The Nevada Division of Water Resources is hosting public presentations to provide information and receive comment for issues within the Humboldt River region. If you have concerns or are interested in learning how NDWR is looking to conjunctive management in these regions, you should attend! More information can be found at https://water.nv.gov/posts and then following the link to the “Public Outreach on the Humboldt Rier Water Management”.
Therese Stix will attend the Lovelock session to listen and participate in the discussion. We hope to see you there!
Washington State Drought Insurance
New Drought Insurance Program in Washington State: A Lifeline for Farmers
Introduction
Washington State, through the Department of Ecology (DOE), has launched an innovative Washington State Drought Insurance Program. The program aims at providing relief to farmers and water right holders along the Columbia River. This program is designed to mitigate the impact of drought. Although droughts are rare along the Columbia River, occurrence happens every twenty years. Arguably, drought has become more prevalent in recent years. The last drought in 2001 was the second most severe in state-recorded history.
Understanding Washington’s Need
In Washington, water rights are crucial for farmers, especially those with junior or interruptible water rights. These junior and interruptible water rights can be curtailed during droughts to ensure sufficient water flow for fish and senior water rights holders, thus leading to financial adversity for farmers.
The Washington State Drought Insurance Program
The Washington State Drought Insurance Program offers a solution by allowing junior water right holders to lease water during drought years. This leased water is supplied from Lake Roosevelt, which has a reserve of up to 33,000 acre-feet. The program also involves a possible purchase of the reserve water and the option for lease agreements, therefore providing options for water right holders.
How the Program Works
Leasing Water: Farmers can lease water from Lake Roosevelt during drought years, ensuring they have a reliable water supply even when their rights are curtailed
Cost-Effective: The leased water is relatively inexpensive, costing around $35 per acre-foot
Partnerships: The program is partnering with Western Water Market to reach out to water right holders and gather information about their needs
Benefits
Reliability: Provides a dependable water source during droughts.
Economic Stability: Helps farmers avoid the financial losses associated with water shortages.
Environmental Protection: Ensures that water flow for fish and senior water rights holders is also maintained.
Conclusion
Washington State’s Drought Insurance Program is a proactive step towards safeguarding the agricultural sector against the unpredictable impacts of droughts. By offering a cost-effective and reliable water leasing option, the program supports farmers and promotes sustainable water management.
Make sure to follow Schroeder Law Offices’ blog for more upcoming community events, updates to agricultural and water-related issues, and more!
Well and Septic April Workshops
NNPH & RCAC April Workshops
Attention Northern Nevada residents, have you ever wished your home’s septic system and well came with an owner’s manual? Well, you’re in luck. This month, Northern Nevada Public Health (NNPH) and the Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC) are teaming up to offer two free in-person workshops focused on domestic wells and septic systems.
These April workshops will help homeowners better understand, maintain, and protect their private water and wastewater systems, while also providing access to valuable resources and technical assistance. Both workshops will include take home materials, Q&A sessions with environmental experts, and guidance on water testing, inspections, and local support programs. The trainings will be available in English and Spanish.
You Own a Private Well, Now What? Protecting Your Home’s Water Source
More: This interactive workshop will cover the basics of domestic well ownership, including routine testing, maintenance tips, and ways to protect your water quality. NNPH and RCAC experts will also share information about local resources and programs to assist well owners.
How to Manage Your Septic System – Maintenance, Protection, and Resources
When: Thursday, April 24, 2025, from 5:30-8:30 p.m. Where: Northern Nevada Public Health – 1001 East Ninth Street, Bldg. B, Reno Register:https://www.events.rcac.org/assnfe/ev.asp?ID=4578 Details: This session will provide practical guidance on septic system upkeep, common signs of failure, and how to prevent costly repairs. Attendees will also learn about public health and environmental considerations, and get connected with helpful tools and support programs
Make sure to follow Schroeder Law Offices’ blog for more upcoming community events, updates to agricultural and water-related issues, and more!
Corner Crossing Appeal
Appellate Court Rules on Corner Crossing Case
On March 18, 2025, the Tenth Circuit Appellate Court issued a ruling on Iron Bar Holdings v. Cape, et al., what has become commonly referred to as the “Corner Crossing Case”. As noted in our earlier blog, the Corner Crossing Case sets precedent on public land use in the West and settles a decades-long dispute between competing public land uses.
Background and District Court Outcome
The case arose in the Federal District of Wyoming after several incidents in 2020 and 2021 involving four hunters pursuing deer and elk in southwest Wyoming. The hunters, including Brad Cape, Zach Smith, Phillip Yeomans, and John Slowensky were hunting BLM land checkerboarded with private land belonging to Iron Bar Holdings, the owner of a Wyoming based ranching operation. Due to prior disagreements with Iron Bar Holdings and hunters traversing from one BLM parcel to another via touching corners (i.e. “corner crossing”), Iron Bar Holdings posted and fenced the corners of its private land, to bar “corner crossing”. Iron Bar also deployed its staff to instruct corner crossers to leave and contact local law enforcement requesting they press criminal charges on any corner crossers. While law enforcement was called on the hunters involved in this case in 2020, no citations were issued. In 2021, the hunters returned and used a ladder with its bases placed on each BLM parcel to “corner cross”, climbing from one public block to another without touching Iron Bar Holdings’ private land.
According to the March 18, 2025, decision [1], Iron Bar Holdings sued the hunters in federal civil court for civil trespass, claiming $9 million in damages based on a possible 10-25% devaluation of its property due to loss of exclusive access to the elk-rich public land sections interspersed with its private land. The District Court judge ruled in favor of the hunters, finding that public land users who corner-cross are immune from civil liability as long as the crossers do not touch the surface of private land or damage private property. Iron Bar Holdings appealed the decision to the Federal Appellate Court for the Tenth Circuit.
