savoy010

Venetian aqueduct in Crete The latest issue of Water History  has an article by Yannis Spyropoulos, "Running water for the officials, rainwater for the poor: symbolic use and control of water in early modern Ottoman Crete" . The abstract: This paper deals with the issue of water management on the island of Crete from the beginning of the Ottoman–Venetian war in 1645 to the beginning of its Egyptian administration in 1830. Based primarily on information given by Kandiye’s (mod. Herakleion) Shariah court records, but also on a variety of published and unpublished archival material from Turkey, Greece, and France, it explores the socioeconomic aspects of water-resource exploitation in the island’s urban centers, analyzes the involvement of various local and imperial actors in water management, and locates the struggles created in the above-mentioned processes. Through a detailed analysis of the challenges faced by the administration and the population of an insular area with lim

(Part II of the series, Part I is here .) The second half of the eighteenth century saw the development, primarily in Scotland (though with significant French and other precedents),  of what would come to be known as “stadial theory” or “four-stages theory.” This group of theories built on an age-old interest in the origins of society and its institutions, sharpened by contact with New World societies that reminded Europeans of societies described in classical Greco-Roman and biblical sources, and raised the issue of what separated “savage” or “barbaric” peoples from “civilized” ones. Stadial thinking offered a theory of progress: In its most specific form, the theory was that society ‛naturally’ or ‛normally’ progressed over time through four more or less distinct and consecutive stages, each corresponding to a different mode of subsistence, these stages being defined as hunting, pasturage, agriculture, and commerce. To each of these modes of subsistence, it came to be argued, there c

Dan Farber recently blogged at Legal Planet on what has changed in environmental law since the first edition of his casebook, published in 1981: Some changes were less than expected. Given Reagan’s election, it seemed likely that we would see some major statutory modifications if not repeals. But that didn’t happen. In fact, looking at that book, I realize that there have been only a handful of significant statutory changes. CERCLA, the Superfund law, wasn’t passed until just after the election by the lame duck Congress. Congress passed minor statutory revisions in the 1980s and a big amendment to the Clean Air Act in 1990 that mostly strengthened it. It also passed a statute just a couple of years ago helpfully revamping the Toxic Substances Control Act. Even in 1980, it was clear to us that the original version was a botched job.  With those exceptions, the statutes now are pretty much the same as they were back then. Even though the statutes are the same, there have been a massive n

To cap the series I've been doing on "The Tragedy of the Commons at 50"  (the last post is here ), I'm going to post my own contribution to the issue ( SSRN , Academia ), in installments. I'd be really happy to get feedback. This series makes a simple claim: that the commons theory of the last half century, in its various forms and schools, has been substantially shaped by early modern ways of thinking about the evolution of civilizations. In particular, it has hewed closely to models that gelled in the Enlightenment-era works known as “stadial theory,” passed down to the twentieth century through the disciplines of anthropology and human ecology, and strongly entrenched in the patterns of thought of property theorists to this day. I do not wish to argue that recent thinkers deliberately or consciously based their theories on early modern precedents, nor do I claim that their theories simply recast old theories, pouring old wine into new bottles. What I wish to ar

California's Camp Fire, November 2018 Peter Reich recently posted "What Happened to Hispanic Natural Resources Law in California?" . The abstract: Before the US annexation of California in 1848, the region’s Spanish and Mexican governments supervised a geographically-adapted legal system emphasizing communal water rights and public allocation of minerals, land, and coastal areas. While many post-takeover judges considered Hispanic legal principles, the overall trend was to reject these in favor of common law. The prior anti-developmental tradition was in most cases distorted, overridden, or procedurally blocked, and the jurisprudence replacing it facilitated resource degradation that has been only partially reversed by California’s modern environmental policy. As one example, the stark contrast between fire zone rules in Mexico’s Baja California and in US Southern California, and the resulting far more destructive conflagrations in the latter, demonstrate the advantages o

Next to last in our series on "The Tragedy of the Commons at 50"  (the previous post, on Carol Rose's article, is here ) is Giacomo Bonan's piece, "Confronting Hardin: Trends and Approaches to the Commons in Historiography" . The abstract: This Article analyses both the role of historiography in Hardin’s The Tragedy of the Commons (1968) and his paper’s impact on historiographical debates of the last five decades. Concerning the role of historiography in Hardin’s argument, the ‘tragedy of the commons’ itself derived from a pamphlet written by a nineteenth century supporter of English enclosures, who proposed a variant of Malthus’ theory. If Hardin inevitably dealt with previous historical interpretations of the commons, the reverberations aroused by his paper have strongly influenced subsequent historical research on this subject. It is possible to group the historiographical production of the last decades concerning the commons into three main lines of rese

I'm reposting (with permission) an email I recently got from Jim Salzman (the picture is my own addition): We are writing to invite you to participate in a survey we trust you will find interesting and fun. In 1999 and 2009, JB Ruhl (Vanderbilt Law School) and I surveyed environmental law practitioners and academics about which Supreme Court cases they thought were the most important to our field. The 1999 results were published in ABA’s Natural Resources & Environment, and the 2009 results were published in ELI’s The Environmental Forum. A decade later, we have prepared the 2019 survey and are eager to see how the data have changed. We intend to publish the results this Winter. Please click here for the link to the survey. We are posting this information on multiple environmental law list serves and apologize for cross-listings. Please take the survey only once. We hope you will take the two minutes needed to complete the survey to help give us as much data as possible.  Than

The current issue of Water History  has an article by Anna Mazanik, "Industrial waste, river pollution and water politics in Central Russia, 1880–1917" . First, an extract (footnotes and references omitted): Imperial Russia did not have a unified legislation on water pollution comparable, for example, to the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act of 1876 in Britain. This did not mean that the tsarist government made no attempt to protect water resources and that the questions of industrial discharge and water pollution were not legally regulated. Rather, their regulation was dispersed across several legal statutes and decrees, often in unclear, repetitive or somewhat contradictory formulations, which meant that even contemporary bureaucrats and experts found it difficult to apply. Czar Alexander II The basic principles of water protection were stipulated in the state legislation such as the Medical and Building Statutes and the Statute of Industry. The Medical Statute forbade “conta