|
NathanStopperFirstPaper 14 - 13 Jan 2012 - Main.IanSullivan
|
|
<
< |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| >
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper2010" |
|---|
| | | anyone out there? i made a lot of changes to this paper after Eben's comments, and i would love some feedback. if you're reading this...please make edits/comments! - Nate
_ |
|
|
NathanStopperFirstPaper 13 - 27 Jun 2010 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
anyone out there? i made a lot of changes to this paper after Eben's comments, and i would love some feedback. if you're reading this...please make edits/comments! - Nate | | | Allow prior appropriation to continue evolving | |
<
< | One solution would be to allow prior appropriation to remain as the underlying doctrine, while using statutes to strictly limit the beneficial uses allowed by the doctrine. Currently, beneficial use "is a fairly elastic concept that freezes old customs, allows users flexibility in the amount and method of use, and leaves line drawing to the courts." Some legislatures have enumerated the uses that qualify as beneficial, but their definitions are very expansive and even include snowmaking and dust control. If a more restrictive definition were adopted that terminated the rights of certain appropriators, it could free up water for more essential uses. | >
> | One solution would be to allow prior appropriation to remain as the underlying doctrine, while using statutes to strictly limit the beneficial uses allowed by the doctrine. Currently, beneficial use "is a fairly elastic concept that freezes old customs, allows users flexibility in the amount and method of use, and leaves line drawing to the courts."
Link the quotation to the source, please.
Some legislatures have enumerated the uses that qualify as beneficial, but their definitions are very expansive and even include snowmaking and dust control. If a more restrictive definition were adopted that terminated the rights of certain appropriators, it could free up water for more essential uses. | | | Another development frequently cited as evidence that prior appropriation will meet future needs is the emergence of water markets. Advocates claim that the alienability of water under prior appropriation allows owners to sell to the most efficient user. Making the Coasian argument that initial entitlements are not determinative of an efficient outcome, however, assumes that water is merely another form of property to be exploited. Marketplaces may indeed be an effective means of granting lucrative water rights to the party most willing to pay for them, but do not assure that the most crucial needs are met. Additionally, because “water is an ambient resource where the actions of any one user necessarily affect many other users,” creating efficient water markets would require overcoming the extremely high transaction costs associated with disaggregated ownership. | | | A few states have begun to purchase water rights from private holders and then lease the rights back to the original owners. This policy creates state control without changing water usage in the short term, and is a step in the right direction that should be emulated by the other western states. By centralizing ownership within state governments, the region would have an opportunity to create a long term plan that is responsive to current water needs, but balances future requirements against expected decreases in supply. Instead of allowing unpredictable market forces to determine the allocation of the resource, water managers could ensure that it serves the immediate needs of the population and of necessary industry. To effectuate such a policy, states could rely upon takings to secure water rights from unwilling owners. | |
<
< | Finally, states could use the public trust doctrine to inhibit users from drawing excessive amounts of water from certain sources. The public trust has been criticized because courts have failed to provide sufficient justification for applying it (cite-paper 15), but the expected decrease of water could provide such a justification. While this could be an effective strategy for limiting use in specific cases, it requires extensive litigation on a case by case basis, and would not be an adequate policy by itself. | >
> | It's always nice to see
someone advocating socialism, but wouldn't it be reasonable to expect
you to be candid about it? Something wrong with the word?
Finally, states could use the public trust doctrine to inhibit users from drawing excessive amounts of water from certain sources. The public trust has been criticized because courts have failed to provide sufficient justification for applying it (cite-paper 15)
, but the expected decrease of water could provide such a justification. While this could be an effective strategy for limiting use in specific cases, it requires extensive litigation on a case by case basis, and would not be an adequate policy by itself. | | | Conclusion
Prior appropriation helped populate and develop the West, but its current form should not be counted upon to sustain an exploding population in the face of a changing climate and decreasing water. While it is possible that continued evolution of the doctrine may be sufficient, relying on such an uncertain solution risks the West’s future. Centralized planning of water allocation may be the most effective way to ensure that this unique form of property serves its most crucial needs, although it would have to overcome traditional notions of government inefficiency. Water is essential for supporting life and western water policy must secure it for its burgeoning population. | |
>
> | So we've gone from an
argument about technical law, in your earlier drafts, where doctrine
appeared important and the political issues were at least partially
obscured, to a new form of argument, in which doctrine is essentially
secondary, and what's central is the political debate between
socialism and private property, in which—without being willing
to come out and say so—you are entirely on the socialist side.
So the really interesting question is, what happened between the
drafts? Was it the effect of Tarlock and others, showing you that
doctrine's not as straightforward as it looks; a desire to
demonstrate that you can make socialist arguments because you think
I'll like them; an actual political conviction emerging once the
underlying matter of securing the people's welfare is no longer
diffused by legal mumbo-jumbo; etc.? The most interesting next step
is to inquire into what your revision means. |
|
|
NathanStopperFirstPaper 12 - 26 Apr 2010 - Main.NathanStopper
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
>
> | anyone out there? i made a lot of changes to this paper after Eben's comments, and i would love some feedback. if you're reading this...please make edits/comments! - Nate | | | _
Prior Appropriation in an Uncertain West | | | Water rights in the western states developed to meet the needs of the frontier. Instead of employing traditional riparian rights, most western states adopted the doctrine of prior appropriation, which encouraged mining, farming and small urban development. The doctrine has subsequently evolved from the rigid formality of “first in time is first in line” to a background system of infrequently enforced rules recognizing special rights for cities, mining and fishing. Furthermore, federal environmental laws subjugate state water rights, partially displacing the prior appropriation claims founded upon them. The current system thus features a patchwork of competing interests of varying sizes who claim rights under a convoluted system of common law, federal regulation, and state statutes.