Tenth Circuit Opinion
The Corner Crossing Case appeal was determined by a three-judge panel with a 3-0 decision. The sitting judges included Timothy Tymkovich, David Ebel, and Nancy Motriz. The appellate court’s 49-page decision upheld the District Court ruling and provided additional analysis on the legality of corner crossing. The decision contains a detailed and interesting history of the development of the public land survey system and federal land grants to railroad companies for the Transcontinental Railroad. Both are key elements giving rise to the present-day phenomenon of checkerboarded private and public land in the West.
Like in the District Court, the Unlawful Inclosure Act [2] of 1885 (“UIA”) was a primary factor in the Appellate Court’s decision affirming the District Court under de novo review. The UIA was passed “to prevent absorption and ownership of vast tracts of the public domain”, primarily by cattle barons. 43 U.S.C. § 1061 et seq. The Court acknowledged that the UIA was “designed to harmonize public access to the public domain with adjacent private land holdings.”
State Property Law Preempted by Federal Law
First, the Court briefly discussed state property law, including the ownership of airspace and the property owner’s right to exclude. In doing so the Court found the hunters corner-crossing was a trespass under Wyoming law. However, in applying the UIA, the Court also found that the state trespass law was preempted by federal law. In doing so, the Court reviewed over a hundred years of federal corner dispute cases spanning from 1885 to 1988.
Full Access to Public Lands
The Court concluded the UIA declares “[a]ll inclosures of any public lands. . .to be unlawful” including the “erection, construction, or control of any such inclosure” and the use of “force, threats, intimidation.” It also restricts prevention or obstruction of free passage or transit over or through the public lands. The court found this language expanded to all “inclosures of public land”, including non-physical barriers, such as Iron Bar Holdings “no trespassing” signs and its staff telling hunter to leave the public land.
The core principle of the UIA is that a landowner cannot maintain a barrier “which enclose public lands and prevents” access for a “lawful purpose.” U.S. ex rel. Bergen v. Lawrence, 848 F.2d 1502, 1511-1512 (10th Cir. 1988). However, the Court recognized a barrier itself is not a UIA violation, but it becomes one when its effect is to enclose. The Court further found that not every fence is a violation of the UIA as a fence can still permit adequate access such as via a gate. However, a fence that does prohibit access across federal land is a nuisance.
Conclusion
In sum, while the Tenth Circuit recognized that corner crossing may constitute civil trespass of a property owner’s airspace under state law, it found that such trespass is permissible if it is to overcome a UIA violation. As a result, the Court upheld the District Court holding that the hunters could corner-cross as long as they did not physically touch Iron Bar’s land.
Tenth Circuit holdings have binding precedent on the following states: Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. The ruling is also persuasive precedent for other States and appellate circuits in the West. It is unknown at this time if Iron Bar Holdings will petition the Supreme Court for certiorari (review). It must do so within 90 days of entry of the Tenth Circuit’s order.
[1] Our earlier blog says ~$7 million, which is consistent with the District Court decision. The appellate court decision says $9 million.
[2] Not a typo, that is the wording from the actual act.
The Greater Idaho Movement
The Greater Idaho Movement is a fascinating and complex effort that has gained traction in recent years. This movement seeks to redraw the state boundaries. Several counties in eastern Oregon would become part of Idaho. The primary motivation behind this movement is the cultural and political differences between the rural, conservative eastern Oregon and the more urban, liberal western part of the state.
Water: A Critical Issue in the Greater Idaho Movement
One of the critical issues at the heart of this movement is water rights. Water is a precious resource in the arid regions of eastern Oregon and Idaho. The management of water rights is crucial for agriculture, industry, and residential use. Water rights in the western United States are governed by the doctrine of prior appropriation, which essentially means “first in time, first in right.” This doctrine has been the foundation of water law in both Oregon and Idaho for over a century. However, the implementation and management of these rights can vary significantly between states.
In Oregon, water rights are managed by the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD). The state has a comprehensive water management plan that includes strict regulations on water usage, conservation efforts, and environmental protections. In addition, OWRD has ceded its application processes in large part to the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW). These regulations can sometimes be viewed as burdensome by farmers and ranchers in eastern Oregon. They feel that their needs are not adequately represented in the state’s policies.
Idaho, on the other hand, has a more fluid approach to water management. The Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) oversees water rights at the State level, but there is generally more local control and flexibility in how water is allocated and used. Additional agencies, such as state fish and wildlife do not oversee or inform IDWR’s work. This approach is often seen as more favorable by those in the agricultural sector, as it allows for more adaptive management practices that can better respond to local conditions.
What if the Greater Idaho Movement Succeeds?
If the Greater Idaho Movement were to succeed, the counties that join Idaho would transition from Oregon’s water management system to Idaho’s. This shift could have several implications:
Regulatory Changes: Farmers and ranchers in these counties might experience a reduction in regulatory burdens, allowing for more flexible water usage. This could lead to increased agricultural productivity and economic benefits for the region.
Water Allocation: The change in state governance could also impact how water is allocated among different users. Idaho’s system might provide more opportunities for local stakeholders to influence water management decisions. That could lead to more equitable distribution of water resources.
Environmental Concerns: While the transition might benefit agricultural users, there could be concerns about the environmental impacts of less stringent water regulations. A critical challenge will be ensuring that water usage remains sustainable and that ecosystems are protected.
