The Hydrologic Cycle
http://nd.water.usgs.gov/ukraine/english/pictures/watercycle.html
Water as Property
• Water is unique. Why?
– It is “a moving and cyclical resource”
• Water is a common pool resource
– States generally claim ownership over water
• But, States have a trust responsibility to manage water
resources to protect the public interest
• Water rights are usufructuary
– Private persons obtain the right to use water
– They don’t own it in the classic sense of property
Managing Water is Complicated
• The amount of the resource is not fixed over time like other
resources
– Unpredictable seasonal cycles and variations make the
availability of water at any given time uncertain
• But, water is essential to society
• We have plenty of water, but…
– We don’t always have it where we need it
– Some of it is contaminated or unusable
– And our legal system does not always lead to the
efficient and fair distribution of water
• The global water crisis is a management crisis
Water and Geography
• Plentiful water in the East made it
possible to radically transform the
Eastern United States
• “Reclaiming” the West has been much
harder (and much more expensive)
– Despite hundreds of dams, some of an
almost unthinkable scale, much of the
West remains a vast undeveloped
landscape
Variability of Rainfall
• From rainforests to deserts
• Scarcity may occur even with abundant
supplies if you cannot get water where it is
needed
• Global rainfall
– http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/fews/
globe/anomalies.html
Water and Pollution
• 1.1 billion people lack access to an improved
water supply
• 2.4 billion lack access to improved sanitation
• In 2000, there were an estimated 2.2 million
deaths due to water-borne diseases
• In the United States, we take clean water for
granted
– But note that our water systems are susceptible to
terrorist attacks
Cadillac Desert
• Water has made the development of the Western
United States possible
• But, water is available where it is needed in the
West only because of elaborate reclamation
projects
– Projects capture spring snowmelt
– The scale of mountain runoff during the spring is hard
for Easterners to imagine
– Consider the political importance of water projects
• Still, it is a myth that the West is running out of
water
– In many states 95% or more of the water is going to
irrigate low value crops
The 100th Meridian
Image courtesy of Geography at About.com
http://geography.about.com
Precipitation Map of the U.S.
http://www.doi.gov/water2025/precip.html
Uses for Water
• Instream
– Fish and wildlife; recreation; ecosystem
services (like water purification);
navigation; hydropower; dilution
• Out of Stream
– Irrigation; municipal water supply; industrial
uses
The Colorado
River Basin
http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/imag
efiles/e063f01.htm
What Can the Great Lakes
Basin Learn from the West?
• How is the Great Lakes Basin like the
Colorado River?
• How is it different?
• Are the differences so great that the
Colorado River system cannot offer
relevant insights?
Water Institutions
• From whom do people get water?
– Compare farmers with industrial users with small
domestic users with city residents
• Note that quasi-governmental institutions play
a significant role in many parts of the country
– From drainage districts to irrigation districts to
water and power districts to sanitation districts
– Ball v. James holds that these districts are
generally not subject to a one-person, one vote
standard!
– Voting is often done by acreage.
The Nature of Water Supplies
• People who use water either have their own
water “right” or they may rely on someone
else’s water right
• Water “rights” are sometimes an incident of
property ownership, and are sometimes
granted by government agency through a
permit
• Generally, no one pays for water. Water is
free. Our water bill pays for the infrastructure
needed to clean the water and bring the water
into our home. The same is essentially true for
farmers
Water Institutions
• Where do people get there water?
– Urban and suburban residential users typically get
their water from government or quasigovernmental agencies
• Municipalities, water districts
– Rural users often have private wells
– Farmers usually get their water from various types
of water districts, including conservancy and
irrigation districts
– Industrial users sometimes tap into municipal with
small domestic users with city residents or
sometimes have their own water supplies
Water Institutions
• Joint ditches (informal; contractual)
• Mutual ditch companies (typically non-profit
corporations)
• Private companies (e.g., Ohio American)
– http://www.oawc.com/awpr/ohaw/start/index.html
• Special purpose districts (quasi-governmental)
– Irrigation districts and water conservancy districts
(like snowflakes—no two alike)
Special Purpose Water Districts
• Advantages—Preferred entities for federal
contracts
– Powers of eminent domain
– General fee assessment powers (Tax power?)
– Sanctioned by court order
• Special purpose districts are typically approved by
order of a local district court
• Those who prefer not to be included can object on
grounds that they will not benefit (but it can be
tough to opt out)
• Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley (Maria Bradley
lost her land for refusal to pay assessment
Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355
• Salt River Project District
– Officials elected by voters who receive one vote for each
acre of land they own in the district
– District includes more than one half the population of
Arizona
– Persons who own less than one acre do not receive a
vote
– District subsidizes water works with electricity sales
– Is it a public utility?
• Can issue tax exempt bonds;
• Property is not taxed;
• Has eminent domain authority
– Is it subject to one person, one vote rule?
• Would it matter whether the district has ad valorem (property)
taxing power. Why?
Irrigation Schematic
http://www.doi.gov/water2025/irrigation.html
Center-Pivot
Sprinkler
Patterns
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/graphics/ph
otos/k4904-20.htm
Center-Pivot Sprinkler
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/WaterUse/Images/cp-spray3.jpg
Furrow Irrigation
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/WaterUse/Images/furrow1.jpg
Earthen Ditch
http://www.co.union.oh.us/soil-water-conservation/ditch_maintenance.htm
Parshall Flume
http://wwwrcamnl.wr.usgs.gov/sws/fieldmethods/Images/instflum.jpg
Siphon Irrigation
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/WaterUse/Questions/glossary.htm
Gated Pipe
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/WaterUse/Images/gated-pipe2.jpg
Valuing Water
• Consider the value of water to community at
Put-in-Bay
Toledo Blade
August 25, 2004
Put-in-Bay's predicament
AN OUTBREAK of gastrointestinal illness that seems to
have South Bass Island and Put-in-Bay as a common link is in
its second week without a definitive explanation or answer.
Hopefully, the public can be reassured that an "A team" of
investigators appears to be closing in. The number of people
who say they became ill after visiting the popular resort island in
Lake Erie off Port Clinton passed 750 on Monday, some of them
from as far away as California, Florida, and Texas….
Externalities and the Cost of Water
• Consider the vast costs that are imposed by externalities on
our water supplies
• The bill for making our water clean enough to drink is in the
trillions of dollars
• But the majority of these costs are imposed by humans.
