Introduction In a recent opinion, the Kansas Court of Appeals addressed the meaning and status of Kansas water law. The case of Garetson Brothers v. American Warrior, Inc., 51 Kan. App. 2d 370 (2015), concerns a groundwater dispute between senior water users and junior water users in southwest Kansas. After filing a complaint against the junior users, the senior users sought an injunction to stop the pumping of groundwater. The District Court granted the injunction and the Court of Appeals affirmed their decision. The issues in the case concerned what the term impairment means in the context of water law and whether it is appropriate for a court to grant injunctive relief to a senior water user. The Court of Appeal’s decision upholds the principle …show more content…
AWI presented two arguments against the injunction, 1) that it fails to maintain the statutes quo, and 2) that it does not serve to cure the Plaintiff’s injury. The Court of Appeals first found that an injunction should attempt to preserve the period when there were no issues between the parties, which in this case, was when AWI pumped less water. Second, the Court of Appeals found that an injunction need not cure the Plaintiff’s injury, but instead should serve to guard against future injury. While AWI alone may not be causing the entire drawdown, stopping their pumping should increase the overall supply of groundwater. In general, the Court of Appeals found that the District Court correctly applied the law in granting the injunction. After Garetson, senior waters users will find that injunctive relief will be a strong and available tool in future water disputes. Conclusion Going forward, the Court of Appeal’s decision in Garetson Brothers v. American Warrior will stand for the proposition that Kansas water laws mean what they say. Rather than consider any economic considerations, the only relevant factors will be who has the senior water right and whether an impairment has occurred. As groundwater becomes scarcer in Kansas, senior water users will likely find that Kansas laws will serve to protect their use over any junior water
On February 26th 1972, Dam 3 of the Buffalo Mining Company a subsidiary of the Pittston Coal Company, failed resulting in a flooding of the Buffalo Creek Hallow. The disaster caused property damage, wrongful death, and psychic impairment. West Virginia prohibited any dam built any dam built over “fifteen feet in height across any stream or watercourse without a prior determination by the state that it is safe” (15). The state’s failure to properly enforce this law gave Pittston the ability to claim the disaster was an act of God; this was supported by President Nixon who referred to this as a natural disaster (187). In his testimony Mr. Spotte, head of the Pittston Coal Group, stated the accident was a natural occurrence beyond the company’s control. However he admitted that this particular dam (3) was not built in the custom of the company other dams lacking a spillway system. This failure to ensure a standard constituted a negligent breach of duty (134-137).
The Grassy Narrows people have a long, deeply rooted history in the environmental justices movement. Rodgers (2009) points to a number of environmental justice struggles such as the fight against the harmful effects of mercury poisoning and the Minamata disease associated with it (para. 1-3), the Ontario Hydro dams that destroyed part of the wild rice harvest and degraded the habitat of fish and fur animals, as well as the displacement of the community (due to relocation into prefabricated houses where electricity and running water were promised) and the culture shock it created (para. 4). He also discusses the successful blockade in 2002, which is the longest-lasting blockade in Canadian history (para. 28)—an example that shows how employing legal methods were critical in the struggle against environmental injustices for this community. There are a number of other issues that will be discussed in the following paragraphs; the above are just a few of the injustices the Grassy Narrows community face.
This Paper will describe and analyze three articles pertaining to the ongoing debate for and against Glen Canyon Dam. Two of these articles were found in the 1999 edition of A Sense of Place, and the third was downloaded off a site on the Internet (http://www.glencanyon.net/club.htm). These articles wi...
Without multi-state agreements concerning changes in usage patterns, this could bring about intervention by the Federal courts that would effectively halt Atlanta’s development until the usage disputes were resolved. By comparison, some western states water lawsuits have lasted for decades, typically freezing usage patterns “as is”. (Barr, 1999) The southeast can ill afford to have Atlanta – the region’s single largest engine of economic growth – brought to a standstill because of this issue.
What we have seen in late January has proved that the city of Phoenix needs one more water treatment facility. The tax revenue that will be lost if a water crisis every happen again will pay for the building of the new facility. The water department has known of this problem for years but has chosen not to rectify the hazard. City officials chalked up the high levels of sediment in the water to Mother Nature, but they acknowledge that a series of decisions by water officials could have worsened the problem. (Villa, Fehr-Snyder, 1) The water department knew and Frank Fairbanks knew that maintenance was required on rotating bases, on each facility and chooses to take two offline during the “winter” or “rainy months”.
