The Columbia River System

In March, 1959; the International Columbia River Engineering Board submitted its report on the co-operative development of the river to the International Joint Commission. In December, 1959, that Commission submitted to the governments of Canada and the United States its recommendations for apportionment of benefits if co-operative development is undertaken. And thirdly, in the last two years there has been much attention directed at the Peace River development, which is considered by some as competitive with the Columbia. Let us examine the effects of these events on the Columbia River problem. A presentation for Panel II, Current Legal Problems Connected with International Traversing River Systems

Fragile Gain: Two Centuries of Canadian and United States Policy Toward Indians

The United States and Canada share a common history in their policies toward and legal treatment of the Native Americans that historically have occupied both countries. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 established a policy of recognizing Aboriginal title and treating with Indians that was binding on the colonies that preceded both countries, and influenced both governments in later dealings with tribes. Assimilationist themes are evident as well in the national policy toward Indians in both countries. Nevertheless, historically and in the present, national policies and laws of the two governments can be contrasted. This Article sets forth a detailed comparison of the historical events surrounding white settlement and displacement of Indians from their Aboriginal lands. It further describes trends in the creation and development of Indian law, in the United States Congress and the Canadian Parliament, and in the courts of both countries. United States Supreme Court Justice John Marshall first recognized tribal sovereignty in developing a federal common law that has been extremely influential in the Indian jurisprudence of both countries. Presently in the United States, however, the Supreme Court is hostile toward tribal sovereignty and will not review federal legislative actions toward tribes, while Congress is an increasing champion of tribal self-government and economic self-development. Conversely, the Canadian Parliament continues in its assimilationist legislative attitudes, refusing to recognize inherent powers of sovereignty in tribal government. Nevertheless, aboriginal rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada were codified in the 1982 Constitution, and the Canadian Supreme Court has recently taken unto itself the power to scrutinize legislative action in light of those rights

The Effluent Charge Approach to Water Quality Control

10 pages. Contains references

Law and Alaska Natives: The Warp and Woof of a Field of Law in Transition

Reviewing Alaska Natives and American Laws, by David Case (1984)

A Century and a Half of Interbasin Diversions or 100 Years Since Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co.

19 pages. Contains references

Water Pollution and the Public Trust Doctrine

Nonpoint pollution from irrigation return flows has become a serious national problem. Even the extraction of water for irrigation and other purposes causes pollution by reducing the assimilative capacity of the source stream or lake. Such pollution can be regulated either by the courts or the legislatures under the public trust doctrine, which antedates the prior appropriation system, and which protects fisheries and water quality. Alternatively, this pollution can be controlled under the state\u27s police powers. The takings issue should not be troublesome because no one, not even prior appropriators, has or can acquire a legal right to pollute public waters

Professor Cornelius J. Peck: A Man of Many Talents

Outstanding teacher, authoritative writer, master winemaker, successful labor arbitrator, durable bicyclist, avid gardener, occasional portrait painter, and more. Meet University of Washington School of Law Professor Emeritus Cornelius J. Peck. Born in Calumet, Michigan, he attended public schools in Iron Mountain, Michigan, and found his way east to Harvard, where he received a B.S. degree in 1944 and an LL.B. in 1949. He was a Harvard National Scholar while he worked on his B.S. and law degrees. He held two jobs with the U.S. Department of Justice and one with the National Labor Relations Board before joining the University of Washington School of Law faculty as an assistant professor in 1954. He advanced rapidly to associate professor in 1956 and to full professor in 1958. In support of his candidacy for teaching at the University of Washington, Paul Freund, one of his Harvard professors, wrote, Peck is a person of mature judgment, good presence, and devoted attachment to the intellectual challenge of the law. In his personal qualities no less than his intellectual equipment, he would, I am confident, earn the respect of students and teachers alike. Freund\u27s prediction was exactly right. Professor Peck has earned that respect in spades

The Fletcher Years

How would you best describe Robert L. Fletcher, I asked my colleagues. He is, they said, thoughtful, a man of integrity, a delightful and companionable gentleman, sincere of purpose, hard-working, reliable, exceedingly thorough, a respected scholar and teacher. By habit he examines all aspects of a proposal before acting on it, reserves judgment until all the evidence is in. Reputedly he enjoys ferreting out arcane future interests that violate the Rule Against Perpetuities in trust and real estate documents

Public Trust Protection for Stream Flows and Lake Levels

The public trust doctrine and the appropriative water rights system are headed on a collision course in the West. Appropriators claim vested property rights to extract water for irrigation, mining, manufacturing and other uses. They further assert that under the appropriation doctrine such extractions can continue in perpetuity regardless of the consequences to navigation, fishery and other public values. The public, however, increasingly insists on more protection for environmental and ecological values, aesthetic quality and recreational opportunities, which on lakes and streams usually means leaving waters in place. As a result, the courts are being asked to apply legal doctrines that will place limits on these water extractions. One such doctrine, flexible enough to consider and draw a fair balance between these contending forces, is the public trust doctrine. This article explores the use of the public trust doctrine for this purpose. This article outlines the scope of the public trust and appropriation doctrines. It reviews the leading cases expressly and impliedly dealing with the points of contact and conflict between the two doctrines in order to construct a doctrinal framework within which to analyze cases such as Mono Lake. Finally, it uses this framework to predict how a court might approach such issues and cases in the future

Federal Organization for Control of Weather Modification

This article is designed to explore the optimal institutional structures that might be adopted by the federal government to manage weather modification. Should all federal weather modification activities be managed by a new department? Should these activities be carried out by one of the existing mission agencies, or by a new one? Should the various weather modification functions of research, operations, data collection, monitoring, coordination, comprehensive planning, project review, regulation, licensing, and indemnification all be carried by one federal agency, or should they be scattered among a variety of agencies? Should some be assigned to new entities not yet created? These are some of the questions that will be explored. No attempt will be made to design the ultimate form of federal organization that might most effectively carry out these various functions. Rather an attempt will be made to analyze the effects that a variety of different institutional arrangements might have