U.S. Fresh Water Law & Governance in The

Home , Clean tech law, Drought, Wild law

U.S. FRESH WATER LAW &GOVERNANCE IN THE ANTHROPOCENE: ACRITIQUE OF THE RIPARIAN RIGHTS LEGAL FRAMEWORK AS ABASIS FOR WATER GOVERNANCE IN VERMONT

CourtneyR.Hammond Wagner*†

INTRODUCTION...... 549 I. THE CHALLENGE OF THE ANTHROPOCENETOFRESH WATER LAW ...... 550 II. THE HYDROLOGIC CYCLE IN THE ANTHROPOCENE ...... 552 ClimateChange and theHydrologicCycle...... 553 III. BRIEF SURVEYOFFRESH WATER RESOURCE LAW IN THE U.S...... 554 A. TheNature of Riparian Rightsand thePrincipleof ReasonableUse ...... 556 B. Riparian RightsToday: Regulated Riparianism ...... 558 IV.THE CURRENT LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR WATER RIGHTS IN VERMONT ...... 560 Current StateofWater in Vermont ...... 562 V. DECONSTRUCTIONOFTHE PRINCIPLE OF REASONABLE USE IN VERMONT...... 565 ReasonableMisuse...... 568 VI.ALTERNATIVE DIRECTIONS FOR VERMONT WATER LAW IN THE ANTHROPOCENE...... 569 A. Implementing an Environmental Ethic...... 570 B. Expandingthe Concept of Riparianism...... 573 CONCLUSION ...... 574

INTRODUCTION

Theera of theAnthropocene1 will challenge governments, legal frameworks, and resource management regimes to reexamineunderlying

*Ph.D. in NaturalResources fromthe Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, UniversityofVermont andGraduateFellowatthe Gund Institute for Environment, University of Vermont. B.A. DartmouthCollege (2011). †The author wouldlike to acknowledge support from theEconomicsfor the Anthropocene partnership with funding fromthe Social Sciences andHumanities Research CouncilofCanadaand the Gund Institute forEnvironment at theUniversity of Vermont.The author wouldalso like to thankDr. PeterBrownand Dr.Geoff Garver for their encouragement in pursuing this Essay and feedback on earlier essay versions. 1. The “Anthropocene”isaproposedtermtodescribe thecurrent geological epoch to capture “the centralrole of mankindingeology and ecology.” It wasfirstsuggested as anew geological epoch by P. J.Crutzen &E.F.Stoermer’s The “Anthropocene.”See Paul J. Crutzen&EugeneF.Stoermer, The“Anthropocene,” GLOBAL CHANGE NEWSL.(Int’l Geosphere-Biosphere Programme(IGBP), 550 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:549 structures andassumptions fromthe perspectiveofenvironmentallimits.2 Onesuch system that will challenge these structures is theglobal hydrologiccycle.3 Within theU.S., issues of wateruse are traditionally viewed as relating to theconceptsofownership and property rights, and wateruse is primarily allocatedtoachieve economic development.4 As such,the legal framework andpolicyfor addressing issues of water allocation, use, and quality is inadequateinthe faceofthe ecological crises of theAnthropocene,and in fact played adirect role in creatingthesesame crises.5 In this Essay,Iexamine thelegal system of riparian rights, one of the primarydoctrines in theU.S.for governing waterrights, andits evolution to theregulatedripariansystem.6 Through an investigationintothe current state of theriparianwater rightssysteminVermont,Iexaminehow,in practice, thedoctrine and corresponding statutorylaw do not adequately protectwater resources. Thesystemdoes not accuratelyaccountfor the ecological limits embedded in thehydrologiccycle in deciding questions of waterallocation, use, and quality in Vermont.7 Instead,the principleof “reasonableuse” is employedtoweigh economic developmentmore heavily than ecologicallimits.8 Isuggestthat theripariandoctrine in Vermont,and in theU.S.morebroadly, requiresrestructuringbased on the principles of an environmental ethicinorder to face thechallenges of the Anthropocene to thehydrologiccycle.9

I. THE CHALLENGE OF THE ANTHROPOCENETOFRESH WATER LAW

“Sicutere tuo, ut non alienum lædas.”

–Justice Story, CircuitJustice10

Stockholm, Swed.), May2000, at 17 (discussing thereasoningbehind coining and using theterm “Anthropocene”). 2.See Mary ChristinaWood, Nature’s Trust:ALegal,Political and Moral Framefor Global Warming,34B.C. ENVTL.AFF.L.REV.577, 577–78 (2007) (articulatinghow thecurrentclimate crisis requireshumans to redefinethe government’s obligations to protectingthe environment). 3.See id. at 577 (stating that climatechange willhavedetrimental effects on waterresources). 4.See infra PartIII (overviewing waterlaw andits origins in theU.S.). 5.See infra PartII(analyzing theeffect of thecurrent legal regimeonwater issues). 6.See infra PartIII.A (examining the evolutionofriparianrights in U.S. jurisdictions). 7.See infra Part II (discussing the changing hydrologic cycle in theAnthropocene); infra Part IV (describing the current problemsVermont faces regarding waterquality). 8.See infra notes132–36 and accompanyingtext (notingthat Vermont has long used a “reasonableuse” standardwhen allocatingwater use permits). 9.See infra PartVI.A (explaining thefoundational elements of alandethic); see also infra PartVI.B (proposing to modify riparianism to supportalandethic). 10.Tyler v. Wilkinson, 24 F. Cas. 472, 474 (C.C.D.R.I. 1827) (No. 14,312). 2019] U.S. Fresh WaterLaw &Governance in theAnthropocene 551

As theglobal community begins to comprehend thesocial,political, and environmentalchallengesofthe Anthropocene,11 we must bringinto questionthe ability of traditional naturalresource laws to allocateresources in away that respectsand restoresthe ecological boundariesofEarth’s biophysical systems.12 Theabove quote, so useyour ownasnot to injure another’s property,isthe definingprinciple of onesuchset of laws,those based on theripariandoctrine in U.S. waterlaw.13 Accordingtothe doctrine, ariparianlandowner is given certain rightstothe useofwater abuttingthe landowner’s land,but canonlyuse watertothe extentthat it does not degrade thequality or quantity of theresource for anyother riparianlandowner.14 Duetothe global natureofthe hydrologiccycleand thefact that waterisanessentialresourcefor life, theentire human population, as well as themillions of speciesmaking up life on Earth,have astake in thequantity and qualityoffresh water.15 In this Essay,Iexplorethe questionofwhether or not theriparian doctrine is capable of facing thethreats to thehydrologiccycle—and thereforethe threatstohumanity’s fresh waterresources—inthe Anthropocene.16 As IdescribeinPartII, thischallenge consists of two generalissues: currentand historical levelsofenvironmental degradation, such as waterpollutionorover-allocation, andincreasingrisk of extreme weathereventsand uncertaintyinwater suppliesdue to climatechange.17 Through examiningthe historical foundations of theripariandoctrine andthe modern day system of regulated riparianism,Iargue that the ripariandoctrinewill need amendmentstoprotectour watersystems in the

11.See, e.g.,Will Steffen, Paul J. Crutzen &John R. McNeill, The Anthropocene: Are Humans Now Overwhelmingthe Great Forces of Nature,36AMBIO: J. HUM.ENV’T,Dec. 2007, at 614 (stating that “[i]nterestin[the Anthropocene] has escalated rapidly”). 12.See Wood, supra note2,at592, 595 (discussing how to reframetraditional environmental laws to protect natural resources). 13.See infra PartIII.A(overviewing theprinciples of riparianrightsinthe U.S.). 14. See DAN A. TARLOCKETAL., WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT:ACASEBOOK IN LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY 111, 116 (5thed. 2002) (quotingMeng v. Coffey,93N.W.713, 717–18 (Neb. 1903))(discussingthe rightsofownersoflands abutting waterwaysand notingthat “[t]he lawdoes not regardthe needs and desiresofthe person taking thewater solely to the exclusion of allother riparian proprietors”). 15.See infra Part II (analyzing theeffectsofthe Anthropocene on thehydrologicsystemand theU.S.systemofgovernment). 16.See infra Part II.B (listing requirements for waterlegislation in theAnthropocene to address climatechange). 17.KENNETH D. FREDERICK &PETER H. GLEICK,PEW CTR. ON GLOB.CLIMATE CHANGE, WATER &GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE:POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON U.S. WATER RESOURCES 2–4 (1999), https://www.c2es.org/site/assets/uploads/1999/09/clim_change.pdf. 552 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:549

Anthropocene.Iwill beginPartIIbyexploringthe challenges of environmentaldegradationand deteriorationtothe globalhydrologic system in theAnthropocene.InPartIII, Iprovide an overviewoffresh waterlaw andthe riparian doctrine in theU.S.InPartIV, Itrace the evolutionofthe riparian doctrine to thecurrent, modern-day system of regulated riparianism,using thefresh waterlegalsysteminVermont as a casestudy. In PartV,Idraw uponevidence—again from Vermont—to demonstrate flawsinimplementationofthissystemfor protectingfresh waterresources in theState.Finally,inPartVI, Isuggestmodifications to thedoctrineofriparianrightsbased on legally instatinganenvironmental ethicthatprioritizes ecological boundariesand enforces consequences when economic ends arepursued to thedetriment of ecosystems.

