Under the Pecos River Compact, Can Texas\u27s Allocation of Water Be Charged for Evaporation of Floodwater Stored in an Upstream Reservoir Located in New Mexico?

The 1949 Pecos River Compact allocates the river’s water between Texas and New Mexico. In an earlier phase of this original jurisdiction litigation, concluded roughly 30 years ago, the Supreme Court resolved issues regarding how the states’ obligations were to be calculated. The Compact allocation involves a highly technical formula that depends on measurements of the river’s inflow and outflow in each water year. To effectuate its decision going forward, the Court retained jurisdiction and appointed a River Master to oversee the annual quantification of New Mexico’s delivery obligation. The current dispute arose when in fall of 2014, Tropical Storm Odile caused heavy and widespread rainfall in the Pecos River Basin. Texas requested that water be stored in the Brantley Reservoir in New Mexico because the Red Bluff Reservoir in Texas was already full. When the flood risk abated in 2015, the Bureau of Reclamation (the operator of the Brantley Reservoir) began releases that continued throughout 2015 even though Texas remained unable to store that water in the Red Bluff Reservoir. As a result, more than 40,000 acre-feet of water released from Brantley flowed downstream without any benefit to Texas. This case involves the claim by New Mexico, eventually agreed to by the River Master, that New Mexico should be given a credit toward the calculation of its 2014 and 2015 delivery obligations for evaporative losses from the Brantley Reservoir associated with the extra stored floodwater. Eventually, in the 2018 and 2019 Water Year Reports, the Water Master recognized the credits and began to apply them retroactively to lower the amount of New Mexico’s delivery obligations

Does the National Forest Service Have Authority to Grant Rights-of-Way under the Mineral Leasing Act through National Forest Lands Traversed by the Appalachian Trails

Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, proposed construction of a natural gas pipeline stretching from West Virginia to North Carolina. The route approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission included a section running across National Forest System land, including the point at which the pipeline would cross the Appalachian National Scenic Trail (ANST). After initial objections, the U.S. Forest Service reversed course and issued the needed right-of-way across National Forest System lands. Environmental groups objected and a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit unanimously held that the Forest Service had acted arbitrarily and capriciously thereby violating both the National Forest Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. The Fourth Circuit vacated the grant of the right-of-way. Additionally, that court ruled that the Forest Service lacked authority under the Mineral Leasing Act to issue a right-of-way for a pipeline crossing the ANST. Only this last ruling is the subject of Supreme Court review

Combating social differences within institutions: The need for a curriculum based on social awareness in our schools

To combat social, economic and racial inequality in the United States, the author advocates for \u27social awareness\u27 education to be built into the curriculum of the public school system. The purpose of the curriculum is to create a society that respects people and recognizes each individual\u27s worth regardless of gender, socio-economic status, race, ethnicity, age, cultural confines, or religious beliefs. The author suggests a course of action on how to institute a social awareness course into the public school curriculum

The ACF Water Wars Final Episode: Is Florida Entitled to Greater Flow in the Apalachicola River?

This case marks the second trip to the Supreme Court for Florida’s equitable apportionment case seeking to obtain greater flows into Apalachicola Bay, the estuary of the ApalachicolaChattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin. In a 2018 decision, the Supreme Court reviewed a report of then-Special Master Ralph Lancaster recommending that the Court deny relief to Florida because of the Court’s inability to provide relief without having the Army Corps of Engineers as a party to the litigation. At that time, a 5–4 majority ruled that the Special Master had applied too demanding a standard of proof to the issues surrounding redressability and balance of the equities. The case was remanded with instructions calling for a revised standard and for making additional fact-findings requisite for application of the Court’s equitable apportionment jurisprudence. See 138 S. Ct. 2502, 2512–17 (2018). Subsequently, Paul Kelly Jr., a Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals judge, was appointed Special Master for the current phase of the case. Special Master Kelly’s report was succinct in its conclusions: I do not recommend that the Supreme Court grant Florida’s request for a decree equitably apportioning the waters of the ACF Basin because the evidence has not shown harm to Florida caused by Georgia; the evidence has shown that Georgia’s water use is reasonable; and the evidence has not shown that the benefits of apportionment would substantially outweigh the potential harms. (Report of the Special Master, December 11, 2019, at 81.) Florida took exception to the fact-finding and conclusions of the Special Master

Does the Doctrine of Equitable Apportionment Apply to Conflicts between States over Groundwater Resources When Such Resources Are Derived from an Aquifer That Lies beneath More than One State?

The Middle Claiborne Aquifer is a large sand formation that contains groundwater within its sand’s porous spaces. The Aquifer spans beneath Mississippi, Tennessee, and at least six other neighboring states. Since 1886, the City of Memphis has withdrawn water from the aquifer to supply drinking water. Memphis also has withdrawn water for irrigation and industrial purposes. Due to increased water pumping, water levels in the aquifer have dropped, lowering the piezometric head (water pressure) in different locations, including between the two states’ borders. In 2005, Mississippi filed suit against the City of Memphis and the Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division (MLGW) on territorial property rights theory, claiming that the city and MLGW were stealing Mississippi’s groundwater resources. The District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi dismissed the case on a procedural ground. Mississippi subsequently filed a new complaint within the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, this time including Tennessee. Mississippi is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief as well as more than $600 million in damages for conversion of the groundwater. Mississippi argues its territorial property rights are being invaded. The suit explicitly disclaims reliance on equitable apportionment, which is the typical remedy supplied by the Supreme Court for disputes between states involving interstate water resources. The Court appointed a Special Master who found that the water of the aquifer was not “owned” by Mississippi and was, instead, an interstate resource subject to equitable apportionment. Both states objected to aspects of the Special Master’s Report

Legal Obligations Toward the Post-Secondary Learning Disabled Student

This article will deal with the legal obligation of institutions of higher learning to provide appropriate services to their learning disabled students