Interstate Water Compacts: The movement could also affect existing interstate water compacts and agreements. These legal agreements govern the allocation of water from shared rivers and aquifers between states. Any changes in state boundaries would require renegotiation of these compacts to ensure fair distribution of water resources.
Conclusion
The Greater Idaho Movement is more than just a political and cultural shift. It has significant implications for water rights and resource management. As the movement continues to evolve, it will be essential to carefully consider how these changes will impact the people and ecosystems that depend on water in this region. Balancing the needs of agricultural users with environmental sustainability will be key to ensuring a prosperous future for all involved.
Schroeder Law Offices works with clients in both Idaho and Oregon as well as Nevada, Washington and Utah.
House Bill 3419
House Bill 3419: What’s Next for Well Monitoring and Reporting?
Oregon House Bill 3419 has the potential to restrict how much water homeowners can pump from their exempt (non-permitted) wells. It requires meters to record water usage. This bill also focuses on constructing consistency in how water use is measured and reported, in hopes to refine water enforcement procedures.
Most types of water use require the user to obtain a permit from the Oregon Water Resources Department (“OWRD”). But Oregon law currently considers domestic use of up to 15,000 gallons of groundwater per day, including irrigation of lawns and non-commercial gardens less than one-half acre, exempt from permitting and reporting requirements. This could change under HB 3419.
Public Feedback
Public response to House Bill 3419 has been mixed. While environmental protection organizations like WaterWatch of Oregon, the Nature Conservancy, and the Oregon Environmental Council support the passage of House Bill 3419, many individuals have provided public comments in opposition. The Oregon Water Resources Congress (“OWRC”) also opposes HB 3419, stating, “We are not opposed generally to measurement and reporting… However [HB 3419] would provide OWRD with overly broad authority that will only compete with and undermine other ongoing water management efforts.”
Mark Owens, Oregon State Representative for House District 60, has said he is opposed to any bill that would establish constraints for rural residents who rely on exempt wells for their domestic water. House District 60 includes Baker, Grant, Harney, Lake, Malheur, and part of Deschutes Counties in central and eastern Oregon. Many residents of these rural counties rely on private wells to obtain domestic water. Owens’ aim is to make things less complicated for Oregonians. H wants to ensure access to secure and reliable water for their homes. He spoke about possibly setting up a fund to support repairs and replacements of wells that have been affected by droughts, fires, and contamination.
Conclusion
It is important that well owners, especially those who rely on exempt wells for domestic use, maintain awareness of potential rules and regulations that could require additional procedure concerning their water access. House Bill 3419 is currently in front of the Oregon House Committee on Agriculture, Land Use, Natural Resources, and Water. There are no scheduled hearings on this bill, and the deadline to submit testimony has expired. We will continue to monitor the progress of HB 3419, so check back for updates! If you’re interested in learning more about ongoing water right issues, visit our the Schroeder Law Offices, PC blog!
The United States Committee on Irrigation and Drainage (USCID www.uscid.org) is excited to announce the call for papers for its Annual Conference, scheduled to take place from October 21-24, 2025, in Reno, Nevada. This year’s conference will focus on the critical issues surrounding water supply and demand, emphasizing sustainable basin water management in the face of increasing scarcity and competing uses.
Conference Overview
The USCID Conference in Reno aims to address the challenges of water planning and management, particularly in the context of agricultural, urban, and environmental demands. With changing weather patterns, regulatory constraints, and the evolving science of hydrology and hydrogeology, the conference will explore innovative solutions to ensure reliable water supplies and effective resource management.
Call for Papers
USCID invites abstracts for papers and presentations that align with the conference’s themes. Authors can submit abstracts for either a 20-minute oral presentation with a paper or a 15-minute oral presentation without a paper. Accepted papers will be included in the Conference Proceedings, providing a valuable resource for attendees and the broader water management community.
Key Topics
The conference will cover a wide range of topics, including but not limited to:
Basin Water Management and Governance
Basin supply and demand management
Regional management governance structures
Implementing sustainable groundwater basin rules
Competing Uses of Water
Shared facilities
Surface water/groundwater exchanges
Recycling and wastewater reuse
Water Planning
Integrating regional water resources
Reservoir management and operation modeling
Stakeholder involvement
Water Supply and Demand Management
Urban and agricultural irrigation conservation
Deficit irrigation and drought management
Salinity and water quality management
Water Transfers
Water rights concerns
Improvements in agricultural and urban water transfers
Environmental permitting and policy
Technologies
Evapotranspiration and consumptive use
Flow measurement and SCADA systems
Precision irrigation and smart device applications
Submission Guidelines
Authors are encouraged to submit a 250-300 word abstract, including the paper or presentation title, author names and affiliations, and contact information. Abstracts should be submitted as a .doc or .docx file to megan@agamsi.com by May 1, 2025.
Important Dates
Abstracts Due: May 1, 2025
Notification to Authors: May 15, 2025
Draft Papers Due: July 15, 2025
Comments to Authors: August 15, 2025
Final Papers Due: September 15, 2025
Conference Dates: October 21-24, 2025
Join us in Reno for an engaging and informative conference that promises to advance the field of irrigation and drainage. We look forward to your contributions and participation in this important event. For more information, visit USCID’s call for papers website.
Oregon Snowpack 2025
Oregon Snowpack: A Winter Wonderland in 2025
With the first day of spring just around the corner, Oregon’s snowpack is now a topic of significant interest and importance. This year, Oregon has experienced remarkable snowfall, leading to a snowpack that is not only above average but also the best in the western United States. What does this record-breaking year mean for the region?
