propecia shedding phase

THE GROUNDWATER / SURFACE WATER DILEMMA – References

June 11, 2010

THE GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER DILEMMA IN ARIZONA: A LOOK BACK AND A LOOK AHEAD TOWARD CONJUNCTIVE MANAGEMENT REFORM  by Allison Evans

References

[FNa1]. J.D. Candidate 2010, Phoenix School of Law; B.A., The University of Arizona, 2006.
[FN1]. A. DAN TARLOCK, JAMES N. CORBRIDGE, JR. & DAVID H. GETCHES, WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT:
A CASEBOOK IN LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY 538, 541 (5th ed. 2002); ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. §
49-201(2) (2009).
[FN2]. Joe Gelt, Managing the Interconnecting Waters: The Groundwater-Surface Water Dilemma, http://ag.arizona.edu/azwater/arroyo/081con.html (last visited Nov. 28, 2009).
[FN3]. ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 45-101(5) (2009).
[FN4]. Chris Avery, Carla Consoli, Robert Glennon & Sharon Medgal, Good Intentions, Unintended Consequences: The
Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District, 49 ARIZ. L. REV. 339, 340 (2007).
[FN5]. ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 45-101 (2009).
[FN6]. Avery, supra note 4, at 340.
[FN7]. Bristor v. Cheatham, 255 P.2d 173, 180 ( Ariz. 1953).
[FN8]. Id.
[FN9]. ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 45-101(9) (2009).
[FN10]. 78 AM. JUR. 2D Waters § 174 (2009).
[FN11]. Avery, supra note 4, at 339.
[FN12]. Avery, supra note 4, at 339.
[FN13]. S. Joshua Newcom, Peace on the Gila: Pending Gila River Indian Community Settlement Tied to CAP Repayment,
RIVER REP. (2001), http:// www.watereducation.org/userfiles/Summer01RR.pdf.
[FN14]. Tracy Stitt, Note, Evaluating the Preliminary Draft Articles on Transboundary Groundwaters Presented by Special
Rapporteur Chusei Yamada at the 56th Session of the International Law Commission in Geneva, 17 GEO. INT’L
ENVTL. L. REV. 333, 338-39 (2005).
[FN15]. Paula K. Smith, Coercion and Groundwater Management: Three Case Studies and a ‘Market’ Approach, 16 ENVTL.
L. 797, 805 (1986).
[FN16]. Black’s Law Dictionary defines percolating water as “[ w]ater that oozes or seeps through the soil without a
defined channel (such as rainwater or other water that has lost its status as part of a stream).” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY
1585 (7th ed. 1999).
[FN17]. Maricopa County Mun. Water Conservation Dist. No. 1 v. Sw. Cotton Co., 4 P.2d 369, 380 ( Ariz. 1931).
3 PHOENLR 269 Page 13
3 Phoenix L. Rev. 269
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
[FN18]. In re the Gen. Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River Sys. and Source, 989 P.2d 739, 749 (
Ariz. 1999).
[FN19]. Kevin L. Patrick & Kelly E. Archer, A Comparison of State Groundwater Laws, 30 TULSA L.J. 123, 127-28
(1994).
[FN20]. See In re Rights to Use Water in Gila River, 857 P.2d 1236, 1246-47 (criticizing Maricopa County Mun. Water
Conservation Dist. No. 1 v. Sw. Cotton Co., 4 P.2d 369, 380-81 ( Ariz. 1931), and holding that percolating waters are
not subject to appropriation).
[FN21]. Id.
[FN22]. In re Gen. Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in Gila River Sys. and Source, 857 P.2d 1236, 1243 ( Ariz.
1993).
[FN23]. See Paula K. Smith, Coercion and Groundwater Management: Three Case Studies and a ‘Market’ Approach, 16
ENVTL. L. 797, 805 (1986).
[FN24]. See Joe Gelt, Managing the Interconnecting Waters: The Groundwater-Surface Water Dilemma, http://ag.arizona.edu/azwater/arroyo/081con.html (last visited Nov. 28, 2009).
[FN25]. William Blomquist, Tanya Heikkila & Edella Schlager, Institutions and Conjunctive Water Management
