Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br />~ ..... .!' <br /> <br />Generally speaking, it is thus true that a state should shape its water law n gime <br />with Sporhase in mind, but it need not live in any unreasonable fear of Sporhas(. As . <br />indicated above, the reasoning in Sporhase has serious weaknesses. Just as importantly, <br />since 1982 the Court has moved steadily - some would say sharply - in the direction of <br />states' rights. Given the Court's recent trend regarding the Commerce Clause, see e.g., <br />United States v. Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (1995) and regarding such issues as state <br />sovereignty, see, e.g., Federal Maritime Comm 'n v. South Carolina State Ports Aut! ority, <br />2002 WL 1050457 (2002), Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999), College Savings Bank <br />v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666 (1999), Rehncuist's <br />dissenting view could very well prevail in a Sporhase - related case brought today. <br /> <br />18 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br />