A Record-Breaking Oregon Snowpack
As of February 2025, Oregon’s snowpack has reached an impressive 144% of normal levels with all watersheds at 77% or higher of median snow-water levels. The John Day, Malheur, Harney, and Lake County-Goose Lake watersheds all have more than 150% of median snow-water levels. The levels across the state look very similar to those in 2019.
The accumulation is due to a series of cold winter storms providing large amounts of snow across the state. The heavy snowfall has been a welcome sight for many, especially after several years of fluctuating snowpack that raised concerns about water supply and drought conditions. Oregon has enjoyed a successful winter ski season. Skiing is expected to continue far into the spring, with many ski areas near or at 100 inches of snow.
Implications for Water Supply
This substantial Oregon snowpack is not only enjoyed for recreational winter snow uses. It also bodes well for water users during the rest of the year. The current snowpack levels are a positive sign for Oregon’s water supply. With snowpack levels well above average, the state is better positioned to meet water demands for agricultural and recreational uses, especially with irrigation seasons starting in March. The ample snowpack reduces the immediate risk of drought, providing a buffer against dry conditions that could arise later in the year.
Looking Ahead
While the current Oregon snowpack levels are encouraging, it is important to remain cautious. In recent years, strong snowpacks have melted too quickly due to early warm temperatures in spring and summer. This faster melting reduces the snowpack’s ability to prevent wildfires. It is wise to approach the season with caution and to be well-prepared.
All in all, this is good news for Oregon water users, and we will hope for a bountiful summer.
2025 Legislative Session & Nevada Water Law
The 2025 Nevada Legislative Session has begun. It’s looking like a busy session for water bills. Four bills caught my attention and we thought we should share them with you!
The main perk for those with approved conservation plans is that their water rights are not subject to abandonment pursuant to NRS 534.090.
Assembly Bill 104 and Senate Bill 36
AB 104 proposes to establish an Account for Retiring Water Rights and the Nevada Voluntary Water Rights Retirement Program (“Program”) to be administered by the Director of the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (“Director”).
The Program would allow the Director to accept applications for the purchase and retirement of water rights until June 30, 2035. Under this proposal, the State Engineer will retire the water rights that are purchased and the water will not be available for appropriation. SB 36 has nearly identical provisions but calls the Program the Nevada Water Buy-Back Initiative.
Also contained in AB 104 is a section proposing to change the name of temporary permits to revocable permits. There is also a section prohibiting domestic well drilling if the property is within 1,250 feet of a public entity service line.
Assembly Bill 265
AB 265 proposes to amend NRS Chapter 533 to require the Nevada Division of Water Resources to notify water appropriation applicants if a committee is assigned to review the application. The bill places deadlines on the committee to complete the application review within 30 days after the protest deadline passes if no protests are timely filed, and within 60 days if a protest is received. The bill goes on to set deadlines for the State Engineer to act on other processes including reviewing applications for water use, extension of time applications, and confirming reports of conveyance to update water right ownership inforamation.
Lastly, under AB 265, the State Engineer will be required to notify a permit holder 30 days before the due date that a permit will be held in cancellation if a proof of completion of work or proof of application of water to beneficial use is not filed.
Take Aways from the 2025 Legislative Session
These bills illustrate the increasing necessity to conserve water resources in Nevada while safeguarding senior priority water rights. Additionally, AB 265 addresses the increasing concern over the backlog in the State Engineer’s office. It sets deadlines to allow for the prompt administration of water rights. Now it will be up to the State Legislature and the Governor to decide if these bills will become law.
Nilometer: A Key Water Guage in Egypt
TAXING FARMERS BASED ON WATER AVAILABILITY
Attorney Laura Schroeder recently returned from Egypt. She shares in this article the use of nilometers in ancient Egypt that offers a fascinating intersection of law, administration, and environmental science. These devices were pivotal in determining tax rates based on the annual flooding of the Nile River, highlighting the sophisticated legal and administrative systems of one of history’s most enduring civilizations.
Nilometers remained in use from the pharaonic period until the Aswan High Dam rendered them obsolete in the 1960s
Legal Framework and Taxation
In ancient Egypt, taxation was deeply tied to the Nile’s water levels, as measured by nilometers. These structures were essentially water gauges. They determined whether the annual flood would result in a prosperous harvest or a poor yield. A higher flood level indicated fertile soil and abundant crops, leading to higher taxes. Lower levels signaled drought and reduced taxes. The measurements were critical for setting equitable tax rates, ensuring that farmers were taxed based on their actual agricultural output potential.
Administrative Oversight
The process of measuring water levels and determining taxes was carefully regulated. During the Abbasid period, for example, nilometer readings were supervised by judges appointed by the Sultan to ensure accuracy and fairness. This reflects an early form of legal oversight to prevent corruption or manipulation in tax collection.
Broader Implications
Nilometers also held symbolic and spiritual significance. Often located within temples or adorned with Quranic verses during later periods, they represented the divine connection between the Nile’s bounty and societal prosperity. This dual role underscores how legal systems in ancient Egypt intertwined with religious and cultural practices.
Conclusion
The nilometer exemplifies how ancient Egyptian rulers utilized natural phenomena to create a structured taxation system. It not only ensured revenue for public projects but also established a legal precedent for fair taxation based on measurable criteria. This innovative approach resonates with modern principles of tax law, where income or productivity often determines tax liability. Attorney Schroeder suggests that a similar approach to taxation of farmers in the US might be more appropriate!
Training for Nevada Water Judges
Is Specialized Training for Nevada Water Judges Working?
Most agree that the Nevada Supreme Court’s initiative to provide specialized training for Nevada water judges was a significant step towards improving the adjudication of water law cases in the state. However, the jury is still out when it comes to determining the overall success of the program. This initiative, launched as a pilot program in January 2024, aims to enhance the expertise of district court judges in handling complex water law issues.