Impending Scarcity | |
<
< | In 1900, the population of the eleven continental western states was about 4 million, but by 2000 it had grown to over 64 million, and will undoubtedly continue to increase. Due to the expected effects of climate change, however, scientists predict that water levels will shrink by [[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/28/science/earth/28climate.html?_r=4&oref=slogin
][at least 20%]]. Water sources will also change substantially, as mountain runoff, the traditional source of water, decreases and rains increase. Furthermore, tree ring studies have shown that the region has suffered long droughts that have had cataclysmic effects on the inhabitants, suggesting that water levels are unpredictable. Thus, the West is entering the 21st century in a precarious position: an exploding population lives in an environment with decreasing water levels that is prone to devastating droughts. | >
> | In 1900, the population of the eleven continental western states was about 4 million, but by 2000 it had grown to over 64 million, and will undoubtedly continue to increase. Due to the expected effects of climate change, however, scientists predict that water levels will shrink by at least 20%. Water sources will also change substantially, as mountain runoff, the traditional source of water, decreases and rains increase. Furthermore, tree ring studies have shown that the region has suffered long droughts that have had cataclysmic effects on the inhabitants, suggesting that water levels are unpredictable. Thus, the West is entering the 21st century in a precarious position: an exploding population lives in an environment with decreasing water levels that is prone to devastating droughts. | | | Possible Solutions | | | Government control | |
<
< | A few states have begun to purchase water rights from private holders and then lease the rights back to the original owners. This policy creates state control without changing water usage in the short term, and is a step in the right direction that should be emulated by the other western states. By centralizing ownership within state governments, the region would have an opportunity to create a long term plan that is responsive to current water needs, but balances future requirements against expected decreases in supply. Instead of allowing unpredictable market forces to determine the allocation of the resource, water managers could ensure that it serves the immediate needs of the population and of necessary industry. To effectuate such a policy, states could rely upon takings and eminent domain to secure water rights from unwilling owners. | >
> | A few states have begun to purchase water rights from private holders and then lease the rights back to the original owners. This policy creates state control without changing water usage in the short term, and is a step in the right direction that should be emulated by the other western states. By centralizing ownership within state governments, the region would have an opportunity to create a long term plan that is responsive to current water needs, but balances future requirements against expected decreases in supply. Instead of allowing unpredictable market forces to determine the allocation of the resource, water managers could ensure that it serves the immediate needs of the population and of necessary industry. To effectuate such a policy, states could rely upon takings to secure water rights from unwilling owners. | | | Finally, states could use the public trust doctrine to inhibit users from drawing excessive amounts of water from certain sources. The public trust has been criticized because courts have failed to provide sufficient justification for applying it (cite-paper 15), but the expected decrease of water could provide such a justification. While this could be an effective strategy for limiting use in specific cases, it requires extensive litigation on a case by case basis, and would not be an adequate policy by itself. |
|
|
NathanStopperFirstPaper 11 - 11 Apr 2010 - Main.NathanStopper
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
_
Prior Appropriation in an Uncertain West | |
<
< | Water is indispensable for leading a life in human dignity. It is a prerequisite for the realization of human rights. - The United Nations | | | Introduction
Water plays an especially crucial role in the development and sustainability of human life and industry in arid lands. Successful exploitation of limited water resources can enable life to thrive in dry conditions, but also exposes desert civilizations to potentially insurmountable problems if they fail to create sustainable mechanisms for its allocation. Despite severe droughts in the 1930s and 1950s, America has successfully developed its western desert over the past 150 years, using a flexible legal framework to meet the changing needs of the region. As the planet warms and traditional water sources become less predictable, however, states and the federal government must rethink current ownership and property notions to ensure continued access to water. |
|
|
NathanStopperFirstPaper 10 - 10 Apr 2010 - Main.NathanStopper
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
_ | |
<
< | Prior Appropriation: a Suitable Doctrine for the Changing West? | >
> | Prior Appropriation in an Uncertain West
Water is indispensable for leading a life in human dignity. It is a prerequisite for the realization of human rights. - The United Nations | | | Introduction | |
<
< | The current system of water rights in the western states developed to meet the needs of the frontier. Instead of employing traditional riparian rights, most Western states adopted the doctrine of prior appropriation, which encouraged mining, farming and small urban development in an arid land. But with the West's population explosion in the past hundred years, and water levels expected to drastically decrease in the future, can this old doctrine continue to promote the human values closely associated with water? | >
> | Water plays an especially crucial role in the development and sustainability of human life and industry in arid lands. Successful exploitation of limited water resources can enable life to thrive in dry conditions, but also exposes desert civilizations to potentially insurmountable problems if they fail to create sustainable mechanisms for its allocation. Despite severe droughts in the 1930s and 1950s, America has successfully developed its western desert over the past 150 years, using a flexible legal framework to meet the changing needs of the region. As the planet warms and traditional water sources become less predictable, however, states and the federal government must rethink current ownership and property notions to ensure continued access to water. | | | | |
<
< | Scientific Background
In 1900, the population of the eleven continental western states was about 4 million, but by 2000 it had grown to over 64 million, and will undoubtedly continue to increase. Due to the expected effects of climate change, however, scientists predict that water levels will shrink by at least 20%. Water sources will also change substantially, as mountain runoff, the traditional source of water, decreases and rains increase. Additionally, tree ring studies have shown that the region has suffered long droughts that have had cataclysmic effects on the inhabitants, suggesting that water levels are unpredictable. Thus, the West is entering the 21st century in a precarious position: an exploding population living in an environment with decreasing water levels that is prone to droughts. | >
> | Development of Western Water Rights
Water rights in the western states developed to meet the needs of the frontier. Instead of employing traditional riparian rights, most western states adopted the doctrine of prior appropriation, which encouraged mining, farming and small urban development. The doctrine has subsequently evolved from the rigid formality of “first in time is first in line” to a background system of infrequently enforced rules recognizing special rights for cities, mining and fishing. Furthermore, federal environmental laws subjugate state water rights, partially displacing the prior appropriation claims founded upon them. The current system thus features a patchwork of competing interests of varying sizes who claim rights under a convoluted system of common law, federal regulation, and state statutes. | | | | |
<
< | Problems of Prior Appropriation
In order to promote the activities that built the region, most western states adopted prior appropriation. Instead of granting water rights to landowners with property adjacent to the water source, prior appropriation gives a property right to the first entity to make beneficial use of the water. As long as that appropriator continues to use the water in the same way, he is entitled to that amount of water regardless of the effects it has on other users. There are no absolute rights to a volume of water, only rights to a certain amount of water for a specific use, so an appropriator cannot change his use of water without risking losing his rights.
