 (1960). "That compensation would not include the hydroelectric power value, but it would embrace [the Power Company's] property right to destroy the value of the lands for agricultural and forestry purposes." Id. at 634 (alteration in original). 172 Cases with respect to modification arise when that right is retained, usually with regard to a trust. See United States v. Gordon, 406 F.2d 332, 339 (5th Cir. 1969); Commissioner v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 259 F.2d 231, 235 (5th Cir. 1958). 173 United States v. Hawkins County, No. 85-5533, 1987 WL 36584, at 2852 (6th Cir. Jan. 8,1997) (unpublished disposition). 174 Becker, supra note 18, at 191.

175 Irving Trust Co. v. Day, 314 U.S. 556, 562 (1942). 176 See HonorS, supra note 12, at 121. 177 Becker, supra note 18, at 191. 178 Honor6, supra note 12, at 119. 179 Id 180 Id. at 123. 181 Id.

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 405-6 (1819). If any one proposition could command the universal assent of mankind, we might expect it would be this-that the government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action. This would seem to result, necessarily, from its nature. It is the government of all; its powers are delegated by all; it represents all, and acts for all. Though any one state may be willing to control its operations, no state is willing to allow others to control them. The nation, on those subjects on which it can act, must necessarily bind its component parts. But this question is not left to mere reason: the people have, in express terms, decided it, by saying, "this constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof," "shall be the supreme law of the land," and by requiring that the members of the state legislatures, and the officers of the executive and judicial departments of the states, shall take the oath of fidelity to it. The government of the United States, then, though limited in its powers, is supreme; and its laws, when made in pursuance of the constitution, form the supreme law of the land, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.