In the wake of ongoing controversy over the reach of U.S. Agency jurisdiction, a Senate Appropriations Committee is taking steps to decrease funds available for many Agencies for the upcoming year, in an attempt to limit any overreach.  On June 16, 2016 the Senate Committee approved budget cuts to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) and Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). Sponsored by Senator Lisa Murkowski from Alaska, the bill covers funding of many agencies and topics, with specific statements relating to public land agencies and funding.

Most notably, the bill proposes to cut the USFWS’s budget by $11.9 million as compared to the 2016 budget. Proposed cuts equally would affect the EPA’s budget to the tune of $31.2 million. Interestingly, and related to the funds allocated to the EPA, the bill states that, “None of the funds made available in this Act or any other Act, may be used to develop, adopt, implement, administer, or enforce any change to the regulations and guidance in effect on October 1, 2012, pertaining to the definition of waters under the jurisdiction of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act…”

While the measure is likely to be altered as it goes before the Senate, it marks a movement by many to limit funding to U.S. Agencies in charge of public lands, and seeks to limit the jurisdictional overreach the Agencies often assert. Those behind such measures believe that if the Agencies lack the funds to assert their jurisdiction, their resources will be dedicated in furtherance of the respective Agencies’ core goals, rather than working to increase their jurisdictional effect and power.

For the full text of the proposed bill, please visit https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/s3068/BILLS-114s3068pcs.pdf.

The Oregon Water Resources Commission’s (OWRC’s) rulemaking for the Greater Harney Valley Groundwater Area of Concern (Area of Concern) became effective on April 15, 2016. The new regulations limit pending and new applications for groundwater use in the Malheur Basin. Citing concern over lowering groundwater levels in the region, OWRC passed the new regulations to limit new water development until the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) can adequately study the basin’s groundwater. This regulation is a component of the Malheur Basin Program. The drafts, maps, and rules are available at: http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/Pages/law/Department_Rulemaking.aspx.

Over a year ago, OWRD stopped issuing new ground water permits within the Area of Concern. Until the most recent rulemaking, however, no rules were in place allowing OWRD to halt permit processing and issuance. Usually, OWRC will create by rule Critical Groundwater Areas, Groundwater Limited Areas, and Serious Water Management Problem Areas prior to OWRD ceasing to issue new permits.

OWRC can designate Critical Groundwater Areas for multiple reasons, including declining groundwater levels, substantial interference between wells, overdraft of groundwater, or water quality degradation. OWRD must indicate the boundaries of the area and review the designation at least every 10 years. The designation allows OWRD to, for example, close the area to any further appropriation, limit the total withdrawal from the aquifer, and refuse applications for new groundwater permits.

Groundwater Limited Areas limit future appropriations of water to specified uses, but do not restrict existing consumption of water within the area. Serious Water Management Problem Areas allow OWRD to collect usage data from current water use right holders, but not restrict water consumption. These tools are used to collect information and guide future development of water resources in Oregon.

Rather than designating a critical or limited groundwater area, or a serious water management problem area, OWRD addressed the Harney Valley Groundwater Area of Concern by amending the Malheur Basin Program. Basin programs are used by OWRC to guide water right permitting decisions and coordinate with other state agencies. Within basin plans, OWRC may classify the highest and best uses for particular basins and waterways for future uses, including proscribing types of uses available to future applicants.  Oregon’s basin programs are listed in the Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 690, beginning at Division 500, and the Malheur Basin Program is located at Division 510, available at: http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_600/oar_690/690_510.html.

The new regulations for the Greater Harney Valley Groundwater Area of Concern propose to both limit future uses and collect information before OWRD completes a full study of the aquifer, expected to be completed by 2020. The proposed rules received 22 comments, which can be viewed at: http://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/misc/vault/vault.aspx?Type=WrdNotice&notice_item_id=6640. In the meantime, 39 groundwater use applications are pending before OWRD, and these applications will not be approved, unless they meet conditions included in the new basin plan regulations. This is in direct opposition to the rule that applications must be processed based on the laws and regulations in effect at the time of filing, but OWRD is taking the position that groundwater is not available for the applications, rather than a regulatory change affected the outcome of the applications (this is not a new approach from OWRD).