II. THE HYDROLOGIC CYCLE IN THE ANTHROPOCENE

Humans arenow theprimary forcealtering theglobal freshwater cycle.18 This manipulationhas dramatic impacts, affectingbiodiversity, ecological functioning, food production, human health,and theregulation of theglobal climatesystem.19 Thehuman interruptionofthe hydrologic cycleisone of theprimary pieces of evidence citedfor theformal recognitionofthe Anthropoceneasthe current geologicalepoch in Earth’s history.20 Humans aremodifyingboththe terrestrial watercycle—through alteringstream flow—and changing patternsofwater evaporationand transpiration—through land useand land cover change.21 More specifically,

18. See generally Will Steffenetal., PlanetaryBoundaries: Guiding HumanDevelopment on a Changing Planet,SCIENCE,Feb.13, 2015, at 1259855-3, 1259855-7 [hereinafter Steffen et al., PlanetaryBoundaries](depictingmodelsoffresh waterboundaries due to human consumption).The USGS providesaconcise but important summary of thewater cycle. The WaterCycle:Summary, From USGS WaterScience Basics,U.S.GEOLOGICAL SURV., https://water.usgs.gov/edu/ watercycletouzbek.html (last visitedApr. 14, 2019).The energy of thesun moves allofEarth’s water throughthe globalhydrologiccycle. Id. Though the cycle has no endorbeginning, aproper explanation has afirst step,sowebegin with bodies of water, like the ocean or freshwater lakes. Id. Evaporation removes waterparticlesfrom these bodies of waterand transformsthe waterintovapor. Id. Then, as waterprecipitates in theformofrainorsnow,iteither entersastream as surfacerunoff,infiltratesthe ground, or solidifies into asnowpack, which mayeventually melt as spring runoff or stay frozenasa glacier. Id. The water thatinfiltratesthe ground mayentergroundwater,orwill be taken up by plants. Id. Next,water molecules either reenter theatmosphere through evaporationfrom awater body or the soil,orreenter theatmospherethrough evapotranspiration. Id. Finally,gaseouswater in the atmosphere condensesintoclouds and theprecipitation cycle begins anew. Id. Thekey point of this cycles is that it is globaland it is not restricted to political boundaries. Id. 19.See Steffenetal., Planetary Boundaries, supra note18, at 1259855-2(explainingthe changesinthe Earth system and theirvarious impacts). 20.Will Steffenetal., The Anthropocene: Conceptual andHistoricalPerspectives,369 PHIL. TRANSACTIONS ROYAL SOC’Y A842, 843 (2011)[hereinafterSteffen et al., The Anthropocene]. 21. Id. 2019] U.S. Fresh WaterLaw &Governance in theAnthropocene 553 human development modifies thequantity and quality of runoff, infiltration ratesofwater into groundwater,general flowofwater,and thespatialand temporal patternsofevapotranspirationofwater back into theatmosphere.22 Humans arealsosignificantly altering thenitrogen and phosphorous biogeochemical cycles,which areintricatelytiedtothe watercycle and have dramatic effectsonthe health of lake ecosystems.23 In thecontextofthe Anthropocene,itisimportant to recognize that current andhistorical governance regimes allowedfor theactions that significantly alteredthe planet’s biophysical processes,suchasthe hydrologiccycle.24 Therefore, to face thechallenge of theAnthropocene to thehydrologiccycle,water governance regimesmustrestore thehealth of rivers, streams, andlakes to allowecosystemstofunction. Furthermore, they must curtail current actions that continue to degradewater quality and quantity.25 In additiontothese issues,climatechange exacerbates ecosystemdegradationand deterioration in theAnthropocenedue to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in theatmosphere.26

ClimateChange and theHydrologic Cycle

Themostrecent assessmentreport of theInternationalPanelon ClimateChange states that changes in precipitation and snow melt are alteringthe quantity and quality of hydrologicalsystems.27 Accordingtoa reportonclimatechange andU.S.water resources, climatechange will have largeimpactsonthe spatialand temporal variabilityofprecipitation, evapotranspiration,and runoff.28 This translatesintochanges in the frequency,intensity,and costofextremeevents,suchasapotentialincrease in theoccurrenceofand devastationdue to flooding.29 As temperature rises, ratesofevapotranspiration will increase, whichcouldlead to changes in

22.FREDERICK &GLEICK, supra note 17,at7. 23. See Johan Rockström et al., PlanetaryBoundaries: Exploringthe Safe Operating Space for Humanity,14ECOLOGY &SOC’Y,no. 2, 2009, Article No. 32,http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/ iss2/art32/ (explaining theeffect that altering the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles has on lakes). 24. Id. 25.See id. (outlining theconsequencesofwhat happens when thehydrologiccycleisallowed to degrade). 26.ClimateChange and Environmental Degradation,EUROPEAN COMM’N, https://ec.europa.eu/knowledge4policy/foresight/topic/climate-change-environmental-degradation_en (lastvisited Apr. 14, 2019). 27.Working Group II Contributiontothe Fifth AssessmentReportofthe Intergovernmental PanelonClimateChange [IPCC], ClimateChange 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability,Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects 4(Christopher B. Fields et al. eds.,2014). 28.FREDERICK &GLEICK, supra note 17, at 4. 29.Id. at 23. 554 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:549 patternsofprecipitation, runoff, and, paradoxically,anincrease in both drought and flooding throughout thecountry.30 With regard towater quality,climatechange couldcontributetowarmerwater temperatures and increased stormevents.31 Warmer watertemperaturesthreatenaquatic ecosystems.32 Additionally,the increase of urban and agriculturalrunoff fromstorm eventsincreases pollutionand sediment runoffintowater bodies,which also threatens aquatic ecosystems.33 Uncertainty in climate models makesitdifficulttopredict precise regionalimpactsofclimate change, but it is clear that runoffissensitive to variationinboth temperatureand precipitation.34 Therefore, in theAnthropocene,werequire waterlegislationthat: (1) acts to curtail current environmentaldegradation; (2)actstorestore deterioratedecosystems; and (3)addressesthe potentialincrease of extreme events and waterquality issues duetoclimatechange.35 Therefore, the questionthat Iwill exploreinthe remainderofthisEssay is: Will the ripariandoctrine, and themodernregulated ripariansystemofstatutory permitting, be capable of protectingour fresh waterresources and ecosystems in theAnthropocene?

III. BRIEF SURVEYOFFRESH WATER RESOURCE LAW IN THE U.S.

Watergovernanceregimes arediverse andhighlycontextualized within historical,geographical,and political contexts.36 In the U.S.,water lawwas bornout theincreaseofwater-driven mills duringthe Industrial Revolutionand theneed to applyconsistentlaw to disputes over access to waterand theflowofthe stream.37 With arelativelysparse earlypopulation in theEastern U.S. and abundant watersources,moststateshad few restrictions on wateruse as long as thediversion or use didnot obstruct the natural flow of theriver.38 Thedoctrine of riparianrightsemerged in this waterabundant region, whichgives certainrightsunder lawtoriparian