Among Three Western States, 41 NAT. RESOURCES J. 653, 654 (2001).
[FN26]. Id.
[FN27]. Id. at 655.
[FN28]. Id.
[FN29]. Id.
[FN30]. Barbara Tellman, Why Has Integrated Management Succeeded in Some States but not in Others?, http://www.ucowr.siu.edu/updates/pdf/V106_A2.pdf (last visited Dec. 26, 2009); see generally Conjunctive Water Mgmt
.: A Solution to the West’s Growing Water Demand?: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Energy and Res. of the H.
Comm. on Gov’t Reform, 109th Cong. (2006) [hereinafter Hearing].
[FN31]. See Tellman, supra note 30; see generally Hearing, supra note 30.
[FN32]. See Blomquist, supra note 25.
[FN33]. See Barbara Tellman, Why Has Integrated Management Succeeded in Some States but not in Others?, http://www.ucowr.siu.edu/updates/pdf/V106_A2.pdf (last visited Dec. 26, 2009).
[FN34]. Id.
[FN35]. Id.
[FN36]. Id.
3 PHOENLR 269 Page 14
3 Phoenix L. Rev. 269
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
[FN37]. Id.
[FN38]. Id.
[FN39]. Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128 (1976).
[FN40]. Id. at 142.
[FN41]. See generally United States v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696, 714 (1978).
[FN42]. See Barbara Tellman, Why Has Integrated Management Succeeded in Some States but not in Others?, http://www.ucowr.siu.edu/updates/pdf/V106_A2.pdf (last visited Dec. 26, 2009).
[FN43]. Id.
[FN44]. See generally, Boquillas Land & Cattle Co. v. Curtis, 89 P. 504 (Ariz. Terr. 1907) (aff’d 213 U.S. 339 (1909)).
[FN45]. See Joe Gelt, Managing the Interconnecting Waters: The Groundwater-Surface Water Dilemma, http://ag.arizona.edu/azwater/arroyo/081con.html (last visited Nov. 28, 2009).
[FN46]. Id.
[FN47]. See generally Maricopa County Mun. Water Conservation Dist. No. 1 v. Sw. Cotton Co. 4 P.2d 369 (Ariz.
1931).
[FN48]. Id.
[FN49]. Id. at 377.
[FN50]. Charlotte Benson, Integrated Water Management When Surface and Groundwater are Legally Separate, http://www.ucowr.siu.edu/updates/pdf/V106_ A4.pdf (last visited Dec. 26, 2009).
[FN51]. Chris Avery, Carla Consoli, Robert Glennon & Sharon Medgal, Good Intentions, Unintended Consequences:
The Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District, 49 ARIZ. L. REV. 339, 340 (2007).
[FN52]. See id.; ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 45-101 to -116 (2009).
[FN53]. ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 45-101 to -116 (2009).
[FN54]. See Avery, supra note 4, at 341; see Bureau of Land Mgmt., Arizona Water Rights Fact Sheet (Aug. 15, 2001),
http:// www.blm.gov/nstc/WaterLaws/pdf/Arizona.pdf.
[FN55]. ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 45-411 (2009).
[FN56]. See Avery, supra note 4, at 341.
[FN57]. ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 45-102 (2009).
[FN58]. See Avery, supra note 4, at 341.
3 PHOENLR 269 Page 15
3 Phoenix L. Rev. 269
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
[FN59]. See Kevin L. Patrick & Kelly E. Archer, A Comparison of State Groundwater Laws, 30 TULSA L.J. 123, 134
(1994); ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 45-562 (2009).
[FN60]. William Staudenmaier, Between a Rock and a Dry Place: The Rural Water Supply Challenge for Arizona, 49
ARIZ. L. REV. 321 (2007).
[FN61]. Joseph M. Feller, The Adjudication that Ate Arizona Water Law, 49 ARIZ. L. REV. 405, 407 (2007).
[FN62]. See Bureau of Land Mgmt., Arizona Water Rights Fact Sheet (Aug. 15, 2001), http://www.blm.gov/nstc/WaterLaws/pdf/Arizona.pdf.
[FN63]. William Staudenmaier, Between a Rock and a Dry Place: The Rural Water Supply Challenge for Arizona, 49
ARIZ. L. REV. 321, 330 (2007).
[FN64]. Id.