Society accepts pollution from a wide range of sources -farms, factories, wetland removal, development – and none
pay for the costs they impose on water supplies
– They don’t pay for the direct costs of treating the water to
remove the pollution
– And they don’t pay the indirect costs associated with lower
value for the water resources as a recreational resource
• Why?
U.S. Dam Policy
• 5,500 large dams; 100,000 small dams
• 95% of all dams are private; but the largest are
all public
• Why build dams? What are the benefits?
–
–
–
–
Hydropower
Irrigation (store water for when needed)
Flood control
Flat water recreation
Environmental Cost of Dams
• Severe ecosystem disruption
– Seasonal flows disrupted
– Flow itself disrupted
– Temperature changes
– Trap stream sediment
• Consider the Colorado River
– Adverse impacts on wildlife and riverine
habitat
• Disruption of fish runs
• Salmon in Pacific Northwest
Other Costs
• Promotes rent-seeking behavior
– Dams are often built even when they
cannot possibly be justified on economic
grounds
• Disrupts markets and interferes with
“efficient” choices
• Decommissioning costs
Government Role
• The big dams are all subsidized by the
government
– Bureau of Reclamation
– Army Corps of Engineers
– Tennessee Valley Authority
• Consider the “public works” nature of many of
the projects
• Why were subsidies necessary?
Bureau of Reclamation
• Reclamation Act of 1902
– Allowed interest free loans for water
projects to be paid over ten years
– Available to farmers who owned no
more than 160 acres and lived on the
land (residency)
1939 Amendments
• Extended pay back period on interest free loans to 50
years, which amounted to a 90% subsidy
• Rollover policy allowed the Bureau to extend the 50 year
period to the time the last unit of a project was completed
• The result has been that in some cases the pay back
period extends out for nearly 100 years
• Specifically authorized shifting costs from irrigators to
electrical consumers
• Broad authority for further subsidies (water service
contracts) which allow Bureau to share construction costs
• 160 acre limit honored in the breach (By 1979, more
than 75% of water furnished from Bureau projects
was going to farms exceeding 160 acre limit.)
Central Valley Project Example
• Rollover policy: CVP first authorized as a federal
project in 1937. Repayment has been extended
through 2030
• According to Natural Resources Defense Council
study, subsidies for CVP amount to $300
million/year -- $183/acre . Highest subsidies
going to Westlands which was fouling Kesterson
Wildlife Refuge
• Subsidies for surplus crops. In 1980's 59% of
CVP land was growing surplus crops.
1982 Reform Act
• Abolished residency requirements
• Extended acreage limit to 960 acres
• Allowed leased lands, but "full cost" pricing for
tracts in excess of 960 acres
• Farmers had to renegotiate under the new law
by 1987 or be subject to full cost pricing for all
lands in excess of 160 acres.
• Peterson v. United States, 899 F.2d 799 (9th Cir.
1990): Court upheld the "hammer" clause in
Reform Act. Court found that water users did
not have a vested contract right to the water
(beyond 160 acres) at the contract price.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• Much more prominent in the East and Midwest,
but some presence in the West as well
• Projects not so much for irrigation, but rather for
flood control, hydropower, and navigation
• As with the Bureau many Corps projects cannot
be justified economically
– Corps introduced “river basin accounting” whereby
the vast subsidies to one project could be hidden by
lumping it together with other projects (like hydro)
that make a lot of money
Colorado River: Grand Canyon
http://www.nps.gov/grca/grandcanyon/maps/
Bureau of
Reclamation
Photo: The Glen Canyon
Dam
http://www.usbr.gov/power/data/site
s/glencany/glencnyn.jpg
Lake Powell (2003)
The white area shows the high-water mark from 1980
Image courtesy of Nieka Apell and Ken Varnum
http://varnum.org/utah/index.html
The Proposal to Drain Lake Powell
• Pros
– Ecology
– Fish
– Waste
– Silt
– Risk of spillway failure
• Cons
– Silt threat is overstated
– Restoration will take centuries
– Waste is overstated
Denver Post: July 5, 2004
• “Plummeting water levels in Lake Powell have drastically
slashed electricity generation at the reservoir's Glen
Canyon Dam, forcing power authorities to cut deliveries
to utilities from the Front Range to Provo, Utah.”
• “Federal officials fear that $100 million worth of
hydropower generated annually by Lake Powell could dry
up completely by 2009 - if dam managers continue
releasing water at pre-drought rates.”
• “The five-year drought has already drained Lake Powell
to 43 percent of capacity ….That lost … "hydraulic head,"
has slashed the dam's generating capacity by some 30
percent….”
• Lake Powell was 95% full at the beginning of 2000!
Santa Fe New Mexican
September 10, 2004
• “$20 million plan for generating station in
drought-stricken Lake Powell”
– The article discusses a $20 million proposal to drill
new tunnels into the sandstone walls to divert
water to the Navajo Generating Station for cooling
water. The plant helps run the pumps needed to
deliver Colorado River water to the Phoenix area
– Current tunnels may go dry if Lake Powell drops
another 100’. If the drought continues the water
may drop that much by 2006. This would also
force closure of the hydro station.
Water Allocation Law
• Riparian systems have historically dominated
the Eastern United States
• Prior appropriation systems have historically
dominated the West
• Many Eastern states are moving toward permit
systems that arguably have more in common
with prior appropriation law than riparian law
– And Western states now clearly recognize instream
uses as deserving of protection
Harris v. Brooks
• Mashburn (Harris’ lessee) operates a boating
and fishing camp
• Brooks irrigates a rice crop
• Brooks’ use of water dropped lake levels to the
point that Mashburn had to give up his business
– Suppose that Brooks is required to give up farming to
provide water for Mashburn
• Who wins? Is this the best result? The most
“efficient” result?
Classic Riparian Doctrine
• Who is entitled to riparian water rights?
• What limits, if any, apply to the place of use?
– “On-tract" limitation, but most states allow off-tract use if no
objection by other riparians, or if no harm, or if reasonable
– Rights must be used in watershed of origin
• How much water can a riparian use?
– Natural flow theory evolved to reasonable use/correlative rights
theory
– More recently, some states follow Restatement (2d) of Torts test
– Rights do not depend on extent of riparian frontage, but that may
affect what is deemed reasonable
• For what purposes?