30.Id. at 7. 31.Id. at 29. 32.See id. (explaining that warm waterholds less oxygen,which threatens aquatic life). 33.Id. at v. 34.Id. 35.Id. at 22, 29. 36.Joseph W. Dellapenna, UnitedStates: The AllocationofSurface Waters, in THE EVOLUTION OF THE LAW AND POLITICSOFWATER 189 (Joseph W. Dellapenna &JoyeetaGuptaeds., 2009) [hereinafter The AllocationofSurface Waters](providing context forthe stateofU.S.governance regimes). 37.DAVID GETCHESETAL., WATER LAW IN A NUTSHELL 16 (5th ed.2015). 38.Id. at 18. 2019] U.S. Fresh WaterLaw &Governance in theAnthropocene 555 landownersborderingawatercourse.39 Theripariandoctrine is thebasisof waterlaw in twenty-ninestates.40 This stands in contrasttothe otherdominant watergovernance doctrine in theU.S.: priorappropriation.41 Under thedoctrine of priorappropriation, waterrightsare afforded to an individual when that personputsaquantity of watertoa“beneficial” use, landowner or not.42 Thedoctrineofprior appropriationfollows theprincipleof“firstintime, first inright,” giving superiority of rightstothe earliest, or earlierusers,whereas riparianrights treatsall riparianlandownersasequalinterms of righttowater quality and quantity.43 In allwater governanceregimesinthe U.S.,the nature of waterasa moving resource challenges thetraditionallegal notions of property.44 Tarlock, Corbridge,Jr.,and Getchessuggestthat“[b]ecauseofthe physical natureofwater,all waterrights—riparianorappropriative—arecorrelative; theuse of watermustbesharedamong awideclass of claimantsand water rightshaveagreater dimension of non-exclusivity compared to rightsto land or to personalproperty.”45 Thecourts inventedtheseoriginal doctrines to meet society’s needsatthe time andplace wheretheywereneeded.46 Over thelast century,associety’sneedschanged, U.S. waterlaw evolved.47 Waterlaw has transitionedfromabasisincustomary lawand judicial decisions to asystemofstatutory lawgoverningwater allocation.48 As legislatures started passingstatutory law to govern water, buildingonthe original commonlaw doctrines,the systemsofriparianrightsand prior appropriationhavebecomemoredifficulttodiscern.49

39.Id. at 19. 40.See id. at 5–8 (describing the states’ variedimplementations of theriparian doctrine). 41.See id. at 4. The doctrineofprior appropriation wasdeveloped in the Western states during the19thcentury as minersand farmersexpanded into an aridterritory made up mostly of federally held lands. Id. at 4–6. Riparian rights, besidesrestricting rights to property owners, also restricted rights to those landsbordering astream,river,orlake. Id. These restrictions didnot make senseinthe West with less wateravailableand less privateproperty. Id. This led to the developmentofadifferent set of governing principles. Id. 42.Id. at 5. 43.Id. 44.Id. at 1. 45.TARLOCK ET AL., supra note14, at 388. 46.See id. at vii(addressingwhy thevarious states have developed different waterregimes). 47.See GETCHES ET AL., supra note37, at 1(explaining how water law is adynamic and ever- changing field). 48.Id. (highlightinghow agencies and legislatures arethe driving forces behind waterlaw). 49. TARLOCK ET AL., supra note14, at 262–63. 556 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:549

A. TheNatureofRiparianRightsand thePrincipleofReasonableUse

Theriparianrightsdoctrinedeveloped into auniquelyAmerican doctrine primarily throughtortcases in theeastern states.50 Thedoctrine is a form of common propertyinwhich allindividualswith legal access, based on riparianland ownership,are entitledtouse the resourcesolong as they do notimpinge on anotherriparianland owner’s right to do thesame.51 Thenatureofthe riparian rightsdoctrineiswellestablished.52 A riparianlandowner’s rightstowater useinclude:

[T]heright to theflowofthe stream;the right to make a reasonableuse of thewaterbody, provided reasonableuses of other riparianusers arenot injured; theright of accessto thewaterbody; theright to fish; theright to wharfout;the right to prevent erosionofthe banks;the right to purity of thewater;the right to claimtitletothe bedsofnon- navigablelakes and streams.53

Theoretically,the right to theflowofthe stream prescribes the American doctrine of riparianrightstoaruleof“natural flow.”54 This declaresthatevery riparianhas theright to undiminished quantity and quality of waterthatflows past agiven property.55 Therefore, embedded within ariparianlandowner’s rightstouse wateristhe duty to respect other riparianlandowners’ rights.56 Additionally,because of thehistorical importanceofnavigationtocommerce, thepublic hasthe right to useany navigablewaters.57 Alandowner’s riparianrightsare subject to the landowner’s dutytothe public’s commonneeds.58 Theprinciple of naturalflowand thedutytorespect other riparian landowner’s rightswouldpresumptivelyban any development or useofthe

50.See JosephW.Dellapenna, The EvolutionofRiparianism in theUnitedStates,95MARQ. L. REV.54, 57–58, 60 (2011) [hereinafter The EvolutionofRiparianism](describingthe tort case, Merrittv.Parker,1N.J.L.460 (1795),and subsequent cases that defined riparianisminthe U.S.). 51. The Allocation of SurfaceWaters, supra note36, at 192. 52.GETCHESETAL., supra note37, at 21. 53. Id. at 21–22. 54. See The AllocationofSurface Waters, supra note 36, at 193 (explaining thetheoreticaland historical basis for“natural flow”inAmerican jurisprudence). 55.Id. 56.See id. (inferring that permissionmust be given by allwho have riparian rights, because A’sriparianrightscannot “compel”Bto submit B’sriparian rights to A’sriparianrights). 57.Merritt Starr, NavigableWaters of theUnitedStates—Stateand National Control,35 HARV.L.REV.154, 154 (1921). 58.Id. at 162. 2019] U.S. Fresh WaterLaw &Governance in theAnthropocene 557 water.59 However,even in early expression of theripariandoctrine, as courtsdefined waterlaw in responsetothe burgeoningnumberofnew industrialusesofwater in the19thcentury,the “naturalflow” principlewas subject to exceptions on thebasis of economicdevelopment.60 Acase in 1827, Tyler v. Wilkinson,remediedthisissuebyintroducing theprincipleof“reasonableuse.”61 In this dispute, anumber of riparianmill ownersclaimed that theconstructionofanupstream dam diminished the quantity of water availabletothem.62 In deciding thecaseinfavorofthe defendants, JusticeJoseph Storystated:

Theremay be, and theremustbeallowedofthat, whichis commontoall, areasonableuse.The truetestofthe principleand extent of theuse is,whether it is to theinjury of theother proprietors or not.Theremay be adiminution in quantity,oraretardationoraccelerationofthe natural current indispensablefor thegeneral and valuable useof thewater,perfectly consistent with theexistenceofthe commonright.The diminution, retardation, or acceleration, not positivelyand sensibly injurious by diminishingthe value of thecommonright,isanimpliedelement in the right of usingthe streamatall ....The maximisapplied, “Sic uteretuo, ut nonalienum lædas.”63

Theprincipleofreasonableuse is adeliberatedeparture from the natural flowprinciple, but an essentialelement of theU.S.’sriparianrights doctrine.64 Therefore,ownersofland abuttingawatercourse areentitledto make “reasonableuse”ofthe water, so long as the usedoesnot cause unreasonableharmtoanotherriparianlandowner.65 TheAmerican RestatementSecondofTorts formalizes thestandard principles applicable to defining“reasonableness” in ripariantortcases today, whichare as follows:

(a)The purposeofthe use,

59.See GETCHES ET AL., supra note37, at 19 (explainingthe natural-flow-uses effect on riparianismduring the industrial revolution). 60.Anthony Scott&Georgina Coustalin, The EvolutionofWater Rights,35NAT.RES.J.821, 891–92 (1995). 61.Tyler v. Wilkinson, 24 F. Cas. 472, 474 (C.C.D.R.I. 1827) (No. 14,312). 62.Id. at 472. 63.Id. at 474. 64.See GETCHES ET AL., supra note 37, at 18–19 (overviewingthe transitionfrom natural flow to reasonableuse). 65. Id. 558 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:549

(b)the suitability of theuse to thewatercourse or lake, (c)the economic value of theuse, (d)the social valueofthe use, (e) theextent and amount of theharmitcauses, (f)the practicality of avoidingthe harm by adjusting the useormethodofuse of oneproprietororthe other, (g)the practicality of adjustingthe quantity of water used by each proprietor, (h)the protectionfor existingvaluesofwater uses, land, investmentsand enterprises, and (i)the justiceofrequiringthe user causingharmtobear theloss.66

In theapplicationofthe reasonable useprinciples—thepurpose, the suitability,the economic value, and thesocial value of theuse (principles (a)through (d))—areused to determineifauseisreasonable.67 However, as evidenced in principles (e)through (i), reasonablenessisalso determined in relationtoother riparianland ownersand competingusesofwater.68 All riparianstatesfollowsomeformofthe reasonable useprincipletoday.69