This doctrine leads to a number of serious problems that will impede the West's ability to adapt its water use to meet the challenge it faces. Most importantly, it inhibits efficiency by allocating water rights based on seniority instead of need. Although water markets have emerged in the region, they favor entities who can afford the water, not those that need them most. Additionally, because a reduction in use leads to a loss of rights, there is a perverse incentive for appropriators to keep using excessive amounts of water rather than invest in technology that would decrease their need. | >
> | Impending Scarcity
In 1900, the population of the eleven continental western states was about 4 million, but by 2000 it had grown to over 64 million, and will undoubtedly continue to increase. Due to the expected effects of climate change, however, scientists predict that water levels will shrink by [[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/28/science/earth/28climate.html?_r=4&oref=slogin
][at least 20%]]. Water sources will also change substantially, as mountain runoff, the traditional source of water, decreases and rains increase. Furthermore, tree ring studies have shown that the region has suffered long droughts that have had cataclysmic effects on the inhabitants, suggesting that water levels are unpredictable. Thus, the West is entering the 21st century in a precarious position: an exploding population lives in an environment with decreasing water levels that is prone to devastating droughts. | | | | |
>
> | Possible Solutions | | | | |
<
< | Explaining Water Rights Through Theories of Property
Three of the major theories of property law all contributed to the adoption of prior appropriation by western states. Now that water is becoming more scarce, however, tension is developing between Lockean labor values on one hand, and utilitarian and human values on the other. | >
> | Allow prior appropriation to continue evolving | | | | |
<
< | Then
The 19th century West was a land in need of domestication, but was more arid than the East. Prior appropriation promoted a utilitarian use of the land by providing incentives to make the best use of water. Instead of requiring agriculture to congregate near existing water sources, prior appropriation permitted farmers to bring water to the most fertile land. The doctrine also allowed individuals to enjoy the fruits of their labor by protecting the rights to water that they brought to their land. Finally, because the use of water was so strongly connected with the individuals and industries that developed the West, prior appropriation served human values. | >
> | One solution would be to allow prior appropriation to remain as the underlying doctrine, while using statutes to strictly limit the beneficial uses allowed by the doctrine. Currently, beneficial use "is a fairly elastic concept that freezes old customs, allows users flexibility in the amount and method of use, and leaves line drawing to the courts." Some legislatures have enumerated the uses that qualify as beneficial, but their definitions are very expansive and even include snowmaking and dust control. If a more restrictive definition were adopted that terminated the rights of certain appropriators, it could free up water for more essential uses. | | | | |
<
< | Now
While Lockean values still favor prior appropriation, water is a unique form of property and cannot be allocated on the basis of just desserts. According to the UN, “the human right to water is indispensable for leading a life in human dignity. It is a prerequisite for the realization of human rights.” As life in the West has urbanized, water rights must change to continue accommodating this fundamental human value. Efficiency concerns also favor modifying water rights, as it is no longer clear that prior appropriation makes the most productive use of scarce water resources. The West is "less dependent on irrigated agriculture and raw commodity production" and has become much more urbanized (p.7). | >
> | Another development frequently cited as evidence that prior appropriation will meet future needs is the emergence of water markets. Advocates claim that the alienability of water under prior appropriation allows owners to sell to the most efficient user. Making the Coasian argument that initial entitlements are not determinative of an efficient outcome, however, assumes that water is merely another form of property to be exploited. Marketplaces may indeed be an effective means of granting lucrative water rights to the party most willing to pay for them, but do not assure that the most crucial needs are met. Additionally, because “water is an ambient resource where the actions of any one user necessarily affect many other users,” creating efficient water markets would require overcoming the extremely high transaction costs associated with disaggregated ownership. | | | | |
<
< | Possible Solutions | >
> | Government control | | | | |
<
< | Any solution to this problem will have to overcome opposition from vested interests. Lockean labor values may have to be subjugated to support human values and promote efficiency, but some type of reform is crucial to a sustainable future. | >
> | A few states have begun to purchase water rights from private holders and then lease the rights back to the original owners. This policy creates state control without changing water usage in the short term, and is a step in the right direction that should be emulated by the other western states. By centralizing ownership within state governments, the region would have an opportunity to create a long term plan that is responsive to current water needs, but balances future requirements against expected decreases in supply. Instead of allowing unpredictable market forces to determine the allocation of the resource, water managers could ensure that it serves the immediate needs of the population and of necessary industry. To effectuate such a policy, states could rely upon takings and eminent domain to secure water rights from unwilling owners. | | | | |
<
< | One solution would be to allow prior appropriation to remain as the underlying doctrine, while using statutes to strictly limit "beneficial use." Currently, beneficial use "is a fairly elastic concept that freezes old customs, allows users flexibility in the amount and method of use, and leaves line drawing to the courts." Some legislatures (Colorado - C.R.S.A. § 37-92-103 and California) have enumerated the uses that qualify as beneficial, but their definitions are very expansive and even include snowmaking and dust control. If a more restrictive definition were adopted that terminated the rights of certain appropriators, it could free up water for more essential uses. A few states have created preferential policies giving higher priority to certain uses of water regardless of date of appropriation. This policy should be adopted by the rest of Western states to ensure sufficient water in times of draught. Finally, states could use the public trust to inhibit users from drawing excessive amounts of water from certain sources (National Audubon Society v. Superior Court. 33 Cal. 3d 419). While this could be an effective strategy for limiting use in specific cases, it requires extensive litigation on a case by case basis, and would not be an adequate policy by itself. | >
> | Finally, states could use the public trust doctrine to inhibit users from drawing excessive amounts of water from certain sources. The public trust has been criticized because courts have failed to provide sufficient justification for applying it (cite-paper 15), but the expected decrease of water could provide such a justification. While this could be an effective strategy for limiting use in specific cases, it requires extensive litigation on a case by case basis, and would not be an adequate policy by itself. | | | Conclusion | |
<
< | Prior appropriation helped populate and develop the West. But as the region confronts new challenges for the next century, it will have to modify the doctrine to ensure that this unique form of property continues to promote human values.
