Inter-State Water Law in the United States of America

What Lessons for International Water Law?

in Brill Research Perspectives in International Water Law
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.


Have Institutional Access?

Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



The rich field of inter-state water law in the United States illustrates both successes and failures in transboundary water management and allocation. This monograph analyzes the three general approaches to water allocation between riparian states to certain shared watercourses in the United States, namely equitable apportionment, congressional apportionment, and inter-state compacts. This analysis is accompanied by a discussion and evaluation of the different cases of shared watercourses that applied these approaches, and a comparison of each of them to similar approaches in international water law. The monograph draws lessons for international water law from inter-state water law—highlighting the successful inter-state approaches that can be adopted by international water law, as well as the approaches that failed, and which should be avoided.

Inter-State Water Law in the United States of America

What Lessons for International Water Law?

in Brill Research Perspectives in International Water Law



  • AbbottKenneth W. & Duncan Snidal‘Strengthening International Regulation through Transnational New Governance: Overcoming the Orchestration Deficit,’ Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational LawVol. 42(2) (2009) pp. 501578.

  • AbderrahmanWalid A.‘Energy and Water in Arid Developing Countries: Saudi Arabia, A Case-Study,’ International Journal of Water Resources DevelopmentVol. 17(2) (2010) pp. 247255.

  • AbramsRobert H.‘Transboundary Water Allocation Risks of Compacts: Who Wins When Legal Rules Face Adaptive Challenges,’ Rocky Mountain Mineral Law InstituteVol. 60 c. 91 (2014).

  • AbramsRobert H.‘Water, Climate Change, and the Law: Integrated Eastern States Water Management Founded on a New Cooperative Federalism,’ Environmental Law Reporter News & AnalysisVol. 42(5) (2012) pp. 1043310449.

  • Acordo sobre o Aquífero Guarani [Agreement on the Guarani Aquifer]2 August 2010Argentina-Brazil-Paraguay-Uruguay Ministério Das Relações Exteriores [Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs].

  • AdlerRobert W.‘Climate Change and the Hegemony of State Water Law,’ Stanford Environmental Law JournalVol. 29(1) (2010) pp. 161.

  • AdlerRobert W.‘The Ancient Mariner of Constitutional Law: The Historical, Yet Declining Role of Navigability,’ Washington University Law ReviewVol. 90(2) (2013) pp. 16431706.

  • Agreement Between the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for the Management and Utilization of the Ground Waters of the Al-Sag/Al-Disi Layer (April 202015)

  • AllanJ. A.‘Virtual Water—The Water, Food, and Trade Nexus: Useful Concept or Misleading Metaphor?,’ Water InternationalVol. 28(1) (2003) pp. 106113.

  • AllanJ. A.‘Virtual Water—Part of an Invisible Synergy that Ameliorates Water Scarcity,’ in Peter RogersRamon Llamas & Luis Martinez-Cortina (eds.) Water Crisis: Myth or Reality pp. 131150 (Taylor & Francis2006).

  • AndersonTerry L. & Clay J. Landry‘Exporting Water to the World,’ Water Resources Update(Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education)Vol. 118(1) pp. 6067 (2001).

  • Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 48–3771–3783 (2017).

  • Arizona v. California373 u.s. 546 (1963).

  • Arkansas Democrat-Gazette v. Zimmerman20 S.W.3d 301 304.

  • ArnoldCraig Anthony‘Adaptive Watershed Planning and Climate Change,’ Environmental & Energy Law & PolicyVol. 5(2) (2010) pp. 417487.

  • ArnoldCraig Anthony‘Fourth-Generation Environmental Law: Integrationist and Multimodal,’ William & Mary Environmental Law & Policy ReviewVol. 35(3) (2011) pp. 771884.

  • AugustJack L.Jr.The Vision in the Desert: Carl Hayden and Hydropolitics in the American Southwest (Texas Christian University Press1999).

  • Bean v. Morris221 u.s. 485496487 (1911).

  • BiberEric‘The Price of Admission: Causes, Effects, and Patterns of Conditions Imposed on States Entering the Union,’ American Journal of Legal HistoryVol. 46(2) (2004) pp. 119208.

  • Blomgren BinghamLisa‘The Next Generation of Administrative Law: Building the Legal Infrastructure for Collaborative Governance,’ Wisconsin Law ReviewVol. 2010(2) (2010) pp. 297356.

  • BlummMichael C. & Rachel D. Guthrie‘Internationalizing the Public Trust Doctrine: Natural Law and Constitutional and Statutory Approaches to Fulfilling the Saxion Vision,’ UC Davis Law ReviewVol. 45(3) (2012) pp. 741808.

  • BoelensRutgerdArmando Guevara-Gil & Aldo Panfichi‘Indigenous Water Rights in the Andes: Struggles Over Resources and Legitimacy,’ Journal of Water LawVol. 20(5) (2009) pp. 268277.

  • BonnheimNoah Byron‘History of Climate Engineering,’ Climate ChangeVol. 1(4) (2010) pp. 891897.

