For the better part of a century, the Arizona Supreme Court played a dominant role in shaping Arizona’s approach to groundwater. From the adoption of the first territorial water code in 1864 to the enactment of the Groundwater Management Act (“GMA”) in 1980, the Arizona legislature was content to remain largely in the background, leaving some of the most important decisions about groundwater regulation to the courts. Those decisions witnessed Arizona’s transformation from a state dependent on agriculture and mining to one of the fastest-growing, most water-limited states in the West. Although the GMA has done much to shift control of groundwater regulation to the legislature, the courts continue to affect the development of legal principles applicable to groundwater, though on a much more limited scale. In particular, since the passage of the GMA, the Arizona Supreme Court has increasingly deferred to the legislature when confronted with important decisions about the state’s limited water resources. (excerpt from Introduction)

The Gulf Coast of Mexico will never be the same. Even after billions of dollars are spent on clean-up efforts,1 the Gulf’s $234 billion dollar economy2 will not be bouncing back quickly, nor will the natural habitats of birds, fish and other marine life that call the Gulf home. Months after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, there is little consensus on exactly how many gallons of oil spilled into the ocean3 and although the leak is now capped, concerns linger as experts work to permanently close the damaged pipeline.4 The far-reaching effects of the spill raise the question of responsibility. Was poor regulatory oversight by the U.S. government the weak linchpin that led to the failure of safeguards? Or does most of the blame belong to British Petroleum (“BP”), the company in charge of operations the day of the accident? Did BP’s greed for greater profit lead to risky drilling practices that caused the accident? As we struggle to measure the environmental damage, implement clean-up operations, and help the thousands of people who depend on fishing and tourism in the Gulf, a central question remains: Who is to blame for the accident?

Introduction: Consumption is accompanied by waste. Some individuals try to create as little waste as possible by recycling, reusing, or buying products with environmentally friendly packaging. On the other end of the spectrum, there are people who do not care about the waste they create and simply throw their trash in garbage, hoping someone else will take of the problem. Whichever side you more closely identify with, the fact is everyone produces toxic and hazardous waste. While “toxic” and “hazardous” may conjure thoughts of nuclear weapons, these types of wastes are used in an average day. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lists common items such as pesticides, fertilizers, x-ray waste, home-cleaning products, and dry cleaning chemicals as toxic waste. Additionally, EPA classifies ordinary businesses such as hospitals, automobile repair shops, exterminators, and chemical refineries as hazardous waste generators. The public generates such waste directly by using these goods, or indirectly by using products that were manufactured or assembled with hazardous or toxic waste. Toxic and hazardous waste has potentially been linked to cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and central nervous system disorders. Additionally, the long-term effects of being around such waste are not yet fully understood, but the consequences could include death. With unknown long-term effects and potential deadly effects, the proper location for toxic and hazardous waste disposal is an issue that has sparked heated debates between socioeconomic classes, races, and political parties.

Desert water--our streams and rivers, springs, ponds and pools--allows both human and natural communities to survive in the arid Southwest. The working landscapes--farms and ranches--that span our watersheds are part of an intricate system of natural and man-made elements that support and protect rural communities, biodiversity, cultural resources, and sweeping western vistas. Traditionally, river systems and watersheds were maintained by a balance between natural processes and human uses: fire, flood, and grazing herbivores. These influences provided a mosaic of “disturbances” that allowed diverse biota to thrive in riparian habitats.1 The combined stressors of drought, climate change, and economic growth have upset this balance. Many water conservation and restoration projects are being undertaken in Arizona with varying degrees of success. Few of these projects take into account the importance of the symbiotic relationship between human and natural use of water systems and riparian and river health. By incentivizing partnerships that address the needs of this symbiotic relationship, the State of Arizona may be able to reach a condition of lasting water and landscape resilience. Arizona’s water management regime provides few incentives for landowners to proactively conserve and manage their water in a manner that balances natural resources with human use. Most water conservation mechanisms available require a choice between agricultural water use and environmental flows. But ranchers, farmers, and rural landowners have put water to a beneficial use for generations and have stewarded our vast working landscapes and watersheds. Working landscapes can act as a modern continuation of historic disturbance: “occasional trampling by livestock, or periodic disturbance of bank and stream channels by livestock, may mimic natural forms of disturbance that recreate early successional stages favorable for population expansion.” Active management can be utilized to mimic the most beneficial aspects of historic use. This can be accomplished through incentivized partnerships such as short-term water and groundwater use agreements with agricultural landowners to protect native fish populations, surface flows, and riparian habitat. Short-term water use agreements are private contractual agreements in which a water user agrees not to pump or divert water for a period of time. Depending upon the needs of the particular hydrologic and ecologic system that is targeted for conservation, an appropriate surface water or groundwater use agreement may be implemented for a term of months or for a period of less than five years, so to not risk forfeiture of a surface water right.4 Short-term agreements can be tailored to mimic seasonal flood flows or provide water to help reestablish riparian vegetation. The water right or claim does not change hands; rather, its use is temporarily contractually dedicated to a conservation purpose, allowing the continuation of agricultural or other water uses.