Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Water Law Commons™

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Constitutional Law

Journal Publications

Articles 1 - 8 of 8

Full-Text Articles in Water Law

Downstream Inundations Caused By Federal Flood Control Dam Operations In A Changing Climate: Getting The Proper Mix Of Takings, Tort, And Compensation, Robert Haskell Abrams, Jacqueline Bertelsen Jan 2015

Downstream Inundations Caused By Federal Flood Control Dam Operations In A Changing Climate: Getting The Proper Mix Of Takings, Tort, And Compensation, Robert Haskell Abrams, Jacqueline Bertelsen

Journal Publications

The 2012 United States Supreme Court case Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States presented the Court with a claim that the property of a landowner downstream of a flood control dam was taken without compensation as a result of non-permanent inundations of low lying portions of that parcel caused by a change in the dam's pattern of releases. The Court held that, "government-induced flooding temporary in duration gains no automatic exemption from Takings Clause inspection" and must, instead, be tested according to the Court's usual precedents governing temporary physical invasions and regulatory takings. The Federal Circuit held a …

Go to article

Correcting Mismatched Authorities: Erecting A New "Water Federalism", Robert H. "Bo" Abrams Jan 2010

Correcting Mismatched Authorities: Erecting A New "Water Federalism", Robert H. "Bo" Abrams

Journal Publications

In the United States water law is a subset of property law that controls the use and allocation of the water resource. Water law was, and remains, state law; nothing in the Constitution purports to change that. The scope of federal sovereignty at the time of nationhood did not include even the possibility of playing a major role in regulating resources because the national government was not a significant landholder. The twentieth century changed water federalism dramatically. In the twentieth century, even while laws and rhetoric respected the division of authority favoring the states, the real power over water in …

Go to article

Water Federalism And The Army Corps Of Engineers' Role In Eastern States Water Allocation, Robert Haskell Abrams Jan 2009

Water Federalism And The Army Corps Of Engineers' Role In Eastern States Water Allocation, Robert Haskell Abrams

Journal Publications

It is black letter constitutional theory that the several states are the masters of their property law, and hence their water law. For that reason, states have been free to adopt regimes as widely different as reasonable use riparianism and prior appropriation, depending on local conditions and perceived needs. Superimposed on the same physical water resource network, is the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The presence of Corps' facilities in basins now experiencing short supply opens the door to state and federal water allocation conflict that calls for mediation under the principles of water federalism, a doctrine that …

Go to article

Boundary Waters Treaty Of 1909 As A Model For Interjurisdictional Water Governance, Robert H. Abrams Jan 2008

Boundary Waters Treaty Of 1909 As A Model For Interjurisdictional Water Governance, Robert H. Abrams

Journal Publications

In an age of increasing interjurisdictional water conflict and water management concern, the list of accomplishments of the Boundary Water Treaty of 1909 (BWT), reached in a harmonious manner, raises the possibility that, perhaps, the management mechanisms of the BWT might beneficially be used in other contexts. This Article will take up that possibility in the context of three contemporary American interstate water allocation disputes. These disputes are (1) a relatively simple cross-border complaint by a downstream state, South Carolina, that North Carolina cities are using too much water of the Catawba River; (2) the basin-wide dispute regarding water use …

Go to article

Walking The Beach To The Core Of Sovereignty: The Historic Basis For The Public Trust Doctrine Applied In Glass V. Goeckel, Robert Haskell Abrams Jan 2007

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 …

Go to article

Broadening Narrow Perspectives And Nuisance Law: Protecting Ecosystem Services In The Acf Basin, Robert Haskell Abrams Jan 2007

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 …

Go to article

Interstate Water Allocation: A Contemporary Primer For Eastern States, Robert Haskell Abrams Jan 2002

Interstate Water Allocation: A Contemporary Primer For Eastern States, Robert Haskell Abrams

Journal Publications

The principal thesis of this article is that interstate water allocation matters. It matters because, absent allocation, states that want to conserve their water resources for either future intrastate use or for present in situ use are at risk of having sister states use that water in other inconsistent ways. Interstate allocation also matters because, if there is not a negotiated agreement, water use is sufficiently similar to a zero sum game in that there will be winners and losers and the winning strategy is easily identified. Under the most recent and detailed United States Supreme Court precedent, states engaged …

Go to article

Interbasin Transfer In A Riparian Jurisdiction, Robert Haskell Abrams Jan 1983

Interbasin Transfer In A Riparian Jurisdiction, Robert Haskell Abrams

Journal Publications

This Article explores some issues pertaining to interbasin diversion of water in the East. The major issues surveyed are the physical and political aspects of interbasin transfers and the legal doctrines that govern them. Intrastate transfers are studied separately from interstate transfers to delineate unique problems that attend the latter. When possible, the Article will focus on Virginia as a state that has importing regions where interbasin transfer is a possibility.

Go to article