Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />~* <br />~ <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />756 <br /> <br />NEBRASKA LAW REVIEW <br /> <br />[Vol. 70:754 <br /> <br />(' <br /> <br />c. The Complete Auto Transit Test for State <br /> <br />Tax Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <br /> <br />807 <br /> <br />C. <br /> <br />Market Participant Theory: An Exception to the <br />~egative Co~erce Clause......................... <br /> <br />1. Backgro-un.d...................................... <br /> <br />2. Applicability to ~atural Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . <br />3. Legal Consequences of Market Participant <br /> <br />808 <br />808 <br />809 <br /> <br />S'tclt'US . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810 <br /> <br />D. Privileges and Immunities and Equal Protection .. . 811 <br />1. Privileges and Immunities Clause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811 <br />2. Equal Protection Clause.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814 <br />V. Responses by Other States to the Sporhase Decision. . . . 815 <br />A. State Law at the Time of Sporhase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815 <br />B. The ~ ew Mexico Litigation. . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. 817 <br /> <br />1. El Paso 1......................................... . 817 <br /> <br />a. Factual Background ......................... 817 <br />b. Results of the Litigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818 <br />c. Key Issues Addressed by the Court ......... 818 <br />i. Can state regulation favor local <br /> <br />economies? .............................. 818 <br /> <br />ii. Does water have unique constitutional <br /> <br />status? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819 <br /> <br />ill. What is a "severe shortage" of water? .. 820 <br />iv. Can a state reserve water for future <br /> <br />(, <br /> <br />needs? ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821 <br /> <br />2. El Pczso 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822 <br /> <br />C. Legislative Studies in New Mexico ................. 826 <br /> <br />D. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828 <br /> <br />VI. Pitfalls to Avoid in Legislative Drafting and <br />Constitutional Litigation................................. 830 <br />A. Drafting Considerations ............................ 830 <br />1. Know the Character and Dimensions of Water <br /> <br />Use. . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831 <br /> <br />2. Draft to Achieve a Constitutional Water Policy. 831 <br />3. Provide a Comprehensive Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . 832 <br />4. Keep Statements Consistent With Policy. . . . . . . . 833 <br />B. Constitutional Litigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833 <br />VII. An Assessment of Policy Options after Sporhase . . . . . . . . 835 <br />A. Findings and Implications .......................... 835 <br />VIII. Appendix: Export Statutes of the Western States.... . . . 845 <br /> <br />A. Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845 <br /> <br />B. California. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848 <br /> <br />C. Colorado. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848 <br /> <br />D. Idaho. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851 <br /> <br />E. Kansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 852 <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />HeinOnline -- 70 Neb. L. Rev. 756 1991 <br />