The essay seems to me to
make prior appropriation doctrine seems more static and less flexible
than it is in practice. Cities have been modifying their surrounding
water rights environments for a long time, so that as the West became
the most urbanized part of the United States (as it presently is),
prior appropriation comes to look more like a system for resolving
user disputes—for which it has always worked well—while
the large-scale allocation decisions occur in different form. But
slowness and close attention to immediate purposes is even more
characteristic of water managers than of lawyers. You might want to
take a look at this paper on the future of prior appropriation by A. Dan Tarlock,
of Chicago-Kent, which although it's getting old is still quite
relevant. | | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | Prior appropriation helped populate and develop the West, but its current form should not be counted upon to sustain an exploding population in the face of a changing climate and decreasing water. While it is possible that continued evolution of the doctrine may be sufficient, relying on such an uncertain solution risks the West’s future. Centralized planning of water allocation may be the most effective way to ensure that this unique form of property serves its most crucial needs, although it would have to overcome traditional notions of government inefficiency. Water is essential for supporting life and western water policy must secure it for its burgeoning population. |
|
|
NathanStopperFirstPaper 9 - 04 Apr 2010 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Ready for editing | >
> | _ | | | Prior Appropriation: a Suitable Doctrine for the Changing West?
Introduction | | | Conclusion
Prior appropriation helped populate and develop the West. But as the region confronts new challenges for the next century, it will have to modify the doctrine to ensure that this unique form of property continues to promote human values. | |
<
< |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, NathanStopper
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list | >
> | The essay seems to me to
make prior appropriation doctrine seems more static and less flexible
than it is in practice. Cities have been modifying their surrounding
water rights environments for a long time, so that as the West became
the most urbanized part of the United States (as it presently is),
prior appropriation comes to look more like a system for resolving
user disputes—for which it has always worked well—while
the large-scale allocation decisions occur in different form. But
slowness and close attention to immediate purposes is even more
characteristic of water managers than of lawyers. You might want to
take a look at this paper on the future of prior appropriation by A. Dan Tarlock,
of Chicago-Kent, which although it's getting old is still quite
relevant. | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
NathanStopperFirstPaper 8 - 03 Mar 2010 - Main.NathanStopper
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Is Prior Appropriation a Sustainable Doctrine for the West? | >
> | Ready for editing
Prior Appropriation: a Suitable Doctrine for the Changing West? | | | Introduction | |
<
< | The current system of water rights in the western states developed to meet the needs of a frontier region. Instead of employing traditional riparian rights, most Western states adopted the doctrine of prior appropriation, which encouraged mining, farming and small urban development in an arid land. But with the West's population explosion in the past hundred years, and water levels expected to drastically decrease in the future, can this old doctrine sustain the region's growing needs? | >
> | The current system of water rights in the western states developed to meet the needs of the frontier. Instead of employing traditional riparian rights, most Western states adopted the doctrine of prior appropriation, which encouraged mining, farming and small urban development in an arid land. But with the West's population explosion in the past hundred years, and water levels expected to drastically decrease in the future, can this old doctrine continue to promote the human values closely associated with water? | | | | |
<
< | Brief Scientific Background
In 1900, the population of the eleven continental western states was about 4 million, but by 2000 it had grown to over 64 million, and will undoubtedly continue to increase. Source Due to the expected effects of climate change, however, scientists predict that water levels will shrink by at least 20%. Source. Water sources will also change substantially, as mountain runoff, the traditional source of water, decreases and rains increase. Additionally, tree ring studies have shown that the region has suffered long droughts that have had cataclysmic effects on the inhabitants, suggesting that water levels are unpredictable. Source. Thus, the West is entering the 21st century in a precarious position: an exploding population living in an environment with decreasing water levels that is prone to droughts. | >
> | Scientific Background
In 1900, the population of the eleven continental western states was about 4 million, but by 2000 it had grown to over 64 million, and will undoubtedly continue to increase. Due to the expected effects of climate change, however, scientists predict that water levels will shrink by at least 20%. Water sources will also change substantially, as mountain runoff, the traditional source of water, decreases and rains increase. Additionally, tree ring studies have shown that the region has suffered long droughts that have had cataclysmic effects on the inhabitants, suggesting that water levels are unpredictable. Thus, the West is entering the 21st century in a precarious position: an exploding population living in an environment with decreasing water levels that is prone to droughts. | | | Problems of Prior Appropriation | |
<
< | In order to promote the activities that built the region, most western states adopted prior appropriation. Instead of granting water rights to landowners with property adjacent to the water source, prior appropriation gives a right to the first entity to make beneficial use of the water. As long as that appropriator continues to use the water in the same way, he is entitled to that amount of water regardless of the effects it has on other users. Source There are no absolute rights to a volume of water, only rights to a volume of water for a specific use, so a senior appropriator cannot change his use of water without risking losing his rights. | >
> | In order to promote the activities that built the region, most western states adopted prior appropriation. Instead of granting water rights to landowners with property adjacent to the water source, prior appropriation gives a property right to the first entity to make beneficial use of the water. As long as that appropriator continues to use the water in the same way, he is entitled to that amount of water regardless of the effects it has on other users. There are no absolute rights to a volume of water, only rights to a certain amount of water for a specific use, so an appropriator cannot change his use of water without risking losing his rights.
This doctrine leads to a number of serious problems that will impede the West's ability to adapt its water use to meet the challenge it faces. Most importantly, it inhibits efficiency by allocating water rights based on seniority instead of need. Although water markets have emerged in the region, they favor entities who can afford the water, not those that need them most. Additionally, because a reduction in use leads to a loss of rights, there is a perverse incentive for appropriators to keep using excessive amounts of water rather than invest in technology that would decrease their need. | | | | |
<
< | This doctrine leads to a number of serious problems (I'll only address a few) that will impede the West's ability to adapt its water use to meet the challenge it faces. Most importantly, it inhibits efficiency by allocating water rights based on seniority instead of need. Although water markets have emerged in the region, they favor entities who can afford the water, not those that need them most. Additionally, because a reduction in use leads to a reduction in rights, there is a perverse incentive for senior appropriators to keep using excessive amounts of water and not invest in technology that would decrease their need. Finally, environmental uses of water are not accorded much importance. | | | Explaining Water Rights Through Theories of Property
Three of the major theories of property law all contributed to the adoption of prior appropriation by western states. Now that water is becoming more scarce, however, tension is developing between Lockean labor values on one hand, and utilitarian and human values on the other.