  • Boulder Canyon Project Act45 Stat. 1057 (1928) (codified at 43 u.s.c. § 617–617u (2014)).

  • BradshawKaren & Dean Lueck (eds.) Wildfire Policy: Law and Economics Perspectives (RFF Press2012).

  • BradshawKaren & Dean Lueck‘Contracting for Control of Landscapes,’ Iowa Law ReviewVol. 100(6) (2015) pp. 25072549.

  • BretsenStephen N. & Peter J. Hill‘Water Markets as a Tragedy of the Anticommons,’ William & Mary Environmental Law & Policy ReviewVol. 33(3) (2009) pp. 723783.

  • Brown WeissEdith‘The Coming Water Crisis: A Common Concern of Humankind,’ Transnational Environmental LawVol. 1(1) (2012) pp. 153168.

  • Brown WeissEdith‘Water Transfers and International Trade Law,’ in Edith Brown WeissLaurence Boisson de Chazournes & Nathalie Bernasconi-Osterwalder (eds.) Fresh Water and International Economic Law pp. 6192 (Oxford University Press2005).

  • BruhlAaron-Andrew P.‘Hierarchically Variable Deference to Agency Interpretations,’ Notre Dame Law ReviewVol. 89(2) (2013) pp. 727784.

  • Bureau of ReclamationColorado River Interim Guidelines for the Operation of Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead73 f.r. 19873–19801 (2008).

  • CampbellRobert L. & Anthony T. Jones‘Appropriate Disposal of Effluent from Coastal Desalination Facilities,’ DesalinationVol. 182(1) (2005) pp. 365372.

  • CannonBillTexas: Land of Legend and Lore (Republic of Texas Press2004).

  • Cappaert v. United States426 u.s. 128 141 (1976).

  • CarstensAnne-Marie C.‘Lurking in the Shadows of Judicial Process: Special Masters in the Court’s Original Jurisdiction Cases,’ Minnesota Law ReviewVol. 86(2) (2002) pp. 625715.

  • CazurraTomás‘Water Reuse of South Barcelona’s Wastewater Reclamation Plant,’ DesalinationVol. 218(1) (2008) pp. 4351.

  • CoaseRonald‘The Problem of Social Cost,’ Journal of Law & EconomicsVol. 3(1) (1960) pp. 144.

  • Colorado River Compact70 Cong. Rec. 325 (1928).

  • Colorado v. Kansas320 u.s. 383 392 (1943).

  • Colorado v. New Mexico459 u.s. 176 (1982).

  • Complaint at 2–7Wind River Resources LLC v. FrisbyNo. 2:08-cv-00653-KJD-GWF (D. Nev. May 21 2008).

  • Constitution of Ecuador (2008).

  • Convention on the Law of Non-navigational Uses of International Watercoursesg.a. Res. 51 Res. 51/229 un gaor 51st Sess. Supp. No. 49 un Doc. A/RES/51/229 (July 81997).

  • Convention on the Protection Utilisation Recharge and Monitoring of the Franco-Swiss Genevois Aquifer (January 12008).

  • CooterRobert D.The Strategic Constitution (Princeton University Press2000).

  • CraigRobin Kundis“ ‘Stationarity is Dead’—Long Live Transformation: Five Principles for Climate Change Adaptation Law,” Harvard Environmental Law ReviewVol. 34(1) (2009) pp. 973.

  • CraigRobin Kundis‘Comparative Guide to Western States’ Public Trust Doctrines: Public Values, Private Rights, and the Evolution Toward an Ecological Public Trust,’ Ecology Law QuarterlyVol. 37(1) (2010) pp. 53197.

  • CraigRobin Kundis‘Constitutional Contours for the Design and Implementation of Multistate Renewable Energy Programs and Projects,’ University of Colorado Law ReviewVol. 81(3) (2010) pp. 771832.

  • CraigRobin Kundis‘Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking), Federalism, and the Water-Energy Nexus,’ Idaho Law ReviewVol. 49(2) (2013) pp. 242264.

  • Culyer v. Adams449 u.s. 433 438 (1981).

  • DavenportJames H.‘Softening the Divides: The Seven Colorado River Basin States’ Recommendation to the Secretary of the Interior Regarding Lower Basin Shortage Guidelines and the Operation of Lakes Mead and Powell in the Low Reservoir Conditions,’ University of Denver Water Law ReviewVol. 10 (2) (2007) pp. 287312.

  • DavisSeth‘The False Promise of Fiduciary Government,’ Notre Dame Law ReviewVol. 89(3) (2014) pp. 11451207.

  • DavisSeth‘Tribal Rights of Action,’ Columbia Human Rights Law ReviewVol. 45(2) (2014) pp. 499551.

  • deBuysWilliam ed. Seeing Things Whole: The Essential John Wesley Powell (Island Press2001).

  • Delaware River Basin CompactPub. L. No. 87–328 75 Stat. 688 (1961)

  • DellapennaJoseph W.‘Interstate Struggles Over Rivers: The Southeastern States and the Struggle Over the *Hooch,’ NYU Environmental Law JournalVol. 12(1) (2005) pp. 828900.

