Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- ACF Basin (1)
- ACF Compact (1)
- ACT Compact (1)
- Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (1)
- Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (1)
-
- Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Basin (1)
- Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin (1)
- Basin management (1)
- Common law nuisance (1)
- Comprehensive basin management (1)
- Glass v. Goeckel (1)
- Great Lakes (1)
- Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois (1)
- Interstate Compacts (1)
- Law of the river (1)
- Littoral (1)
- Littoral rights (1)
- Riparian (1)
- Sovereign rights (1)
- Sovereignty (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Broadening Narrow Perspectives And Nuisance Law: Protecting Ecosystem Services In The Acf Basin, Robert Haskell Abrams
Broadening Narrow Perspectives And Nuisance Law: Protecting Ecosystem Services In The Acf Basin, Robert Haskell Abrams
Journal Publications
The political stalemate among the neighboring states of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida over the cooperative management of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin has been chronicled in numerous articles in the past. This Article will canvas parallel ground in relation to the ACF Basin. In addition, this Article will consider the usual mantra about why the legal deck appears to be stacked against the bottom of the basin where the principal benefits of the water are derived from the ecological systems that are supported by a more natural flow regime. After that, however, the Article will explain how the greatly expanded …
Walking The Beach To The Core Of Sovereignty: The Historic Basis For The Public Trust Doctrine Applied In Glass V. Goeckel, Robert Haskell Abrams
Walking The Beach To The Core Of Sovereignty: The Historic Basis For The Public Trust Doctrine Applied In Glass V. Goeckel, Robert Haskell Abrams
Journal Publications
In 2004, a split panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals announced its conclusion that Michigan littoral owners of property owned to the water's very edge and could exclude members of the public from walking on the beach. In that instant almost 3300 miles of the Great Lakes foreshore became, in theory and in law, closed to public use. The case became the leading flash point of controversy between the vast public and ardent private property rights groups. A little more than one year later, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed that ruling as errant on public trust grounds and returned …