The certification process involves judges submitting an application and completing a training program. Supreme Court Rule 18, which outlines the criteria for water law cases and the assignment process. governs the program. Nevada looks to the Dividing the Waters[2] program at the National Judicial College for curriculum and will require these Nevad water judges to undergo continued legal education. So far the program has not heard many cases, suspecting the reprieve in drought and abundant water supply in the last few years as correlating with the reduced number in cases coming before court. However, the program will likely reconvene at the end of the three-year pilot time period to review the statistics to assess the success of the program.
Justice Parraguirre’s Insights at the NWRA Conference
At the recent Nevada Water Resources Association (NWRA) conference, Justice Ron Parraguirre of the Nevada Supreme Court delivered a keynote presentation highlighting the progress and challenges of the pilot program for Nevada water judges. Justice Parraguirre emphasized the importance of specialized training in ensuring efficient and consistent administration of water law cases. Justice Parraguirre also discussed the ongoing efforts to refine the training curriculum based on feedback from Judges and stakeholders. Currently, the program is aimed at NRS Chapter 533 use in management of water use, regulating and understanding surface water and groundwater connections, water rights adjudications, and understanding vested and subordinate water rights, among others.
Justice Parraguirre’s presentation underscored efforts in the judiciary and at NWRA in addressing water law and technical issues. He praised the NWRA for its role in providing valuable resources and training opportunities for all water professionals. Justice Parraguirre advised that the one thing water experts can do better is teach! Being able to break down concepts and teach those in the court room is key to the successful and consistent administration of water cases.
Water Use Efficiency and Conservation in Las Vegas: A Model for Arid Cities
Las Vegas, a city renowned for its vibrant nightlife and extravagant resorts, is also becoming a beacon of water use efficiency and conservation. Nestled in the Mojave Desert, Las Vegas faces unique challenges in managing its water resources. With approximately 90% of its water supply coming from the Colorado River, the city has had to innovate and implement stringent measures to ensure sustainable water use.
The Challenge of Water Scarcity
The Southwest United States, including Las Vegas, has been grappling with prolonged droughts and decreasing water levels in the Colorado River. This situation has necessitated a shift from water abundance to water use efficiency. Las Vegas, with its growing population and tourism industry, has had to adopt aggressive water-saving strategies to meet its needs without exhausting its resources.
Innovative Water Conservation Measures
One of the most notable initiatives is the Southern Nevada Water Authority’s (SNWA) turf removal program. This program incentivizes residents and businesses to replace water-intensive grass with drought-tolerant landscaping. Since its inception, the program has successfully removed approximately 200 million square feet of turf, saving significant amounts of water.
In addition to turf removal, Las Vegas has implemented several other measures:
Water Restrictions: The city has imposed strict regulations on water use, including limiting pool sizes, restricting personal car washing, and prohibiting the installation of new swamp coolers.
Leak Detection and Repair: The SNWA has a robust system for detecting and repairing leaks, ensuring that water is not wasted through infrastructure inefficiencies.
Efficient Fixtures and Appliances: Programs encouraging the use of water-efficient fixtures and appliances in homes and businesses have been highly effective. These upgrades not only save water but also reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
The Impact of Conservation Efforts
The results of these efforts have been impressive. Over the past two decades, Southern Nevada has added about 750,000 residents while reducing its Colorado River water consumption by 31%. This achievement underscores the effectiveness of the city’s water management strategies and serves as a model for other arid regions facing similar challenges.
Creative Solutions for Future Growth
Innovative water conservation strategies are not just about survival; they are key to enabling future growth. Cities that adopt creative solutions such as rainwater harvesting, greywater recycling, and smart irrigation technologies can manage their water resources more efficiently. These methods help cities to sustain their populations and support economic development even in the face of diminishing water supplies.
For instance, rainwater harvesting systems capture and store rainwater for various uses, reducing the demand on municipal water supplies. Greywater recycling systems allow the reuse of water from sinks, showers, and washing machines for non-potable purposes, significantly lowering freshwater demand. Smart irrigation technologies optimize water use in landscaping by adjusting to weather conditions and soil moisture levels, ensuring that green spaces receive the precise amount of water needed.
Conclusion
Las Vegas’ journey towards water efficiency and conservation is a testament to the power of innovative thinking and proactive management. By adopting a comprehensive approach that includes regulatory measures, technological advancements, and community engagement, Las Vegas is not only securing its water future but also setting an example for other cities in arid regions. As climate change continues to impact water availability, the lessons learned from Las Vegas’ experience will be invaluable in shaping sustainable water management practices worldwide.
Creative water conservation strategies will allow cities to grow sustainably, ensuring that they can thrive even as water resources become increasingly scarce. By embracing these innovative solutions, cities can secure their future and continue to prosper.
Iron Bar Holdingss v. Cape, et al., what has become commonly referred to as the “Corner Crossing Case”, has stalled in the Tenth Circuit Appellate Court since May of this year. The Corner Crossing Case is primed to set precedent on public land use in the West and settle a decades-long dispute between competing public land uses.
Background
The Corner Crossing Case arose from a Federal District Court for the District of Wyoming. The case stemmed from several incidents in 2020 and 2021 involving four Missouri hunters who were pursuing deer and elk in southeast Wyoming: Brad Cape, Zach Smith, Phillip Yeomans, and John Slowensky. The Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) parcels they were hunting on were checkerboarded with private land belonging to Iron Bar Holdings, the owner of a Wyoming based ranching operation. Due to prior disagreements on whether hunters could “corner cross”, traversing from one BLM parcel to another via the touching corners, Iron Bar Holdings posted the corners of its private land, making it impossible to “corner cross” the adjacent BLM parcels.