– Absolute right to use water for domestic purposes
The Nature of Riparian Rights
• Right to make reasonable use of water (correlative with
all other riparians)
• Right to use surface for recreation, fishing, boating
– In most jurisdictions extends to surface of entire
water body, not just frontage or wedge
• Right to wharf out
– Requires federal permit on “navigable waters”
• Surface rights and wharfing rights apply across the
United States regardless of water allocation doctrine
Restatement of Torts § 850
• Liability Rule: Riparian is liable for
unreasonable uses that cause harm
• No cause of action unless harm occurs
Restatement of Torts § 850A
(A balancing test)
•
•
•
•
•
•
(a) reasonableness of use;
(b) suitability to watercourse;
(c) economic value;
(d) social value of use;
(e) extent and amount of harm;
(f) practicality of avoiding harm by adjusting uses or
methods;
• (g) practicality of avoiding harm by adjusting quantities
used;
• (h) protection of existing uses;
• (i) justice of requiring person causing harm to bear cost.
(Coase would say these are reciprocal harms.)
What’s wrong with the riparian doctrine?
• It lacks certainty. How so?
• It imposes artificial limits on place of use.
How so?
• It is inefficient. Consider how conflicts are
resolved in riparian jurisdictions.
• Should the entire doctrine be scrapped?
– What are the alternatives?
Q & D 4: What lands qualify as riparian?
• “Source of title”: Only those tracts of land that
have also included riparian lands qualify for
water rights
• “Unity of Title”: All tracts of land that are
presently riparian qualify for riparian rights
• Note however, that riparian rights can be
severed by an express conveyance of such
rights.
– The grantee stands in the shoes of the riparian
grantor.
Botton v. State (note 7)
• State owns a small tract of land with a
boat launch and access for fishing on
Phantom Lake – a 63 acre lake that is nonnavigable for title purposes
• Riparian owners complain that allowing
public access is an unreasonable exercise
of the State’s riparian rights
• Is the State like any other riparian for
purposes of the law? If not, why not?
Protecting Streams in Riparian States
• Note that, in theory, only riparians can protect
natural stream flows and water levels in riparian
states
– They can assert reasonable rights to fish, recreate
etc.
– They can claim that uses that harm the public
interest are not reasonable
– The State, as trustee, might also be in a position to
make such public interest claims
• States can also exert political pressure on
users to protect stream flows
Eastern Permit Systems
• Misleading to call them “regulated riparian”
systems
– The fundamental principal that water rights attach to
riparian land is generally rejected
– In its place, water users are required to obtain a permit
– While temporal priority is not determinative, it is often a
consideration in whether to grant or renew a permit
– Permits are often limited to a term of years
• Note that the Charter Annex proposal would
largely move the Great Lakes States toward this
type of system
Permit Systems
• Approximately 19 Eastern/Midwestern states have some kind
of permit system but they vary greatly
• The chief advantage is that they allow the State to make a
judgment about adverse impacts BEFORE the use goes
forward
– Under the riparian systems once a use has commenced,
and reliance on that use has developed, it becomes very
hard to force changes
• Moreover, it can only be done in court
• Ohio Revised Code §§ 1501 (permits); 1521 (registration)
– http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/water/orclaw/ORC_all_main.htm
– http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/water/orclaw/waterwithdraw_law_main.htm
Franco-Am. Charolaise, Ltd. RB v. Okla. W
• City wants to increase appropriation for municipal purposes;
riparians claim that the City's use interferes with their
reasonable riparian uses.
• Legislature passed law in 1963 abolishing unused riparian
rights
– Under this law, pre-existing riparian rights had to be
“perfected” under statutory mechanism
• Court finds that the legislation effected a taking in violation of
State constitution
– Is an unused riparian right a vested property right?
– Consider the nature of water rights
– Dissent suggests riparian rights are subject to limits and
even forfeiture. Majority misperceives the “denominator”
Compare: In Re: Waters of Long Valley Creek
• Stream adjudication process (California)
– Ramelli claimed unused riparian rights.
• Court found that uncertainty of unused riparian
rights creates problems for state water
management.
• Court acknowledged that State cannot
constitutionally extinguish unused riparian rights
• Nonetheless, the Court allows the State to
subordinate unused riparian rights to other uses
– This effectively extinguishes them. Why?
Prior Appropriation
• Dominant system in the Western U.S.
• Basic principles:
– Water occurring in natural condition is held by the
state, in trust for the people
• Excludes diffuse surface water; unconnected groundwater
• Private users can acquire a vested right to use water for a
particular purposes
– Water rights limited to beneficial uses
– Priority of appropriation gives the better right
• “first in time, first in right”
• Usually determined by date of permit application (compare
Colorado)
• Senior rights must be fully satisfied before juniors receive
water (No sharing in times of shortage)
– Riparian rights to “wharf out” and use water for
recreational purposes remain
Historical Context
• Mineral rights in Western mining camps were
acquired by the first person to possess and
maintain the claim
– Water was needed to process minerals
– Because limited supplies were available in many
parts of the West, water was allocated in the same
way as minerals
• When the farmers began settling the West, they
realized that the system devised by the miners
was far better suited to their interests than the
riparian system
– They received secure and often very generous rights
at the expense of future settlers
Legal Rules and Issues
• “Beneficial use” is “the basis, the measure, and the
limit of the water right.”
– May be relevant to type of use and quantity of water
– Water quantity relates to waste (“duty” of water)
– Rights are vested but amount of water may be in flux
• While priority typically determined from date of
application, paper rights are not enough
• Change of use or place of use allowed only if “no
injury” to all existing appropriators
• Water rights may be lost through non-use
– Abandonment
– Forfeiture
• Problems relating to instream flows
• Application of the public interest standard
Other Related Issues
• Hybrid systems
– Along 100th meridian and on West coast
• Tributary groundwater
– Interconnected with surface water
– Conjunctive management and use
• Federal reserved water rights
– Implied rights associated with reserved lands
• Pueblo rights and prescriptive rights are rare
(and thus not especially important)
Visualizing the System
• Typically applies in areas with
mountains which store winter snow and
release large quantities of water in
Spring
• Seniors tend to be downstream; juniors
upstream.
– makes it easier for juniors to steal senior
water!
• return flows
• water quality issues
Typical Permit Process
• Water rights are issued by the State as follows:
– Prospective water user files an application
– Application is approved by State water official (water
permit)
– Water is used for the approved purpose (the applicant
proves up on her right by demonstrating actual use for
the approved purpose)
– Water right is granted
• Colorado is somewhat unique in having water
rights issued by courts. In all other PA states,
water rights are issued by a state water official or
agency
Prior Appropriation
• Suppose only 20 cfs available
• Suppose 90% of water lost
between Jones and Williams
• Suppose Compute, Inc employs
more
• Does it matter that stream is
dewatered?