  • DellapennaJoseph W.‘The Evolution of Riparianism in the United States,’ Marquette Law ReviewVol. 95(2) (2011) pp. 5390.

  • DennisArnett S.‘Weather Modification by Cloud Seeding,’ International Geophysics SeriesVol. 24(3) (1980).

  • EcksteinGabriel‘A Hydrogeological Perspective on the Status of Groundwater Resources under the UN Watercourse Convention,’ Columbia Journal of Environmental LawVol. 30(2) (2005) pp. 525564.

  • EcksteinGabriel‘Hydraulic Harmony or Water Whimsy? Guarani Aquifer Countries Sign Agreement,’ International Water Law Project Blog (August 52010)

  • EngelKirsten‘State Environmental Standard-Setting: Is There a ‘Race’ and is it ‘To the Bottom’?,’ Hastings Law JournalVol. 48(3) (1997) pp. 271398.

  • EvansAllison‘The Groundwater/Surface Water Dilemma in Arizona: A Look Back and a Look Ahead Toward Conjunctive Management Reform,’ Phoenix Law ReviewVol. 3(1) (2010) pp. 269292.

  • FeatherstoneJeffrey P.‘Existing Interstate Compacts: The Law and the Lessons,’ Toledo Journal of Great Lakes Law Science and PolicyVol. 4(2) (2001) pp. 271282.

  • FleckJohn‘On the Brink of a Major Deal to Reduce Colorado River Water Use,’ Inkstain (November 62016)

  • FlemingJames R.‘The Climate Engineers,’ The Wilson QuarterlyVol. 31(2) (2007) pp. 4660.

  • FrankRichard M.‘The Public Trust Doctrine: Assessing its Recent Past and Charting its Future,’ UC Davis Law ReviewVol. 45(3) (2012) pp. 665691.

  • GarnerEric L. & Michelle Ouellette‘Future Shock? The Law of the Colorado River in the Twenty-First Century,’ Arizona State Law JournalVol. 27(3) (1995) pp. 469506.

  • General Agreement on Tariffs and TradeOctober 30194761 Stat. A-11 55 unts 194.

  • GetchesDavid H.‘Indigenous Peoples’ Rights to Water Under International Norms,’ Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law & PolicyVol. 16(1) (2005) pp. 259294.

  • GetchesDavid H.Water Law in a Nutshell 4th ed. (West Academic Publishing2009).

  • GetzlerJoshuaA History of Water Rights at Common Law (Oxford University Press2004).

  • GilliganMichael J.‘The Transaction Costs Approach to International Institutions, Power, Interdependence and Non-State Actors,’ in Helen V. Milner & Andrew Moravcsik eds. Power Interdependence and Nonstate Actors in World Politics pp. 5065 (Princeton University Press2009).

  • GirardotJoseph W.‘Toward a Rational Scheme of Inter-state Water Compact Adjudication,’ University of Michigan Journal of Legal ReformVol. 23(1) (1989) pp. 151177.

  • GlennonRobert & Jacob Kavkewitz“ ‘A Smashing Victory?’ Was Arizona v. California a Victory for the State of Arizona?,” Arizona Journal of Environmental Law & PolicyVol. 4(1) (2013) pp. 138.

  • GlennonRobert & Thomas Maddock III‘In Search of Subflow: Arizona’s Futile Effort to Separate Groundwater from Surface Water,’ Arizona Law ReviewVol. 36(2) (1994) pp. 567607.

  • GlicksamRobert L. & Richard E. Levy‘A Collective Action Perspective on Ceiling Preemption by Federal Environmental Regulation: The Case of Global climate Change,’ Northwestern University Law ReviewVol. 102(2) (2008) pp. 579648.

  • GrantDouglas L.‘Inter-state Water Allocation Compacts: When the Virtue of Permanence Becomes the Vice of Inflexibility,’ University of Colorado Law ReviewVol. 74(4) (2003) pp. 105180.

  • HallNoah D.‘Inter-state Water Compacts and Climate Change Adaptation,’ Environmental & Energy Law & Policy JournalVol. 5(2) (2010) pp. 237323.

  • HallNoah D. & Benjamin Cavataro‘Inter-state Groundwater Law in the Snake Valley: Equitable Apportionment and a New Model for Transboundary Aquifer Management,’ Utah Law ReviewVol. 2013 (3) (2013) pp. 15531626.

  • HardbergerAmy‘Powering the Tap Dry: Regulatory Alternatives for the Energy-Water Nexus,’ University of Colorado Law ReviewVol. 84(3) (2013) pp. 529579.

  • HardbergerAmy‘What Lies Beneath: Determining the Necessity of International Groundwater Policy Along the United States-Mexico Border and a Roadmap to an Agreement,’ Texas Tech Law ReviewVol. 35(1) (2004) pp. 12111258.

  • HarseGrant‘Nebraska’s Costs of Compliance with the Republican River Compact: An Equitable Solution,’ Kansas Journal of Law and Public PolicyVol. 19(1) (2009) pp. 124147.

