Suchergebnisse

This article surveys the past and present role of lawyers in the field of Indian law, from the absence of attorneys in early treaty negotiations through the formative role lawyers played in developing the federal trust relationship, to their modem role as "legal warriors" for the increasingly independent, autonomous tribes of today. To understand all the changes now occurring in Indian law, a review of the background is helpful. What follows is a synopsis of the significant events in Indian history, focusing on how the U.S. government initially treated Indians and the role the legal profession played in this treatment.

This article surveys the past and present role of lawyers in the field of Indian law, from the absence of attorneys in early treaty negotiations through the formative role lawyers played in developing the federal trust relationship, to their modem role as "legal warriors" for the increasingly independent, autonomous tribes of today. To understand all the changes now occurring in Indian law, a review of the background is helpful. What follows is a synopsis of the significant events in Indian history, focusing on how the U.S. government initially treated Indians and the role the legal profession played in this treatment.

The tragic spill of millions of gallons of oil into Alaska's Prince William Sound alerted the people of Washington to the danger of spills in Puget Sound. In Washington, the danger heightens as the amount of oil transported through the Sound increases. Indeed, Coast Guard figures show about 1,500 tanker movements in Puget Sound in 1988, a 50 percent increase over 1974.2 Moreover, the spill from the Exxon Valdez taught us that, because very little can be done after a spill, the only truly effective means of preventing damage from oil spills is to prevent them in the first place. This Article proposes a unique source of prevention: the public trust doctrine. The public trust doctrine dates from ancient times and protects the public interest in navigation, commerce, and fisheries. The trust gives to the public an easement-like interest, which predates all private ownership,in the protected resources. The fundamental resources to which the public trust applies are navigable waters, their tributaries, and their beds. However, state courts are now expanding the doctrine to protect the public's interest in recreation," wildlife habitat, and water-quality management. The doctrine is both a source of, and a limitation upon, legislative and administrative power over the protected resources. The doctrine also provides common law remedies to the state as well as to private citizens, beyond existing statutes, for threats or damage to public trust resources.

The United States and Canada share a common history in their policies toward and legal treatment of the Native Americans that historically have occupied both countries. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 established a policy of recognizing Aboriginal title and treating with Indians that was binding on the colonies that preceded both countries, and influenced both governments in later dealings with tribes. Assimilationist themes are evident as well in the national policy toward Indians in both countries. Nevertheless, historically and in the present, national policies and laws of the two governments can be contrasted. This Article sets forth a detailed comparison of the historical events surrounding white settlement and displacement of Indians from their Aboriginal lands. It further describes trends in the creation and development of Indian law, in the United States Congress and the Canadian Parliament, and in the courts of both countries. United States Supreme Court Justice John Marshall first recognized tribal sovereignty in developing a federal common law that has been extremely influential in the Indian jurisprudence of both countries. Presently in the United States, however, the Supreme Court is hostile toward tribal sovereignty and will not review federal legislative actions toward tribes, while Congress is an increasing champion of tribal self-government and economic self-development. Conversely, the Canadian Parliament continues in its assinfilationist legislative attitudes, refusing to recognize inherent powers of sovereignty in tribal government. Nevertheless, aboriginal rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada were codified in the 1982 Constitution, and the Canadian Supreme Court has recently taken unto itself the power to scrutinize legislative action in light of those rights.

