Title
VIDEO: Session I, Part 3: The Decision and Its Consequences: Then and Now, and Session II, Part 1: Consequences for the Federal Role
Document Type
Conference Proceeding
Event Date
8-15-2013
Series
Martz Summer Conference (5th: 2013: Boulder, Colo.)
Description
VIDEO:
SESSION I, PART 3: The Decision and Its Consequences: Then and Now
1:00 p.m. - 1:10 p.m.
The Arizona v. California Digital Archive: Susan Nevelow Mart, Wise Law Library Director, University of Colorado Law School
SESSION II, PART 1: Consequences for the Federal Role
1:15 p.m. - 1:45 p.m.
Recognition of Federal Reserved Rights: Bret Birdsong, Professor, University of Nevada-Las Vegas
1:45 p.m. - 2:15 p.m.
Tribal Reserved Rights and Settlements in the CRB: Amy Cordalis, Attorney, Native American Rights Fund
2:15 p.m. - 2:45 p.m.
Respondents:
Michael Gheleta, Attorney, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior
Julie Nania, Getches-Wyss Fellow, Getches-Wilkinson Center
Moderator
Brad Udall, Charles Wilkinson
Citation Information
Mart, Susan Nevelow; Birdsong, Bret; Cordalis, Amy; Gheleta, Michael; and Nania, Julie, "VIDEO: Session I, Part 3: The Decision and Its Consequences: Then and Now, and Session II, Part 1: Consequences for the Federal Role" (2013). Arizona v. California at 50: The Legacy and Future of Governance, Reserved Rights, and Water Transfers (Martz Summer Conference, August 15-16).
https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/arizona-v-california-at-50/4
Comments
The Colorado River is an economic, environmental and cultural lifeline of the southwestern United States, and the allocation of its scarce waters are a source of ongoing controversy. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Arizona v. California. While the case was an important landmark in the still-evolving relationship between these two Lower Basin states, it remains most relevant today by the way in which it clarified federal rights and responsibilities. This is especially true in the areas of federal (including tribal) reserved rights, the role of the Interior Secretary in Lower Basin water management, and the ability of Congress to allocate/reallocate water. It also modified the Upper Basin/Lower Basin relationship in important ways, especially in the treatment of Lower Basin tributaries. Moving forward, several types of potential management innovations—in areas such as governance and water transfers—will hinge on the framework outlined by this decision.