  • HasdayJill Elaine‘Inter-state Compacts in a Democratic Society: The Problem of Permanency,’ Florida Law ReviewVol. 49(1) (1997) pp. 147.

  • HaytonRobert D. & Albert E. Utton‘Transboundary Groundwaters: The Bellagio Draft Treaty,’ Natural Resources JournalVol. 29(3) (1989) pp. 663722.

  • HellerMichael A.‘The Boundaries of Private Property,’ Yale Law JournalVol. 108(2) (1999) pp. 11631223.

  • HibbertAlden R.‘Water Yield Improvement Potential by Vegetation Management on Western Rangelands,’ Journal of American Water Resources AssociationVol. 19(3) (1983) pp. 375381.

  • HirokawaKeith‘Some Pragmatic Observations about Radical Critique in Environmental Law,’ Stanford Environmental Law JournalVol. 21(1) (2002) pp. 225235.

  • HobbsGregory J.Jr.‘Eighth Update to Colorado Water Law: An Historical Overview,’ University of Denver Water Law ReviewVol. 16(1) (2012) 137.

  • HobbsGregory J.Jr.‘The Role of Climate in Shaping Western Water Institutions,’ University of Denver Water Law ReviewVol. 7(1) (2003) pp. 146.

  • HoekstraY. & A. K. Chapagain‘Water Footprints of Nations: Water Use by People as a Function of Their Consumption Pattern,’ Water Resources ManagementVol. 21(1) (2007) pp 3548.

  • Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter209 u.s. 349 (1908).

  • HudsonBlake‘Reconstituting Land-Use Federalism to Address Transitory and Perpetual Disasters: The Bimodal Federalism Framework,’ BYU Law ReviewVol. 2011(6) (2011) pp. 19912061.

  • Hughes v. Oklahoma441 u.s. 322 336 (1979).

  • In re Gen. Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in Big Horn River System 753 P.2d 76 101 (Wyo. 1988).

  • In re the Gen. Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System & Source 35 P.3d 68 78–80 (Ariz. 2001).

  • International Law AssociationHelsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers and Comments Report of the Fifty-Second Conference (1966).

  • Inter-American Charter of Social Guarantees1948 reprinted in Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Relations 7631012 (Edmund JanOsmanczyk ed. 2003).

  • International Boundary and Water CommissionMinute 319: Interim International Cooperative Measures in the Colorado River Basin through 2017 and Extension of Minute 318 Cooperative Measures to Address the Continued Effects of the April 2010 Earthquake in the Mexicali Valley Baja California (November 202012).

  • International Joint Commission‘Protection of the Waters of the Great Lakes, Final Report 6,’ International Joint Commission (2000).

  • International Law AssociationFinal Report of the Water Resources Law Committee in Report of the Seventy-First Conference of the International Law Association’ International Law Association (2004)

  • Interstate Council on Water Policy‘Interstate River Basin Organization Source Water Protection Survey,’ Interstate Council on Water Policy (February 2012)

  • Interstate Water Apportionment Compactsu.s. Fish and Wildlife Service

  • JohnsonNathan C.‘Protecting Our Water Compacts: The Looming Threat of Unilateral Congressional Interaction,’ Wisconsin Law ReviewVol. 2010(3) (2010) pp. 875905.

  • Kansas v. Colorado206 u.s. 46 (1907).

  • Kansas v. Nebraska135 S. Ct. 1042 (2015).

  • KemmisDenialThis Sovereign Land: A New Vision for Governing the West (Island Press2001).

  • KhaliliMorteza al.‘Results of Cloud Seeding Operations for Precipitation Enhancement in Iran during 1999–2007,’ Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification/Weather Modification Association (April 222008)

  • KibelPaul S.‘Grasp on Water: A Natural Resource that Eludes NAFTA’s Notion of Investment,’ Ecology Law QuarterlyVol. 34(2) (2007) pp. 655672.

  • KimYoung al.‘Overview of Systems Engineering Approaches for Large-Scale Seawater Desalination Plant with a Reverse Osmosis Network,’ DesalinationVol. 238(3) (2009) pp. 312332.

  • KingJonathan S.Peter W. Culp & Carlos de la Parra‘Getting to the Right Side of the River: Lessons for Binational Cooperation on the Road to Minute 319,’ University of Denver Water Law ReviewVol. 18(1) (2014) pp. 35114.

  • KitzeRachel A.‘Moving Past Preemption: Enhancing the Power of Local Governments Over Hydraulic Fracturing,’ Minnesota Law ReviewVol. 98(1) (2013) pp. 385418.

  • KleinChristine A.‘The Dormant Commerce Clause and Water Export: Toward a New Analytical Paradigm,’ Harvard Environmental Law ReviewVol. 35(1) (2011) pp. 131154.

  • KleinChristine A.‘The Environmental Commerce Clause,’ Harvard Environmental Law ReviewVol. 27(1) (2003) pp. 170.

  • KleinChristine A.‘Water Bankruptcy,’ Minnesota Law ReviewVol. 97(2) (2012) pp. 560624.