B. RiparianRightsToday: Regulated Riparianism

Around themiddleofthe 20th century, increased demand on waterdue to urbanizationand industrializationchallenged thejudicial-based enforcement andlimitationofwater rightssolelyfor riparianlandowners.70 Additionally,inthe 1970s, recognitionofwater’s instream and ecological needs forced states to amend thetraditionalripariandoctrine.71 In response, many eastern states begantoimplement anew form of theripariandoctrine: regulated riparianism.72 Regulated riparianism takes apublic property approach to allocatingwater systemsthatallows formorecomprehensive watermanagement.73 Under regulated riparianism,water is allocated through acollectivedecision-makingprocess;typically astate agency or

66.TARLOCK ET AL., supra note 14,at124 (quotingRESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS: REASONABLENESS OF USE OF WATER §850A (AM.LAW INST.1979)). 67.GETCHESETAL., supra note37, at 34. 68.Id. at 34–35. 69. The Allocation of SurfaceWaters, supra note 36,at194. 70.GETCHESETAL., supra note37, at 60–61. 71. The EvolutionofRiparianism, supra note50, at 83. 72. Id. 73.See id. at 87 (highlightingthat stateshave movedfrom acommon property approach to a public property approach). 2019] U.S. Fresh WaterLaw &Governance in theAnthropocene 559 department issuingpermits for time-limitedusesbased on the reasonableness of theproposed use.74 These permitsystems arefounded upon theprinciples of riparianrightsand adopted theprincipleof reasonableuse as an essentialcriteria forallocatingapermit.75 Another important evolutioninthisregimeisthatregulated riparianism determines thereasonablenessofause before ause is granted.76 This is in contrast to thetraditionalstructureofthe riparian doctrine, wherecourts determine reasonablenessofuse onlyafter useischallenged.77 In asystem of regulated riparianism,the state holds waterintrust forthe public.78 State agencies enact this responsibility in planningfor and protectingthe public interest in waters andprovisioning thewater forpublic use.79 In provisioning abody of waterfor public use, theState reliesonthe key principles of reasonableuse: thepurpose, thesuitability,the economic value, and thesocialvalue of theuse.80 In 1997, theAmericanSocietyofCivil Engineers published The Regulated Riparian WaterCode to provide ablueprint foramodernized ripariansystem.81 TheSociety developedthe Code specificallytoface the challengesofpopulationgrowth, environmentaldegradation, climate change, and increased waterdemand—without theavailabilityofnew water sources—in the21stcentury.82 About halfofthe country’s riparianstates now allocatewater using regulatedriparianism,but most riparianstates have implemented somedegree of regulated riparianism through statutory permittingsystems.83

74. The AllocationofSurface Waters, supra note 36,at200. 75.Id.;GETCHESETAL., supra note37, at 62. 76.See GETCHESETAL., supra note37, at 62 (explaining that states have shiftedfrom commonlaw,which is retroactive, to statutorylaw,which is adopted ahead of time). 77. See The EvolutionofRiparianism, supra note 50, at 87 (emphasizing thatreasonablenessis determined aheadoftimerather than at thetimeofachallenge in court). 78. Id. 79. The AllocationofSurface Waters,supra note36, at 200. 80.See RESTATEMENT (SECOND)OF TORTS:REASONABLENESS OF USE OF WATER §850A (AM.LAW INST.1979) (setting out thelisted factors as wellasfive otherconsiderations). 81. See THE REGULATED RIPARIAN MODEL WATER CODE:FINAL REPORT OF THE WATER LAWS COMMITTEE OF THE WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT DIVISION OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS iii–iv (Joseph W. Dellapenna ed.,1997) (stating that the goal of theModel Water Code Project“wastodevelop proposed legislationfor adoptionbystate governments”and attempting to, as much as possible,standardize thedisparatelanguage usedby Easternand Western states). 82.Robert E. Beck, The Regulated RiparianModel Water Code: Blueprint For Twenty First Century WaterManagement,25WM.&MARY ENVTL.L.&POL’Y REV.113, 113(2000). 83. The Allocation of SurfaceWaters, supra note 36,at200. 560 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:549

IV.THE CURRENT LEGALAND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR WATER RIGHTS IN VERMONT

As showninthe previous section, thetraditional ripariandoctrine and theevolving system of regulated riparianism considerpublic value, economic value, and suitabilityofauseinallocatingwater.Ascompared to privateproperty systems,whereaproprietorhas nearly unlimitedfreedom in determiningwhether or not to develop an owned resource,botha commonproperty (traditional riparian doctrine) andpublic property (regulated riparianism)systemappearbettersuitedfor tacklingthe social and ecological challengesofthe Anthropocene.84 In order to better understandthe modernday ripariansystemand themechanisms through whichwater in theAnthropocene is allocated in theU.S., this sectionlooks at thecurrent stateofthe riparian doctrine in Vermont. TheState of Vermont abides by theriparianrightsdoctrineand allocates watertodaythrough aformofregulatedriparianism.85 Notably, in an 1827Vermont SupremeCourtdecision, theState played akey role in the formationofthe early ripariandoctrine.86 In Martin v. Bigelow,87 the Vermont SupremeCourt found that theneed to develop theeconomy superseded theprotectionofpriorusesofwater.88 Today, theAgencyof NaturalResources andthe AgencyofAgriculture, Foodand Markets share thegoverningofwater allocationinVermont through statutorypermitting systems.89 Additionally,federal legislationand acts affectingthe environmentare important componentsofwater lawinVermont.90 TheVermont Statutesprescribe theState to boththe principleof natural flowand reasonable useingoverning theregulationofstream

84.See TheEvolution of Riparianism, supra note50, at 86 (discussing the acceleration of pressureonwater systemsdue to climatechange and theshortcomings exhibitedbytraditional riparian systems). 85.See Johns v. Stevens,3Vt.308, 315–16 (1830) (establishingthatthe State of Vermont wouldfollowthe riparian rightsdoctrine). 86.See Martin v. Bigelow,2Aik. 184,197 (Vt. 1827) (definingVermont’s jurisprudencein favor of riparianrightsand rejectingthe commonlaw approach). 87. Id. 88. The Allocation of SurfaceWaters, supra note36, at 194 (citing Martinv.Bigelow,2Aik. at 187). 89.See Gail Osherenko, Understanding theFailure to Reduce Phosphorus LoadinginLake Champlain:Lessons forGovernance,15VT.J.ENVTL.L.97, 128 (2013)(stating that theVermont Agencies of NaturalResources and Agriculture, Food andMarketsare responsiblefor enforcement under amemorandum of understanding). 90.See L. KinvinWroth, SixFlagsOverChamplain: StartingPointsfor aComparative Analysis,38J.GREAT LAKES RES.167, 167–68 (2012)(discussingthe sixlegal regimesand various federal frameworks that affect waterquality in Vermont). 2019] U.S. Fresh WaterLaw &Governance in theAnthropocene 561 flow.91 TheState then enforces this policythrough apermitsystem, certifiedbythe Agency of NaturalResources, for anyartificialregulationor alteration of stream flow.92 Priortograntingapermit, theAgency of NaturalResources determines if thepermitiswarranted by weighing whetherthe change will adverselyaffect public safety, significantly damage fish or wildlife,significantly damage therightsofriparianowners, or adversely affect thosewatersdesignatedasoutstanding resource waters.93 Title 10 of theVermont Statutes describes asimilar permittingprocessfor other waterusesand createsthe Department of Conservationatthe Agency of NaturalResources to establishthe State’swater management policy.94 With regard to waterquality,Chapter 47 of theVermont Statutes defines theState’s waterquality policyand thestatutory permitting system forwater pollutioncontrol.95 Thewater quality policyofVermont is to:

(1)protectand enhance thequality,character and usefulness of its surfacewatersand to assure the public health; (2)maintainthe purity of drinking water; (3)controlthe dischargeofwastestothe waters of theState,prevent degradationofhighquality waters andprevent,abateorcontrolall activities harmful to waterquality; (4)assurethe maintenance of waterquality necessary to sustainexistingaquatic communities; (5)provide clear, consistent,and enforceable standardsfor thepermittingand management of discharges; (6)protectfromriskand preserve in their natural state certainhighquality waters,including fragile high-altitude waters,and theecosystems they sustain;

91.VT.STAT.ANN.tit. 10, §1001 (2018). 92. Id. §1022. 93. Id. §1023. 94.Lara D. Guercio, Struggle Between Manand Nature—Agriculture, Nonpoint Source Pollution, and CleanWater: How to Implement theState of Vermont’s PhosphorousTMDL Within the Lake ChamplainBasin,12VT.J.ENVTL.L.455, 493–94 (2010)(discussing Vermont’s Title 10 in the context of theState’sstormwater management program). 95.See VT.STAT.ANN.tit.10, §1250 (detailing Vermont’s water qualitypolicy); Id. §§ 1263, 1265, 1267–68 (detailing Vermont’s permitting system). 562 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:549

