SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

References

  1. References
  2. Notes
  • Abrams, R.H. 2002. Interstate water allocation: A contemporary history for eastern states. University of Arkansas-Little Rock Law Review 25(1): 155172.
  • Copas, D.N. 1997. The southeastern water compact, panacea or Pandora's box? A law and economics analysis of the viability of interstate water compacts. William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review 21(3): 697734.
  • Costanza, R., R. D'Arge, R. DeGroot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R.V. O'Neill, J. Paruelo, R.G. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. Van Den Belt. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387(6630): 253260.
  • Daily, G., ed. 1997. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, D.C. : Island Press.
  • Erhardt, C. 1992. The battle over “The Hootch”: The federal-interstate water compact and the resolution of rights in the Chattahoochee River. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 11(1): 200228.
  • Garrett, G.W. 2003. The economic value of the Apalachicola River and Bay. M.A. thesis, Florida State University .
  • Houck, O.A. 1983. Land loss in coastal Louisiana: Causes, consequences, and remedies. Tulane Law Review 58(1): 3168.
  • Moore, C.G. 1999. Water wars: Interstate water allocation in the southeast. Natural Resources & Environment 14(1): 510, 66-67 .
  • Rossman, A. 2003. A new law and the “era of limits” on the Colorado. Natural Resources & Environment 18(2): 37.
  • Ruhl, J.B. 2003. Equitable apportionment of ecosystem services: New water law for a new water age. Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law 19(1): 4757.
  • Stephenson, D.S. 2000. The tri-state compact: falling waters and fading opportunities. Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law 16(1): 83109.
  • Tarlock, A.D. 1985. The law of equitable apportionment revisited, updated, and restated. University of Colorado Law Review 56(3): 381411.
  • United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1998. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Water Allocation for the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin, Alabama, Florida, and Georgia—Main Report. U.S. Army Corps Engineers, Mobile District , Alabama .
  • Vest, R.E. 1993. Water wars in the southeast: Alabama, Florida, and Georgia square off over the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin. Georgia State University Law Review 9(3): 689716.

Notes

  1. References
  2. Notes
  • 1
    An excellent overview of the physical and social conditions of the ACF and Apalachicola Bay is found in the Corps’ 1998 environmental impact statement (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1998), upon which the discussion in this text is largely based.
  • 2
    Alabama v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, No. CV 90-BE-1331-E (N.D. Ala.).
  • 3
    Georgia v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, No. 2:01-CV-0026-RWS (N.D. Ga.).
  • 4
    Southeastern Federal Power Customers, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, No. 1:00CV02975 (D.D.C.).
  • 5
    Pub. L. 105-104.
  • 6
    The author has in previous work provided a more extensive legal analysis of the application of the Supreme Court's water allocation jurisprudence to the ACF controversy (Ruhl 2003), upon which the discussion in the text is largely based.
  • 7
    Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46 (1907).
  • 8
    462 U.S. 1017, 1020-27 (1983).
  • 9
    Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U.S. 496, 521 (1906).
  • 10
    325 U.S. 589, 618 (1945).
  • 11
    462 U.S. at 1024.
  • 12
    283 U.S. 336, 345-48.
  • 13
    PUD No. 1 v. Washington Dep't of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700, 701 (1994) (As the Court explained, “Petitioners’ assertion that the [Clean Water] Act is only concerned with water quality, not quantity, makes an artificial distinction, since a sufficient lowering of quantity could destroy all of a river's designated uses, and since the Act recognizes that reduced stream flow can constitute water pollution.”).