  • KohloffKarl & David Roberts‘Beyond the Colorado River: Is an International Water Augmentation Consortium in Arizona’s Future?,’ Arizona Law ReviewVol. 49(2) (2007) pp. 257286.

  • KouridesP. Nicholas‘The Influence of Islamic Law on Contemporary Middle Eastern Legal Systems: The Formation and Binding Force of Contracts,’ Columbia Journal of Transnational LawVol. 9(1) (1970) pp. 384435.

  • KylJon & Ryan A Smith‘Forward: Water Law and Policy Conference,’ Arizona Law ReviewVol. 49(2) (2007) pp. 209216.

  • LarsonRhett B.‘Augmented Water Law,’ Texas Tech Law ReviewVol. 48(3) (2016) pp. 757781.

  • LarsonRhett B.‘Holy Water and Human Rights: Indigenous Peoples’ Religious-Rights Claims to Water Resources,’ Arizona Journal of Environmental Law & PolicyVol. 2(1) (2011) pp. 81109.

  • LarsonRhett B.‘Innovation and International Commons: The Case of Desalination under International Law,’ Utah Law ReviewVol. 2012(2) (2012) pp. 759819.

  • LarsonRhett B.‘Interstitial Federalism,’ UCLA Law ReviewVol. 62(4) (2015) pp. 908968.

  • LarsonRhett B.‘Reconciling Energy and Food Security,’ University of Richmond Law ReviewVol. 48(4) (2014) pp 929958.

  • LarsonRhett B.‘The Case of Canadian Bulk Water Exports,’ Canadian Global Affairs Institute (2015)

  • LarsonRhett B.‘The New Right in Water,’ Washington & Lee Law ReviewVol. 70(4) (2013) pp. 21812267.

  • LarsonRhett & Kelly Kennedy‘Bankrupt Rivers,’ UC Davis Law ReviewVol. 49(4) (2016) pp. 13351383.

  • Boisson de ChazournesLaurenceInternational Law and Freshwater: The Multiple Challenges (Edward Elgar2013).

  • Lehigh Falls Fishing Club v. Andrejewski123 A.2d 636 (Pa. 1956).

  • LeibEthan J.David L. Ponet & Michael Serota‘A Fiduciary Theory of Judging,’ California Law ReviewVol. 101(3) (2013) pp. 699753.

  • LeibEthan J.David L. Ponet & Michael Serota‘Translating Fiduciary Principles into Public Law,’ Harvard Law Review ForumVol. 126(3) (2013) pp. 91101.

  • LincecumJerry B.‘Red River Bridge War,’ in Kenneth L. Untied (ed.) Folklore in Motion: Texas Travel Lore pp. 2534 (University of North Texas Press2007).

  • LongElisabethWyoming v. USDA: A Look Down the Road at Management of Inventoried Roadless Areas for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation,’ Ecology Law QuarterlyVol. 40(2) (2013) pp. 329383.

  • LoomisBrandon‘Reduction in Tree Cover Over Rivers Could Mean More Water Flow,’ The Arizona Republic (October 302015).

  • LoucksDaniel P.‘Managing America’s Rivers: Who’s Doing It?,’ International Journal of River Basin ManagementVol. 1(1) (2003) pp. 2131.

  • Louisiana v. Mississippi516 u.s. 221 (1995).

  • LubowskiRubenMarlow VesterbyShawn BucholtzAlba Baez and Michael J. RobertsMajor Uses of Land in the United States2002EIB-14 (u.s. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service 2006).

  • MacDonnellLawrence J.Arizona v. California: Its Meaning and Significance for the Colorado River and Beyond After Fifty Years,’ Arizona Journal of Environmental law & PolicyVol. 4(1) (2013) pp. 88129.

  • MaravillaChristopher S.‘The Canadian Bulk Water Moratorium and its Implications for NAFTA,’ Currents: International Trade Law JournalVol. 10(1) (2001) pp. 2935.

  • Martin v. Waddell’s Lessee41 u.s. 367 411 (1842).

  • MatsonJeffrey T.‘Interstate Water Compact Version 3.0: Missouri River Basin Compact Drafters Should Consider an Inter-Sovereign Approach to Accommodate Federal and Tribal Interests in Water Resources,’ North Dakota Law ReviewVol. 88(1) (2012) pp. 97138.

  • MaylandKirt‘Navigating the Murky Waters of Connecticut’s Water Allocation Scheme,’ Quinnipiac Law ReviewVol. 24(2) 885 (2006).

  • McCaffreyStephen C.‘The International Law Commission Adopts Draft Articles on International Watercourses,’ American Journal of International LawVol. 89(2) (1995) pp. 395404.

  • McConkeyDiane E.‘Federal Reserved Rights to Instream Flows in the National Forests,’ Virginia Environmental Law JournalVol. 13(2) (1994) pp. 305322.

  • McCormickZachary L.‘Interstate Water Allocation Compacts in the Western United States—Some Suggestions,’ Water Resources BulletinVol. 30(3) (1994) pp. 385395.

