I.L.A.*

My mission this weekend was to accomplish as much of my homework for the week as I could before the week ever starts.  20 more pages to read in my Native American Natural Resources book and I will have all of my class homework for Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday finished!

Scout helps me with my homework by napping in my bag of textbooks:


I did get a little bogged down my Environmental Law reading.  I love acronyms* for their convenience and cleverness, but the legal system REALLY loves acronyms.  Especially, as it turns out, environmental protection statutes.  I was just starting to get used to the acronyms for NEPA (National Environmental Protection Act ), but today I tripped over the following acronyms that popped up in only three pages of reading on the CAA (Clean Air Act):

NAAQS: National Ambient Air Quality Standards
SIP: State Implementation Plan
PSD: Prevention of Significant Deterioration
NSPS: Nationally Uniform New Source Performance Standards (apparently they didn't think that "NUSPS"was any good, but I personally like it better)
RACT: Reasonably Available Control Technology
LAER: Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate
BACT: Best Available Control Technology
BART: Best Available Retrofit Technology
and, last but not least, NESHAP: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.

Here's a special sample from my reading: "The three emission standards (under the CAA) applicable to sources that are required to apply for permits under the nonattainment, PSD, and visibility protection programs (now why not just call that "VPP" while we're at it, hhhmm???)--LAER, BACT, and BART--are not technology-based in the same sense as the mobile-source standards, the NSPS, and RACT for existing sources."

...I think this might be why environmental lawyers focus on becoming experts on only one environmental statute.

This extra push on homework is my attempt to make a little more room for my other law and non-law projects I have going this week, some of them more fun than others, for example: skimming the 50+ articles that I have waiting to be read for the two 30-page research papers I will write this semester, practicing piano for my part in Chelsea and Jacob's wedding this weekend, volunteering at the new Ten Thousand Villages opening up in Lawrence (Hooray!), soaking up the joy of having some of my favorite people in town for the wedding (DOUBLE HOORAY!), and catering snacks to the 5th floor of Green Hall every day for the 30 person staff of the Law Review (Hoo...! .......wait a sec...).

That's right, it's my week to provide my hard-working peers with snacks.  Another "perk" of making the Kansas Law Review.  Actually I really love snacks, so I'm willing to do my part if it means I always have access to a little pick-me-up when I'm hungry halfway to lunch, or falling asleep at my study carrell reading Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, or both.

I took a break this evening between Secured Transactions and Environmental Law reading to cut a few veggies for tomorrow's veggie-hummus-tray masterpiece:

 Mmmmm doesn't that look tasty? The snack menu gets less healthy from here but I thought I'd at least start the week right. Notice also the multiple mugs from tea and coffee, the basil from my garden still waiting to be turned into pesto, and my binder of articles for Law Review research (I don't know why there's a broken clothes-hanger on the table, you'll have to ask CJ).

Alright--20 more pages and then it's to bed with me.  Who's ready for another big, fun week?!

Hm, this research is making me thirsty...

October comes around too quickly this year.  The other day someone asked me if I was already halfway through my semester and I gasped "NO!" ...I might be in denial. 

This evening is a nice break, of sorts, from homework.  I don't mean I don't have homework tonight, I just mean I have a little bit of time outside of homework for myself: time to write, time to pick tomatoes and peppers from my garden, time to play a game or two with CJ.

What has been soaking up all my time? I am researching water rights issues in Kansas.  You know, I'm self-conscious enough about my nerdiness that I usually assume I should just stop right there, but it really is a fascinating topic... Let's see if I can sum it up:

As a state, Kansas adopted a permitting system for water that allocates each water user a certain amount of water annually, and if the water runs low (for example, during a drought), then water rights users with "younger" permits are cut off until the supply of water picks up again.  This system works great for streams and rivers, which have a finite but renewable supply at any given point, but......... it turns out that it doesn't work quite so well for underground water supplies, like the Ogallala Aquifer.  Unlike rivers and streams, groundwater remains available in any amount it can be pumped, which means that there is no built-in mechanism to limit water use to only a self-sustaining amount, and which allowed Kansas to willy nilly grant permits to anyone who could put the water to a beneficial use. 

It didn't take long to realize it might not be a good thing to be using up the water in the Ogallala Aquifer at over ten times the rate it could recharge itself. The problem is that those water permits magically turn into private property when they are granted, and no one is too keen on the state telling them they just have to stop pumping water now, or even reduce the amount.  In fact, Amendment #5 of the Constitution says that Kansas can't just take away people's property unless they pay for it, and Kansas probably can't or doesn't want to pay to buy those water rights back, so, maybe we are stuck. 

On the other hand, if nothing is done to stop the rapid decline, a lot of Kansas is going to be without water at some point in the not too distant future, and when that happens, all those pieces of private property in water permits are not going to be worth anything at all.  We are pushing voluntary conservation measures, and they sure are conserving some water, of course, but... Voluntary conservation just isn't coming close to the kind of change that would have to happen to keep the Ogallala around for more than a generation.  Is there any legal way that Kansas can or should squirm its way around the 5th Amendment, allowing it to make the tough calls on water usage?  Does Kansas have any obligation to preserve value of property in water for later by infringing on property value in water now?

Quandary.  I'll leave you hanging for a while on that one... partly for the suspense factor, but partly because I'm pretty conflicted about the answer.

Ok, I really did try to keep it short, but my quick summary turned into my entire blog post.  I hope you liked it.