http://hdl.handle.net/10150/667978 2026-04-11T11:02:08Z http://hdl.handle.net/10150/675111 Table of Contents 2010-01-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/10150/675110 Davis v. Agua Sierra Resources: Bringing Some Clarity to Groundwater Rights in Arizona Schaffer, Robert G. For the better part of a century, the Arizona Supreme Court played a dominant role in shaping Arizona’s approach to groundwater. From the adoption of the first territorial water code in 1864 to the enactment of the Groundwater Management Act (“GMA”) in 1980, the Arizona legislature was content to remain largely in the background, leaving some of the most important decisions about groundwater regulation to the courts. Those decisions witnessed Arizona’s transformation from a state dependent on agriculture and mining to one of the fastest-growing, most water-limited states in the West. Although the GMA has done much to shift control of groundwater regulation to the legislature, the courts continue to affect the development of legal principles applicable to groundwater, though on a much more limited scale. In particular, since the passage of the GMA, the Arizona Supreme Court has increasingly deferred to the legislature when confronted with important decisions about the state’s limited water resources. (excerpt from Introduction) 2010-01-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/10150/675108 Alaska Tribes' Melting Subsistence Rights Ristroph, Elizabeth Barrett Subsistence foods are distinct from those that line grocery stores’ shelves throughout the United States. Mother Nature offers no guarantee that a particular kind of food will be available on demand. The Food and Drug Administration does not provide quality assurance. To procure, protect, and store subsistence foods throughout the year, Alaska Native subsistence users must use their traditional knowledge. When the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) was enacted by the United States Congress in 1971, many Alaska Natives saw it as an encroachment on their subsistence rights. Over the last few decades, another threat to the ability of Alaska Natives to meet their subsistence needs has emerged--climate change. Climate change impacts the availability and safety of subsistence foods, the costs and risks of subsistence activities, and the very knowledge on which subsistence depends. While there are laws and programs in place to address some of the environmental and health impacts related to climate change, there is little to ensure that Alaska Natives will be able to continue their traditional subsistence lifestyles. This article suggests that climate change impacts subsistence-dependent Alaska Natives more than the Lower 48 Natives and other United States populations. The first part of the article discusses research and observations from the 2000s, suggesting that climate change affects the Alaskan environment more than that of any other state. It also considers how climate change affects subsistence and Alaska Natives’ control over their subsistence activities. The second part of the article considers how the legal and political framework unique to Alaska limits the ability of Alaska tribes to control land and resources needed for subsistence. Finally, the article considers whether any non-tribal entity will be able to protect Alaska Natives’ subsistence interests in the face of escalating climate change. There are a number of caveats regarding this article’s analysis of climate change. First, it is based on the premise that the earth has embarked on a period of overall warming, exacerbated by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. There are still a large number of Americans who disagree with this premise. Second, many of the observations included in the article are based on weather changes, and the distinction between weather change and climate change is not always clear. Publicity surrounding climate change may influence interpretation of weather observations, whether or not this is appropriate. Third, the impacts of climate change cannot be understood in isolation from other changes, particularly those associated with economic development and rapid social and cultural change. Finally, there are 229 federally recognized tribes in Alaska. Alaska tribes have different cultures and economic situations and may have different views on the impacts of climate change. 2010-01-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/10150/675109 Blame Game: Thoughts on the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Rollings, Elizabeth The Gulf Coast of Mexico will never be the same. Even after billions of dollars are spent on clean-up efforts,1 the Gulf’s $234 billion dollar economy2 will not be bouncing back quickly, nor will the natural habitats of birds, fish and other marine life that call the Gulf home. Months after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, there is little consensus on exactly how many gallons of oil spilled into the ocean3 and although the leak is now capped, concerns linger as experts work to permanently close the damaged pipeline.4 The far-reaching effects of the spill raise the question of responsibility. Was poor regulatory oversight by the U.S. government the weak linchpin that led to the failure of safeguards? Or does most of the blame belong to British Petroleum (“BP”), the company in charge of operations the day of the accident? Did BP’s greed for greater profit lead to risky drilling practices that caused the accident? As we struggle to measure the environmental damage, implement clean-up operations, and help the thousands of people who depend on fishing and tourism in the Gulf, a central question remains: Who is to blame for the accident? 2010-01-01T00:00:00Z