Then | |
<
< | The 19th century West was a land in need of domestication, but was more arid than the East. Thus prior appropriation promoted a utilitarian use of the land by providing incentives to make the best use of water. Instead of requiring agriculture to congregate near existing water sources, prior appropriation permitted farmers to bring water to the most fertile land. The doctrine also allowed individuals to enjoy the fruits of their labor by protecting the rights to water that they brought to their land. Finally, because the use of water was so strongly connected with the individuals and industries that developed the West, prior appropriation served human values. | >
> | The 19th century West was a land in need of domestication, but was more arid than the East. Prior appropriation promoted a utilitarian use of the land by providing incentives to make the best use of water. Instead of requiring agriculture to congregate near existing water sources, prior appropriation permitted farmers to bring water to the most fertile land. The doctrine also allowed individuals to enjoy the fruits of their labor by protecting the rights to water that they brought to their land. Finally, because the use of water was so strongly connected with the individuals and industries that developed the West, prior appropriation served human values. | | | Now | |
<
< | It is no longer clear that prior appropriation makes the most efficient use of scare water resources. The region is "less dependent on irrigated agriculture and raw commodity production" and has become much more urbanized. Source - p.7 Prior appropriation, however, still allocates the resource based on who had the first claim in the 19th century. Instead of allowing water to promote the greatest good for the West, it therefore limits initial rights to ancient users. Human values of property have also shifted as the West's economy has urbanized. The region's use of water is bound up in the lives its citizens lead in cities, and human values suggest that water rights should follow. Lockean values still favor prior appropriation, however, as shortages of water should not affect the ability of individuals to enjoy their just desserts. | >
> | While Lockean values still favor prior appropriation, water is a unique form of property and cannot be allocated on the basis of just desserts. According to the UN, “the human right to water is indispensable for leading a life in human dignity. It is a prerequisite for the realization of human rights.” As life in the West has urbanized, water rights must change to continue accommodating this fundamental human value. Efficiency concerns also favor modifying water rights, as it is no longer clear that prior appropriation makes the most productive use of scarce water resources. The West is "less dependent on irrigated agriculture and raw commodity production" and has become much more urbanized (p.7). | | | Possible Solutions | |
<
< | Any solution to this problem will have to overcome opposition from vested interests. Lockean labor may have to be subjugated to support utilitarian and human values, but some type of reform is crucial to a sustainable future. | >
> | Any solution to this problem will have to overcome opposition from vested interests. Lockean labor values may have to be subjugated to support human values and promote efficiency, but some type of reform is crucial to a sustainable future. | | | | |
<
< | One solution would be to allow prior appropriation to remain as the underlying doctrine, while using statutes to strictly define "beneficial use." Currently, beneficial use "is a fairly elastic concept that freezes old customs, allows users flexibility in the amount and method of use, and leaves line drawing to the courts." Source If legislatures adopted a restrictive definition of beneficial use and terminated the rights of certain appropriators, it could free up water for more essential uses. Another solution would be for the government to take the rights to certain water sources. Such an action would be expensive, but could provide a solution. Finally, states could use the public trust to inhibit users from drawing excessive amounts of water from certain sources (National Audubon Society v. Superior Court. 33 Cal. 3d 419). While this could be an effective strategy for limiting use in specific cases, it requires extensive litigation on an individual basis, and would not be an adequate policy by itself. | >
> | One solution would be to allow prior appropriation to remain as the underlying doctrine, while using statutes to strictly limit "beneficial use." Currently, beneficial use "is a fairly elastic concept that freezes old customs, allows users flexibility in the amount and method of use, and leaves line drawing to the courts." Some legislatures (Colorado - C.R.S.A. § 37-92-103 and California) have enumerated the uses that qualify as beneficial, but their definitions are very expansive and even include snowmaking and dust control. If a more restrictive definition were adopted that terminated the rights of certain appropriators, it could free up water for more essential uses. A few states have created preferential policies giving higher priority to certain uses of water regardless of date of appropriation. This policy should be adopted by the rest of Western states to ensure sufficient water in times of draught. Finally, states could use the public trust to inhibit users from drawing excessive amounts of water from certain sources (National Audubon Society v. Superior Court. 33 Cal. 3d 419). While this could be an effective strategy for limiting use in specific cases, it requires extensive litigation on a case by case basis, and would not be an adequate policy by itself. | | | Conclusion | |
<
< | Prior appropriation has adequately served western water needs. But as the region confronts new challenges for the next century, it may have to adapt its water policies to realign with theories of property and meet the demand of its increasing population. | >
> | Prior appropriation helped populate and develop the West. But as the region confronts new challenges for the next century, it will have to modify the doctrine to ensure that this unique form of property continues to promote human values. | | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |
|
|
NathanStopperFirstPaper 7 - 01 Mar 2010 - Main.NathanStopper
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Is Prior Appropriation a Sustainable Doctrine for the West? | | | Any solution to this problem will have to overcome opposition from vested interests. Lockean labor may have to be subjugated to support utilitarian and human values, but some type of reform is crucial to a sustainable future. | |
<
< | Strict Statutory Definition of "Beneficial Use"
This solution would allow prior appropriation to remain as the underlying principle in the West, but could promote much more efficient use of the water. Currently, beneficial use "is a fairly elastic concept that freezes old customs, allows users flexibility in the amount and method of use, and leaves line drawing to the courts." Source If legislatures adopted a restrictive definition of beneficial use and terminated the rights of certain appropriators, it could free up water for more essential uses.
Takings
The government could step in and take the rights to certain water sources. Such an action would be expensive, but could provide a solution.
