Glen Canyon Dam has had a dramatic impact on the American West. Originally constructed to provide a steady water supply and cheap hydropower to downstream consumers, dam managers have recently been forced to balance newfound environmental, recreational, and tribal concerns alongside more traditional water delivery and power generation interests. Like all natural resource allocation questions on public lands, decision making in Grand Canyon is constrained by the public interest. In a place as sacred and iconic as Grand Canyon where interests are diverse and complex, finding the proper balance among competing interests is no easy task. To help ensure that Glen Canyon Dam is operated in a manner consistent with both federal mandates and the public interest, Glen Canyon Dam operators have increasingly relied on recommendations from an arguably unrepresentative group of interested stakeholders as a proxy for the public interest. The result has been management decisions that have historically favored hydropower and water delivery interests at the expense of important environmental, cultural, recreational, and aesthetic resources. Input from a stakeholder group can be a valuable resource, but only if the group is truly representative, in relevant proportions, to the interests at stake. As currently configured, the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Working Group fails to adequately represent all interests affected by Glen Canyon Dam operations. Through an expanded stakeholder group, however, important environmental, recreational, and cultural resources of Grand Canyon can be afforded the protection deserving of a place that is a crown jewel of our national park system, the lifeblood of millions of westerners, and the most sacred of places for many western Tribes.

This Article recounts the background leading Arizona to seek determination of its rights to use the water of the Colorado River in the U.S. Supreme Court, the arguments of Arizona and California, the Special Master’s Report, and the Court’s decision in 1963. It turns to a consideration of the decision’s significance fifty years later. First it considers key developments in the basin since 1963 that are consequences of the decision. It argues that, by disregarding the allocation structure put in place by the 1922 Colorado River Compact and by focusing solely on the main Colorado River, the decision resulted in unsustainable overuse of an increasingly constrained water supply in the Lower Basin.

The jaguar (Panthera onca) roams the Southwest boundary region of the United States, Mexico, and tribal nations, particularly in southeastern Arizona and northeastern Sonora. This transboundary species - walking across numerous political borders - has remained elusive and controversial. Those who care about the preservation of the species want to learn all they can so that political action can be taken. This requires information about the jaguar, but the federal and state governments do not give all of the information they have, and the tribal governments say little. Knowing the exact locations of jaguars is not necessary for the preservation of jaguars. Tribes can be trusted to take care of jaguars on reservation lands. To support that thesis, this Article details how information about the jaguar flows - or not - among federal, state, local, and *188 tribal governments, as well as the public that may want the information. Despite many government and media reports generally omitting tribal reservations from the discussion, this Article also explains how many of the historical and recent sightings and confirmations of jaguars in Arizona have occurred on or near tribal reservations, and that jaguars still could be on reservation land. This supports the notion that tribes not only know these jaguars exist, but also know how to care for them. Finally, environmental information policy may require some secrecy at times to make certain endangered species are protected, but policy-making outside of the public gaze must not be a permanent situation, even when it involves tribes.

Solar electricity is booming. Every 4 minutes a solar electric system is installed on the rooftop of a U.S. home. It is predicted that 2013 will be the first year annual U.S. solar installations will surpass 100,000 systems. This surge has resulted in the U.S. increasing its share of global solar installations from 5 percent in 2008 to 13 percent in 2013. In fact, U.S. solar installations may reach a staggering 3,300 megawatts in 2013, establishing the U.S. as the 4th largest solar market in the world. Solar advocates believe these impressive numbers demonstrate a shift to solar power that will result in undeniable environmental benefits and help break U.S. dependence on fossil fuels. However, a growing number of critics contend that solar is being “propped up” by unsustainable policies and incentives that shift the costs of solar to others. Non-solar consumers and utilities have a legitimate gripe. Lawmakers in several leading solar states have recognized these claims and are taking corrective action.

On February 3, 2014, the Colorado House of Representatives passed House Bill 14-1026, titled “A Bill for an Act Concerning the Authorization of Flexible Water Markets.” 1 If the Colorado Senate passes the law, it would allow agricultural water right holders who choose to reduce their consumptive use of water to apply for a change in use for the unused portion of their water right. A change in use is a legal process that allows a holder of a water right to change the type of use historically associated with that water right. For example, if an alfalfa farmer historically uses 100 acre-feet of water annually to irrigate crops, the farmer could only use 80 acre-feet annually and reduce the amount of water she uses to irrigate her alfalfa by 20 acre-feet. Then, under the proposed legislation, the farmer could receive a flex decree for this unused portion; the alfalfa farmer would receive a flex decree for 20 acre-feet. The proposed legislation would then allow the farmer to transfer 20 acre-feet of her water right for use by a third-party without enumerating a specific beneficial use to which the water will be applied.2 In the case of the hypothetical alfalfa farmer, the proposed bill would allow her to transfer 20 acre-feet of her water right for use by a municipal water district, and this would be allowed even though she did not specify in her application that this specific municipality would be the end user of her flex water right. Critics of this pending legislation argue that the bill will encourage water speculation and serve to wreak havoc on Colorado’s agricultural communities. However, proponents of the bill note that it will allow for more efficient consumption of state water resources, incentivize more sustainable agricultural practices, and establish a market-based approach to allocate the state’s scarce water resources. After briefly summarizing relevant Colorado water law and exploring the content of this pending bill, this Comment argues that this bill should be celebrated as model legislation for future Western water policy, and that it should be commended as a creative legislative attempt to more efficiently allocate Colorado’s scare water resources.