agement of water will be important The newly created programs intended 10 reward certain types of water resource projects should also be of interest
Walter G. Wright, if; is a member and Albert 1. Thomas, III is an associare of the LillIe Rock law finn of Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, PL.L.c. They are members of the finn's Environmental and Natural Resources Practice Group. Wright also serves as all adjuncI professor 01 Ihe UALR School of Law. Also assisting in the preparation of this article were Robert F. Thompson, 11/, and Holly Larkin, bOlh of wholll are 3rd-year law students at the University ofArkansas and Vanderbilt University respectively. Endnotes I. See, Enhancing the Role oj Water Districts ill Groundwater Manageme1l1 and SurJace Water Utiliz.ation in Arkamas, 48 Ark. L. Rev. 643 (1995); An Updale on Arkansas Water Law: Is the Riparian Rights Doctrine Dead? 43 Ark. L. Rev. 573 (1990); Modification oj Arkansas Water Law: Issues Gild Alternatives, 38 Ark. L. Rev. 221 (1984). 2. Charles J. Meyers & A. Dan Tarlock, Water Resource Manageme1l1, 7 (2d Ed. 1980). 3. Heath, Basic Groundwater Hydmlogy ii (U.S. GPO 1983). 4. Id. 5. Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission, Arkansas Water Plan: Executive Summary 9 (1990) [hereinafter Arkansas Water Plan]. 6. Activities potentially causing groundwater pollution are numerous and diverse. They range from defective landfills and surface impoundmel1ls to leaking underground slorage tanks. See Wright, In Storage Tanks We Trust: An Analysis oJ Their Role {ll Protecting The Environmelll and Small Business, 13 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 417 (1991) (discussion of underground storage tank issues). 7. Arkansas Water Plan, supra note 5, at 2. 8. Id. 9. Id. at 9,12. 10. Id. at 15. II. Arkansas Water Plan, supra note 5, at 15. 12. Id. 13. Id. at 21-22. 14. Id. at 12. 15. Arkansas Water Plan, supra note 5, at
17. 16. Id. at 12. 17. Id. 18. Id. 19. Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.c. ยง 1251 el seq.; Arkansas Water and Air Pollution Control Aet. Aet 472 of 1949 (as amended. eodifled at Ark. Code Ann. ยง8-4-1 0 I. eI seq.) Any facilily discharging a pollutant through a point source into a navigable body of water must have a National Pollution Diseharge System ("NPDES") permit. See 33 U.S.c. ยง 1301. The terms "pollutant" and ';poinl source" are broadly defined. Arkansas administers this program pursuant to ADPC&E Regulation No.6. A permit's effiuent limitations are based initially on categorical technological controls. However, where necessary for the relevant segment of the water body to achieve specified water quality standards, the permit may contain more stringent effluent limitations. 20. See generally Clean Water Act 33 U.S.c. ยง 1303 el seq. 21. See ADPC&E Regulation No.2. 22. See ADPC&E Regulation No. 22 (sanitary landfill standards), ADPC&E Regulation No. 12 (underground storage tank standards), Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodentieide Aet 7 U.S.c. ยง 136 et seq. (pesticide use and disposal statutory requirement). 23. Arkansas Water Plan, supra note 5, at 22. 24. See Harris v. Brooks, 225 Ark. 436 (1955). 25. Id. at 442. 26. Id. 27. See Harrell v. City of COl/way, 224 Ark. 100 (1954). 28. Id. at 104. 29. See Lingo v. City of Jaeksol/ville, 258
Ark. 63 (1975) (indicating that a transfer of groundwater would be permissible if no harm resulted to the overlying landowners); see also Miller II. United States, 492 F. Supp. 956 (ED. Ark. 1980) (suggesting that an interbasin water transfer can take place when a surplus exists). 30. See Seetion III (8) of this article. 31. Jones v. Oz-Ark-Val Poultry Co., 228 Ark. 76 (1957). 32. See Harris v. Brooks, supra note 24. 33. Barbaro v. Boyle, 119 Ark. 377 (1915). 34. Stale v. Mcilroy, 268 Ark. 227 (1980). A recent Arkansas Attorney General's opinion addressing various issues related to lake ownership is found at Gp. Att'y Gen. No. 95-226 (1995). 35. Id. 36. Nilsson v. Latimer, 281 Ark. 325 (1984). 37. Id. at 327. 38. Barbaro v. Boyle, 119 Ark. 377, 380 (1915). 39. Anderson II, Reames, 204 Ark. 216 (1942). 40. Barbaro, supra note 38, at 380. 41. Anderson, sl/pra note 39. 42. Id. 43. State v. Mcilroy, supra nOle 34. 44. Pirtle v. Opco, Inc., 269 Ark. 862 (App. 1980). 45. Boyd v. Greel/e County, 7 Ark. App. 110 (1983). An interesting decision addressing the scope of a flowage easement and Lake Catherine is Carsin v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 14 F. 2d 399 (8th Cir. 1993). 46. An interesting case involving a dam dispute between differem property owners involving the ASWCC is Styers v. Johnson, 119 Ark. App. 312, 720 S. W.2d 334 (1986). 47. 281 Ark. 286, 664 S.W.2d 441 (1984).
BUSINESS VALUATIONS Closely Held Businesses & Professional Practices RICHARD 1. SCHWARTZ Certified Public Accountant - Arkansas Certified Business Appraiser - Institute of Business Appraisers Certified Fraud Examiner - Association of Certified Fraud Examiners Court Appointed - Regular Court Appearances National Lecturer Call for our free brochure 11510 Fairview Road Suite 100 Little Rock, AR 72212-2445 (501) 221-9900 II Thr Irkmall,atl!rr Suoorr [996