Public Trust
States have effectively used this doctrine to inhibit users from drawing excessive amounts of water from certain sources (National Audubon Society v. Superior Court. 33 Cal. 3d 419). While this could be an effective strategy for limiting use in specific cases, it requires extensive litigation on an individual basis, and would not be an adequate policy by itself. | >
> | One solution would be to allow prior appropriation to remain as the underlying doctrine, while using statutes to strictly define "beneficial use." Currently, beneficial use "is a fairly elastic concept that freezes old customs, allows users flexibility in the amount and method of use, and leaves line drawing to the courts." Source If legislatures adopted a restrictive definition of beneficial use and terminated the rights of certain appropriators, it could free up water for more essential uses. Another solution would be for the government to take the rights to certain water sources. Such an action would be expensive, but could provide a solution. Finally, states could use the public trust to inhibit users from drawing excessive amounts of water from certain sources (National Audubon Society v. Superior Court. 33 Cal. 3d 419). While this could be an effective strategy for limiting use in specific cases, it requires extensive litigation on an individual basis, and would not be an adequate policy by itself. | | | Conclusion
Prior appropriation has adequately served western water needs. But as the region confronts new challenges for the next century, it may have to adapt its water policies to realign with theories of property and meet the demand of its increasing population. |
|
|
NathanStopperFirstPaper 6 - 26 Feb 2010 - Main.NathanStopper
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Is Prior Appropriation a Sustainable Water Rights Rule for a Drier West? | >
> | Is Prior Appropriation a Sustainable Doctrine for the West? | | | Introduction | |
>
> | The current system of water rights in the western states developed to meet the needs of a frontier region. Instead of employing traditional riparian rights, most Western states adopted the doctrine of prior appropriation, which encouraged mining, farming and small urban development in an arid land. But with the West's population explosion in the past hundred years, and water levels expected to drastically decrease in the future, can this old doctrine sustain the region's growing needs? | | | | |
<
< | The current system of water rights in the western states developed to meet the needs of a frontier region. Instead of employing traditional riparian rights, most Western states adopted the doctrine of prior appropriation, which encouraged mining, farming and small urban development in an arid land. But with the West's population explosion in the past hundred years, and water levels expected to drastically decrease in the future, can a 19th century common law doctrine sustain the region's growing needs? | >
> | Brief Scientific Background
In 1900, the population of the eleven continental western states was about 4 million, but by 2000 it had grown to over 64 million, and will undoubtedly continue to increase. Source Due to the expected effects of climate change, however, scientists predict that water levels will shrink by at least 20%. Source. Water sources will also change substantially, as mountain runoff, the traditional source of water, decreases and rains increase. Additionally, tree ring studies have shown that the region has suffered long droughts that have had cataclysmic effects on the inhabitants, suggesting that water levels are unpredictable. Source. Thus, the West is entering the 21st century in a precarious position: an exploding population living in an environment with decreasing water levels that is prone to droughts. | | | | |
<
< | A Brief Scientific Background with Links | >
> | Problems of Prior Appropriation
In order to promote the activities that built the region, most western states adopted prior appropriation. Instead of granting water rights to landowners with property adjacent to the water source, prior appropriation gives a right to the first entity to make beneficial use of the water. As long as that appropriator continues to use the water in the same way, he is entitled to that amount of water regardless of the effects it has on other users. Source There are no absolute rights to a volume of water, only rights to a volume of water for a specific use, so a senior appropriator cannot change his use of water without risking losing his rights. | | | | |
<
< | In 1900, the population of the eleven continental western states was about 4 million, but by 2000 it had grown to about 64 million and will undoubtedly continue to increase throughout the next century. Source Due to the expected effects of climate change, however, scientists predict that water levels will shrink by at least 20% in the region. Source. Water sources will also change substantially, as mountain runoff, the traditional source of water, decreases and rains increase. Additionally, tree ring studies have shown that the region has also suffered long and severe droughts that have had cataclysmic effects on the inhabitants, suggesting that water levels are unpredictable and fluctuate. Source. Thus, the West is entering the 21st century in a precarious position: an exploding population in an environment with decreasing water levels that is prone to extended droughts. | >
> | This doctrine leads to a number of serious problems (I'll only address a few) that will impede the West's ability to adapt its water use to meet the challenge it faces. Most importantly, it inhibits efficiency by allocating water rights based on seniority instead of need. Although water markets have emerged in the region, they favor entities who can afford the water, not those that need them most. Additionally, because a reduction in use leads to a reduction in rights, there is a perverse incentive for senior appropriators to keep using excessive amounts of water and not invest in technology that would decrease their need. Finally, environmental uses of water are not accorded much importance. | | | | |
<
< | The Current State of Water Law in the West | >
> | Explaining Water Rights Through Theories of Property
Three of the major theories of property law all contributed to the adoption of prior appropriation by western states. Now that water is becoming more scarce, however, tension is developing between Lockean labor values on one hand, and utilitarian and human values on the other. | | | | |
<
< | Water law in the West consists of | >
> | Then
The 19th century West was a land in need of domestication, but was more arid than the East. Thus prior appropriation promoted a utilitarian use of the land by providing incentives to make the best use of water. Instead of requiring agriculture to congregate near existing water sources, prior appropriation permitted farmers to bring water to the most fertile land. The doctrine also allowed individuals to enjoy the fruits of their labor by protecting the rights to water that they brought to their land. Finally, because the use of water was so strongly connected with the individuals and industries that developed the West, prior appropriation served human values. | | | | |
<
< | Prior Appropriation | >
> | Now
It is no longer clear that prior appropriation makes the most efficient use of scare water resources. The region is "less dependent on irrigated agriculture and raw commodity production" and has become much more urbanized. Source - p.7 Prior appropriation, however, still allocates the resource based on who had the first claim in the 19th century. Instead of allowing water to promote the greatest good for the West, it therefore limits initial rights to ancient users. Human values of property have also shifted as the West's economy has urbanized. The region's use of water is bound up in the lives its citizens lead in cities, and human values suggest that water rights should follow. Lockean values still favor prior appropriation, however, as shortages of water should not affect the ability of individuals to enjoy their just desserts. | | | | |
<
< | In order to promote the activities that built the region, most western states adopted prior appropriation as their common law. Instead of granting water rights to landowners with property adjacent to the water source, prior appropriation gives a right to the first entity to make beneficial use of the water. As long as that appropriator continues to use the water in the same way, he is entitled to that amount of water regardless of the effects it has on other users with a junior claim. Source There are no absolute rights to a volume of water, only rights to a volume of water for a specific use. So a senior appropriator cannot change his use of water without risking losing his rights. Seniority passes with the sale of land.