• Does it matter that user is not
riparian?
• Can Computer, Inc. buy Jones’
right?
• Can you acquire a water right
that may be available only in
wet years?
• Can you hold water without
using it?
Storage (Reservoir) Rights
• Water from reservoirs raises unique issues
– Storage rights are generally for a volume of water
– Reservoirs are usually subject to the one-filling rule
– Must take water when told (generally in the early
Spring) or it is credited against account
– Carry-over storage counts toward current allocation.
• Generally, the initial diversion from the stream is
the one that must satisfy the priority requirement
• Secondary users of reservoir water generally fall
outside the PA system
Prior Appropriation Criticized
• It may not make sense to fully protect an inefficient
senior user at the expense of a more efficient junior user
– Sufficient certainty could be maintained by protecting
the senior’s right only to the point of maximizing
efficient
• Does the prior appropriation doctrine have sufficient
flexibility to adapt itself to changing values and needs?
– Is the doctrine too cumbersome to efficiently
accommodate water transfers?
• Despite theory of state ownership, instream flows and
values were historically ignored
– Changing today, but instream protections almost
always suffer from late priorities
Beneficial Use
• “The basis, the measure, and the limit”
of a water right
– Professor Neuman notes that concept is
rarely used to demand true conservation
– But conceivably, it could be used to
demand much more efficient water uses
– IID example
Imperial Irrigation District
• AREA SERVED
– Gross acreage
– Irrigated area
– Average Agricultural use per year
(varies per crop and soil type)
– Water delivered thru
All-American Canal
– http://www.iid.com/water/works.html
1,061,637
462,202
5.6 AF/acre
3.0 MAF/yr.
NOTE: Ninety-eight percent of the water IID transports is used for
agriculture. The remaining two percent is then delivered to nine
Imperial Valley cities, treated to safe drinking water standards, and
distributed to residential water customers
Imperial Irrigation District
• Map
– http://www.waterrights.ca.gov/IID/IIDHearingData/L
ocalPublish/IID_minority_121801.pdf
• Salton Sea was formed between 1905 and
1907 when poorly constructed irrigation canals
burst and Salton Basin received almost the
entire flow of the Colorado River for more than
a year. The Sea has continued to exist as a
result of runoff from IID irrigation
IID Case
• John Elmore (a farmer) owned land near Salton Sea
– Threatened with inundation by rising sea levels
• Water Resources Board requires IID to develop
a conservation plan
– No doubt that the intrusion on IID’s water rights was
“substantial”
– But it did not necessarily interfere with vested rights
– Water rights are limited to reasonable uses
– Using water for beneficial purposes may nonetheless
be unreasonable
– “Everything is in the process of changing or becoming
in water law”
Typical Permit Process
•
Water rights are issued by the State as follows:
1. Prospective water user files an application
2. Application is approved by State water official (water
permit)
3. Water is used for the approved purpose. (The
applicant proves up on her right by demonstrating
actual use for the approved purpose)
4. Water right is granted
•
Colorado is somewhat unique in having water
rights issued by courts. In all other PA states,
water rights are issued by a state water official or
agency
The Public Interest
• Increasingly important in allocating water rights
– But application of public interest standard is uneven at best
• In granting permits to divert water, how should the States
consider the public interest?
• Balancing/opportunity cost approach in California Code
(page 761) is becoming more common
– Alaska code takes a similar approach
• Burden of proof is generally on the applicant
• The public interest arises in both initial applications and
water transfers
– But see Sleeper case (N.M) and Dep’t of Ecology case (Wash.)
Instream Flows
• Many instream flows remain available to
protect because
– Large downstream users demand that water
remain in the stream to their headgate
– Many prized streams are in higher elevation
lands, closer to the headwaters on public
lands and above irrigation areas
• Early problems with States that required a
“diversion”
Preserving Instream Flows in PA States
• Use the public interest standard, where available, to deny
applications that would interfere with stream flows.
• Deny new applications on streams that would interfere with
minimum flow levels
• Issue appropriations to State Game and Fish agencies or private
parties for an instream use
– This last option is the most common although only a few
states allow private parties to holds instream flows rights (See
Thompson article)
• Efforts to reallocate existing rights to instream flows are
controversial and they have not proved very successful.
• NOTE 3: Preserving stream flows in riparian states is easier in
theory than in practice.
The Public Trust Doctrine
• Illinois Central RR. v. Illinois (p. 105)
– State legislature authorized the sale of the bed of a
significant portion of Chicago Harbor (in Lake
Michigan) to the railroad.
– Several years later the State repealed the
legislation authorizing the sale.
– The Railroad sued, alleging that their rights had
vested.
– The U.S. Supreme Court held that title to the bed of
a navigable lake was held in trust for all the people
and that the railroad grant was therefore revocable
– The State holds trust property as trustee
– Is the notion of the state as trustee for water
resources applicable in riparian states?
Federal
Water
Projects
in California
http://www.water.ca.gov/
maps/federal.cfm
State Water
Projects
in California
http://www.water.ca.gov/maps/st
ate.cfm
Local Water
Projects
in California
http://www.water.ca.gov/
maps/local.cfm
Mono Lake
http://www.parks.ca.gov/lat_long_map/default.asp?lvl_id=151&type=2
National Audubon Society v. Superior
Court of Alpine County
• Court tries to reconcile the public trust
doctrine with the prior appropriation doctrine
• Is there a conflict? How does the court
reconcile the two doctrines?
• How does the public trust doctrine affect
California water rights?
– Does it apply to riparian rights in California?
Q & D: Mono Lake Decision
• Could parties have used “beneficial use” or
“public interest” doctrines to limit LA’s water
rights?
• Note that the aqueduct was subject to a right-ofway issued by the federal government. Does
that offer any possibilities?
• Suppose the Mono Lake brine shrimp had been
designated an endangered species?
• Once LA’s rights were readjusted, does LA then
have a vested right to what remains?
Q & D: Mono Lake
• Can a State renounce its public trust in
managing the State’s water resources?
– Consider that the State gives water rights to the first
applicant without charge
– Does it matter whether the State claims ownership of
the water?
• What’s the difference between public trust and
public interest?
