Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Water (3)
- Clean Water Act (2)
- Groundwater (2)
- Prior appropriation (2)
- Water rights (2)
-
- 2016 MT 348 (1)
- 386 Mont. 121 (1)
- 386 P.3d 952. (1)
- Adjudication (1)
- Administrative Law (1)
- Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (1)
- Arizona Law (1)
- Army Corps of Engineers (1)
- BLM (1)
- Building permits (1)
- CFC (1)
- CWA (1)
- City of Helena v. Community of Rimini (1)
- Clark Fork Coalition (1)
- Coachella Valley Water District (1)
- Corps (1)
- DNRC (1)
- Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (1)
- Dredged and Fill Material (1)
- Environmental (1)
- Environmental Law (1)
- Exempt well loophole (1)
- Exempt wells (1)
- Federal reserved water rights (1)
- Federally reserved water rights (1)
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
City Of Helena V. Community Of Rimini, Molly M. Kelly
City Of Helena V. Community Of Rimini, Molly M. Kelly
Public Land & Resources Law Review
After twenty years of adjudication, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the City of Helena’s right to 13.75 cfs from Ten Mile Creek, the city’s primary water source. The Court found a statute allowing cities and municipalities to exercise water rights that have gone through extended periods of nonuse did not need a retroactive clause.
United States V. Gila Valley Irrigation District, Ryan L. Hickey
United States V. Gila Valley Irrigation District, Ryan L. Hickey
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Attempts to alter water use agreements, especially those spanning back decades or even centuries, elicit intense scrutiny from water rights holders. In United States v. Gila Valley Irrigation Dist., the Ninth Circuit upheld application of a 1935 Decree apportioning water among various regional entities, including two Indian tribes, to bar a mineral company from transferring water rights between properties within the Gila River drainage.
Agua Caliente Band Of Cahuilla Indians V. Coachella Valley Water Dist., Rebecca Newsom
Agua Caliente Band Of Cahuilla Indians V. Coachella Valley Water Dist., Rebecca Newsom
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Coachella Valley Water Dist., the Ninth Circuit upheld the Tribe’s federal reserved right to the groundwater underlying its reservation. This decision enforces that the courts will not defer to state water law when there is an established federal reserved water right. Further, the Ninth Circuit expressly extended this right to groundwater.
Whatcom County V. Hirst, Et Al, Stephanie A. George
Whatcom County V. Hirst, Et Al, Stephanie A. George
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Upending decades of common practice in water management and building in the state of Washington, the Washington Supreme Court found Whatcom County violated the state’s Growth Management Act. Whatcom County used the Department of Ecology’s Nooksack Rule in evaluating permits for buildings and subdivisions that rely on permit-exempt wells. This decision affects families across the state of Washington.
Catskill Mountains Chapter Of Trout Unlimited, Inc. V. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Benjamin W. Almy
Catskill Mountains Chapter Of Trout Unlimited, Inc. V. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Benjamin W. Almy
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Trout Unlimited’s effort to overturn the EPA’s Water Transfers Rule was stifled by the Second Circuit. The court’s comprehensive Chevron analysis determined that while the NPDES Water Transfers Rule may be at odds with the Clean Water Act’s mission, it was based on a reasonable interpretation of the statute’s ambiguous language, and therefore it did not violate the Administrative Procedures Act.
United States V. Barthelmess Ranch Corp., Jonah P. Brown
United States V. Barthelmess Ranch Corp., Jonah P. Brown
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Application of water to a beneficial use is the decisive element of a perfected water right in Montana. The BLM claimed rights to five reservoirs and one natural pothole under Montana law. The agency did not own livestock, but instead made the water available to grazing permittees. In United States v. Barthelmess Ranch Corp., the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the Montana Water Court’s holding that the BLM’s practice of making water available to others constituted a beneficial use and a perfected water right.
Hawkes Co. V. United States Army Corps Of Engineers, Sarah M. Danno
Hawkes Co. V. United States Army Corps Of Engineers, Sarah M. Danno
Public Land & Resources Law Review
A peat mining company will not be required to obtain a permit under the Clean Water Act to discharge dredged and fill material into wetlands. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota held that the United States Army Corps of Engineers fell short in its attempts to establish jurisdiction over the wetlands by twice failing to show a significant nexus existed between the wetlands and navigable waters. Further, the district court enjoined the Corps from asserting jurisdiction a third time because it would force the mining company through a “never ending loop” of administrative law.
The Clark Fork Coalition V. Tubbs, Jonah P. Brown
The Clark Fork Coalition V. Tubbs, Jonah P. Brown
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Before landowners may appropriate groundwater in Montana, they must first apply for a DNRC permit pursuant to the Montana Water Use Act. Landowners may qualify for an exemption from the arduous permitting process if their appropriation meets certain criteria. However, the Act provides an exception to the exemption when a “combined appropriation” from the same source is in excess of ten acre-feet per year. The Clark Fork Coalition v. Tubbs affirmed the district court’s invalidation of the DNRC rule defining “combined appropriation” to only include physically connected groundwater wells.