  • Missouri v. Illinois200 u.s. 496 521 (1906).

  • Montana v. Wyoming131 S.Ct. 1765 (2011).

  • MorrisonMichael D. & Keith Dollahite‘The Public Trust Doctrine: Insuring the Needs of Texas Bays and Estuaries,’ Baylor Law ReviewVol. 37(3) (1985) pp. 365424.

  • NaffThomas‘Islamic Law and the Politics of Water,’ in Joseph W. Delapenna & JoyeetaGupta (eds.) The Evolution of the Law and Politics of Water pp. 3752 (Springer2008).

  • NaffThomas & Joseph Dellapenna‘Can There Be a Confluence? A Comparative Consideration of Western and Islamic Fresh Water Law,’ Water PolicyVol. 4(6) (2002) pp. 465489.

  • National Park & Conservation Association v. Stanton54 F. Supp. 2d 7 (d.d.c. 1999).

  • Nebraska Revise Statutes § 46–613.01 (2015).

  • Nebraska v. Iowa143 u.s. 359 (1892).

  • Nebraska v. Wyoming325 u.s. 589 (1945).

  • Nebraska v. Wyoming515 u.s. 1115 (1995).

  • North American Free Trade AgreementDecember 81993107 Stat. 2057 32 i.l.m. 289.

  • O’LearyMarilyn C.‘The Bellagio Draft Treaty as a Tool for Solving Border Groundwater Issues,’ U.S.-Mexico Law JournalVol. 11(1) (2003) pp. 5760.

  • Pahl-WostlClaudia‘Transitions Towards Adaptive Management of Water Facing Climate and Global Change,’ Water Resource ManagementVol. 21(1) (2007) pp. 4962.

  • ParlowMatthew J.‘Civic Republicanism, Public Choice Theory, and Neighborhood Councils: A New Model for Civic Engagement,’ University of Colorado Law ReviewVol. 79(3) (2008) pp. 137188.

  • Paschal OsbornRachael‘Climate Change and the Columbia River Treaty,’ Washington Journal of Environmental Law & PolicyVol. 2(1) (2012) pp. 75123.

  • PatashnikJoshArizona v. California and the Equitable Apportionment of Interstate Waterways,’ Arizona Law ReviewVol. 56(1) (2014) pp. 151.

  • Pedraza-FariñaLaura‘Conceptions of Civil Society in International Lawmaking and Implementation: A Theoretical Framework,’ Michigan Journal of International LawVol. 34(3) (2013) pp. 605673.

  • Pike v. Bruce Church397 u.s. 137 142 (1970).

  • Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagen44 u.s. 212 216 (1845).

  • PPL Montana LLC v. Montana132 S. Ct. 1215 1235 (2012).

  • PriceDean Waters‘The Legal and Historical Barriers to Out-of-District Transfers from Mainstream Colorado River Irrigation Districts in Arizona,’ University of Denver Water Law ReviewVol. 15(1) (2011) pp. 529.

  • Programme for the Development of a Regional Strategy for the Utilisation of the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System—Terms of Reference for the Monitoring and Exchange of Groundwater Information of the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System (Tripoli October 5 2000).

  • RauscherH. Michael‘Ecosystem Management Decision Support for Federal Forests in the United States: A Review,’ Forest Ecology and ManagementVol. 114(2–3) (1999) pp. 173197.

  • Red River Compact Act of December 22 1980 Pub. L. No. 96–564 94 Stat. 3305.

  • ReederLaura‘Creating a Legal Framework for Regulation of Natural Gas Extraction from the Marcellus Shale Formation,’ William & Mary Environmental Law & Policy ReviewVol. 34(3) (2010) pp. 9991026.

  • ReiblichJesse & Christine A. Klein‘Climate Change and Water Transfers,’ Pepperdine Law ReviewVol. 41(3) (2014) pp. 439508.

  • ReisnerMarcCadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water (Penguin Books1993).

  • Republican River CompactKan. Stat. Ann. §82a–518 (1942).

  • RoseCarol‘The Comedy of the Commons: Custom, Commerce, and Inherently Public Property,’ University of Chicago Law ReviewVol. 53(3) (1986) pp. 711781.

  • RosenbloomJonathan‘New Day at the Pool: State Preemption, Common Pool Resources, and Non-Place Based Municipal Collaborations,’ Harvard Environmental Law ReviewVol. 36(2) (2012) pp. 445485.

  • RowberryRyan‘Drinking from the Same Cup: Federal Reserved Water Rights and National Parks in the Eastern United States,’ Georgia State University Law ReviewVol. 29(4) (2013) pp. 9871023.

  • RuhlJ. B.‘General Design Principles for Resilience and Adaptive Capacity in Legal Systems—With Application to Climate Change Adaptation,’ North Carolina Law ReviewVol. 89(5) (2011) pp. 13731403.

  • RyanErin‘Negotiating Federalism,’ Boston College Law ReviewVol. 52(1) (2011) pp. 1136.