– Consider that public interest protections may affect a
wide range of values impacted by water resource use
– The public trust arises from the public’s ownership of
the water itself
Groundwater
• Why is groundwater important?
– A much more significant resource than surface water
– If you consider only fresh water resources, essentially
removing ocean water, ground-water accounts for 2/3
of the fresh water resources of the world
– If you further remove glaciers and ice caps and
consider only ACTIVE groundwater regimes,
groundwater makes up 95% of all of the remaining
freshwater
– 3.5% comes from surface water and 1.5% from soil
moisture
Confined vs. Unconfined Aquifers
• Confined aquifers produce artesian wells
– Potentiometric surface: pressure surface.
• The level at which the water will rise in a well drilled
into a confined aquifer.
• Unconfined or water table aquifers
– Water in a well in an unconfined aquifer will rise
to the level of water table.
– Unsaturated zone (vadose/zone of aeration)
– Tension-saturated zone - capillary fringe.
Groundwater Concepts and Terms
• “Cone of depression”
– The inverted cone that forms around the pressure
surface of an artesian well, or in the aquifer for a
water table well.
• Groundwater is generally measured in gallons per
minute (1 gpm = .00224 cfs; 446 gpm = 1cfs)
• Porosity (amount of space in voids)
– Storativity depends on porosity.
• Permeability (ability to transmit water)
– Transmissivity depends on permeability.
The Perils of Groundwater Pumping
• Groundwater use is increasing at a much faster pace than
surface water
– 2/3 for agriculture
– 11% for mining
• Groundwater “mining” more common
– Can cause subsidence and loss of storage
• Problems
– Mineral development breaches aquifers
– Bottled water industry focuses on headwaters
– Irrigation needed to satisfy the market (McDonald’s
French fries)
Groundwater Diagrams
• http://www.arc.losrios.edu/~borougt/Groun
dwaterDiagrams.htm
Aquifer Diagram
www.epa.gov/safewater/kids/wsb/354.pdf
Cone of Depression
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/dwg/OpCert/HTML/chapter3/wells4c.htm
Saltwater
Intrusion
http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/factsheet/fs030-02/
Groundwater Doctrines
RULE
PRINCIPLE
PLACE OF USE LIMITS
Absolute
Ownership/English Rule
Rule of capture
No limits
Rule of capture
On tract limits; reasonable
use limits (can use off-tract if
no adverse impacts on
others)
Shared use; liable to others
for unreasonable harm
caused by extractions in
excess of reasonable share
no limits on place of use
Ohio adopted this rule in
Prior Appropriation
Priority
no limits on place of use;
beneficial use/
maximization of resource
Correlative Rights
Shared use
On-tract limits unless other
on-tract rights met; rights
shared w/ other landowners
American Reasonable
Use
Restatement § 858
Cline v. American
Aggregates,
Sample Aquifer
5000 acre feet of water in storage; 500 AF annual recharge
Francis Farmer owns 320 acres;
farms the land; withdraws 1000
AF/year, half goes back as
recharge; first in time; 400 foot
deep well
Randy Rancher owns 160 acres;
withdraws 500 AF/year for dude
ranch and aquatic park on site;
100% consumptive system; 1000
foot deep well
Prince Power Company owns
160 acres; exports 500 AF/year
to power plant off-site; 100%
consumptive use; 1000 foot deep
well
Hubbard v. Dep’t of Ecology
• Hubbard had groundwater permits
– Conditioned upon requirement that they would have to
stop pumping when water levels fell below minimum
flows
– But the impact from the Hubbard’s pumping was
minimal (0.004% of river’s flow during low flow – 4
gallons of every 100,000 gallons)
– Should Washington treat the groundwater permits as
part of the surface water system?
• Note that Colorado has a similarly strict rule
– If the amount withdrawn will deplete the flow by 0.1%
within 100 years then it is “tributary groundwater.”
Conjunctive Management of Groundwater
• Term used to describe joint management of interconnected
surface and groundwater systems
• The result in Hubbard allows surface water laws to trump
groundwater laws
– This does not always lead to an efficient result
– Consider Templeton v. Pecos Valley (NM)
• Consider Alamosa-La Jara Water Users v. Gould
(Colorado, 1983)
– Groundwater aquifers contained 2 billion acre feet
– Surface and groundwater was interconnected
– Junior well users interfered with senior surface users but
plenty of water for everyone if everyone used groundwater
– Court required seniors to shift to groundwater to maximize
use of water
Q & D: Groundwater
• Consider how the State of Washington might better address the
Hubbard’s situation
• Consider the cumulative impact of small domestic users
• 15 million private wells
• If they average 25 gpm that’s 375 million gallons/minute
• Problems of safe yield
– Usually defined to mean the amount of water you can remove
without mining the aquifer
– Should States limit withdrawals to the “safe yield”?
– What if the aquifer has limited annual recharge?
– Colorado has a “3-mile test”
• When a new groundwater application is filed they ask whether
the aquifer within a 3 mile radius of the well would be depleted
by more than 40% after 25 years of operating the well
Water Federalism
• State is the primary authority on water resource
management
– Do States “own” the water? At a minimum, States
have regulatory power over water
• A long tradition of federal acquiescence in State
control
– Arguably States are not owners in a proprietary
sense
– Rather they serve as a trustee for a public resource
• Consider Irwin v. Phillips
– California Supreme Court adjudicates water rights
as between two trespassers on the public lands
Federal Statutes
• Mining Law of 1866 recognized appropriative water rights of
miners as against later patentees
• Desert Lands Act of 1877
– The Supreme Court suggests that the DLA severed the
water from the public domain and made their allocation
subject to State law
• Reclamation Act of 1902
– Requires Secretary of the Interior to follow State law in
carrying out the Act
– Construed to mean that Secretary must seek State
permits for federal water projects
• Was there any remaining role for the federal government?
Federal Authority Over Water
• Despite its acquiescence to State authority, the
federal government continues to play an important
role in water resource management
– Commerce power and regulation of navigation
gave rise to Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
• Corps of Engineers issues permits for obstructions to
navigation on navigable waters
– Could Western States nonetheless impose prior
appropriation on federal lands throughout the
West?
• United States v. Rio Grande Dam suggests not
Federal Reserved Water Rights:
The Winters Doctrine
• Winters v. United States
– Milk River runs along northern boundary of the Fort
Belknap Indian Reservation
• What was the purpose of the reservation of lands
for the tribes?
