law in the United States

For this assignment, you will brief the four following cases that cover some aspect of water policy. Water law in the United States has arisen from common law, meaning it was based on legal principles set forth in a number of court decisions. States began enacting statutes to organize the common law in a legal code. Similar to the Chevron case you briefed for Unit 2, for each case, you will identify:

Issue(s): What legal question(s) does this case present to the court to decide upon?
Holding(s): What did the court decide in this case?
Reasoning: What legal argument supports the holding(s)?
Rule(s): What precedent or rule of law does this case establish going forward?
Each case is linked with the case’s text. You can also find some tips on briefing cases here. download

Case Study 1: The Tyler v. Wilkinson case added the principle of reasonable use in the riparian doctrine. Read the case here: Tyler v. WilkinsonActions (source: Burch, Jr., 2015. Water Rights and The Environment in the United States. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO).

Case Study 2: The Irwin v. Phillips case helped establish the prior appropriation doctrine. This method of allocating water was used informally in many places in the western United States (California, in particular, with the growth of mining). This case helped codify this practice into law. Read the case here: Irwin v. Phillips (Links to an external site.). This paper (Links to an external site.), pages 2-3 (pdf pages), may also help you better understand the case background. (Links to an external site.)

Case Study 3: The Winters v. United States case helped establish federal reserved water rights. Remember water laws are governed on a state-wide basis. When the United States set aside land for purposes, such as Indian reservations or national parks, did the federal government also set aside the water needed to fulfill that land’s purpose? Read the case here: Winters v. United States download (source: Burch, Jr., 2015. Water Rights and The Environment in the United States. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO).

Case Study 4: In the prior appropriation doctrine, originally, the water needed to be diverted for a specific beneficial use (be sure to read the Powerpoint slides for this unit to learn about the listed beneficial uses of water in Utah). However, now that we have more knowledge on the importance of healthy ecosystems and value outdoor recreation, should leaving water in the environment (known as instream flows) count as a beneficial use? Read about this case in Idaho: Idaho Dept of Parks v. Idaho Dept of Water Administration (Links to an external site.).

Rubric
HW14
HW14
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome 1st case
Identified the issues, holdings, reasoning, and rules established by the case.
6 pts
Full Marks
3 pts
Meets some criteria but needs more explanation to answer the question
0 pts
No Marks
6 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome 2nd case
Identified the issues, holdings, reasoning, and rules established by the case
7 pts
Full Marks
3.5 pts
Meets some criteria but needs more elaboration to answer the question
0 pts
No Marks
7 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome 3rd case
Identified the issues, holdings, reasoning, and rules established by the case.
6 pts
Full Marks
0 pts
No Marks
6 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome 4th case
Identified the issues, holdings, reasoning, and rules established by the case.
6 pts
Full Marks
0 pts
No Marks
6 pts
Total Points: 25