(7)managethe waters of theState to promotea healthyand prosperous agricultural community, to increasethe opportunitiesfor useofthe State’sforest, park,and recreational facilities, and to allowbeneficialand environmentally sound development. It is further thepolicyofthe Statetoseekover thelong term to upgradethe qualityofwatersand to reduce existing riskstowater quality.96

Vermont’s waterquality policycan be seen as areinterpretationofthe principleofreasonableuse.97 It is evident from theabove policythatthe waterlegislationinthe Stateseeks to accomplish thefollowing: protect the usefulnessand quality of waterfor societal use; controlpollutionof waterwaysfor ecologicalcommunities; andregulatepollutiontopromote economic value through “environmentally sounddevelopment.”98 Furthermore,the policyexplicitly goes above and beyond theprincipleof reasonableuse to improve waterquality over thelong term.99 To enforcethe State’swater quality policy, theAgency of Natural Resourceshas thepower to grantdischargepermits.100 TheAgency of NaturalResources vets andgrantsapplications based on an investigative processsimilar to thepreviously describedstream-flow-alterationpermit.101 Theapplications arealso subjecttothe federal Clean WaterAct’s National PollutionDischarge EliminationSystem.102

CurrentState of WaterinVermont

As illustrated in theprevious sections,the statutory languagedefining Vermont’s modernregulated riparianism suggests that it is well equipped to balancethe needsofecosystems, society, and theeconomyinthe Anthropocene.However,ifweshift our perspective fromthe legislation and language definingthe system to theactual functioning of thesystemin

96. Id. §1250. 97.See supra PartIII.B(exploring the modernchanges to thereasonable usedoctrine). 98.See VT.STAT.ANN.tit. 10, §1250 (describingthe goalsofVermont’s water qualitypolicy, including theability to provide standards for permitting and managing discharges). 99.Compare note96and accompanying text (quotingVermont’s waterquality policy), with notes 65–69 and accompanying text (summarizing thereasonableuse principle). 100.VT.STAT.ANN.tit. 10, §1263. 101.See supra notes 91–94 and accompanying text (describingVermont’sstream-flow- alterationpermittingsystem). 102.See, e.g.,33U.S.C.§1313 (2012) (discussingthe National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permitting system andthe requirementsitplacesonstates). 2019] U.S. Fresh WaterLaw &Governance in theAnthropocene 563 practice, we seeadifferent pictureemergeofregulated riparianism in the Anthropocene. TheState of Vermont hasaserious waterquality problem in theLake ChamplainBasindue to excessivephosphorous loading.103 Lake Champlain is located on thenorthwesternborderofVermont and spans the internationalboundary between theU.S.and Canada,and,within theU.S., between Vermont and NewYork.104 Thelake is one of Vermont’s most prized natural resources, but forthe last few decades it hasfaced major environmentalthreats,including mercurypollution, invasivespecies,and, most notably, eutrophicationfromphosphorous pollution.105 Eutrophication is theprocessinwhich excess phosphorous in alake leads to an increasein plant andalgae growth,producing algae blooms.106 Algae blooms, in turn, negativelyaffect other aquatic life as thedecompositionofthe plant and organicmatterdecreases oxygen andsunlight levelsinthe lake.107 This processcontinuestocause seasonal beach closuresand threatensorkills fishthroughout lake segments.108 Theprimary sourcesofphosphorous in theBasin aredischarges fromwastewater treatment facilites,stormwater runofffromdeveloped areas, and agriculturalrunoff.109 On topofthe statutorylawsgoverning waterpollutioninthe State, multi-party effortshave beenmade to tackle theissueofexcess phosphorous in Lake Champlain.110 In 1988, theU.S.and Canada signeda Memorandum of Understanding to developajointapproach to environmentalprotection of theBasin.111 Then,in1996, theLake ChamplainBasinProgram wasestablished to facilitate abasin-wide management approach to reducing phosphorous pollution.112 Ultimately, in 2002, Vermont and NewYorkcreated ajoint phosphorous TotalMaximum Daily Load (TMDL),ornutrientbudget,for Lake Champlainasrequired by

103.LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN PROGRAM,2018 STATE OF THE LAKE AND ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS REPORT 1(2018), http://lcbp.org/sol18dev/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/2018-State-of-the- Lake_web.pdf. 104.Osherenko, supra note89, at 97–98. 105.Daniel D. Dutcher &DavidJ.Blythe, WaterPollutioninthe Green MountainState:A CaseStudy of Law,Science, and Culture in theManagement of Public WaterResources,13VT.J. ENVTL.L.705, 712 (2012). 106.WilliamBowden, Background Facts:RoleofPhosphorus in Lake ChamplainPollution,17 VT.J.ENVTL.L.501, 502 (2016) (explaining that high phosphorous content can lead to algae blooms). 107.Osherenko, supra note89, at 99. 108. Id. at 98. 109. Id. at 99. 110.See Wroth, supra note90, at 172 (discussingthe multiple players on thefederal, state, and international levels, involved in lowering the phosphorouslevels in Lake Champlain). 111.See id. (describing the 1988 MemorandumofUnderstanding). 112.See id. (reviewing theestablishmentofthe Lake ChamplainBasin Program). 564 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:549 theFederal Clean WaterAct.113 Then,in2011, theEnvironmental ProtectionAgency, whichoversees implementationofthe Clean WaterAct, disapproved Vermont’s portionofthe TMDL forLake Champlainover concerns that it didnot provide sufficient reasonableassurances that the plan wouldachieve its target reductions in phosphorus runofflevels.114 Finally,in2016,the Stateproduced anew TMDL to achieve aclean Lake Champlain, and also passed legislation in 2015—Act 64:the Vermont Clean WaterAct—toachievethe targetsinthe newTMDL.115 In Act64, thereare anumberofnew permits forwater quality, such as ageneral permitfor stormwater discharges from municipal roads116 and ageneral stormwater permit fordischargesfromimpervioussurfaces threeacres or larger in area.117 It shouldalsobenoted that arecent 2018updatetothe Title 10 statue includes revisions to theDepartment of Environmental Conservation’spermittingprocess, suchasstandardsfor public notice, public meetings,and otherforms of transparencyinpermittingdecisions.118 However,thesenew permits,permittingprocedure revisions, and the legislation do not alterthe principles upon whichpermits areapprovedand allocated.119 With multiple decadesofwork, and millions of dollars of investment, many of Lake Champlain’sthirteenlake segmentsstill have average phosphorous concentrations in excessofestablishedtargets.120 We expect this to be thecasefor many years, even if land management improves, due to timelags in themovement of phosphorus throughout thewatershed.121 Additionally,flooding in 2011 caused phosphorous levelstospike to some of thehighestconcentrations observedsince 1990.122 Despite Vermont’s effortstocreatesocially,ecologically,and economically sound legislation, theregulatedripariansystemhas been failingVermont in protectingthe State’swater fromphosphorous

113. Id. 114.KariDolan, The ImportanceofInter-AgencyCollaboration and Public Engagementinthe Development of theImplementationPlanfor theNonpoint Source-FocusedVermontLakeChamplain Phosphorus TMDL,17VT.J.ENVTL.L.663, 664, 667 (2016). 115.Id. at 676–77. 116.VT.STAT.ANN.tit. 10,§1264(g)(1)–(2)(2018). 117. Id. §1264(g)(3). 118. See id. §7701 (detailing permitting procedures forthe Department of Environmental Conservation). 119.See Osherenko, supra note89, at 111 (givinganexample of an agencyissuingpermits based on compliance with technological standardsrather than based on the receivingwaterconditions). 120.LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN PROGRAM, supra note 103, at i, 10–11. 121.DonaldW.Mealsetal., Lag Time in WaterQuality Response to Best Management Practices: AReview,39J.ENVTL.QUALITY 85, 85 (2010). 122.N.Y.STATE DEP’TOFENVTL.CONSERVATION,LAKE CHAMPLAIN PHOSPHORUS REDUCTION PLAN NEW YORK 11 (2014),http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/lcbprp2014draft.pdf. 2019] U.S. Fresh WaterLaw &Governance in theAnthropocene 565 pollution.123 This suggeststhatregulatedriparianism—asimplemented in Vermont—isnot yet capableofprotectingfreshwaterresources in theState giventhe challengesofthe Anthropocene.124 Iexplore thisfurther in the following section.