– “The power of the government to reserve waters and
exempt them from appropriation under the state laws
is not denied, and could not be.”
– Why weren’t these reserved rights repealed by the Act
admitting Montana into the Union?
• Extreme to believe that Congress would have
repealed the reservation one year after reserved
– How much water was reserved for the Indians?
Q & D: Indian Reserved Rights
• What is the source of the government’s power to
reserve water?
• Under equal footing doctrine, Consider that a
reservation is NOT a grant from the Indians
• Quantification of Indian Reserved Rights
– PIA standard for agricultural rights
– Instream flows for fishing rights
– PIA standard reserves a lot of water
• some judges seem inclined to change it
• 4-4 vote in In Re: Adjudication of the Big Horn
Quantification: McCarran Amendment
• What if a State wants to know how much water
Indian Tribes hold?
• McCarran Amendment is a limited waiver of
sovereign immunity
– Authorizes adjudication of federal water rights (Indian
and non-Indian), but only in general stream adjudications
– But need not be an entire river system
• The Supreme Court has generally held that federal
courts should defer to State courts in hearing these
disputes.
Cappaert v. United States
• President Truman designated the Devil’s Hole National
Monument in 1952 to protect an underground desert and a
unique fish species – the desert pupfish
• Cappaert petitioners own a large ranch where they grow
crops and graze cattle
– They operate large groundwater wells that are drawing
down the aquifer and causing level of the pool to decline
– Water rights were acquired after 1952
• The Proclamation reserved sufficient water to carry out the
purposes of the reservation – but no more
• Does the doctrine differ for non-Indian rights?
United States v. New Mexico
• Gila National Forest
– U.S. claims reserved waters for instream flows for aesthetic,
recreational and fish preservation purposes
• Organic Administration Act of 1897 established forests for
only two purposes –
– to secure “favorable conditions of water flows,” and
– “to furnish a continuous supply of timber”
– NOTE: Dissent suggests there are really three purposes
• MUSYA of 1960 expanded purposes for which forests were
established to include outdoor recreation, range, timber,
watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes.
– Court holds that water not reserved for the “secondary”
purposes set out in MUSYA. Is this true?
– Was MUSYA properly before the Court? Is its holding dictum?
Reserved Rights in National Forests
• In New Mexico, the Court reasons that “in the
case of the Rio Mimbres, a river [that] is fully
appropriated, federal reserved water rights will
frequently require a gallon for gallon reduction in
the amount of water available for water needy
state and private appropriators.”
– In the case of the Gila Forest, at least, this is
almost certainly not true. Why?
– What was the basis for the dissent?
• Developments in fluvial geomorphology suggest
that instream flows may be needed to secure
favorable water flows
Reserved Rights in Riparian States
• What rules should apply?
• Consider the Great Lakes
– Numerous American tribes; over 100 First
Nations
– Do they all have rights? If so, how can
they be quantified?
National Forests and Grasslands
http://roadless.fs.fed.us/maps/usmap2.shtml
Other Reserved Lands
• National Parks, National Monuments, National Recreation and
Conservation Areas
• National Wildlife Refuges
• Wilderness Areas
– Potlatch decision was reversed on rehearing
• Wild and Scenic Rivers
• BLM Public Lands (unreserved lands)
• Military reservations
Reserved Rights by Legislation
• More and more, Congress (and the
President) specifically indicates whether
water rights are reserved
– Wilderness legislation
– Wild and Scenic Rivers legislation
– National monuments
• Often, legislation is held back because no
resolution on water rights
Reserved Rights by Settlement
• Federal government settled with Montana
for several Parks, Refuges, Wilderness
Areas, etc.
• Can States settle with Tribes? Is the
federal government an indispensable
party?
Reserved Rights
• Does the federal government have an
affirmative obligation to assert such rights?
– Public trust?
• Can the federal government be bound by
state administrative proceedings?
• Are federal rights unfairly treated in state
court system?
Problem Exercise: Wilderness Water Rights
• Does the Wilderness Act create reserved
water rights?
– See 16 U.S.C. §§1131(c); 1133(a); 1133(d)(4);
1133(d)(5)
– Central Idaho Wilderness Act
• Consider the way in which the Idaho Supreme
Court decided the case and then reversed
itself
– NOTE: The federal government has not appealed
the Idaho Supreme Court’s second decision
Intersecting Federal Laws
• Clean Water Act
– Section 401 (State certification)
– Section 402 program (NPDES)
– Section 404 program (wetlands)
• Endangered Species Act
– Section 7 consultation
– Section 9 takings
Clean Water Act, § 401
State Certification of Federal Permits
• For any applicant for a federal permit or
license that may result in a discharge into
the navigable waters of the United States –
– State must certify compliance with effluent
limits and ambient water quality standards
• This effectively gives States some
measure of control over numerous federal
projects, including dams, roads, mineral
leases or licenses, timber sales, and
perhaps even grazing permits
Clean Water Act, § 402
• National pollution discharge elimination system
(NPDES)
• A federal permit program for discharges into
navigable waters from a “point source”
– State programs allow States to issue permits
• Different, technology-based standards established
for pre-existing sources and new sources
• EPA has established emission standards for
categories or classes of facilities
How does water quality impact
water quantity?
• The solution to pollution is (sometimes)
dilution
• Consider the Chicago Diversion
– Estimated to reduce the levels of Lakes
Michigan and Huron by 6 cm (2 billion gallons
per day)
– Changes the flow of the Chicago River so that it
flows out of Lake Michigan rather than into Lake
Michigan
– Flushing flows used to treat sewage water
Clean Water Act, § 404
• Permits required for discharges of dredged and
fill material into navigable waters
– Permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
– Normal farming, silviculture, ranching activities such
as plowing, seeding cultivation, minor drainage,
harvesting, and upland soil conservation practices
are exempt
• Navigable waters have historically included
wetlands
– Provide important ecosystem services, including
water filtering and purification, groundwater
recharge, flood protection, wildlife habitat
How do Wetlands Regulation and
Water Rights Laws Intersect?
• Many wetlands were historically drained for
farmland
– The Great Black Swamp
• On the other hand, flood irrigation practices
sometimes create wetlands, at least
temporarily
• Groundwater use can lower water tables
and drain wetlands
SWANCC v. U.S. Army Corps
• An old, abandoned sand and gravel pit had
evolved into a forested area with seasonal and
permanent ponds
• Corps claimed jurisdiction under migratory bird
rule
• Court confirms Riverside Bayview Homes
holding that §404 covers wetlands adjacent to
navigable waters
• Majority rejects migratory bird rule
– Why?
