American Indian Water Rights and the Limits of Law


Book Description

Burton dissects the irreconcilable conflict of interest within the Interior Department (between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Bureau of Indian Affairs). He also examines the methods of managing disputes in contemporary cases and offers original policy recommendations that include establishing an Indian Water Rights Commission to help with the paradoxical task now facing the federal government--restoring to tribes the water resources it earlier helped give away.




Legal Control of Water Resources


Book Description

Legal Control of Water Resources highlights the cutting edge issues of water law, while providing a comprehensive survey of the field. The book has been thoroughly updated major water marketing developments. There is extended coverage of ongoing efforts to settle Indian water rights claims. Finally, the new edition will include revised introductory materials on topics such as climate change and desalination developments. to reflect major new court decisions and legislation. The Fourth Edition deals with cutting-edge issues such as interstate water disputes on the Great Lakes, the Rio Grande, and in the Southeastern United States. New material has been added on water and urban growth management, environment/property rights conflicts, and




Western Water Rights and the U.S. Supreme Court


Book Description

Exploring the little-known history behind the legal doctrine of prior appropriation--"first in time is first in right"--used to apportion water resources in the western United States, this book focuses on the important case of Wyoming v. Colorado (1922). U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Willis Van Devanter, a former Chief Justice of Wyoming, ruled in that state's favor, finding that prior appropriation applied across state lines--a controversial opinion influenced by cronyism. The dicta in the case, that the U.S. Government has no interest in state water allocation law, drove the balkanization of interstate water systems and resulted in the Colorado River Interstate Compact between Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California. The exhaustive research that has gone into this book has uncovered the secret that Associate Justice Van Devanter had waited eleven years to publish his opinion in this important, but politically self-serving, case, at last finding a moment when his senior colleagues were sufficiently absent or incapacitated to either concur or dissent. Without the knowledge of his "brethren," save his "loyal friend" Taft, and without recusal, Van Devanter unilaterally delivered his sole opinion to the Clerk for publication on the last day of the Supreme Court's October 1921 Term.







Dividing Western Waters


Book Description

Tells how Mark Wilmer, an Arizona lawyer, fashioned the successful arguments that won the Supreme Court case securing Arizona's allottment of Colorado River water.




Western Water Rights and the U.S. Supreme Court


Book Description

Exploring the little-known history behind the legal doctrine of prior appropriation--"first in time is first in right"--used to apportion water resources in the western United States, this book focuses on the important case of Wyoming v. Colorado (1922). U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Willis Van Devanter, a former Chief Justice of Wyoming, ruled in that state's favor, finding that prior appropriation applied across state lines--a controversial opinion influenced by cronyism. The dicta in the case, that the U.S. Government has no interest in state water allocation law, drove the balkanization of interstate water systems and resulted in the Colorado River Interstate Compact between Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California. The exhaustive research that has gone into this book has uncovered the secret that Associate Justice Van Devanter had waited eleven years to publish his opinion in this important, but politically self-serving, case, at last finding a moment when his senior colleagues were sufficiently absent or incapacitated to either concur or dissent. Without the knowledge of his "brethren," save his "loyal friend" Taft, and without recusal, Van Devanter unilaterally delivered his sole opinion to the Clerk for publication on the last day of the Supreme Court's October 1921 Term.