Interstate Compacts : Kansas V. Nebraska

The Kansas-Nebraska act (1854) was a U.S. law that authorized the creation of Kansas and Nebraska, west of the states of Missouri and Iowa and divided by the 40th parallel. It repealed a provision of the Missouri compromise of 1820 that prohibited slavery in the territories north of 36 degrees and 30' and stipulated that the inhabitant of the territories should decide for themselves the legality of slave holding. Democratic senator of Illinois Stephen A. Douglas pushed the Kansas-Nebraska bill.

The groundwater management in both states has evolved over time in different ways based on water demand and supply. Groundwater

This created a new problem of supplying water throughout the state. Now that the southern region of California is densely populated, state officials need new sources of water to supply its residents. The state looked to the Colorado River, one of the longest rivers in the United States. Nonetheless, this also created problems with other states who used the river as well. To solve this issue, the Colorado River Compact was issued in 1922. This compact was an agreement between seven U.S. states in the southwest on the allocation of water rights to access the river’s water. The large influx of Californian residents would also lead to the growth of the agricultural

For years, there has been debate over who has access to the water in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes provide about 20 percent of the world’s freshwater resources and many areas would like to use that water for various purposes. Water is also becoming a valuable resource, with many areas lacking the access to it necessary for their area’s needs. Because of this, lawmakers passed a compact in 2008 that was designed to protect the Great Lakes against pressure from other States to withdraw water (Kalsness, 2011). A compact is an agreement between states or nations that bind them to whatever they agreed upon. This compact makes sure that areas outside of the Great Lakes region do not have access to the water. Despite this compact, some want to use the Great Lakes to pipe water to other states that do not have the same natural resources. Proponents of this piping say that is gives water to areas that need it and that it will provide additional income to the area (Cauchon, 2006). Opponents say that piping would go against water conservation and environmental protection as well as water management. They also say that it is a natural resource that belongs to the area and should not be taken away to other areas of the country (Dempsey, 2008). Currently, the debate continues about the correct use of the resource of the Great Lakes.

The Basin of the Colorado River has been experiencing a severe water shortage for the past 16 years constantly. This river used to be large and flowing, but now water levels have been decreasing, and as a person who lives in California I believe there needs to be something done. It begins with California. There are seven states that use this river, but California is over using it. The river’s main role is more of a boundary line to separate

In 1922, representatives from seven US states met near Santa Fe, New Mexico to discuss and divide the river’s water. Natives, who use the water from the Colorado, on both sides of the border in Mexico and the United States, let alone any Mexican government, were not invited to participate in the discussion. This was the Colorado River Compact. In 1944, Mexico got it’s voice in a bi-national treaty that gave the state 1/10th of the rivers water flow. It took no time for dams and canals to get built, to use the water for dry farming regions, and for power for growing cities. Even Mexico built the Morelos Dam in 1950 which diverted the water to farmers in Mexicali, where there is low precipitation with an arid climate. This river that has been

I believe that the water from the Colorado River should be divided fairly amongst the states. The first part of my plan would be to figure out how many people live in each state. By doing this you can let the states with more people get more water. Next, I think we should take into account which areas need it most. For example, Yuma needs the water for farming, which is a large part of their economy. The final thing that Should be considered is the 1922 Colorado River pact. I believe this is important because it was created in case something like this ever happened, and the states had agreed to it, therefore it would not be fair unless we took it into consideration. If we follow all these steps it may help us fairly divide up the water from

State and Federal Courts share similarities and differences among prosecution purposes and resolving cases based on certain criteria. Depending on the nexus and magnitude of the case, depends on which level of prosecution the case will be heard. According to Criminal Law and Procedure, federalism is defined as two forms of sovereign government in the United States, constructed of various levels of government such as city, county, state, and federal (Hall, 2015). Furthermore, we can assume the amount of power strengthens from city government to federal government. Consequently, much emphasis is shown to the Tenth Amendment regarding power as it states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people", (Hall, 2015, p. 4). Thus, dual federalism has resulted in that state and federal governments are coequal based on rulings by the Supreme Court (Hall, 2015).

The case Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) was a question of interstate regulation of steamboats and whether the license obtain to do just that between states. Interstate commerce at this time was to be interpreted since the main intention was to create a law everyone could abide. Having several states and different laws would only lead to a dysfunctions of federal government being that it dealt with New York and New Jersey. New York licensing law for out of state regulation of steamboats was invalid give that notion Chief Justice John Marshal stated that “interstate commerce was a power reserved to and by congress” Gibbons v. Ogden.

The outcome of interest in this study is the passage of the Water Rule under the Obama administration. This is the dependent variable as it defines the parameters for the Clean Water Act. These parameters include navigable waters used for commerce, and its tributaries that pass Justice Kennedy’s significant nexus test. The adoption of this definition is proof that a change in policy occurred that gave clear parameters to federal jurisdiction of which waters are subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act.

Another trigger to the civil war was the Kansas-Nebraska Act. In 1854, another slavery issue was brought up- would Kansas and Nebraska be slave-holding or free states? From the Missouri Compromise, all states above the 36º30’ line were to be free states and all states below were slave states. But, Stephan A. Douglas, had another idea, he wanted to settle the problem by popular sovereignty. The only problem with his plan was that Kansas lay below the 36º30’ line and Nebraska above it, which inflicted with the Missouri

Over the years many requests have been made for new regulations pertaining to the “waters of the United States”, adopted in 1986 under the Clean Water Act (Clean Water Rule, 2015, p. 165). Advocating change were “members of Congress, developers, farmers, state and local governments, energy companies, and many others requested new regulations to make the process of identifying waters protected under the CWA clearer, simpler, and faster” (Clean Water Rule, 2015, p.13). In response to these requests the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers published the “Clean Water Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States” federal regulation (80 Fed. Reg. 37054) on June 29, 2015 (Clean Water Rule, 2015, p.13).

Water right transfers are one of the basic means of implementing changes in water use in hugely allocated water resource organizations in the western side of the United States of America. These systems are overlooked by the Prior Appropriation Doctrine, which was not formally intended for application to ground-water pumping and the conjunctive management of groundwater and surface water, hence creating an administrative challenge.

According to the Dynamic Business Law eBook; the four elements to a contract are Agreement, Consideration, Capacity and legality. The first element of Agreement would be deemed to exist if an offer is made and accepted creating a mutual agreement between the parties. An offer establishes criteria set by the “offeror”, usually referred as terms and conditions to another party, the “offeree” this is the first step in creating a contract. The second element of Consideration would be deemed to exist if “something” is negotiated by the promisor from the promise in return for signing or agreeing to the terms of the contract. The third element of Capacity would be deemed to exist if the parties are in sound mind and body, and over the age of consent. The fourth element of legality would be deemed to exist if they have a legal object, meaning the parties purpose of entering into a contract should be legal and follow the state and/or federal laws. (Kubasek, 2015, p. 305)

Many states have developed other governing restrictions that help regulate quantity or specify beneficial uses. California, for example, is required to consider the impact to important natural resources reducing the volume of water rights if the resource is threatened (Kubasek & Silverman, 2014). The dwindling water supply has brought attention to the need for water conservation. In California water code the volume of water conserved by an entity can be leased by that entity if it is considered equivalent to a beneficial use. The implementation of this code has been controversial and will continue to be until the definition of conserved water is better defined along with allowable transfers (Kubasek & Silverman, 2014).