The Scope of §404 after SWANCC
• Could Congress adopt the migratory bird rule as an
amendment to the CWA?
• Note Stevens dissent in SWANCC
– Legislative history indicates that Congress intended that
federal jurisdiction under the CWA be given its “broadest
possible constitutional interpretation.”
• Post-SWANCC decisions suggest that the Courts are
giving SWANCC its “broadest possible” meaning
• Do SWANCC and New Mexico (both written by
Rehnquist) suggest a similar philosophical approach?
“No Net Loss” of Wetlands
• Half of all native wetlands in the United States have been
destroyed
• These wetlands provide important “ecosystem services”
– Water filtration
– Flood control
– Wildlife habitat
• The economic losses because these services have been
compromised is enormous. The replacement value of
these services is equally high.
• How does “no net loss” work?
– What problems arise at the individual project level?
Compensatory Mitigation and
Wetlands Banking
• Shift from on-site to off-site mitigation
• Support for wetland mitigation banks
– Restored or created wetlands can be banked
for future credit toward wetland destruction
• Should compensation be based upon
wetland functions rather than acreage?
– How do you measure wetlands functions?
– Why is the banking system working so poorly?
The Meaning of “Navigability”
•
Navigability for purposes of title to the bed
• “Navigable in fact” test -- The Daniel Ball
• Capable of being used in its ordinary condition as a
highway for commerce (need not be interstate commerce)
•
Navigability for purposes of the navigation servitude
• Includes tributaries of navigable waterways but not
waterways rendered navigable by improvements
•
Navigability for commerce clause purposes
• Like title test except reasonable improvements can be made
•
Navigability for public rights of access
• State test depends on local law (A “pleasure boat” test?)
•
Navigability for purposes of environmental regulation
• Broadest possible constitutional interpretation?
The Navigation Servitude
• The government owes no compensation
for the value of land associated with a
“navigable” waterway
– No compensation for loss of access
– No compensation for loss of flow
– No compensation for value as a port site
The Endangered Species Act
1.
Provides for listing species as “threatened” or
endangered”
2.
Requires conservation of listed species (through
affirmative federal agency action and a “recovery plan”)
3.
4.
Requires consultation and prohibits jeopardy to a listed
species, or “adverse modification” of designated “critical
habitat” by federal agency actions
– Where an agency finds jeopardy it must set forth
“reasonable prudent alternatives” (RPAs) that would not
cause jeopardy
Prohibits the taking of a listed species of wildlife (not
plants) without a permit
Consider the Case Studies
• Edwards Aquifer
– 8 unique aquatic species listed
• Middle Rio Grande
– The silvery minnow
• Colorado River Basin
– Four fish species and the southwestern willow flycatcher
• California/Bay Delta
– Five fish species
• Pacific Northwest
– Numerous species of salmon, steelhead, chum and bull
trout
Edwards Aquifer
http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/fs/Fs94048/
Silvery
•
Minnow
http://ifw2es.fws.gov/Documents/R
2ES/FINAL_CH_Designation_Rio
_Grande_Silvery_Minnow.pdf
68 Fed Reg. 8134
(2003)
California/Bay Delta
• Delta smelt, winter run Chinook salmon
and three other species threatened by
the operation of the federal Central
Valley Project (CVP) and the State
Water Project (SWP)
Pacific Northwest
• Salmon runs of the Columbia River and
its tributaries
– Each run supports a unique species
– While the Northwest has a lot of water,
dams have blocked salmon migration, and
pollution from urban runoff, farming and
logging threatens stream quality
Tulare Lake Basin WSD v. U.S.
• What is the nature of the water rights at issue in this case?
• The FWS set forth “reasonable and prudent alternatives” that
limited the amount of water available to the Districts
• Consider the “takings” analysis
– Was this a physical appropriation of water?
• Why does it matter?
• Does the contract limit the title?
– Are you persuaded by the Court’s effort to distinguish
O’Neill?
• How does the public trust doctrine fit into the Court’s
analysis? Could California impose limits to avoid the taking?
Q & D: Pages 846-848
• How does this analysis look under the
Penn Central test?
• Should a taking be found in the situation
where there is a “hybrid” drought – one
caused by natural and regulatory
conditions?
Interstate Allocation of Water
1. Judicial allocation
– Equitable apportionment
2. Allocation by interstate compact
3. Congressional allocation
Which do you think is the preferable
method? Why?
Equitable Apportionment
• Kansas v. Colorado (1907)
– Court established the doctrine but refused to apportion the Arkansas
River because Kansas failed to show serious harm
• Colorado v. Wyoming (1922)
– Court apportioned Laramie River suggesting that it would essentially
follow priorities (since both Colorado and Wyoming used the PA
system), but it actually protected certain out of priority uses in Colorado
• New Jersey v. New York (1931)
– Court apportioned Delaware River with mass allocations and minimum
stream flows
• Nebraska v. Wyoming (1945)
– Court apportioned North Platte River but refused to adhere to strict
priorities
• Colorado v. New Mexico
– Reasonable conservation measures required but marginal New Mexico
irrigation district only need use economically feasible practices
Interstate Compacts
• Compact Clause: Art. 1, Sec. 10. cl. 3:
– “No State shall, without the consent of Congress, …
enter into any Agreement or Compact with another
State….”
• Advantages
– Avoids dormant commerce clause problems
– Promotes efforts to find common ground among States
– As federal law a compact trumps inconsistent state law
• Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433 (1981)
• Disadvantages
– States are often reluctant to concede authority to a
Commission that they may not be able to control
Pecos River Compact
• Texas v. New Mexico
– Headwaters are in New Mexico
– Texas upset that New Mexico is taking too much water
• Pecos River Compact
– States agreed to provide water equivalent to that available
under “1947 condition.”
– Flows rarely met the 1947 baseline levels
• New Mexico claims that standard was mistaken
• Texas complained that it was not receiving water
required by the Inflow-Outflow Manual
– Compact Commission consists of only two voting
members – one from Texas and one from New Mexico
» The result was that disputes could never be
resolved
Compacts
• Politically difficult to structure dispute resolution
mechanism with two States
– Neither State wants to give up control
– The result may be gridlock
• Where compact or other apportionment of water applies,
individuals within the States are bound by water limits
– Hinderlider v. La Plata & Cherry Creek Ditch Co.
