The United States government and all of its lesser conglomerates have a tough job to do when it comes to protecting its citizen’s rights. The fact of the matter is that the government doesn’t always get it right and citizen’s rights are often infringed upon, the court system aims to resolve these issues. One such instance comes to us from the Supreme Court case Bennett v. Spear in 1997. Here’s a brief summary of the case; in the area of question, the Klamath River in Oregon, it was discovered that two types of sucker fish were in peril due to falling lake levels caused by the Klamath Reservoir project. Irrigation regions and farmers downriver benefitted financially from the abundant water from the river. Their irrigation systems and therefore …show more content…
In America public trust is a huge deal, it’s what gives us all our public parks, national to county level. Public trust is defined as, a governments duty as a trustee to protect publicly owned resources. Matters of public trust are decided in state courts so resulting action can vary from state to state. For a government to violate the public trust the land or resource in question must make a shift from public to private without proper compensation for what the public will now be missing out on. This is exactly what is going on in this case. The water and the subsequent water level is the resource in peril. The reservoir physically holding that water is what changes it from public water to private water since no farmers can use what is all kept up upriver. With the ESA suit provision the public (farmers) has legal standing to sue based on a violation of the public trust, which lead to unfavorable economic conditions for them. With this provision and the ruling on the case the ESA was recognized as a tool for environmentalist and competing users of natural resources alike to challenge government
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
...udicial branch of the American government must be checked by the legislatures of states. To prevent instances like this from reoccurring, it is essential for state legislatures to take preventative steps and draft bills that would further limit the ability of the government to appropriate private property while still protecting private property owners. At the federal level, since it is abundantly clear from the case of Midkiff that the Supreme Court will defer to the Congress to define “public use,” a constitutional remedy needs to take place in the form of an amendment to the Constitution. It would be essential that an amendment to the Public Use Clause would specify the guidelines and standards of a “public use” to preserve the original intent of the legislative authors and provide the necessary private property protection to which all all Americans have a right.
1. Our great country was founded upon a high set of principles, values, and laws. Many of these are easily seen when looking at the United States constitution. The first ten amendments are what is commonly known as the Bill of Rights. This is good and all, but until the fourteenth amendment was passed, the Bill of Rights only was applied to the Federal government. The 14th amendment has a clause that says, "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." The Supreme Court ruled against “Total Incorporation”, but instead ruled in favor of “Selective Incorporation”. This meaning that the Supreme Court would define the constitutionality of the treatment of a citizen by the state.
(Common Sense) Then read what Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence which states “These rights include the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When a government fails to protect those rights, it is not only the right but also the duty of the people to overthrow that government.” (Declaration of Independence) In both of these it states that they were doing what was in the best interest for the people.
A Quistclose trust arises when money is paid to a recipient for a specific purpose, if that purpose fails the money is held on trust for the payer. It mostly arises in insolvency cases where the proprietary rights have to be established. However, this type of trust has been thought to be inconsistent with the traditional trust principle. Many have suggested the Quistclose trust must be treated as any other fully fledged security device taking into account the protection it offers the payer on insolvency and should therefore be registrable. This essay critically analyses the concept of Quistclose trust, whether it differs from the resulting trusts.
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.
When the United States government drowned Celilo Falls, it compensated the tribes for flooding their fishing sites. But it didn’t, purchase their fishing rights. Those rights, as set forth in the 1855 treaties, were not affected when the government paid for tribal fishing sites, but the tribes' economy was destroyed.
As the case in Illinois clearly demonstrates, concerns about the fundamental discrepancy between a government's authority and what that government's authority guarantees are still being resolved. Cases like Tinker still have meaning and relevance to the situations of today, but at the same time, the lesson of Slotterback and innumerable other cases is that precedent can be defied, that every new generation requires a new interpretation of the provisions and guarantees made in grand terms vague enough to allow just such reinterpretation. History shows that censorship can be unfolded into either prior restraint or public forum, the approach from liberty or the approach from authority. Judicial sympathies have swung from one to the other with some regularity. With an issue as contentious as this, we can safely expect they will continue to do so.
I was told that my desire to enter the field of public interest would wane after my first year of community service. On the contrary, the realization of the power which a lawyer possesses has reinforced my desire to enter this arena. An advocate's work can have far reaching consequences. This is clearly true in public interest law, where the purpose is not simply to correct a wrong done in the past between two parties, but to alter the disparate treatment of an often under-represented class.
This would handicap low income residents and independent farmers when trying to pay their water bills. Larger farming monopolies such as Monsanto would be able to afford the higher price, and buy out other farming competition. In addition, larger monopolies do not have the incentive to switch over to water conserving irrigation techniques, leading them to rely on independent less regulated wells in addition to the water the state designates for them. Excessive groundwater pumping could further decrease the water table level, cause more ground level subsidence, saltwater intrusion, increase drought in neighboring areas, increases risk for sinkholes, and cause a deficiency of groundwater available to surrounding farms and communities. If it reached an extreme enough level, they could be investigated for an environmental justice infringement for damages to the environment as well as abusing the shared natural
As I read through the power point presentations for the week, it easily me reminds of the
2. Public management could not function without capable leaders. What qualities and skills are the most important for successful public managers to possess? Identify the key characteristics of successful public managers, provide examples of these characteristics at work in the public sector, and show the impact of these characteristics on public organizations.
The entire American Government is based in the belief that all human beings are born with certain rights. People do not receive their rights from the Government; its function is actually to guard the rights we already have. Citizens are protected by the first amendment, which prohibits government from acting against anyone's rights.
There are those individuals who one can trust very easily, as there are individuals where trust is very hard to come by. I was fortunate enough to have that ability to earn individuals’ trust easily; as it is one of my greatest attributes, being trustworthy. Human beings are sentient beings who rely upon their instincts very little in today’s society, yet it still plays a major part of how they interact with other individuals and form groups. This fundamental instinct has helped many people with their choices, and even on whom I associate myself with as close friends or acquaintances.
Property rights in water have similar challenges. Like the wild animals, the pool water that is adjacent to two property owners can be movable. Similarly, there is also the groundwater that lies beneath the surface. “Groundwater is water located beneath the ground surface in soil pore and fracture of rock formations” (The Economist). The water under the private land belongs to the owner of the surface unless the land is owned under split state. The surface owner has the right to extract and use the water that lies beneath its private lands. The neighbor of this person has similar right of use and benefit from the water under their land. One of these two neighbors drill deep on his or her land and extract water for personal use. The problem here is, as a moving wild animal, water can flow toward underneath of the land who drilled first emptying of the subsoil of the adjacent. Water in the pool on surface or in underground might move with or without outside interference. The movement can be on its own discretion or might be caused by the interference of human action. Water ...