The “area of concern” is, in effect, a moratorium on new groundwater development in the region. The new regulations create restrictions on new applications reminiscent of critical groundwater areas, but within the basin program scheme.   The moratorium will put a halt to development in the region, at least while OWRD studies the groundwater in the area. Locals familiar with groundwater in the Malheur Basin are resentful of OWRD’s blanket moratorium when certain areas within the basin do not appear to show the same level of strain as others, and continue to produce great quantities of groundwater.

Make sure to stay tuned to Schroeder Law Offices’ Water Blog for more news that may affect you!

This article was drafted with the assistance of Law Clerk Jakob Wiley, a concurrent student at Oregon State University’s Water Resources Policy and Management graduate program and a law student at the University of Oregon School of Law.

California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Regulations Issued

California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”) was passed in 2014. The SGMA requires local agencies to bear the burden of creating, implementing, and enforcing Groundwater Sustainability Plans (“GSP”) in certain groundwater basins to manage the aquifer in a “sustainable” manner. The California Department of Water Resources (“CDWR”) recently issued regulations that help clarify the requirements of the GSPs, but also include some information about how the law will impact local agencies and groundwater users in the State. However, the regulations fail to satisfy some fundamental questions raised by the SGMA.

The new regulations were issued on May 18, 2016 by CDWR provide some insights into how the agency plans to implement the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. A copy of the regulations may be found at: http://water.ca.gov/groundwater/sgm/pdfs/Proposed_GSP_Regs_2016_05_10.pdf. Under the regulations, the agency set out the requirements for plan contents, including administrative information, a description of the basin, sustainable management criteria, a description of the monitoring network, and projects associated with the plans.

The administrative information section must include general information about the region, description of the local agency developing the plan, and the agency decision-making process with public engagement.

The basin setting section must thoroughly describe the basin’s hydro-geologic conditions and must create a “water budget” that describes all the surface and groundwater movement into and out of the basin. Under this section, the local agency must estimate the “sustainable yield” of the basin.

Sustainable Management Criteria have also been outlined by the regulations. These criteria require local agencies to set a sustainability goal that eliminates undesirable results of groundwater use within 20 years of the statutory deadline. CDWR will evaluate sustainability goals based on the achievement of minimum thresholds established by the local agency. The minimum thresholds expand on the statutory language for “undesirable results.” For example, a significant and unreasonable reduction in groundwater storage levels will be evaluated based on the locally defined “undesirable results,” supported by the “sustainable yield” of the basin. The local agency must also include a measuring system and “measurable objectives” that are revisited every five years.

The regulation also outlines the procedure that CDWR will use to evaluate plans, timelines for approval and reporting, and how local agencies can amend their plans. It also sets out the procedure for interagency agreements and addresses adjudications and alternatives to GSPs.

The real impact will come from the local agencies’ interpretation of the word “sustainable.” The new regulations use the term throughout, defining the quantity of water in the water budget available and defining allowable groundwater depletions. Traditionally, sustainable yield is considered the amount of water that can be withdrawn in balance with recharge. At first glance, the definition makes sense. The meaning, however, simplifies a more complex concept. When water is pumped from an aquifer, three results can occur: a reduction in stored water stored in the aquifer, capture of surface water (like rain or seepage from a river), or a reduction in discharge (like a spring or river baseflow), or any of these effects in combination depending on the specific aquifer. Ponce, Victor M., Sustainable Yield of Groundwater, (available at: http://ponce.sdsu.edu/groundwater_sustainable_yield.html). It remains to be seen how “unreasonable” and how “significant” the undesirable effects have to be in order to become unsustainable.

Make sure to stay tuned to Schroeder Law Offices’ Water Blog for more news that may affect you!

