Thus, by requiring plaintiffs to prove harm to the resource these courts undermined the statutory purpose of the Act.(114) In shifting the focus of the standing inquiry from harm to the plaintiff to harm to the resource, these courts failed to acknowledge that the plaintiff's interest in using the waterway may have been cognizably
injured despite a lack of detectable harm to the resource.
(197) The White court cited Hurley for support, finding that the City of Sparks's policy came too close to requiring a "particularized message." (198) Yet, even at their most abstract and implicit, artworks must still have a message cognizably
particular to one of the four categories to merit protection.