  • SadoffClaudia W. & David Grey‘Beyond the River: The Benefits of Cooperation on International Rivers,’ Water PolicyVol. 4(5) (2002) pp. 389403.

  • SalmanSalman‘The Helsinki Rules, the UN Watercourses Convention and the Berlin Rules: Perspectives on International Law,’ Water Resources DevelopmentVol. 23(4) (2007) pp. 625640.

  • SalmanSalman‘Inter-States Water Disputes in India: An Analysis of the Settlement Process,’ Water PolicyVol. 4(3) (2002) pp. 223237.

  • SarineL. Elizabeth‘The Supreme Court’s Problematic Deference to Special Masters in Interstate Water Disputes,’ Ecology Law QuarterlyVol. 39(2) (2012) pp. 535569.

  • SaxJoseph L.‘The Limits of Private Rights in Public Waters,’ Environmental LawVol. 19(2) (1989) pp. 473483.

  • SaxJoseph L.‘The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention,’ Michigan Law ReviewVol. 68(1) (1970) pp. 471566.

  • SaxJoseph al.Legal Control of Water Resources Cases and Materials 4th ed. (Thomson West2006).

  • SaxerShelley Ross‘The Fluid Nature of Property Rights in Water,’ Duke Environmental Law & Policy ForumVol. 21(1) (2010) pp. 49112.

  • SchäferhoffMarcoet al.‘Transnational Public-Private Partnerships in International Relations: Making Sense of Concepts, Research Frameworks, and Results,’ International Studies ReviewVol. 11(3) (2009) pp. 451474.

  • Shively v. Bowlby152 u.s. 1 (1894).

  • SmitErica C.‘Geoengineering: Issues of Accountability in International Law,’ Nevada Law JournalVol. 15(2) (2015) pp. 10601089.

  • South Carolina v. North Carolina130 S. Ct. 854 (2010).

  • Sporhase v. Nebraska458 u.s. 941 (1982).

  • SquillaceMark & Alexander Hood‘NEPA, Climate Change, and Public Lands Decision-Making,’ Environmental LawVol. 42(2) (2012) pp. 469526.

  • StanfordJ. A. & J. V. Ward‘Management of Aquatic Resources in Large Catchments: Recognizing Interactions between Ecosystem Connectivity and Environmental Disturbance,’ in Robert J. Naiman (ed.) Watershed Management: Balancing Sustainability and Environmental Change pp. 91124(Springer2002).

  • StegnerWallaceBeyond the Hundredth Meridian: John Wesley Powell and the Second Opening of the West (Penguin Books1954).

  • StoaRyan B.‘The United Nations Watercourses Convention on the Dawn of Entry Into Force,’ Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational LawVol. 47(5) (2014) pp. 13211370.

  • StriflingDavid A.‘An Ecosystem Based Approach to Slowing the Synergistic Effects of Invasive Species and Climate Change,’ Duke Environmental Law & Policy ForumVol. 22(1) (2011) pp. 145193.

  • TarlockA. Dan‘The Creation of New Risk Sharing Water Entitlement Regimes: The Case of the Truckee-Carson Settlement,’ Ecology Law QuarterlyVol. 25(4) (1999) pp. 674691.

  • TarlockA. Dan‘The Law of Equitable Apportionment Revisited, Updated, and Restated,’ University of Colorado Law ReviewVol. 56(4) (1985) pp. 381411.

  • TarlockA. Dan‘The Potential Role of Local Governments in Watershed Management,’ Pace Environmental Law ReviewVol. 20(1) (2002) pp. 149176.

  • TarlockA. Dan‘Towards a More Robust International Water Law of Cooperation to Address Droughts and Ecosystem Conservation,’ Georgetown Environmental Law ReviewVol. 28(2) (2016) pp. 261290.

  • TarlockA. DanSafeguarding International River Ecosystems in Times of ScarcityUniversity of Denver Water Law ReviewVol. 3(1) (2000) pp. 231272.

  • TarlockA. DanLaw of Water Rights and Resource (Thomson Reuters2000).

  • TarlockA. Dan & Patricia Wouters‘Are Shared Benefits of International Waters an Equitable Apportionment?,’ Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law & PolicyVol. 18(1) (2007) pp. 523536.

  • Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann133 S. Ct. 2120 (2013).

  • TaylorHolly‘Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann: Interpreting Silence in Inter-state Water Compacts with Respect to State Boundaries and the Right to Access Water,’ University of Denver Water Law ReviewVol. 17(1) (2013) pp. 138155.

  • TeclaffLudwik A.‘Evolution of the River Basin Concept in National and International Water Law,’ Natural Resources JournalVol. 36(2) (1996) pp. 359391.

  • TeclaffLudwik A.‘The River Basin Concept and Global Climate Change,’ Pace Environmental Law ReviewVol. 8(2) (1991) pp. 355388.

  • TellinghuisenStacy‘Water for Power Generation: What’s the Value?,’ Natural Resources JournalVol. 50(3) (2010) pp. 683720.

  • Texas v. New Mexico482 u.s. 124 128 (1987).

  • Charter of Waters of the Senegal River2002 [].