This article was drafted with the assistance of Law Clerk Jakob Wiley, a concurrent student at Oregon State University’s Water Resources Policy and Management graduate program and a law student at the University of Oregon School of Law.

On April 6, 2016, amendments to the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) and the new Klamath Power and Facilities Agreement (KPFA) were signed at a ceremony at the mouth of the Klamath River on the Yurok Indian Reservation. These changes come in the wake of the Congress’s decision not to pass legislation for the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA). Negotiations between the signatories of the new agreements in the Klamath Basin were kept secret, the results of their discussions can be seen in these new agreements, available at: https://www.oregon.gov/owrd/Pages/adj/index.aspx.

The amended KHSA’s purpose is to establish a process for removal of Iron Gate, Copco 1, Copco 2 and J.C. Boyle dams under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commissions relicensing procedures. The decision to remove the dams was made based on a cost-benefit analysis that was not released to the public. The amended agreement will also shield PacificCorp and its customers from liability for damages associated with dam removal. The amended agreement transfers the ownership of the dams to the Klamath River Renewal Corporation. The new corporation will conduct the dam removal, while PacificCorp will operate the dams until their decommissioning. The dams are expected to be removed in 2020. The U.S. Department of the Interior, the U.S. Department of Commerce, California and Oregon States, and PacificCorp were parties to the agreement.

The KPFA is an agreement designed to mitigate economic and regulatory issues facing users of water and land in the Klamath Basin. Oregon and California States, the Klamath Water Users Association, public interest groups (including American Rivers, Trout Unlimited, and Sustainable Northwest), the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the National Marine Fisheries Service were parties to the agreement. The KPFA stipulates that the signing parties must meet and confer when there is an unforeseen circumstance related to the fishery restoration and regulatory impacts on the local economy. It also obligates the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (“BOR”), upon transfer of the operation of Link River and Keno Dams, to operate the dams without adding any associated costs to water users for the maintenance of infrastructure. The BOR will operate those dams consistent with existing contracts for irrigation and flood control, and attempt to prevent salmon from entering irrigation canals and ditches. Funding for projects preventing salmon entry into irrigation infrastructure will come from a variety of sources, including irrigation districts, federal, state, and private parties. The agreement also requires the signing parties to support and defend the KHSA, refrain from making statements in opposition to the KHSA, and support the KHSA in administrative and judicial forums. Notably, representatives of the local landowners that will be affected were not included in negotiations, and are not signatories to the agreement.

In short, after many years of receiving a clear message from Congress that it was not going to fund the KBRA’s dam removal plan, the proponents are moving forward without Congress’s approval, or the approval of the local residents that will be most affected. Rather than retrofit the dams to allow fish passage and other updates, the negotiating parties are removing the dams. Along with the dams, the negotiating parties are doing away with inexpensive power, jobs, and water storage for increased reliability within the basin, in a proverbial “flushing the baby with the bathwater” situation. It remains to be seen how severe the impacts from dam removal will be on top of the other stresses that the Klamath Basin has suffered since the administrative phase of the Klamath Basin Adjudication was completed, and since the region has suffered from severe drought for several years.

Make sure to stay tuned to Schroeder Law Offices’ Water Blog for more news that may affect you!

This article was drafted with the assistance of Law Clerk Jakob Wiley, a concurrent student at Oregon State University’s Water Resources Policy and Management graduate program and a law student at the University of Oregon School of Law.

The Oregon Water Code provides that construction of a water system must be completed within certain time limits from issuance of water use permits (5 years for non-municipal water use permits, and 20 years for municipal permits). ORS 537.230 (“…the holder of a water right permit shall prosecute the construction of any proposed irrigation or other work with reasonable diligence and complete the construction within a reasonable time, as fixed in the permit…”); ORS 537.630. The same provisions allow the Oregon Water Resources Department (“the Department”) to grant extensions of time for completion of construction.