This doctrine leads to a number of serious problems that will inhibit the West's ability to adapt its water use to meet the challenge it faces. Most importantly, it inhibits efficiency by allocating water rights based on seniority instead of need. Although water markets have emerged in the region, they favor entities who can afford the water, not those that need them most. Secondly, because a reduction in use leads to a reduction in rights, there is a perverse incentive for senior appropriators to keep using excessive amounts of water and not invest in technology that would decrease their need. Finally, environmental uses of water are not accorded much importance. As water levels decrease, and the source of water shifts from runoff to rain, these problems will be substantially exacerbated.
Statute
Two Theories of Property Law to Explain These Rights
Personhood | >
> | Possible Solutions | | | | |
<
< | Efficiency | >
> | Any solution to this problem will have to overcome opposition from vested interests. Lockean labor may have to be subjugated to support utilitarian and human values, but some type of reform is crucial to a sustainable future. | | | | |
<
< | Possible Solutions | >
> | Strict Statutory Definition of "Beneficial Use"
This solution would allow prior appropriation to remain as the underlying principle in the West, but could promote much more efficient use of the water. Currently, beneficial use "is a fairly elastic concept that freezes old customs, allows users flexibility in the amount and method of use, and leaves line drawing to the courts." Source If legislatures adopted a restrictive definition of beneficial use and terminated the rights of certain appropriators, it could free up water for more essential uses. | | | | |
<
< | Maintain the Current System | >
> | Takings
The government could step in and take the rights to certain water sources. Such an action would be expensive, but could provide a solution. | | | | |
<
< | Adopt a Foreign Model | >
> | Public Trust
States have effectively used this doctrine to inhibit users from drawing excessive amounts of water from certain sources (National Audubon Society v. Superior Court. 33 Cal. 3d 419). While this could be an effective strategy for limiting use in specific cases, it requires extensive litigation on an individual basis, and would not be an adequate policy by itself. | | | Conclusion | |
<
< | - practical difficulty
- who chooses to shift to new value system? | >
> | Prior appropriation has adequately served western water needs. But as the region confronts new challenges for the next century, it may have to adapt its water policies to realign with theories of property and meet the demand of its increasing population. | | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line: |
|
|
NathanStopperFirstPaper 5 - 26 Feb 2010 - Main.NathanStopper
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< |
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
Is Prior Appropriation a Practical Water Rights Rule for a Drier West? | >
> | Is Prior Appropriation a Sustainable Water Rights Rule for a Drier West? | | | Introduction | |
<
< | | >
> | The current system of water rights in the western states developed to meet the needs of a frontier region. Instead of employing traditional riparian rights, most Western states adopted the doctrine of prior appropriation, which encouraged mining, farming and small urban development in an arid land. But with the West's population explosion in the past hundred years, and water levels expected to drastically decrease in the future, can a 19th century common law doctrine sustain the region's growing needs? | | | A Brief Scientific Background with Links | |
<
< | Evan Bayh recently wrote in an "op-ed" explaining why he's retiring from the Senate that some members of Congress used to socialize with each over and help with re-election efforts regardless of party affiliation. Now they spend their time plotting the demise of their colleagues from the other party. The ideological divide between the two sides is at such a high that it was considered a substantial victory when Republican Olympia Snowe voted to send a healthcare bill out of the Senate Finance Committee (story here), despite the fact that it would still face tremendous opposition by every other Republican Senator. Taking an all-or-nothing approach, Congressmen are unwilling to cross the aisle to enact legislation - assuming they can reach a consensus within their own party. | >
> | In 1900, the population of the eleven continental western states was about 4 million, but by 2000 it had grown to about 64 million and will undoubtedly continue to increase throughout the next century. Source Due to the expected effects of climate change, however, scientists predict that water levels will shrink by at least 20% in the region. Source. Water sources will also change substantially, as mountain runoff, the traditional source of water, decreases and rains increase. Additionally, tree ring studies have shown that the region has also suffered long and severe droughts that have had cataclysmic effects on the inhabitants, suggesting that water levels are unpredictable and fluctuate. Source. Thus, the West is entering the 21st century in a precarious position: an exploding population in an environment with decreasing water levels that is prone to extended droughts. | | | The Current State of Water Law in the West | |
>
> | Water law in the West consists of | | | Prior Appropriation | |
<
< | Common Law | >
> | In order to promote the activities that built the region, most western states adopted prior appropriation as their common law. Instead of granting water rights to landowners with property adjacent to the water source, prior appropriation gives a right to the first entity to make beneficial use of the water. As long as that appropriator continues to use the water in the same way, he is entitled to that amount of water regardless of the effects it has on other users with a junior claim. Source There are no absolute rights to a volume of water, only rights to a volume of water for a specific use. So a senior appropriator cannot change his use of water without risking losing his rights. Seniority passes with the sale of land.
This doctrine leads to a number of serious problems that will inhibit the West's ability to adapt its water use to meet the challenge it faces. Most importantly, it inhibits efficiency by allocating water rights based on seniority instead of need. Although water markets have emerged in the region, they favor entities who can afford the water, not those that need them most. Secondly, because a reduction in use leads to a reduction in rights, there is a perverse incentive for senior appropriators to keep using excessive amounts of water and not invest in technology that would decrease their need. Finally, environmental uses of water are not accorded much importance. As water levels decrease, and the source of water shifts from runoff to rain, these problems will be substantially exacerbated.
