Abstract

Since 1960 we have read about "Law and Politics of Groundwater in Arizona" and about "The Politics of Water in Arizona" by the same author. In these studies, the original materials for the studies, in decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court and in the administrative functions of the State Land Commissioner, we can read part of the record of community attitudes toward self-regulation, or self-restraint, as applied to groundwater withdrawals and uses. This record, including State ex rel. Morrison v. Anway, may not make one sanguine about law or politics—or human nature. However, politics is in the realm of continuing community and individual choice; law is the result of the process of choice.

The political process assumes a broad spectrum of goals; and the final choice even of a groundwater statute may reflect little more than compromise, or apathy, greed and ignorance. In the decisional process of courts there also are choices within the limits of the positive law, and the doctrinal excursions and capacity of judges. And, as was made evident in Bristor v. Cheatham in 1953, all judges are not driven inexorably toward the acceptance of one rule or another in the law of ground water.

How to Cite