V. DECONSTRUCTIONOFTHE PRINCIPLEOFREASONABLE USE IN VERMONT

Recallthe threenecessitiesintroducedearlierfor waterlaw in the Anthropocene:(1) curtailing current environmental degradation; (2) restoring deterioratedecosystems; and (3)addressingthe potentialincrease of extreme eventsand waterquality issuesdue to climatechange.125 The regulated ripariansysteminVermont is strugglingtomeet thesethree requirements.126 Vermont statutorypermittingsystems have yet to significantly decreasethe current levelofphosphorous enteringLake Champlain(requirement 1).127 Thepermittingsystems have not restored deteriorated lake ecosystemsfromthe damage of historical phosphorous pollution(requirement 2).128 Finally,the system hasyet to protect against thepotentialimpactsofclimatechange,including increased eutrophication from risinglake temperatures and increased stormwaterrunofffrom extremeweather events (requirement 3).129 Although therehave been significantupdates,bothinlegislation to protectclean waterand in increased capacity of agenciestotrack and enforcethe State’s cleanwater laws,there have notbeen significantchanges to theregulatedriparianism permittingprocessinthe State.130 Daniel Dutcher and DavidBlythesuggestthat in Vermont,the legal structure forregulatingwater use and pollutionissound, but the implementationofthe regulatoryframework is flawed.131 This flawin implementation, they suggest, is due to thefactthat thedevelopmentpolicy of theState heavily influences decisionmaking regarding waterpolicy:

123.See Wroth, supra note 90, at 172 (discussing howVermont state lawstillallowsanexcess of phosphorous toenterintoLake Champlain). 124.See infra Part V(analyzing the effectsofregulated riparianism in Vermont andits effectivenessinprotectingfreshwaterresources). 125.See supra note35and accompanying text (listingthreerequirementstofix thewater system in the Anthropocene). 126.See infra notes 127–29 and accompanying text (examininglimitations in Vermont’s efforts to prevent degradation, restoreecosystems, and prepare for issues causedbyclimate change). 127.LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN PROGRAM, supra note 103, at 11. 128.Id. at 14. 129.Dutcher &Blythe, supra note105, at 713, 715. 130.See supra Part VI (analyzing the currentstate of Vermont’s waterlaws). 131.Dutcher &Blythe, supra note105, at 723. 566 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:549

“For ageneration, government officialshavebeen tellingVermonterswhat they have wanted to hear—that thestate is workingtobringVermont’s waters back, but that,atthe same time, government regulationand planning will not standinthe wayofanyone’seconomicinterest.”132 This preference canbetraced back to theearly ripariandoctrineinthe StateofVermont.133 In thecase of Martin v. Bigelow,the Vermont Supreme Courtdefined economicvalue as akey component of theprinciple of reasonableuse.134 As showninPartIVabove, thestatutory permitting system regulatingwater quality in Vermont employs theprincipleof reasonableuse to determinewhether or not to allocateawater useor discharge permit.135 Theoretically,the four coreconsiderations of the principleofreasonable use(thepurpose,suitability,and economicand social values of theuse)are to be weighedequally in determining if agiven useisreasonable.136 However,ifastateagency, electedofficial,or administrationfavors economic development overthe ecological boundariesand public interest in awater body, thetestofreasonable useis thelegal tool through whichthe permit grantingauthoritycan legally enforce this bias.137 During Vermont Governor JimDouglas’s 2003–2011 administration, a veryheatedtimefor waterquality policyinthe State,the governor promoted a“Third Way” of managing environmental problems in the State.138 Douglas’s “Third Way” is one in which“protectingthe environmentwouldnot interfere with economic growth.”139 Dutcher and Blythe140 and Gail Osherenko141 bothpoint to aseries of court cases in the early2000s that clearly demonstrate this preferencefor economic developmentover thepurpose, suitability,and social value of wateruses on behalf of theadministration. While this series of lawsuits occurreda numberofyearsago andshouldnot be takenasanexample of thecurrent administrationinVermont,itdoesclearly demonstrate thechallengesin

132.Id. at 754. 133.See, e.g.,Martinv.Bigelow,2Aik. 184, 185, 187 (Vt. 1827) (reasoning that theright to operateamill waswithin“theordinarypurposes of life”). 134. The Allocation of SurfaceWaters, supra note36, at 194 (citing Martinv.Bigelow,2Aik. at 187). 135.VT.STAT.ANN.tit. 10, §1001 (2018). 136.See supra text accompanying note68(explaininghow these principles of reasonableuse are weighed by adecision maker when determining reasonableuse). 137.See VT.STAT.ANN.tit. 10, §1011 (stating thatadministrationofwater policyistobe consistent with reasonableuse of riparianrights). 138.Dutcher &Blythe, supra note105, at 738. 139. Id. 140. Id. at 724, 728, 732. 141.Osherenko, supra note89, at 111. 2019] U.S. Fresh WaterLaw &Governance in theAnthropocene 567 applying thereasonableuse principleinaregulated riparianism systemto protectwater resources.142 In the2001 In re Hannaford case, theConservationLaw Foundation sued theVermont Agency of Natural Resources over astormwater discharge permit issued foraproposed commercial shopping development in SouthBurlington.143 TheConservationLaw Foundationcontended that thenew development woulddischarge into stormwater impairedwatersthat didnot have cleanup plans in place, as requiredunder theClean Water Act.144 TheWater ResourcesBoarddecidedinfavor of theConservation LawFoundationand no new discharges permits wouldbeallowedthat discharge into impairedstreamsinthe absence ofaTMDL.145 In response, developerswent up in arms claiming that thedecision wouldshut downall new development.146 Following the Hannaford147 decision, theVermont Legislaturecreated new stormwaterlawstoallowthe Agency of NaturalResources to issue WatershedImprovement Permits.148 This permitprocessbypasses theneed foracleanupplanorTMDLfor impairedstreamsand allows continued issuing of stormwaterdischarge permits to new developments.149 Then in 2002, againenvironmental groups challenged theAgencyofNatural Resourcesinthe case In re MorehouseBrook,thistimewith regardto issuanceofWatershed Improvement Permits.150 Theenvironmental groups claimedthatWatershed Improvement Permits essentially allowedthe Agency to issuedischarge permits into impairedwaterswithout acleanup plan.151 Again, theWater ResourcesBoardsided with environmental groups andrequiredthe Agency of NaturalResourcestodevelop TMDLs.152 TheAgency of NaturalResources finally agreedtoundertake thetime- consumingprocess of developing TMDLsfor stormwater-impaired

142.See Dutcher &Blythe, supra note105, at 724–25, 728 (discussing the Hannaford Bros. and Morehouse Brook decisionsbythe Vermont Water Resource Board); see also Osherenko, supra note89, at 112 (examiningthe Conservation Law Foundation’sattempttoforce theVermont WaterResource Board to adoptaTMDL). 143. In re Hannaford Bros. Co., No.WQ-01-01, at 1(Vt.Water Res. Bd.June 29, 2001). 144. Id. at 2; see 33 U.S.C. §1313(d) (2012) (discussing theTMDLrequirements in theClean WaterAct that were at the heartofthe Conservation Law Foundation’ssuit). 145.Dutcher &Blythe, supra note105, at 725. 146.Osherenko, supra note89, at 111–12 . 147. In re HannafordBros. Co.,No. WQ-01-01,at1. 148.Dutcher &Blythe, supra note105, at 727. 149. Id. 150. In re Morehouse Brook, Nos. WQ-02-04,WQ-02-05, WQ-02-06, WQ-02-07, at 1(Vt. WaterRes. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). 151.See id. at 3–4(discussing how theState issued Watershed ImprovementPermits without therequiredcompliance plans). 152.Osherenko, supra note89, at 112. 568 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:549 streams.153 Ever conscious of shuttingdownthe development process, the Agency immediatelyset to work developing an interimpermittingprocess duringTMDLdevelopment.154 TheLegislatureagreedtoallowpermits to be issued andallowedfor theuse of offsets to maintain thestandardofno new or increased pollution.155 Essentially,the Agency of NaturalResources achieved thegoalofallowing stormwater discharge permitsfor new developmentatthe expenseofwater quality.156 Under regulated riparianism,itisillegal foralandowner to discharge stormwaterintopollutedwaters or to degrade thequalityofawatercourse without proving “reasonableuse.”157 In these twocases,the judicial system acted in an effort to upholdthe social and ecologicalprinciples of reasonableuse, but theAgencyofNatural Resourcesand thelegislative branch continuedtocreatework-aroundstofavoreconomic development.158 With theweightof“reasonableness” firstinthe hands of agenciesissuing permits, society must pay greater attentiontohow reasonableuse is appliedinpracticeinorder to preventecological degradationbeforeitbegins.159

