Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Constitutional Law (3)
- Water Law (3)
- Administrative Law (1)
- Arkansas (1)
- Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States (1)
-
- Arkansas game and fish commission (1)
- Boating (1)
- Boating laws (1)
- Constituional Law (1)
- Downstream inundation (1)
- EPA (1)
- Environmental Law (1)
- Federal laws (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- Flood control (1)
- Flood control dam (1)
- Fourth Ammendment (1)
- Free exercise (1)
- Fresh water (1)
- Game and fish (1)
- Governmental immunity (1)
- Intentional tort (1)
- Interstate agreements (1)
- Inundation (1)
- Inundation of land (1)
- Judicial Review (1)
- Kansas v. Nebraska and Colorado (1)
- Michigan law (1)
- Natural Resources Law (1)
- Nuisance (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Water Law
The Water Cycle Boogie: Clean Water Act Jurisdiction, Home Rule, And Water Law, Colin W. Maguire
The Water Cycle Boogie: Clean Water Act Jurisdiction, Home Rule, And Water Law, Colin W. Maguire
Et Cetera
The EPA and US Army Corps of Engineers’ agency rule regarding the definition of “Waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act increased jurisdictional assertions by as much as 5%. What’s the big deal? This violates the Home Rule of state and local governments. This violation also creates concerns where many property owners are not sure if they need federal permits to develop land under the Clean Water Act. With issues like this new Clean Water Act rule, the drought conditions in the Western U.S., and international concerns regarding fresh water, water law is a critical area which …
Eureka Cnty. V. Off. Of State Engr. Of State Of Nev., Div. Of Water Resources, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 84 (Oct. 29, 2015), Chelsea Finnegan
Eureka Cnty. V. Off. Of State Engr. Of State Of Nev., Div. Of Water Resources, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 84 (Oct. 29, 2015), Chelsea Finnegan
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
For the State Engineer to grant water rights applications, there must be evidence to support the decision and the new rights must not substantially conflict with existing rights. On appeal from the District Court, the Court found no evidence to support the granted application, and held the use of Respondent’s rights would severely impact the water table. The Court reversed and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Constitutional Law—Fourth Amendment—State V. Allen: An Effective Alternative To Unconstitutional "Safety Checks" On The State’S Waters, Christian Harrod
Constitutional Law—Fourth Amendment—State V. Allen: An Effective Alternative To Unconstitutional "Safety Checks" On The State’S Waters, Christian Harrod
University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review
No abstract provided.
Downstream Inundations Caused By Federal Flood Control Dam Operations In A Changing Climate: Getting The Proper Mix Of Takings, Tort, And Compensation, Robert H. Abrams, Jacquiline Bertelsen
Downstream Inundations Caused By Federal Flood Control Dam Operations In A Changing Climate: Getting The Proper Mix Of Takings, Tort, And Compensation, Robert H. Abrams, Jacquiline Bertelsen
Robert H Abrams
The 2012 United States Supreme Court decision in Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States (AG&FC) 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 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.[1] On …
Definitions, Religion, And Free Exercise Guarantees, Mark Strasser
Definitions, Religion, And Free Exercise Guarantees, Mark Strasser
Mark Strasser
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the free exercise of religion. Non-religious practices do not receive those same protections, which makes the ability to distinguish between religious and non-religious practices important. Regrettably, members of the Court have been unable to agree about how to distinguish the religious from the non-religious—sometimes, the implicit criteria focus on the sincerity of the beliefs, sometimes the strength of the beliefs or the role that they play in an individual’s life, and sometimes the kind of beliefs. In short, the Court has virtually guaranteed an incoherent jurisprudence by sending contradictory signals with …
Opinion Analysis: Bargaining In The Shadow Of Equitable Apportionment, Ryke Longest
Opinion Analysis: Bargaining In The Shadow Of Equitable Apportionment, Ryke Longest
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
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
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 …