The United States and Canada share a common history in their policies toward and legal treatment of the Native Americans that historically have occupied both countries. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 established a policy of recognizing Aboriginal title and treating with Indians that was binding on the colonies that preceded both countries, and influenced both governments in later dealings with tribes. Assimilationist themes are evident as well in the national policy toward Indians in both countries. Nevertheless, historically and in the present, national policies and laws of the two governments can be contrasted. This Article sets forth a detailed comparison of the historical events surrounding white settlement and displacement of Indians from their Aboriginal lands. It further describes trends in the creation and development of Indian law, in the United States Congress and the Canadian Parliament, and in the courts of both countries. United States Supreme Court Justice John Marshall first recognized tribal sovereignty in developing a federal common law that has been extremely influential in the Indian jurisprudence of both countries. Presently in the United States, however, the Supreme Court is hostile toward tribal sovereignty and will not review federal legislative actions toward tribes, while Congress is an increasing champion of tribal self-government and economic self-development. Conversely, the Canadian Parliament continues in its assimilationist legislative attitudes, refusing to recognize inherent powers of sovereignty in tribal government. Nevertheless, aboriginal rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada were codified in the 1982 Constitution, and the Canadian Supreme Court has recently taken unto itself the power to scrutinize legislative action in light of those rights.

Nonpoint pollution from irrigation return flows has become a serious national problem. Even the extraction of water for irrigation and other purposes causes pollution by reducing the assimilative capacity of the source stream or lake. Such pollution can be regulated either by the courts or the legislatures under the public trust doctrine, which antedates the prior appropriation system, and which protects fisheries and water quality. Alternatively, this pollution can be controlled under the state's police powers. The "takings" issue should not be troublesome because no one, not even prior appropriators, has or can acquire a legal right to pollute public waters.

This study described the state policy-making process as it was affected by the impact of the 1976 Federal Vocational Amendments. The roles of the state level actors were investigated in order to explain the process by which policy was developed. The impact on the local division was analyzed in terms of importance, action taken, and impact as these related to the issues of Sex Stereotyping, Local Advisory Council, Vocational Guidance, and the Assurances on Administrative and Fiscal Matters. The data were first viewed in aggregation and then as perceived by type of respondent, as well as by size, type, and geographical region of the school division. The major findings of the study were: 1. That the policy-making process at the state level was a complex array of assignments, committees, state officers, and staff. 2. The State Plan and Accountability Report Committee was the most influential actor in the policy process with the State Advisory Council placing second in importance. 3. In terms of prior action before the 1976 Vocational Amendments, little had taken place at the local level. 4. In terms of impact, the 1976 Vocational Amendments had only a moderately low to moderate effect on school organizations as reported by Superintendents and Vocational Directors. 5. As reported by respondents, school division size, type, and geographic region, only the issue of Sex Stereotyping produced an adjudged difference in impact. 6. Partial correlations across the relationships of importance to impact, importance to action taken, and action taken to impact revealed moderate to low relationships. 7. The conclusions of this investigation were, at the state level, that the development of the Five-Year Plan for Vocational Education was carried out with very few changes from the draft that was formulated by the State Plan and Accountability Report Committee and that the State Plan and Accountability Report Committee played a unique and important role in the policy process. At the lowest level, the 1976 Vocational Amendments required the local divisions to focus attention and resources on the selected issues. Although the Amendments required the school divisions to take action, only a moderate effect had been reported by the localities on their school division organization. At the local level, the 1976 Vocational Amendments required the local divisions to focus attention and resources on the selected issues. Although the Amendments required the school divisions to take action, only a moderate effect had been reported by the localities on their school division organization. ; Ed. D.

The salinity problem in United States rivers becomes worse each year, and no water law system to date has been developed that adequately addresses salinity management. Professor Johnson discusses the salinity problem and its scope as well as remedial and preventative measures that have been taken in the past. He suggests combating the salinity problem by use of systems analysis, i.e., a comprehensive basinwide or regional management plan that analyzes the entire hydrological, economic, political, and agricultural system.

Pacific Northwest Indian tribes signed treaties with the United States in the mid-1850's which guaranteed them the permanent right to fish at their usual and accustomed fishing sites off the reservations. The Indians believe these treaties mean that those states which did not exist in 1855 have no power to regulate Indian off-reservation fishing under any circumstances. State officials, on the other hand, have consistently argued that Indian off-reservation fishing is subject to the same state regulation as non-Indian fishing. The United States Supreme Court has basically accepted the states' position, holding that states can regulate off-reservation fishing when "necessary for conservation." In 1896, 1905 and again in 1942 the Court, in dictum, adopted that proposition.' The error was compounded in 1968 in Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game. The question of whether the states have power to regulate off-reservation fishing was relevant in Puyallup, but the Court, as in previous cases, simply reiterated its earlier assumption without analysis of why the states have such power.