Statute | | | Two Theories of Property Law to Explain These Rights |
|
|
NathanStopperFirstPaper 4 - 26 Feb 2010 - Main.NathanStopper
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | |
<
< | Truth and then Reconciliation - the Way Forward for Congress | >
> | Is Prior Appropriation a Practical Water Rights Rule for a Drier West? | | | Introduction | |
<
< | "Organizations which are personified in the mind of the public have the effect of making their members unconsciously submerge their own personalities and adopt the personality of the organization while they are acting as a part of it." (Thurman Arnold) | | | | |
<
< | At a time when the country requires substantial action to address a number of difficult issues, Congress has been overwhelmingly incapable of passing much significant legislation. The tone in Congress is bitter, and it looks increasingly unlikely that it will be able to overcome partisan politics to meet the country's needs. As President Obama tries to use the power of the bully pulpit to convince Congress to pass some of his agenda, the question arises: can external pressures compel an end to the intransigence, or must the change come from within the first branch itself? | | | | |
<
< | The Problem | >
> | A Brief Scientific Background with Links | | | Evan Bayh recently wrote in an "op-ed" explaining why he's retiring from the Senate that some members of Congress used to socialize with each over and help with re-election efforts regardless of party affiliation. Now they spend their time plotting the demise of their colleagues from the other party. The ideological divide between the two sides is at such a high that it was considered a substantial victory when Republican Olympia Snowe voted to send a healthcare bill out of the Senate Finance Committee (story here), despite the fact that it would still face tremendous opposition by every other Republican Senator. Taking an all-or-nothing approach, Congressmen are unwilling to cross the aisle to enact legislation - assuming they can reach a consensus within their own party. | |
<
< | Overcoming conflict | >
> | The Current State of Water Law in the West | | | | |
<
< | Some political bodies confronted with overcoming significant divides have successfully done so in the recent past by using truth and reconciliation commissions. Instead of searching for parties to blame for political and social problems, these commissions focus on facing the past and looking to the future without seeking to impose punishment. It is a type of ceremony that has been ridiculed by some, but has proven to be effective for its members in certain circumstances. An honest attempt at truth and reconciliation could allow Congress to overcome its acrimony and advance some of the legislation that the country requires. | >
> | Prior Appropriation | | | | |
<
< | Before investigating how such an attempt could help Congress, it is necessary to explore examples of a successful and an unsuccessful effort. | >
> | Common Law | | | | |
<
< | South Africa | >
> | Two Theories of Property Law to Explain These Rights | | | | |
>
> | Personhood | | | | |
>
> | Efficiency | | | | |
<
< | Greensboro, NC | >
> | Possible Solutions | | | | |
<
< | Overcoming the Intransigence | >
> | Maintain the Current System | | | | |
<
< | Pressure from Without
Pressure from Within | >
> | Adopt a Foreign Model | | | Conclusion | |
<
< | | >
> | - practical difficulty
- who chooses to shift to new value system? | | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line: |
|
|
NathanStopperFirstPaper 3 - 26 Feb 2010 - Main.NathanStopper
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | |
<
< | Truth and THEN Reconciliation - the Way Forward for Congress | >
> | Truth and then Reconciliation - the Way Forward for Congress | | | | |
<
< | -- By NathanStopper - 20 Feb 2010 | >
> | Introduction | | | | |
>
> | "Organizations which are personified in the mind of the public have the effect of making their members unconsciously submerge their own personalities and adopt the personality of the organization while they are acting as a part of it." (Thurman Arnold) | | | | |
<
< | Introduction | >
> | At a time when the country requires substantial action to address a number of difficult issues, Congress has been overwhelmingly incapable of passing much significant legislation. The tone in Congress is bitter, and it looks increasingly unlikely that it will be able to overcome partisan politics to meet the country's needs. As President Obama tries to use the power of the bully pulpit to convince Congress to pass some of his agenda, the question arises: can external pressures compel an end to the intransigence, or must the change come from within the first branch itself?
The Problem
Evan Bayh recently wrote in an "op-ed" explaining why he's retiring from the Senate that some members of Congress used to socialize with each over and help with re-election efforts regardless of party affiliation. Now they spend their time plotting the demise of their colleagues from the other party. The ideological divide between the two sides is at such a high that it was considered a substantial victory when Republican Olympia Snowe voted to send a healthcare bill out of the Senate Finance Committee (story here), despite the fact that it would still face tremendous opposition by every other Republican Senator. Taking an all-or-nothing approach, Congressmen are unwilling to cross the aisle to enact legislation - assuming they can reach a consensus within their own party. | | | Overcoming conflict | |
>
> | Some political bodies confronted with overcoming significant divides have successfully done so in the recent past by using truth and reconciliation commissions. Instead of searching for parties to blame for political and social problems, these commissions focus on facing the past and looking to the future without seeking to impose punishment. It is a type of ceremony that has been ridiculed by some, but has proven to be effective for its members in certain circumstances. An honest attempt at truth and reconciliation could allow Congress to overcome its acrimony and advance some of the legislation that the country requires.
Before investigating how such an attempt could help Congress, it is necessary to explore examples of a successful and an unsuccessful effort. | | | South Africa | |
<
< | Greensboro, NC | | | | |
<
< | The Problem | >
> | Greensboro, NC | | | Overcoming the Intransigence |
|
|
NathanStopperFirstPaper 2 - 26 Feb 2010 - Main.NathanStopper
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | | | | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | |
<
< | Paper Title | >
> | Truth and THEN Reconciliation - the Way Forward for Congress | | | -- By NathanStopper - 20 Feb 2010 | |
<
< | Section I
Subsection A
Subsub 1
Subsection B
Subsub 1 | >
> | Introduction | | | | |
>
> | Overcoming conflict | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 2 | >
> | South Africa | | | | |
>
> | Greensboro, NC | | | | |
>
> | The Problem | | | | |
<
< | Section II | >
> | Overcoming the Intransigence | | | | |
<
< | Subsection A | >
> | Pressure from Without | | | | |
<
< | Subsection B | >
> | Pressure from Within | | | | |
>
> | Conclusion | | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |
|
|
NathanStopperFirstPaper 1 - 20 Feb 2010 - Main.NathanStopper
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
Paper Title
-- By NathanStopper - 20 Feb 2010
Section I
Subsection A
Subsub 1
Subsection B
Subsub 1
Subsub 2
Section II
Subsection A
Subsection B
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, NathanStopper
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|