As a result, instead of walking across the private land to reach the public land, the hunters used a ladder, with its bases placed on each BLM parcel to climb from one public block to another at the corners where they meet.
Iron Bar Holdings pursued criminal charges against the hunters, claiming trespass into the private property’s air-space. The hunters counter-argued Iron Bar Holdings violated the Unlawful Inclosures Act, a federal law that prohibits anyone from restricting access to public land. The Wyoming state court found the hunters not guilty of criminal trespass. Iron Bar Holdings then sued them in federal civil court claiming up to $7.75 million in damages based on a possible 10-25% devaluation of its property.
District and Appellate Litigation on Corner Crossing Case
The District Court Judge ruled that public land users who corner-cross are immune from civil liability as long as the crossers do not touch the surface of private land or damage private property. The 32-page ruling was strongly in favor of the hunters. The ruling relied heavily on a 1914 case Mackay v. Uinta Development Co. wherein a federal court ruled that a sheep farmer could move his herd across private land to access public parcels in southern Wyoming. That court held that individuals “possess a reasonable way of passage over the unenclosed track of land without being guilty of trespass.” In answer to Iron Bar Holdings air-space argument, the District Judge cited a 1974 case from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals holding that a trespass into private property airspace required proof of damages to the property or proof of interference in the use of the private property.
The ruling was a “win for the common outdoors person” stated Brad Cape; but was it a loss for western ranchers? Iron Bar Holdings certainly thought so and appealed the District Court decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on the appeal on May 14, 2024. However, the Corner Crossing Case has stalled at the Appellate Court, that has yet to issue a decision on the appeal.
The Court’s decision will have precedential effects across the Tenth Circuit, including Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Kansas, and Oklahoma and could impact public access to 8.3 million acres in the West. Many of these acres are used for hunting and other recreation as well as by livestock grazers under Bureau of Land Management grazing permits and licenses. These diversified interests were well represented in the Tenth Circuit with the submission of numerous Amicus briefs both in support of and against corner crossing.
Corner Crossing Case: Appeals to the Supreme Court
As the Tenth Circuit Court of appeals has yet to issue a ruling on Iron Bar Holdings v. Cape, et al., the outcome of the case is still uncertain. However, Semerad opined in June that one of the parties will likely petition the Supreme Court for certiorari. Given the dramatic effect a Supreme Court opinion will have on public land in the West, this office believes there is a high probability the Supreme Court will grant certiorari and provide clarity on this long standing legal gray area.
The United States Supreme Court review of a case is not a matter of right, but of discretion. The primary purpose of the Supreme Court is to decide cases presenting issues of importance beyond the particular facts and parties involved and to set precedent on those issues. Pursuant to that goal, the Supreme Court grants and hears argument in only about 1% of the cases that are filed each term with the vast majority being denied for review.
However, for the Supreme Court to consider a case, a party must file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari (“petition for writ”). If a party does not file petition for writ, the Supreme Court will not consider reviewing the case. A petition for writ is due within 90 days from the date of the entry of the final judgement in the United States Court of Appeals the case was presented in or within 90 days from the denial of a timely filed petition for rehearing in that court. Supreme Court Rule 13.1.
Stay tuned!
Are Water Resources Keeping Up?
As the writer at the Federal Reserve Bank commented in his article Are Water Resources Keeping Up with U.S. Economic Needs? – San Francisco Fed water is not something we can transport from a water rich area to a water poor one. While the research studies cited in the article advise that the United States is not over-all water short, the arable where the United States depends for its fresh fruits and vegetables, are those areas most water short.
The unstated suggestion of the author is simply that we could move agricultural production to the water rich areas. But the author does not opine on what crops can be grown in the “water rich” areas. It may be that if indeed we must move crop production to the Midwest where the growing season does not produce 3-5 crops per year of the vegetables that US citizen have come to love from southern California that American’s diets will be require change or that a larger share of individual gross income will be spent on food.
Oregon IWRS
Integrated Water Resources Strategy: Oregon IWRS
IWRS means Oregon’s statewide Integrated Water Resources Strategy. On November 12, 2024, six Oregon departments hosted a public meeting to discuss IWRS priorities for the next five to 7 years. Sponsoring departments included:
Water Resources Department
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Department of Environmental Quality
Department of Agriculture
Watershed Enhancement Board
Department of Land Conservation and Development
Over 50 people attended both online and in person in Salem, including Schroeder Law Offices, to learn what the agencies believed were the most important actions for the state to take related to water quality and quantity concerns.
What IWRS Is
The IWRS is a state-wide initiative for inter-agency communication to understand Oregon’s instream and out-of-stream water needs. Governor Kotek requested a pause on IWRS after the agencies issued the first draft of the priorities since many agencies were transitioning to new directors.
The IWRS has 47 required actions, and the agencies decided to break these actions down into three “buckets”. They are titled 1) Prevent Things from Getting Worse; 2) Optimize: Highest and Best Use; and 3) Help Communities Prepare and Adapt.
The first bucket concerns sustainable practices and limiting and reducing contamination of water resources. The second bucket concerns prioritizing innovative water solutions and data-driven projects for decision-making. The third bucket concerns informing the public of what the “water future” looks like, helping economies adapt to water changes, and increasing volunteer-based incentive programs for target priorities. The public had the opportunity to comment on the agencies’ priorities. They provided questions and feedback as well.