[FN65]. John B. Weldon & Lisa M. McKnight, Future Indian Water Settlements in Arizona: The Race to the Bottom of
the Waterhole?, 49 ARIZ. L. REV. 441 (2007).
[FN66]. Jon Kyl & Ryan A. Smith, Water Law and Policy Conference, 49 ARIZ. L. REV. 209, 211 (2007).
[FN67]. Id. at 211-12.
[FN68]. Id. at 212.
[FN69]. 43 U.S.C.A. § 1521(b) (2006).
[FN70]. Patrick Schiffer, Herbert R. Gunther & Thomas G. Carr, From a Colorado River Compact Challenge to the Next
Era of Cooperation Among The Seven Basin States, 49 ARIZ. L. REV. 217, 219-20 (2007).
[FN71]. Robert Jerome Glennon, “Because That’s Where the Water Is”: Retiring Current Water Uses to Achieve the
Safe-Yield Objective of the Arizona Groundwater Management Act, 33 ARIZ. L. REV. 89, 98-99 (1991).
[FN72]. Id. at 99.
[FN73]. Id.
[FN74]. See Paula K. Smith, Coercion and Groundwater Management: Three Case Studies and a ‘Market’ Approach, 16
ENVTL. L. 797, 845 (1986).
[FN75]. Id. at 848-49.
[FN76]. See Jan Bush, Subhrajit Guhathakurta & Judith M. Dworkin, Examination of the Phoenix Regional Water Supply
for Sustainable Yield and Carrying Capacity, 46 NAT. RESOURCES J. 925, 936 (2006).
[FN77]. Id.
[FN78]. Meredith K. Marder, The Battle to Save the Verde: How Arizona’s Water Law Could Destroy One of its Last
Free Flowing Rivers, 51 ARIZ. L. REV. 175, 176-79 (2009).
3 PHOENLR 269 Page 16
3 Phoenix L. Rev. 269
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
[FN79]. See Smith, supra note 15, at 868.
[FN80]. See Bush, supra note 76, at 937.
[FN81]. See Smith, supra note 15, at 845.
[FN82]. See Bush, supra note 76, at 954, 957.
[FN83]. Id. at 936.
[FN84]. Id. at 938.
[FN85]. See generally Robert Jerome Glennon & Thomas Maddock, III, In Search of Subflow: Arizona’s Futile Effort to
Separate Groundwater from Surface Water, 36 ARIZ. L. REV. 567 (1994).
[FN86]. See Joe Gelt, Managing the Interconnecting Waters: The Groundwater-Surface Water Dilemma, http://ag.arizona.edu/azwater/arroyo/081con.html (last visited Nov. 28, 2009).
[FN87]. See Glennon, supra note 85, at 569.
[FN88]. Glennon, supra note 85, at 569.
[FN89]. In re the Rights to Use the Gila River, 830 P.2d 442 (Ariz. 1992).
[FN90]. Id.; Joseph M. Feller, The Adjudication that Ate Arizona Water Law, 49 ARIZ. L. REV. 405, 407 (2007).
[FN91]. See EIGHTY-FIFTH ARIZONA TOWN HALL, ARIZONA’S WATER FUTURE: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
(Oct. 31-Nov. 3, 2004), http:// www.aztownhall.org/pdf/85th_report.pdf.
[FN92]. See 1979 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 139, § 39 (codified as amended at ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 45-251 to
45-258 (2006)).
[FN93]. See Feller, supra note 90.
[FN94]. Arizona v. San Carol Apache Tribe, 463 U.S. 545 (1983).
[FN95]. In re the Gen. Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River Sys. & Source, 989 P.2d 739, 745-49
(Ariz. 1999).
[FN96]. Id.
[FN97]. See Feller, supra note 90.
[FN98]. In re the Gen. Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River Sys. & Source, 989 P.2d 739 (Ariz.
1999).
[FN99]. Id.
[FN100]. See William Staudenmaier, Between a Rock and a Dry Place: The Rural Water Supply Challenge for Arizona,
49 ARIZ. L. REV. 321 (2007).
3 PHOENLR 269 Page 17
3 Phoenix L. Rev. 269
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
[FN101]. Maricopa County Mun. Water Conservation Dist. No. 1 v. Sw. Cotton Co. 4 P.2d 369, 377 (Ariz. 1931).
[FN102]. See Robert Jerome Glennon, “Because That’s Where the Water Is”: Retiring Current Water Uses to Achieve the
Safe-Yield Objective of the Arizona Groundwater Management Act, 33 ARIZ. L. REV. 89, 98-99 (1991).
[FN103]. In re Rights to Use Water in Gila River, 857 P.2d 1236, 1246-47 (Ariz. 1993).