ReasonableMisuse

Thecurrent articulationofriparianrightsinVermont allows agencies to useabroad range of interpretations in decidingwhat constitutes a reasonableuse.160 This flexibility of interpretation—if theState’s goalis environmentalprotectionand restoration combinedwith,but neveratthe cost of, economic development—allows agencies to continue to grant permits that increasedischarges into theState’s impairedwaters.161

153.See Dutcher &Blythe, supra note 105, at 731 (stating that theAgency of Natural Resources agreed to developTMDLs). 154.See id. (explaining thatthe Agency of NaturalResourceshad to develop interim permitting while developing TMDLs); cf. VT.STAT.ANN.tit. 10, §1264c (2010) (providing forthe interimnature of §1264c by including adate of repeal). 155.Dutcher &Blythe, supra note105, at 731. 156.Id. 157.See TheEvolutionofRiparianism, supra note50, at 85–87 (explaining how reasonableuse worksinregulated riparianism). 158.See Dutcher &Blythe, supra note 105, at 728–29 (discussinghow theAgencyofNatural Resources attemptedtoworkaroundenvironmentallaw requirements in favorofeconomics). 159.See GETCHESETAL., supra note 37, at 4(highlightinghow agencieshave theauthority to allocatepermits in most riparian systems). 160.EvanMulholland, Groundwater Quantity RegulationinVermont:APath Forward,8VT.J. ENVTL.L.1,1–12 (2006). 161.See id. (noting theleniency in Vermont’s waterpermittingsystem); see also Wood, supra note2,at592 (examining theissues with today’spermitting system). 2019] U.S. Fresh WaterLaw &Governance in theAnthropocene 569

Discharge permits areinessence theright to pollute.162 In thecontext of the Anthropocene,thisright to pollute must be determined by thehydrologic cycle’sability to absorband dilute nutrients or pollutantstoadegree that it is not harmfultothe ecosystemsorthe social systems dependent onthe water.163 Theright to pollute shouldalsoinclude considerationofthe potentialalterations in thehydrologiccycle due to climatechange.164 This preference foreconomic development is not newinwater resource policy, norisitunique to regulatedriparianism in Vermont.165 In the1990s,water policyanalystDavidLewis Feldmandefined thenation’s waterresourceproblemsas“causedbyareliance upon narrowand often inappropriate acquisitivevalues that areharmful to nature and to the satisfactionofawide range of human needs,including biological exigency andlivinginharmony with natureand in community with other people.”166 Therefore, thecurrent modelofregulatedriparianism andthe principleof reasonableuse must be modified in ordertocreateawater doctrine appropriate forprotectingour globalfreshwaterresourcesinthe Anthropocene.167

VI.ALTERNATIVE DIRECTIONS FOR VERMONT WATER LAW IN THE ANTHROPOCENE

Mary Christina Wood suggeststhatratherthancreatenew environmentallegislation to face ourclimatecrisis, we reframethe role of governmentintoatrust framework.168 In doing so,wecouldutilizethe current legalframework to transitionthe government’s discretion to destroy theenvironmentintoanobligationtoprotect natureunderthe auspices of collectiveproperty rights.169 In asimilarway, Cormac Cullinan, in hisbook Wild Law,expressesaneedtoreframe our wholeperceptionofthe legal

162.See CleanWater Act, 33 U.S.C. §1342 (2012) (describing the structure of theNational PollutantDischarge Elimination System). 163.See supra PartVI(explaining theimportance of shifting legal frameworks in the Anthropocene). 164.See supra Part VI (discussing theimportance of these considerations within thecontext of theAnthropocene). 165.See Jarret C. Oeltjen &Loyd K. Fisher, Allocation of Rights to Water: Preferences, Priorities, andThe Role of the Market,57NEB.L.REV.245, 247, 254–55 (1978)(detailing thetheory of choosing economic development over waterrights). 166.DAVE FELDMAN,WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT:IN SEARCH OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ETHIC 2(1995). 167.See Wood, supra note2,at594–95 (arguingthat thefutureofthe nation’s resources depends on reframing the government). 168. Id. 169.See id. at 595 (arguing that by drawingonancient trust conceptsinproperty law, rather than statutory law,the government can more easily focusonprotecting nature’s rights). 570 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:549 system andsociety.170 Cullinan advocates shifting focus fromthe welfare of humanstothe welfare of theEarth Community.171 As apublic property system,regulated riparianism is alreadyimbued with astronger sense of public trust than thetraditional privateproperty regimes, as referredtobyMary Christina Wood.172 Thelegal framework exists in Vermont to supportwater allocationthatbalances social, ecological,and economic well-being.173 Butinpractice, theprincipleof reasonableuse is vulnerable to interpretation by economically biased decisionmakers.174 This economic preference has ledtothe currentstate of environmentaldegradationand continuing deteriorationthatwesee in Lake Champlain.175 To resolve this flaw in thedoctrine, Iproposetwo modifications that seek to reframethe role of waterlaw in riparianstates, while workingwithin theexistingregulatory structure: (1)legally define and enforce an environmentalethic,and (2)reintroduce theexpanded concept of riparianintoregulatedriparianism.

A. ImplementinganEnvironmentalEthic

To reframe regulated riparianism into adoctrinethat reduces pollution, restoresdegraded ecosystems,and decreases vulnerabilitytoclimate change, theState of Vermont shouldimplement an environmental ethicand enforceitwith an anti-environmentaldegradationlaw.Tobegin,the State could define an environmentalethic based on Aldo Leopold’sland ethic.176 Leopold’sfoundationalprinciplefor guiding aland ethicis: “A thingis right when it tends to preserve theintegrity,stability,and beautyofthe biotic community.Itiswrong when it tends otherwise.”177 Leopold’sland ethicreflects aresponsibilityfor thehealth of theland—asharpdeparture from thinking solelybased upon economic terms.178 Instead, theethic encourages an examinationofquestions “interms of what is ethically and

170.CORMAC CULLINAN,WILD LAW:AMANIFESTO FOR EARTH JUSTICE 117 (2ded. 2011). 171. Id. 172.Wood, supra note2,at601–02 (explaininghow thetrust frameworkisaproperty concept, and how theproperty conceptssupport environmental protectionwhile affirmingone’s property rights). 173.See supra notes 92–94 and accompanying text (outliningthe statutory frameworkin Vermont that allows reasonable use principles to be appliedbyagency discretion). 174.See supra notes 158–59 and accompanying text(discussing various practicesusedby Vermont agencies that have enabled thedeterioratedlakeconditions). 175.See supra Part IV (discussing the flexibility in administrationofwater laws and the historical preferencefor economic development). 176.See ALDO LEOPOLD,ASAND COUNTY ALMANAC 239 (OxfordUniv. Press1966) (proposing that ethics be extended to include theland as well as humans). 177. Id. at 262. 178.Id. at 262–63. 2019] U.S. Fresh WaterLaw &Governance in theAnthropocene 571 esthetically right,aswellaswhat is economically expedient.”179 This is not to saythatthere is no room foreconomicthought in theevaluationofa wateruse: in fact,Leopoldrecognizes that it is an important consideration.180 However,economicvalue shouldbeevaluated in conjunction with,and secondarilyto, theimpact of ause on theintegrity, health,and functioning of thebroader ecological community.Leopold suggests that “a system of conservation basedsolelyoneconomic self- interest is hopelessly lopsided.”181 Thecurrent system in Vermont demonstrates thelopsidedness of asystemdriven by economic value.182 However,anenvironmental ethicwill take timeand reinforcement to gainlegitimacy within society.183 To ensurethat citizensand corporations actinaccordance with theenvironmentalethic,Vermont coulddrawfrom Polly Higgins’s Ecocide Acttolegally define acrime againstthe environment.184 Higgins proposes to add ecocide as afifth international CrimeAgainstPeace, joiningthe already existingcrimesofgenocide, crimes against humanity, warcrimes, and crimes of aggression.185 Higgins’s Ecocide Actcreates alegal framework through whichparties can be heldaccountableand prosecuted forenvironmental destructionand degradation.186 Additionally,Higgins has draftedthe full text of alegalact to define, describe, and prosecuteecocide.187 Vermont candrawfrom Higgins’s Ecocide Acttocreate astate level anti-degradationact.Such an actwouldenforce theuse of an environmental ethicindefiningreasonable useinregulatedriparianism andpunish individuals that degrade water resources.188 Finally,toenforce astate-level anti-degradationact,the Statemust defineenvironmentaldestructionand degradationbased on ecological