The Oregon Water Code also provides that water use permits may be cancelled when a permittee fails to begin construction within permit deadlines. ORS 537.410(1) (“Whenever the owner of a permit to appropriate the public waters of Oregon fails to commence actual construction work within the time required by law, or having commenced construction work as required by law, fails or neglects to prosecute the construction work with reasonable diligence, or fails to complete the construction work within the time required by law, or as fixed in the permit, or within such further time as may be allowed under ORS 537.230, or having completed construction work, fails or neglects to apply the water to beneficial use within the time fixed in the permit, the Water Resources Commission may cancel the permit on the records in the Water Resources Department as provided in ORS 537.410 to 537.450.”)

In determining whether to grant an extension of time, the Department considers: 1) the cost of the appropriation and application of water to a beneficial purpose, 2) the good faith of the appropriator, 3) the market for water or power to be supplied, 4) the present demand for the water or power to be supplied, and 5) the income or use that may be required to provide fair and reasonable returns upon the investment. ORS 537.230(3); ORS 539.010(5); see also OAR Chapter 690 Division 315. The Department’s general practice has been to liberally grant extensions of time if the permittee is able to show a financial investment to begin construction and/or water use under the permit and a reasonable explanation for the delay. Permit extension of time applications are available on the Department’s website at: http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/PUBS/docs/forms/App_Ext_WR_perm.docx.

Recently, the Department has added the following condition to new permits: “The deadline to begin construction may not be extended.” Although the new permit condition does not mark a departure from the Oregon Water Code’s provisions, it does mark increased seriousness from the Department about what is necessary to obtain an extension of time to develop a new water use right. Permittees should be sensitive to the change in climate regarding beginning construction and applying water to beneficial use.

Now, more than ever, it will be important to begin construction within the 5-year deadline in order to avoid permit cancellation. “Actual construction” means “physical work performed towards completion of the water system, which demonstrates both the present good faith of the water right permit holder and the water right permit holder’s intention to complete the project with reasonable diligence.” OAR 690-315-0020(3)(d)(A). This does not include planning, securing financing, entering into contracts, surveying, or purchasing (but not installing) equipment. OAR 690-315-0020(3)(d)(B).

Make sure to stay tuned to Schroeder Law Offices’ Water Blog for more news that may affect you!

The Oregon Water Resources Commission recently awarded nine water supply project proposals in the state of Oregon with a combined $8.9 million for projects focusing mainly on water conservation.

The Commission received funding in the amount of $14 million from the state to implement large-scale water conservation plans across the state. Although urged to fund as many projects as possible with the money, the Commission awarded grants to the nine Oregon Water Resources Department recommended projects.

Oregon is doing its part to conserve water on a large-scale.

The Clean Water Act is an issue of gathering significance with the Environmental Protection Agency and adoption of a newly defined “waters of the United States” (“WOTUS”), wherein civil and criminal penalties can attach if pollutant is discharged into jurisdictional waters. Thus, whether water is defined as “jurisdictional” becomes an important significance. On May 31, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc., et al., regarding Clean Water Act (“CWA”) application and the regulatory jurisdiction of the United States over water resources.

In the lawsuit, three peat mining companies sought a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to discharge certain material into a wetland. The companies sought a “jurisdictional determination” from the Army Corps of Engineers stating that the property was jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act. Disagreeing with the determination, the companies sought review of the determination under the Administrative Procedure Act, appealing the determination to Federal District Court. The Federal District Court dismissed the matter, holding that a jurisdictional determination is not a “final agency action” allowing the right of an appeal to the Court.

Upon review by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court overturned the lower court, and found that a jurisdictional determination is in fact a final agency action and judicially reviewable. While this ruling does not affect the current stay of the newly adopted rule governing the definition of WOTUS, it does shed light on procedure and available remedies should water be found to be jurisdictional, where a permit application disagrees.

This decision is overall good news for those seeking to comply under the Clean Water Act, and where the EPA and Corps may overstep their bounds in finding certain water to be jurisdictional. Any determination of jurisdiction is reviewable in Federal Court, where an individual can properly assert and provide evidence that certain water is in fact not jurisdictional. In any event, this decision sparks the beginning of likely a long line of cases pending around the country relating to the CWA’s jurisdictional reach.