• Compacts rarely address groundwater
– Should they nonetheless be construed to encompass
groundwater?
– Draft Great Lakes Compact addresses both ground
and surface water
Delaware River Basin Compact
• Good model for Great Lakes States but politically
difficult to achieve
• Includes Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and
Pennsylvania
– Each State has one voting member and the federal
representative is a voting member
• Commission has broad powers to manage
virtually all aspects of river management
– Water quality; water allocation; hydro power generation;
recreational use; flood control; watershed protection
– Operates under a comprehensive plan; actions not
approved unless consistent with plan
Federal-State Compacts
• Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River
Basin Compact (Florida, Georgia,
Alabama and U.S.)
• Alabama-Coosa-Tallaposa River Basin
Compact (Georgia, Alabama, and U.S.)
• These compacts provide for water
allocation, as well as water quality
protection and biodiversity conservation
Congressional Apportionment
• Advantages
–
–
–
–
Perhaps the most efficient way to allocate water
No dormant commerce clause issues
Direct protection of federal rights
Breaks impasse that may develop among States
• Disadvantages
– Can be perceived as heavy-handed
• But in recent years Congress has been very protective of
State’s rights
• Example of Water Quality Control Act Amendments of 1986 –
Gives every Great Lakes state veto over out of basin diversions
– Interferes with State control over water
The Law of the River
• Historical Flows
– 1896-1922: 16.9 MAF
1896-1990: 15.0 MAF
• 1922 Colorado River Compact
– Upper basin must deliver 75 MAF to lower basin over ten years
(but they can’t withhold water not needed for municipal or
agricultural uses). Arizona refused to ratify.
• Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928
– Authorized Boulder (Hoover) Dam and the All-American Canal
– Pre-approved lower basin compact allocation; Gila flows to AZ
• Mexican Treaty (1944)
– 1.5 MAF (Under the Colorado River Compact, this amount is
supplied first from any surplus, and then by equal amounts from
the upper and lower basins. Article III(c).
The Law of the River II
• 1948 Upper Basin Compact
– Arizona: 50,000 AF; Colorado: 51.75%; New Mexico: 11.25%;
Utah: 23.00%; Wyoming: 14.00%
• Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956
– Glen Canyon Dam (No Echo Park Dam)
– Blue Mesa on Gunnison; Navajo on San Juan; Flaming Gorge on
Green; Central Utah Project
• 1965 Arizona v. California decision
– Tributaries to Arizona; Congressional apportionment of river
pursuant to contracts with the Secretary of the Interior
• Arizona 2.8 MAF; California 4.4 MAF; Nevada
0.3 MAF
• Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968
– Central AZ Project approved; Grand Canyon dams rejected; 5
upper basin dams approved; coal fired power plant approved; ban
on even studying water diversions from Pacific Northwest
Colorado River Issues
• Intra-basin transfers and water marketing
– Promoted by the Interior Department with apparent
power to make allocation decisions under Arizona v.
California decision
• In 2001, Nevada agreed to pay Arizona $170M to bank 1.2 MAF
• Mexican Treaty issues
– Quality and quantity/Colorado River Delta
• Environmental problems
– Endangered species
– Salton Sea
– Colorado River Delta
Q & D: Colorado River
• Upper Basin is currently using only 4 MAF of its 7.5
MAF.
– Can they sell their excess to a lower basin State?
– To a private company or municipality in the lower basin?
– To a private company in the Upper Basin that uses the
River to deliver to a customer in the lower basin?
– Why do you think this has not yet been a big issue?
• If there had been no compact, how do you think
the Court would have allocated the River?
• Should the Court simply recognize priorities across
state boundaries?
– What practical problems would arise?
Missouri River Basin
http://infolink.cr.usgs.gov/Maps/basin-tribes.gif
Missouri River
• Heavily developed at taxpayer expense
– Numerous dams provide irrigation, flood control,
navigation improvements, and electric power
generation
• No congressional apportionment as such, but
heavy federal role effectively keeps river under
federal control
• 27 Indian tribes in the Basin create significant
uncertainty about the amount of non-Indian water
available over the long term.
International Water Law
• 214 multinational water basins
– 40% of the world’s population
– 13 River basins are shared by five or more countries
• To what extent can interstate allocation principles be
translated to the international arena?
• Harmon Doctrine of absolute sovereignty
– To what extent will this hinder or help compromise?
• The Trail Smelter case
– “No state has the right to use or permit the use of its
territory is such as a manner as to cause injury in or
tow another territory … when the case is of serious
consequence….”
– Principle 21, Stockholm Declaration; Principle 2: Rio
Helsinki Rules on the Use of
Waters in International Rivers
• “Each basin State is entitled, within its territory,
to a reasonable and equitable share in the
beneficial uses of an international drainage
basin.” (1966)
• Not adopted but influential in addressing
conflicts
Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational
Uses of International Watercourses
• General provision for equitable and reasonable utilization
and participation
– Based on enumerated factors
• Obligation not to cause significant harm, and to mitigate
harm that has been caused
– Trail Smelter concept
• Exchange of water data
• Joint protection of the ecology
• Only 12 (downstream?) countries have signed the
convention. It requires 35 to take effect
Rio
Grande
River
Basin
http://mrgbi.fws.gov/
Resources/Dams/
Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909
• Applies to all boundary waters between U.S. and Canada
• Navigation in all navigable boundary waters to remain “free
and open”
• Establishes the International Joint Commission (IJC)
– Six commissioners – 3 from each country
– Authority to review and approve uses, obstructions, and
diversions “affecting the natural level or flow of boundary
waters on the other side of the line.” Art. III.
• Decisions by majority vote
– Examines questions and issues reports on referrals from
either government
• Domestic uses preferred over navigation, which are preferred
over power and irrigation
– Each party reserves exclusive rights to divert water
Nile River Basin
http://encarta.msn.com/media_461519267_761558310_-1_1/Nile_River.html
Problems
• Water scarcity
– Annual renewable freshwater is less than 1000 cubic
meters/year = 11,772 cubic feet/year = 32.25 cubic feet per
day = 241 gallons per day
• Water quality
• Too much agriculture
– 80% of water goes to agriculture
• Egypt – the biggest user and the most dependent on the Nile
– is the farthest downstream
• 1959 bilateral treaty between Sudan and Egypt tries to
allocate the entire River to these two countries