179.Id. at 262. 180.Id. at 263. 181.Id. at 251. 182.See Osherenko, supra note 89, at 111 (discussinghow theAgencyofNatural Resources favors technology-based effluentlimitationsover environmental improvement). 183.See generally POLLY HIGGINS,EARTH IS OUR BUSINESS:CHANGING THE RULES OF THE GAME XI (2012) (explaining allofthe steps that arenecessaryfor an environmental ethictotakeplace in thepresent economic-oriented legal landscape). 184.Id. at 159. 185. Id. at XI. 186.See generally id. at 171–78 (laying out thesentencingguidelines for those convicted of ecocide). 187.See generally id. at 157–78 (outlininghow theEcocideAct defines,describes,and prosecutes Ecocide). 188.See generallyid. (suggesting various methods theState of Vermont couldpotentially draw on to craft better anti-degradation legislation). 572 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:549 boundaries.189 Here,Vermont can refertoplanetaryboundaries, which includegloballimits for, among others, climatechange,biodiversity loss, thephosphorous cycle,the nitrogen cycle,and global freshwateruse.190 Researchers in theState canworktoadapttheseglobalsystemboundaries to state-level and watershed-levellimits. Thisworkisalready underwayin Vermont under theClean WaterAct.191 Theresearch into theassimilative capacity of waterbodies, as mandated under theClean WaterAct,can be used to legally define environmental degradation.192 This three-part proposition—environmentalethic,anti-degradation law, and regionalecological-boundariesresearch—mayseemunrealistic in thecurrent political context.193 However,small stepscan be taken now to initiate achange in course towards awater doctrinethatprioritizes the ecological challengesofthe Anthropoceneand an environmentalethic over economic development.194 Onesuch change wouldbetoimplement atwo- stagetest forreasonableuse thatenforces ecologicalboundariesasthe first stepindetermining reasonable use.195 In thistwo-stage test, thefirst testof reasonableuse wouldbetoinvestigatewhether theproposed permit contributes to ecological degradationorinhibits ecologicalrestoration. The test proceeds to thesecondstage if thepermitwouldnot contributeto ecological harm. In thesecond stage, theAgencyconsidersthe remaining threestandard principles of reasonableuse (the purposeand economic and social values) and determines thepermitallocation. This initialchange to a two-step test forreasonableuse couldstart theprocessoftransforming the Vermont permittingsystemintoone based on an environmental ethic. Eventually,Vermont will require alegally enforced environmental ethic, anti-degradationlaw,and clear regionalecological boundariestosupport life in theAnthropocene.196

189.See id. (defining environmentaldestruction anddegradation based on ecological boundarieswithin the contextofthe Ecocide Act). 190.Rockströmetal., supra note23; Steffenetal., PlanetaryBoundaries, supra note18, at 860. 191. See supra PartIV(describingand analyzing Vermont’s permitting systemand how this systemcomplieswith the Clean Water Act). 192. Id. 193.See supra notes177–88 and accompanying text (discussing Leopold’slandethic and suggestingthe Ecocide Act as an enforcementmechanism); see alsosupra notes 187–92 and accompanying text (arguing for theestablishment of anti-degradation lawsand ecologicalboundaries). 194.See supra Part VI.A (proposing two-stages that canbeused to addressbalancing water qualityand the principles of reasonableuse in the eraofthe Anthropocene). 195.See supra PartVI.A (proposing atwo-stage testfor determining reasonableuse of water resources). 196.See supra PartV(showingthe deteriorationofreasonableuse principles in Vermont that will need to be addressed in theera of the Anthropocene). 2019] U.S. Fresh WaterLaw &Governance in theAnthropocene 573

B. Expanding theConcept of Riparianism

Thesecond modificationIproposetothe principleofreasonableuse is to reintroducethe concept of ariparianlandowner into regulated riparianism and expandthe definitiontoinclude thewholeofEarth’s commonwealth of life.Thismodificationworks in conjunctionwith enforcing an environmentalethic.197 In thetransitionfromthe traditional ripariandoctrinetoregulated riparianism,the conceptofariparianlandowner waslost.198 Although riparianrightsstill exist in theirtraditionalsensefor landownersinriparian states,the rightsand dutiesofariparianlandownerare now embedded in a permitfor most wateruses.199 Thedutytorespect other riparian landowners’ rightsand therightsofthe public is replaced by thethreatofa fine.200 As Higgins suggests, “[p]ermits to pollute protect thepolluter, not theearth.Fines levied afterthe event,when caughtexceeding acceptable levels of destruction, canbesidestepped, litigated or paid-off.”201 By reintroducingthe concept of ariparianlandowner into theregulated riparian system,the Statecouldreinstateasense of duty and responsibility forthe wateruser. However, thenarrowdefinitionofriparianlandowner needs to be expandedtoaccuratelyaccountfor thefullrange of life investedinthe fresh watersystem.202 AccordingtoPeter Brownand GeoffreyGarver, theidea of apolitical commonwealth,“established to promotethe commongood,”can be extended to thewholeoflife on Earth to promotethe principles of mutual respect and fairness.203 As waterisanessentialelement formuchoflife on Earth, if theriparianconcept were expandedtoinclude Earth’s commonwealth of life,the conceptwouldmoreaccuratelyreflect thevested interest of alllife formsinwater as aresource andthe globalnatureofthe hydrologic cycle.204 When theexpanded ripariannotionofEarth’s

197.See supra PartVI.A (expanding thediscussion on potentialenforcementofenvironmental ethiclegislation). 198.See TheEvolution of Riparianism, supra note 50, at 85 (describing regulated riparianism). 199.Id. at 85, 87. 200.See id. at 87 (noting how regulated riparianism involvesadministrativeprocesses andlocal government). 201.HIGGINS, supra note183, at 6. 202.See supra PartV(discussing the “right to pollute” in thecontext of maintaininghealthy ecosystems). 203.PETER BROWN &GEOFFREY GARVER,RIGHT RELATIONSHIP:BUILDING A WHOLE EARTH ECONOMY 6(2009). 204.Cf. id. (statingthat the“commonwealth stressesthe shared features of thecommunity and interdependenceofits members,”and thehydrologiccycleisashared featureofEarth’s biological community). 574 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:549 commonwealth of life is appliedtothe foundationalmaxim of theriparian doctrine—so useyour ownasnot to injure another’s property—the maxim transformsintoanenvironmental ethic.205 Through implementinganexpandedriparianconcept to regulated riparianism andlegally enforcing an environmental ethic, Vermont could createanew context in whichstate agencies prioritizeecological boundariesand theEarth’s commonwealth of life overeconomic development. With thesechangesinplace, theState couldworkwithin the existing legalstructure forregulatedriparianism to appropriately allocate waterfor thechallenges of theAnthropocene.

CONCLUSION

Despite awell-writtenlegal framework forbalancingecological, social,and economic needsinallocatingwater,the regulatedriparianism regime in Vermont ultimatelyfalls shortofmeetingthe ecological priorities necessary forthe Anthropocene.206 Vermont provides just one exampleof thechallengesfaced by theregulated riparianism doctrineinthe Anthropocene,and it is likelythatmany other statesface similaroreven more dramatic challenges.207 Thefact that,inpractice, such environmentallysound legislationdeferstoeconomic,anti-ecological decisions,suggests that regulated riparianism as adoctrineneedstobe revised.208 To updatethe doctrine,Vermont,and otherriparianstates, shouldreframethe role of government—and theriparianregime—around an environmentalethic that prioritizes respectfor ecological boundaries over economic growth and development.Fromthisre-grounded riparian regime,the currentlegalframeworkiswell equipped to curtailcurrent environmentaldegradation, restoredeterioratedecosystems,and protect againstincreased vulnerabilitytoclimate change in theAnthropocene.209

205.See id. (stating that acommonwealth promotes theinterestsofthe common good rather than the individual); see also supra Part IV (discussingthe principles of aland ethic); supra PartIII.A (discussing the principles of riparianrights). 206.See supra PartIV(overviewing thecurrentlegal and regulatory framework for water rights anddescribing thecurrent stateofwater in Vermont). 207.See supra Part IV (showingthe shortcomings of Vermont’s statutes at creating ecologically sound legislation forwater resources). 208.See supra PartVI(explaining issues in Vermont underthe ripariansystem). 209.See supra Part IV (describing the currentlegal framework in Vermont); see alsosupra Part V(applying anew theoryofreasonableuse to Vermont’s framework).