For the full text of the case, please visit http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-290_6k37.pdf.

Many Oregonians use water wells on their properties. Since the 1960s, well drillers have been statutorily required to submit well logs to Oregon Water Resources Department (“OWRD”) for each water well they drill or modify. Well drillers are also statutorily required to record identification numbers on any water wells drilled, deepened, converted, or altered since 1996 within 30 days after completion of the construction.

Additionally, if a property with an unidentified water well is sold, the owner of the property is statutorily required to record an identification number obtained from OWRD on the water well within 30 days of the sale. This photo from the state’s Water Well Handbook shows an example of a water well with an identification number recorded on it. To apply to OWRD for an identification number for a water well on your recently purchased or sold property click here.

Property purchases are complicated! Here at Schroeder Law Offices, we find that many people who purchase or sell a property with a water well or water use rights overlook important housekeeping matters unique to water wells and water rights. Stay tuned to our blog for more helpful tips.

Forfeiture

We’ve all heard “Use it or Lose it” referring to the Prior Appropriation System.  The use it or lose it concept is the term we use for legal forfeiture which will apply to your water rights of use depending on your jurisdiction and type of water right.  Generally, this concept requires beneficial use of water appropriated under state law over a specific time interval.  In some states (like Nevada and Oregon), “use it or lose” is statutorily controlled, the law describes when a water user must exercise their water right of use.  In Oregon both groundwater and surface water certificates require water use once for every five consecutive year time frame. ORS 540.610. In Nevada, the statute provides that only groundwater certificated uses are subject to forfeiture for non-use if not used at least once every five years.  NRS 534.090. Thus, if you last used your certificated water right of use in 2011, you best put whatever water is available for appropriation under your certificate in place for 2016!  Make sure to use it so you are not at risk of losing it!

Abandonment

Use it or lose it as defined by the water code should not be confused with abandonment, a court made doctrine that may be more broadly applied.  Abandonment will cause cancellation of a water use by intention not to use.  Intention can be established by expression as in a written document or by a physical act.  The physical act of abandonment can include placing a permanent structure over or on top of water righted lands.  If you plan to build the next industrial sized plant, packing shed, scale house, onion storage, fill in your ditch, or take out your diversion structures, etc., you should file that water use transfer or change application prior to any construction!

While this gives you the very “basic” overview of these two legal concepts, Schroeder Law Offices can provide a more detailed explanation

Water resource users are some of the most environmental aware stewards since they must count every precious drop of water necessary to feed the world and provide safe drinking water. In the United States, we celebrate Earth Day: We have a bike-to-work week, we have recycling and environmental preservation programs in our communities, the list goes on. World Environment Day is the United Nations’ all-encompassing campaign that promotes these types of environmentally conscious activities and events and serves as a global platform for public outreach. The UN considers World Environment Day (“WED”) an important holiday for encouraging worldwide awareness and action for the protection of our environment.  Also considered “The People’s Day,” the UN encourages this to be “a day for doing something to take care of the Earth or to become an agent of change. That ‘something’ can be focused locally, nationally or globally; it can be a solo action or involve a crowd – everyone is free to choose.” Each year, the UN organizes WED to revolve around a particularly pressing issue, this year they’re highlighting illegal wildlife trade with a themed slogan: “Go Wild for Life.” Activities are encouraged globally; in 2015, WED saw a total of 2,861 registered activities with 1.26 million people participating worldwide.  Participants can visit the WED online site to register their environmental activities to be shared worldwide on a community map, with hopes of inspiring others with ideas or notable contributions.  For those who wish to participate in the World Environment Day celebration, the UN offers this toolkit for a successful, positive route to taking action and encourages participants to share their activities. While Schroeder Law Office’s work in water resources is a bit removed from the 2016 theme “Go Wild for Life” we can say that we “Go Wild for Water.”  We will celebrate this year’s World Environment Day by continuing to support our clients in smart and efficient beneficial use of our water resources.