Commenters questioned the lack of enforcement language within the goals from the Department of Environmental Quality, such as in the Lower Umatilla Basin Groundwater Management Area. This area, referred to as the “LUBGWMA,” experiences challenges with nitrate levels in domestic wells that are not connected to a community or municipal system. Commenters also questioned the scale of the projects to ensure the projects could be feasibly implemented in all communities.
Next Draft Coming in January, 2025
The agencies will publish the next draft for the IWRS in January 2025 which will include these priority areas. The public can submit comments to the draft IWRS. If you have interest in these projects or concerns, be sure to submit comments to the agencies for their consideration. After public review and comment, the agencies will present the draft to the Water Resources Commission in March 2025 for a workshop discussion. The agencies expect to provide the Final Draft of the IWRS to Water Resources Commission in late Spring 2025, with a hope of official adoption in June 2025.
Volunteer Spotlight: The Growers Grange
Schroeder Law Offices, P.C. legal assistant Melissa Teter, has volunteered at The Growers Grange, a local farm in Corbett, OR, for the last two growing seasons. The Growers Grange is a small farm run by Bianca and Ethan Nati. Their focus is on preserving their Italian tradition by growing heirloom vegetables and fruit.
In addition to vegetable production for the local community and restaurants, Nati’s utilize 1/8 of an acre for saving seeds of select crops for True Love Seeds and The Italian Garden Projects. Some favorite produce grown by the Nati’s are eggplant, basil, garlic, Anellino beans, a variety of peppers, and of course, tomatoes.
While volunteering, Melissa helped harvest, seed, and weed, and even participated in a work share program where in exchange for her work, she received a box of produce. In addition to produce, the farm hosts goats, geese, and chickens, as well as 4 large guard dogs that deter bears and cougars. Mateen, the oldest of the dogs is pictured below.
Melissa’s favorite volunteer activities included trying new fruits and vegetables that she otherwise would not have tried and learning more about farming in Oregon.
Rice Crops Use Water Efficiently
Did You Know? Rice Crops in California Use Water Efficiently
California is renowned for its rich agricultural diversity. It produces almonds, avocados, grapes, and pistachios. Having an arid climate the state must use water efficiently.
Did you know California is the second-largest rice producer in the United States? Thanks to their Mediterranean climate—with sparse rain and cool nights— the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys are perfect for rice growing. Rice there takes up about 500,000 acres. In particular Sacramento Valley’s clay soil effectively retains moisture, creating optimal growing conditions. The average yield is over four tons of rice per acre. California’s rice industry contributes over $775 million to the state economy.
Rice is grown in paddies
Driving through the Sacramento Valley, you might have seen submerged rice crops, or paddies. Earthen levees. surround the paddies where rice grows. This method not only curtails weed growth but also acts as a natural herbicide.
The precise amount of water used to prevent weed growth is highly important, as water that is too deep may inhibit rice stand establishment, while water that is too shallow may still allow weed seed germination. On average, it takes 370 gallons of water to produce 2.2 pounds of rice, consuming an estimated 34-43% of the world’s irrigation water. Rice crops must use water efficiently!
Tricks for using water efficiently
While rice may use a lot of water, rice farmers have found ways to utilize every drop of water efficiently, allowing the water to flow from one field to the next in the levee system. With separate field channels water is delivered to individual seed beds as needed. The precise time and location of irrigation and prevents runoff. Shallow tillage operations and puddling further help to prevent water loss.
Any remaining standing water percolates and re-charges groundwater and surface water. Hence, when planning new or existing crops, considering your water rights is crucial to comply with statewide water regulations while ensuring you will have enough water to grow your crops.
Shareholder attorney Therese Stix visited Lundberg Family Farms in Richvale, California and learned firsthand about the water use, efficiencies, and delivery means and methods in rice growing operations. She enjoyed the passion the Lundberg Family has for growing rice.
McCarran Amendment Court Challenge
The McCarran Amendment
A current Ninth Circuit Case could upset pre-1952 water rights adjudications in certain circumstances!
Enacted by Congress in 1952, the McCarran Amendment, 43 U.S.C. § 666, waives the United States’ sovereign immunity in state court water rights adjudications. The Amendment acknowledges the power of a state to regulate ownership and use of the waters within its boundaries. This allows the federal government to be joined as a defendant in a suit to determine ownership and priority of water rights from a particular source.
But, what happens in the circumstance where vested water rights were adjudicated before the McCarran Amendment was enacted? If the federal government could have joined state adjudication proceedings in the past, and chose not to, can they still assert reserved water rights to the fully adjudicated water source?
The Challenge
That is precisely the issue that arose in the Nevada federal court case Backer Ranches, Inc. v. Haaland. In Baker Ranches, owners of decreed water rights to Baker and Lehman Creeks sued the United States for interfering with their water rights to the creeks.
The state court adjudication establishing the owner’s water rights to Baker and Lehman Creeks occurred in 1934, before the McCarran Amendment. Because the federal government had sovereign immunity to state court proceedings concerning water rights at the time, the federal government was not a party to the adjudication, though it was informed and provided with updates about the proceedings.
Years later, the federal government allegedly began to divert the flows of the creeks, interfering with the plaintiffs’ decreed water rights and triggering the lawsuit. The federal government moved to dismiss the case, claiming that it had reserved water rights superior to the plaintiffs and that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the federal government was not a party to the 1934 adjudication and had sovereign immunity.
Plaintiffs argued that the McCarran Amendment waived federal sovereign immunity and that the state adjudication should control ownership and use of the water at issue. The court ultimately sided with the federal government, noting that the waiver of sovereign immunity found in the McCarran Act only applied to circumstances where the adjudication of water rights is comprehensive – i.e. when all parties asserting water rights are able to participate in the adjudication.