Pacific Northwest Indian tribes signed treaties with the United States in the mid-1850's which guaranteed them the permanent right to fish at their usual and accustomed fishing sites off the reservations. The Indians believe these treaties mean that those states which did not exist in 1855 have no power to regulate Indian off-reservation fishing under any circumstances. State officials, on the other hand, have consistently argued that Indian off-reservation fishing is subject to the same state regulation as non-Indian fishing. The United States Supreme Court has basically accepted the states' position, holding that states can regulate off-reservation fishing when "necessary for conservation." In 1896, 1905 and again in 1942 the Court, in dictum, adopted that proposition. The error was compounded in 1968 in Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game. The question of whether the states have power to regulate off-reservation fishing was relevant in Puyallup, but the Court, as in previous cases, simply reiterated its earlier assumption without analysis of why the states have such power.

A major Columbia River water diversion is an option available to meet the future long-range water needs of the rapidly growing but arid Southwest. Without taking a position on the ultimate issue of diversion, Professor Johnson examines numerous precedents and current proposals for protecting the water rights of the area of origin. Since authority for determining whether and on what terms a diversion will take place rests with Congress, the political interests involved in a major diversion project are discussed and proposals are advanced for protecting areas of origin in light of past experience and political reality.

This article is designed to explore the optimal institutional structures that might be adopted by the federal government to manage weather modification. Should all federal weather modification activities be managed by a new department? Should these activities be carried out by one of the existing mission agencies, or by a new one? Should the various weather modification functions of research, operations, data collection, monitoring, coordination, comprehensive planning, project review, regulation, licensing, and indemnification all be carried by one federal agency, or should they be scattered among a variety of agencies? Should some be assigned to new entities not yet created? These are some of the questions that will be explored. No attempt will be made to design the ultimate form of federal organization that might most effectively carry out these various functions. Rather an attempt will be made to analyze the effects that a variety of different institutional arrangements might have.

In a comprehensive study of the recent dispute between Canada and the United States over the Columbia River, Professor Johnson traces its history through the birth of the Harmon doctrine in 1898, the signing of the Boundary Waters Treaty in 1909, and the first Canadian claim to downstream benefits in the early 1950's. Against this background, he analyzes the negotiations and events—particularly the Canadian proposals to divert the Columbia into the Fraser, and to develop the Peace River instead of the Columbia—that culminated in the Columbia River Treaty in 1961. Before Canadian ratification of the Treaty, however, additional problems presented by the split between the Provincial and National governments had to be resolved. Their resolution brought about the signing of a Protocol with the United States in 1964, as well as ratification of the Treaty. Finally, Professor Johnson comments on the benefits accruing to each nation from the Treaty and its potential impact on future Canadian-United States relations.

In a comprehensive study of the recent dispute between Canada and the United States over the Columbia River, Professor Johnson traces its history through the birth of the Harmon doctrine in 1898, the signing of the Boundary Waters Treaty in 1909, and the first Canadian claim to downstream benefits in the early 1950's. Against this background, he analyzes the negotiations and events—particularly the Canadian proposals to divert the Columbia into the Fraser, and to develop the Peace River instead of the Columbia—that culminated in the Columbia River Treaty in 1961. Before Canadian ratification of the Treaty, however, additional problems presented by the split between the Provincial and National governments had to be resolved. Their resolution brought about the signing of a Protocol with the United States in 1964, as well as ratification of the Treaty. Finally, Professor Johnson comments on the benefits accruing to each nation from the Treaty and its potential impact on future Canadian-United States relations.