Notes
 | This article includes a list of references, related reading, or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations .(January 2016) |
Bridge law is the body of laws which apply to bridges in a particular jurisdiction.
In the United States, legislative authority to erect a bridge is necessary in three cases: first, when toll is demanded for its use—the right to take toll being a franchise which cannot be claimed without express grant from the state; second, when the state owns the bed of the stream over which the bridge extends, as is the case in all public or navigable streams; third, when the structure interferes or threatens to interfere with navigation. In the last case the authority of state governments is subject to the power given to Congress by the Federal Constitution to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states.” (Art. I., §8.) The states may authorize bridges over navigable streams, and may regulate their size, form, and manner of construction. Until Congress intervenes in such cases the power of the states is unlimited. When it does intervene, however, its will is supreme, and its legislation, within the limits of the constitutional grant, overrides that of any state. A bridge constructed over a navigable river in accordance with an act of Congress is a lawful structure, however much it may interfere with the public right of navigation.
| This article includes a list of references, related reading, or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations .(January 2016) |
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the power to regulate interstate commerce, which is granted to the US Congress by the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, encompasses the power to regulate navigation. The decision is credited with supporting the economic growth of the antebellum United States and the creation of national markets. Gibbons v. Ogden has since provided the basis for Congress' regulation of railroads, freeways and television and radio broadcasts.
The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution. The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is common to see the individual components of the Commerce Clause referred to under specific terms: the Foreign Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the Indian Commerce Clause.
Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court struck down a federal law regulating child labor. The decision was overruled by United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941).
Riparian water rights is a system for allocating water among those who possess land along its path. It has its origins in English common law. Riparian water rights exist in many jurisdictions with a common law heritage, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and states in the eastern United States.
The Federal Power Act is a law appearing in Chapter 12 of Title 16 of the United States Code, entitled "Federal Regulation and Development of Power". Enacted as the Federal Water Power Act on June 10, 1920, and amended many times since, its original purpose was to more effectively coordinate the development of hydroelectric projects in the United States. Representative John J. Esch (R-Wisconsin) was the sponsor.
Water right in water law is the right of a user to use water from a water source, e.g., a river, stream, pond or source of groundwater. In areas with plentiful water and few users, such systems are generally not complicated or contentious. In other areas, especially arid areas where irrigation is practiced, such systems are often the source of conflict, both legal and physical. Some systems treat surface water and ground water in the same manner, while others use different principles for each.
A body of water, such as a river, canal or lake, is navigable if it is deep, wide and calm enough for a water vessel to pass safely. Navigability is also referred to in the broader context of a body of water having sufficient under keel clearance for a vessel.
In real estate, air rights are the property interest in the "space" above the Earth's surface. Generally speaking, owning or renting land or a building includes the right to use and build in the space above the land without interference by others.
The Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 is the oldest federal environmental law in the United States. The Act makes it a misdemeanor to discharge refuse matter of any kind into the navigable waters, or tributaries thereof, of the United States without a permit; this specific provision is known as the Refuse Act. The Act also makes it a misdemeanor to excavate, fill, or alter the course, condition, or capacity of any port, harbor, channel, or other areas within the reach of the Act without a permit. The Act also made it illegal to dam navigable streams without a license from Congress. This provision was included for the purposes of hydroelectric generation, at a time when the electric utility industry was expanding rapidly.
Navigable servitude is a doctrine in United States constitutional law that gives the federal government the right to regulate navigable waterways as an extension of the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the constitution. It is also sometimes called federal navigational servitude.
The Supreme Court decision in Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892), reaffirmed that each state in its sovereign capacity holds title to all submerged lands within its borders and holds these lands in public trust. This is a foundational case for the public trust doctrine. The Supreme Court held a four to three split decision that the State of Illinois did not possess the authority to grant fee title to submerged lands where doing so would preclude exercise of the public right to commercial navigation and fishing in navigable waters.
Cardwell v. American Bridge Co., 113 U.S. 205 (1885), was a bill in equity, for the removal of a bridge erected by the defendant over the American River in northern California, downriver from the property of the plaintiff on that navigable section of the river.
Rivers and Harbors Act may refer to one of many pieces of legislation and appropriations passed by the United States Congress since the first such legislation in 1824. At that time Congress appropriated $75,000 to improve navigation on the Ohio and Mississippi rivers by removing sandbars, snags, and other obstacles. Like when first passed, the legislation was to be administered by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), under its Chief Engineer and the Secretary of War.
St. Louis v. Myers, 113 U.S. 566 (1885), was a motion to dismiss for want of a federal question to give jurisdiction regarding Acts that admitted Missouri into the Union while leaving the rights of riparian owners on the Mississippi River to be settled according to the principles of state law and relinquishing to the City of St. Louis the rights of the United States in wharves and thoroughfares, which did not authorize the city to impair the rights of other riparian proprietors by extending streets into the river.
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to extend the Fair Labor Standards Act, which requires that employers provide minimum wage and overtime pay to their employees, to state and local governments. In this case, the Court overruled its previous decision in National League of Cities v. Usery, in which the Court had held that regulation of the activities of state and local governments "in areas of traditional governmental functions" would violate the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) is an agency in the government of Oklahoma under the Governor of Oklahoma. OWRB is responsible for managing and protection the water resources of Oklahoma as well as for planning for the state's long-range water needs. The Board is composed of nine members appointed by the Governor with the consent of the Oklahoma Senate. The Board, in turn, appoints an Executive Director to administer the agency.
Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001), was a decision by the US Supreme Court that interpreted a provision of the Clean Water Act. Section 404 of the Act requires permits for the discharge of dredged or fill materials into "navigable waters," which is defined by the Act as "waters of the United States." That provision was the basis for the federal wetlands-permitting program.
There are benefits to leaving environmental regulation both to the federal government to the states.For example, wildlife conservation is much more of a concern for Alaska than for New York. New York, however, has much bigger air and light pollution issues than Alaska.
The Canadian Navigable Waters Act is one of the oldest regulatory statutes enacted by the Parliament of Canada. It requires approval for any works that may affect navigation on navigable waters in Canada.
The Clean Water Rule is a 2015 regulation published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to clarify water resource management in the United States under a provision of the Clean Water Act of 1972. The regulation defined the scope of federal water protection in a more consistent manner, particularly over streams and wetlands which have a significant hydrological and ecological connection to traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and territorial seas. It is also referred to as the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, which defines all bodies of water that fall under U.S. federal jurisdiction. The rule was published in response to concerns about lack of clarity over the act's scope from legislators at multiple levels, industry members, researchers and other science professionals, activists, and citizens.