  • The Daniel Ball77 u.s. 557 (1871).

  • ThompsonBarton H.Jr.‘A Federal Act to Promote Integrated Water Management: Is the CZMA a Useful Model?,’ Environmental LawVol. 42(1) (2012) pp. 201240.

  • ThompsonBarton H.Jr.‘The Public Trust Doctrine: A Conservative Reconstruction & Defense,’ Southeastern Environmental Law JournalVol. 15(1) (2006) pp. 4770.

  • TirJaroslav & Douglas M. Stinnett‘The Institutional Design of Riparian Treaties: The Role of River Issues,’ Journal of Conflict ResolutionVol. 55(4) (2011) pp. 606631.

  • Treaty Between Canada and the United States of American Relating to Cooperative Development of the Water Resources of the Columbia River Basin January 17 1961 542 UNTS 244 (1964).

  • Treaty Between the United States of America and Mexico Respecting the Utilization of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande February 3 1944 59 Stat. 1219.

  • TreleaseFrank J.‘State Water and State Lines: Commerce in Water Resources,’ University of Colorado Law ReviewVol. 56(4) (1985) pp. 347379.

  • TroendleCharlesMarc WilcoxGreg Bevenger & Laurie Porth‘The Coon Creek Water Yield Augmentation Project: Implementation of Timber Harvesting Technology to Increase Streamflow,’ Forest Ecology and ManagementVol. 143(13) (2001) pp. 179187.

  • Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights Settlement ActPub.L. No. 101–618 104 Stat. 3294 (1990).

  • United Haulers Association Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority550 u.s. 330 338 (2007).

  • United Nations Conference on Environment and Development Agenda 21 un Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. II) (1992).

  • United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoplesg.a. Res. 61/295 un Doc. A/RES61/295 (September 132007).

  • United State Constitution.

  • [See Lubowski above]United States v. Adair 723 F.2d 1394 1414 (9th Cir. 1983).

  • United States v. New Mexico438 u.s. 696 718 (1978).

  • UrbinaIan‘Drilling Down: Regulation Lax as Gas Wells’ Tainted Water Hits River,’ New York Times (February 262011)

  • VickMargaret J.‘The Law of International Waters: Reasonable Utilization,’ Chicago-Kent Journal of International & Comparative LawVol. 12(1) (2012) pp. 141178.

  • WareEugene F.Roman Water Law: Translated from the Pendects of Justinian (West Publishing1905).

  • WattersMolly M.‘Fish and Federalism: How the Asian Carp Litigation Highlights a Deficiency in the Federal Common Law Displacement Analysis,’ Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative LawVol. 2(2) (2013) pp. 535562.

  • WeberRobert F.‘New Governance, Financial Regulation, and Challenges to Legitimacy: The Example of Internal Models Approach to Capital Adequacy Regulation,’ Administrative Law ReviewVol. 62(3) (2010) pp. 783869.

  • Wesley PowellJohnReport on the Lands of the Arid Region of the United States with a More Detailed Account of the Lands of Utah (Harvard Common Press1983).

  • Wesley PowellJohnThe Exploration of the Colorado River and Its Canyons (Dover Publications Inc.1961).

  • WestChad A.‘For Body, Soul, or Wealth: The Distinction, Evolution, and Policy Implications of a Water Ethic,’ Stanford Environmental Law JournalVol. 26(1) (2007) pp. 201234.

  • WienerJonathan B. Wiener‘Global Environmental Regulation: Instrument Choice in Legal Context,’ Yale Law JournalVol. 108(2) (1999) pp. 677800.

  • WilliamsB. K.R. C. Szaro & C. D. Shapiro‘Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Guide,’ Adaptive Management Working Group U.S. Department of the Interior (2009)

  • Winters v. United States207 u.s. 564 (1908).

  • WoodhouseMelvin‘Is Public Participation a Rule of the Law of International Watercourses?,’ Natural Resources JournalVol. 43(1) (2003) pp. 137183.

  • World Water Council‘E-Conference Synthesis: Virtual Water Trade—Conscious Choices,’ World Water Council (2004)

  • WorsterDonaldA River Running West: The Life of John Wesley Powell (Oxford University Press2001).

  • Wyoming v. Colorado259 u.s. 419 (1922).

  • Wyoming v. United States492 u.s. 406 (1989).

  • El-SayedY. M.‘The Rising Potential of Competitive Solar Desalination,’ DesalinationVol. 216(1–3) (2007) pp. 314324.

  • YoungErnest A.‘The Rehnquist Court’s Two Federalisms,’ Texas Law ReviewVol. 83(1) (2004) pp. 1165.

  • YounosTamim‘Environmental Issues of Desalination,’ Journal of Contemporary Water Research & EducationVol. 132(1) (2005) pp. 1118.

  • ZellmerSandra‘The Anti-Speculation Doctrine and its Implications for Collaborative Water Management,’ Nevada Law JournalVol. 8(3) (2008) pp. 9941030.

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 160 160 37
Full Text Views 215 215 2
PDF Downloads 7 7 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0