About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 Joule: Duq. Energy & Envtl. L.J. 1 (2013)

handle is hein.journals/joule1 and id is 1 raw text is: Allocating Water Rights, Causing Litigation, and Ignoring Conservation: Montana v. Wyoming Christine M. Giuliano I. INTRODUCTION Despite the ever-increasing national and global demands for water resources, the United States continues to entertain decades-long negotiation and litigation to solve interstate water disputes. These mechanisms may address who has a right to use what water, and how much of that water, but fail to encourage states to work together to deal with water scarcity and conservation. Given that Alaska and Hawaii are the only two states within the United States that do not share ground or surface water with others, it is no surprise that the majority of states have, at one point, been involved in a conflict over interstate waters.' Because of the United States Supreme Court's original jurisdiction in these disputes,2 the Court has long advocated that states try to prevent these disputes by entering into interstate water compacts.3 However, the compacts often take several years to negotiate, if not decades, and instead become a source of litigation. The Yellowstone River Compact (Compact) is no exception. After sixteen years of drafting and negotiation, Montana, Wyoming, and North Dakota finally ratified the Compact in 195 1.5 Sixty years later, two of the Compact's parties, Montana 1. George William Sherk, The Management of Interstate Water Conflicts in the Twenty-First Century: Is It Time to Call Uncle?, 12 N.Y.U. ENvTL. L.J. 764, 765 (2005); see Josh Clemons, Interstate Water Disputes: A RoadMap for States, 12 SOUTHEASTERN ENVTL. L.J. 115, 115 (2004). 2. See U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2, cl. 2 (In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.). 3. Sherk, supra note 1, at 766. 4. See Clemons, supra note 1, at 129-31. Thirty years after the ratification of the Colorado River Compact, Arizona and California endured twelve years of litigation over a water dispute. Lawrence J. MacDonnell, Arizona v. California Revisited, 52 NAT. RESOURCES J. 363, 365 (2012); see Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963). 5. Montana v. Wyoming, 131 S. Ct. 1765, 1770 (2011) (citing Yellowstone River Compact, art. V(A)-(B), codified in MONT. CODE ANN. § 85-20-101 (2005); N.D. CENT. CODE §61-23-01 (2005); WYo. STAT. ANN. § 41-12-601 (2005) [hereinafter Compact]). 1

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most