|WikiProject Law||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
There is almost nothing about water law on this page...
Since water law is legal nightmare and extremely site, geographic, specific; I move that we build these sub sections as stubs with Water Law as an umbrella portal. Water law is huge and a hot topic, well in the western US anyhow. It has a complex history and probably a 1,000 major and minor laws. I'd move that this page cover basic historic water law such as deeming ownership, and then have stubs for the other portions. Build the site with the expectation that others will fill in blanks at a latter date.FOK SD OA 20:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with this idea. For example, the currently very limited section of the page focusing on European water law does little to reflect the immense complexity of this issue, which is clearly outside of the limit of a general page on water law. Unfortunately I am a water expert but no law expert. Nobody feel like explaining a brief background to European water law, and then going into detail on the Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC) or Drinking Water Directive (Directive 98/83/EC) on separate pages? Jimjamjak 14:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The assertion: "Colorado water law is generally looked to as authority by other Western states which follow the prior appropriation doctrine" is misleading. Procedurally, Colorado's system for adjudicating water rights is unique, and therefore not likely to be cited in any other state's proceedings. Substantively, Colorado rulings may or may not be persuasive authority in another state's adjudications. They certainly are not binding authority outside Colorado.Bridgewater 22:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- More an historical matter than a matter of citing current decisions as authority. The appropriation doctrine originated in Colorado and was adopted in whole or part by other western states. The original Colorado decisions cite some California authority. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Different classes of water; different legal approaches
For the United States, I think that the organization needs to go like this. There is surface waters. There is streams, rivers and lakes and perhaps wetlands. There is percolating groundwater. These classifications are important for both reasonable use and appropriation states. Then one needs to decide whether one uses the reasonable use versus prior appropriation classification as the primary organizing principle, or alternatively, the classifications of waters. I've begun an effort to fill out these subjects which will grow over time. If there are folks out there also interested in this topic, feel free to chime in. I've begun by listing the basic topics that seem to organize water law. Which of these need their own subjects? How can they be effectively organized?
Riparian rights is a small part of the water law puzzle. Wharfing out/docks, right of access and so on. Now we have questions regarding the right to divert, drain or dam surface waters. We have rights relative to underground waters, and so on. A lot of work is wanted here......
Then we have a whole class of issues relating to regulations impacting water and property rights in water. There is a chain of law dealing with the rights of the United States in navigable waters and how that relates to both flood control, claims for damages arising from flood control operations, and so on. Jvonkorff (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Water Project law
I have started a section on water project law. If there is a law student out there who has a free weekend, with interest in this important area, you might offer up some examples of the various kinds of districts, governance of those districts, and financing methods. I think what is wanted is a list of the basic mechanisms, followed by a citation to a case illustrating that mechanism, from a particular state that follows that paradigm.