Water has long been a controversy in countless places worldwide and Colorado is no exception. The water rights in Colorado involve different stages within the Prior Appropriation Law; the senior and junior water rights. Senior water rights are privileges that were the first to be issued on unappropriated streams in Colorado and are to be filled before the junior water right holders. Junior water rights are similar to senior water rights, but are filled after the senior water holders take their allotted amount (Wolfe Prior Appropriation Law). The water in Colorado is just that; Colorado’s water, owned by the people and restricted by the state. However, Colorado is required by law to send over 30 million acre – feet of water to seven western states (“Missouri River”). An acre – foot is “The quantity of water required to fill one acre with one foot of water and is equivalent to 43,560 cubic feet or 325,850 gallons” (“Missouri River”). The State enforces all water laws in Colorado even though they are not straightforward and are riddled with loopholes. These water laws came into effect “As early as 1879” (Hundley, Jr. 53). In the laws, there are even more constraints and idiosyncrasies including; owning ground water, owning surface water, senior rights and junior rights, and the use and reuse of rainwater or graywater. Water users in Colorado need to familiarize themselves with the laws and regulations involving water in order to receive the allotted water and the reasoning behind that number.
Wagner, F. D. (2010). McDonald et al. v. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al.. Supreme Court of the United States, 1, 1-214. Retrieved May 4, 2014, from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
Water… A resource that is vital to a person’s everyday life. Water is what our farmers use to grow their crops, water is what the energy industry uses to extract oil and gas from the earth, water is what we consumers drink and depend on everyday. Without water, we could not live and function. In fact, water is so important that 70 years ago Texas and Mexico signed a treaty, in 1944, to ensure that both Texas and Mexico would always share water in the Rio Grande River. For decades this treaty has benefitted both Texas and Mexico, however, recently tensions have risen between the two powers. The Texas Mexico Water Treaty has become a point of contention, and steps have been taken to resolve the issues.
Water in Loudoun County has become a very expensive commodity. Loudoun Water created and started a new, three-tiered billing system. The tiered system with the first tier charges customers who use less than 25,000 gallons $1.77 per 1,000 gallons used; the second tier charges customers using 26,000 to 50,000 gallons $4.96 per 1,000 gallons and tier three charges $6.65 per 1,000 gallons for usage exceeding 50,000 gallons (Hager, 2010). Following a classic neoclassical economics, residents who use a lot of water with pay a higher rate.
Water is essential to life. By being so important it is crucial to keep it maintained and preserved. Our water supply is affected by environmental, economic, and legal issues. In Oklahoma water is very sacred to its people especially to Native Americans. Both Choctaw and Chickasaw nations are suing the state of Oklahoma for the regulatory authority over Sardis Lake and the water resources it holds. The Choctaw and Chickasaw nations deserve the rights over Sardis Lake because it is their main water supply and they own the rights through the treaty of the Dancing Rabbit Creek of 1830.
California government should be allowed to make laws to manage aquifers so that families can once again enjoy the simple freedom of having running water . “For Angelica Gallegos, the worst part has been going without a shower for five months” (Source 2). Most families don’t have the liberty to shower due to the lack of water California receives. “...At least 1,300 people have lost their water in and around East Porterville, nearly three hours’ drive north of Los Angeles, making the town’s residents some of the hardest hit victims of the three-year-old drought” (Source 2). A majority
For about five years California has experienced above average temperatures and a lack of rain. This lack of rain and snowfall has caused California to become increasingly dry, starting arguments over whose right to water is more important and who needs to be more mindful with their use of water. Farming in California truly began during the gold rush when water was redirected to land where food was grown for those looking for gold (Siegler, 2015). The farmers that have stayed on that land now have senior water rights (“Water wars”, 2015). Farmers that settled their land before 1914 are those with senior water rights (Terrell, 2015). Governor Jerry Brown has called for a cut in water use by one-quarter percent to people living
United States. (2010). Perspectives on California water supply: Challenges and opportunities: oversight field hearing before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, second session, Monday, January 25, 2010, in Los Angeles, California. Washington: U.S. G.P.O.
Schneider, Paul. “Clear Progress: 25 Years of the Clean Water Act” A Forest Of Voices. Ed 2nd.
Water is essential for humanity’s survival, and even though the world is largely covered by water, only a small percentage is only usable for human consumption. Approximately, on average, 120,000 gallons of water are used annually for a single-family household (Galbraith). This alarming number could be reduced dramatically for the efforts of water conserving and lower water bill prices for families and subsequently saving money that could be used for other expenses. Thus, conserving water would prove beneficial and advantageous to not just Texas, but for everyone else as well. Although environmental policies have been not as popular with Congress and the state legislature, it is still an important problem to consider since there are only a limited amount of resources for public use, such as water.