[FN104]. Id.
[FN105]. See Joseph M. Feller, The Adjudication that Ate Arizona Water Law, 49 ARIZ. L. REV. 405, 407 (2007).
[FN106]. Connected Waters, Institutional Arrangements, http://www.connectedwater.gov.au/framework/institutional_arrangements.html (last visited Oct. 6, 2009).
[FN107]. Id.
[FN108]. See ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 48-4401 to -4404 (2000).
[FN109]. See William Blomquist, Tanya Heikkila & Edella Schlager, Institutions and Conjunctive Water Management
Among Three Western States, 41 NAT. RESOURCES J. 653, 663 (2001).
[FN110]. See Jon Kyl & Ryan A. Smith, Water Law and Policy Conference, 49 ARIZ. L. REV. 209, 213 (2007).
[FN111]. See Joseph M. Feller, The Adjudication that Ate Arizona Water Law, 49 ARIZ. L. REV. 405, 407 (2007); Jack
A. Vincent, What Lies Beneath: The Inherent Dangers of the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District, 38
ARIZ. ST. L.J. 857, 868 (2006) (a storage credit is earned by a person or entity that recharges excess water into an
aquifer with the expectancy that it will tap that resource at a later date).
[FN112]. See Margaret Bushman LaBianca, The Arizona Water Bank and the Law of the River, 40 ARIZ. L. REV. 659,
679 (1998).
[FN113]. See generally Jan Bush, Subhrajit Guhathakurta & Judith M. Dworkin, Examination of the Phoenix Regional
Water Supply for Sustainable Yield and Carrying Capacity, 46 NAT. RESOURCES J. 925, 936 (2006) (discussing that
although Phoenix has acquired a large and robust current water supply, the city needs to come up with new water supply
policies instead of new water resources, and implement policy and management reforms, to avoid considerable economic
and environmental costs in the future).
[FN114]. Jan Bush, Subhrajit Guhathakurta & Judith M. Dworkin, Examination of the Phoenix Regional Water Supply
for Sustainable Yield and Carrying Capacity, 46 NAT. RESOURCES J. 925, 936 (2006).
[FN115]. Id. at 953.
[FN116]. Id. at 954.
[FN117]. Id. at 955.
[FN118]. See William Staudenmaier, Between a Rock and a Dry Place: The Rural Water Supply Challenge for Arizona,
49 ARIZ. L. REV. 321, 335 (2007).
3 PHOENLR 269 Page 18
3 Phoenix L. Rev. 269
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
[FN119]. ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 45-101 (2009).
[FN120]. In re All Rights to Use Water in Gila River, 857 P.2d 1236, 1246-48 (Ariz. 1993).
[FN121]. See Joe Gelt, Managing the Interconnecting Waters: The Groundwater-Surface Water Dilemma, http://ag.arizona.edu/azwater/arroyo/081con.html (last visited Nov. 28, 2009).
[FN122]. Id.
[FN123]. Id.
[FN124]. Id.
[FN125]. See Jan Bush, Subhrajit Guhathakurta & Judith M. Dworkin, Examination of the Phoenix Regional Water Supply
for Sustainable Yield and Carrying Capacity, 46 NAT. RESOURCES J. 925, 935 (2006).
[FN126]. Id.
[FN127]. Id. at 934.
[FN128]. See Joe Gelt, Managing the Interconnecting Waters: The Groundwater-Surface Water Dilemma, http://ag.arizona.edu/azwater/arroyo/081con.html (last visited Nov. 28, 2009).
[FN129]. Id.
[FN130]. Id.
[FN131]. Id.
[FN132]. See Paula K. Smith, Coercion and Groundwater Management: Three Case Studies and a ‘Market’ Approach, 16
ENVTL. L. 797, 868 (1986).
[FN133]. Id.
[FN134]. Id. at 870.
[FN135]. See Jan Bush, Subhrajit Guhathakurta & Judith M. Dworkin, Examination of the Phoenix Regional Water Supply
for Sustainable Yield and Carrying Capacity, 46 NAT. RESOURCES J. 925, 953 (2006).
[FN136]. See Kevin L. Patrick & Kelly E. Archer, A Comparison of State Groundwater Laws, 30 TULSA L.J. 123,
154-55 (1994).
3 Phoenix L. Rev. 269

Share

Comments

Leave a Reply