District Court Findings
The court found that the federal government’s reserved water rights were not part of the 1934 adjudication and that the federal government had not waived its sovereign immunity. Hence, the court dismissed the case, finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court’s decision to dismiss the case is currently being appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
If the court’s decision in Baker Ranches is upheld it has the potential to upset what has been considered settled priorities for water use throughout the arid western United States. If upheld, the federal government will have the ability to assert reserved water rights to a water source that has already been adjudicated in state court if the adjudication occurred before the passage of the McCarran Amendment and the federal government was not a party. In certain circumstances, the result could be as drastic as the complete loss of an individual’s water use.
New Groundwater Rules in Oregon: a Critical Perspective
On September 17th, 2024, the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) implemented new groundwater rules that have sparked significant debate. While these rules aim to promote sustainable water use, they also raise several concerns that merit discussion.
Arbitrary Power and Political Influence
One of the primary criticisms of the new groundwater rules is that they grant the OWRD considerable discretionary power. The department can now deny groundwater permits based on criteria that some argue are too subjective and potentially influenced by the political climate at the time of filing. This level of control could lead to inconsistent decision-making, where permit approvals or denials hinge more on the prevailing political winds than on objective, scientific assessments.
New Groundwater Rules: Development by Unelected Officials
Another contentious point is that these rules were developed by unelected officials. The process involved various advisory committees and consultations, but ultimately, the decision-making power rested with individuals who are not directly accountable to the public. This has led to concerns about transparency and the democratic legitimacy of the rule-making process.
Influence of Powerful Non-Profit Organizations
The involvement of powerful non-profit organizations in shaping the new groundwater rules has also been a point of contention. Groups such as the Oregon Environmental Council and WaterWatch of Oregon played significant roles in the advisory process. While these organizations advocate for important environmental causes, their influence raises questions about whose interests are being prioritized. Critics argue that the rules may reflect the agendas of these groups more than the needs of all Oregonians.
Balancing Conservation and Agriculture
Water conservation is undeniably crucial, especially in the face of climate change and increasing water scarcity. However, the new groundwater rules must also consider the needs of Oregon’s robust agriculture industry. Agriculture is a vital part of the state’s economy, and overly restrictive water regulations could harm farmers and ranchers who rely on groundwater for irrigation and livestock.
Conclusion
While the new groundwater rules aim to address critical issues of sustainability and resource management, they also present several challenges. The potential for arbitrary decision-making, the influence of unelected officials and powerful non-profits, and the impact on the agriculture industry are all significant concerns that need to be addressed. Moving forward, it is essential to find a balanced approach that ensures water conservation while respecting the diverse needs of all Oregonians.
At Schroeder Law Offices, P.C., we can assist you in navigating the new and evermore complicated water laws in Oregon. Please contact us at (503) 281-4100 if you have any questions. Or for more about water rights in Oregon see this article.
Leveraging Technology in Legal Practice
At Schroeder Law Offices we are dedicated to providing exceptional service to our clients. Leveraging advanced technology like TABS3, NetDocuments, Zoom, and Microsoft 365 helps us achieve this goal. They streamline our operations and enhance client satisfaction.
TABS3: Leveraging Technology in Practice Management
TABS3 is a comprehensive practice management software that benefits clients in several ways:
Efficient Billing and Accounting: Automated billing cycles and detailed financial reports ensure transparency and accuracy. You always know where your case stands financially.
Accurate Time Tracking: We meticulously track every billable hour, ensuring fair and accurate billing for the time dedicated to your case.
Organized Case Management: TABS3 centralizes all case-related information, allowing us to manage your case files, deadlines, and communications efficiently.
NetDocuments: Leveraging Technology in Document Management
NetDocuments is our go-to solution for managing legal documents securely and efficiently:
Secure Cloud Storage: Your documents are stored securely in the cloud, making them accessible from anywhere, which is valuable for remote consultations and collaboration.
Robust Security and Compliance: NetDocuments protects your sensitive information with top-notch encryption and access controls, ensuring compliance with industry standards.
Seamless Collaboration: Our team can collaborate on documents in real-time, leading to faster turnaround times and reduced risk of errors.
Quick Document Retrieval: Advanced search capabilities allow us to locate your documents quickly, ensuring prompt responses to your needs.
Zoom: Leveraging Technology for Remote Consultations
Zoom enables us to connect with you no matter where you are:
Virtual Meetings: We can hold virtual consultations, making it convenient for you to discuss your case without needing to travel.
Secure Communication: Zoom provides secure, encrypted communication, ensuring your privacy during our meetings.
Flexibility: Whether you’re at home or on the go, Zoom allows us to stay connected and keep you updated on your case.
Integrated Phone, Meetings and Webinars: Zoom handles all our voice and video from internal and external phone calls to client meetings to webinars.
Microsoft 365: Leveraging Technology for Productivity and Collaboration
Microsoft 365 is an essential tool for our daily operations:
Email Management: Outlook integrates seamlessly with NetDocuments so that we can manage our communications efficiently, ensuring timely responses and organized email history.
Document Creation and Sharing: Tools like Word, Excel, and PowerPoint allow us to create, edit, and share documents.
Conclusion
At Schroeder Law Offices embracing technology is essential to delivering the best possible service to our clients. TABS3, NetDocuments, Zoom, and Microsoft 365 are just a few examples of how we leverage advanced tools to manage our practice more effectively. By using these technologies, we can focus on what we do best—advocating for you and achieving the best outcomes for your legal matters.
Thank you for trusting us with your legal needs. If you have any questions about how we use technology to your benefit please call or email.
