By Lawrence J. MacDonnell. This Article recounts the background leading Arizona to seek determination of its rights to use the water of the Colorado River in the U.S. Supreme Court, the arguments of Arizona and California, the Special Master’s Report, and the Court’s decision in 1963.
By Kristin Carden, Crow White, Steven D. Gaines, Christopher Costello, and Sarah Andersone. This article focuses on one emerging tool that can enable prospective evaluation of the tradeoffs inherent in natural resource decision-making processes like CMSP: ecosystem service tradeoff analysis. We demonstrate the potential of this tool through an evaluation of the ecological and economic tradeoffs flowing from the institution of Territorial Use Rights in Fisheries (TURFs) in the southern California red sea urchin fishery.
by Robert Glennon and Jacob Kavkewitz — Fifty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the most important decision in the State of Arizona’s history. Arizona v. California allocated the flow of the Colorado River among the three Lower Basin states (Arizona, California, and Nevada) according to terms of the 1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act (BCPA).
Hurricanes in New York City and record droughts scalding the American breadbasket—last year might go down in history as the year when the United States woke up to the fact that climate change is here, for real. Ask nearly any policy guru how to address the climate problem and she will tell you that a market-based approach is essential to reach emission targets efficiently.