The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Wonder what happens when there isn't enough water to go around...

Ooo, I know this one!

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Wonder what happens when there isn't enough water to go around...

Absent other factors I think it basically works that the last one in is the first one out. I'm not sure that this system is the most efficient, as once you're the first in, you don't even need to conserve your use or anything, but it is the system in place. Of course lawyers have been fighting about western water rights for many decades and will surely continue to do so.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Absent other factors I think it basically works that the last one in is the first one out. I'm not sure that this system is the most efficient, as once you're the first in, you don't even need to conserve your use or anything, but it is the system in place. Of course lawyers have been fighting about western water rights for many decades and will surely continue to do so.

So the answer is, when there's no longer enough water to go around, the lawyers get the water.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

So the answer is, when there's no longer enough water to go around, the lawyers get the water.

Well, we all know that the two things that are expected to survive a nucular blast are cockroaches and lawyers!

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Bob

Isn't it if I have been drawing X gallons (cubic feet) from the water source nobody can do anything to diminish my rights or access to X? I am relying on memory of Michener's Centennial for this.

Water rights are distinctly different between the east and west, with the mississippi generally being the dividing line. One school of thought is first in time, first in right. The other is, essentially, everyone gets their reasonable share regardless of historical usage. The latter is called a riparian system and is prevelant in the eastern u.s. and other common law jurisdictions.

[duper]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I'll tell you this much, the first one in dam sure won't be the last one out if it starts with an M and ends with an exico.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I'll tell you this much, the first one in dam sure won't be the last one out if it starts with an M and ends with an exico.

I'm not real familiar with international water laws, but I think the first in, last out rule is at least primarily domestic. I believe international agreements, like with the Colorado River flow, are negotiated.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Anybody care to opine which way this is likely to go?

Detail here.

[duper]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I'm not real familiar with international water laws, but I think the first in, last out rule is at least primarily domestic. I believe international agreements, like with the Colorado River flow, are negotiated.

Negotiated and broken.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Negotiated and broken.

Usually I've heard more claims that what was negotiated wasn't fair than that the agreement that was reached was broken.

But, in the end the point is that it isn't relevant to discussions of western U.S. water law.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Now this is interesting....*


43 different US-based organizations affiliated with the Catholic Church are suing the administration under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act....a bill sponsored by Ted Kenney and then Rep. Chuck Schumer....a bill which "sailed through Congress with broad bipartisan support in response to an unpopular decision by the Supreme Court that was seen as curbing Native Americans' religious freedom to use peyote, a traditional hallucinogen."

-- from The Hill as cited by Alana Goodman in today's print edition of The New York Post, not available (yet?) on their website.


There are so many delicious ironies here.




* aside to Kepler: in the old-fashioned "innocent" sense of the word...

[duper]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Usually I've heard more claims that what was negotiated wasn't fair than that the agreement that was reached was broken.

But, in the end the point is that it isn't relevant to discussions of western U.S. water law.

The negotiation may well not have been fair, but it has also been roundly broken.

And true, it does not directly apply to Western water law, except in the indirect sense of, when an organization has no respect for either the need of or contractual obligations to a whole other country, why would you be so silly as to think that they would respect a few hundred powerless people in a town that exists only because people love a good story.

[Slap Shot]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Now this is interesting....*

I don't think that means what you think it means. And there are ironies if you something how think an owner that sold his sports franchise 20 years ago has some kind of relationship with the current one.

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Now this is interesting....*


43 different US-based organizations affiliated with the Catholic Church are suing the administration under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act....a bill sponsored by Ted Kenney and then Rep. Chuck Schumer....a bill which "sailed through Congress with broad bipartisan support in response to an unpopular decision by the Supreme Court that was seen as curbing Native Americans' religious freedom to use peyote, a traditional hallucinogen."

-- from The Hill as cited by Alana Goodman in today's print edition of The New York Post, not available (yet?) on their website.


There are so many delicious ironies here.




* aside to Kepler: in the old-fashioned "innocent" sense of the word...

Filing a lawsuit is not interesting. Win it, then maybe we'll talk.

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I don't think that means what you think it means. And there are ironies if you something how think an owner that sold his sports franchise 20 years ago has some kind of relationship with the current one.

.