The vineyards of Portugal’s Douro Valley are among the most regulated and historically significant wine-producing areas in the world. The Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto (IVDP) oversees the production of Port and Douro wines. It regulates viticultural practices within the Douro Demarcated Region, a landscape that is both a protected wine appellation and a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

One regulatory requirement that may surprise growers accustomed to more liberal irrigation practices is that irrigation in the Douro is not generally treated as an unrestricted farming activity. Licensed wine growers seeking to irrigate vineyards within the region must comply with applicable regulatory requirements. They must obtain authorization from the relevant wine authorities before irrigation may occur. The authorization process reflects the region’s longstanding emphasis on preserving wine quality, terroir, and production standards. [ivdp.pt], [digital.ivdp.pt]

Why Irrigation Is Regulated in the Douro Valley

Historically, many of Europe’s premium wine regions restricted irrigation. This was because excessive watering was believed to increase yields at the expense of grape concentration and wine quality. The Douro Valley, which is one of the world’s oldest demarcated and regulated wine regions, continues to place significant importance on maintaining the traditional characteristics of its wines.

The regulatory framework also protects the unique environmental and cultural landscape of the Douro. The region’s steep terraced vineyards, limited water resources, and internationally recognized heritage status make water management a matter of public and regulatory concern. It is not merely a private farming decision. The IVDP expressly identifies sustainability and preservation of the Douro landscape as key regulatory objectives. [digital.ivdp.pt]

Climate Change Has Increased the Importance of Irrigation in the Douro Valley

In recent years, hotter temperatures and recurring drought conditions have placed increasing pressure on growers throughout southern Europe. The Douro is no exception. Industry and governmental initiatives have evaluated new irrigation practices and even the reuse of treated wastewater to support vineyard irrigation while conserving scarce water supplies.

As climate conditions become more challenging, regulators have increasingly recognized that carefully controlled irrigation may be necessary to preserve vine health and maintain vineyard productivity. Nevertheless, the use of irrigation remains subject to oversight rather than being left entirely to the discretion of individual growers.

Practical Lessons for Vineyard Owners and Investors

For vineyard owners, purchasers, and agricultural investors operating in the Douro Valley, the irrigation authorization requirement highlights an important due diligence issue. Water rights, irrigation infrastructure, and vineyard management plans should be evaluated alongside traditional concerns such as land ownership, grape varieties, and production quotas.

A prospective purchaser should not assume that the existence of a water source automatically permits irrigation of vineyard acreage. Instead, growers should confirm whether the proposed irrigation activity complies with applicable regulations. They also should be sure necessary approvals have been obtained through the appropriate regulatory channels. The IVDP maintains an extensive compliance framework for viticulturists and economic operators within the Douro Demarcated Region. They use online systems through which growers satisfy regulatory obligations and interact with the agency. [gov.pt], [areareserv…da.ivdp.pt]

Conclusion

The requirement that Douro winegrowers obtain authorization to irrigate vineyards reflects the region’s distinctive approach to balancing agricultural productivity, wine quality, environmental stewardship, and cultural preservation. As climate pressures increase, irrigation will likely become an increasingly important tool for vineyard management. However, in the Douro, irrigation remains a regulated activity. It is subject to oversight by the authorities responsible for protecting one of the world’s most celebrated wine regions.

For vineyard owners, investors, and agricultural businesses, understanding irrigation permitting requirements should be a key component of any legal or operational strategy involving property in the Douro Valley.

This fall marks my second year teaching Environmental Law at the University of Nevada, Reno. I also taught NEPA Compliance last spring and will return to that course again this spring.

Teaching these courses provides an opportunity to bring together several parts of my professional background. Before earning my law degree I studied environmental and natural resource science. I later completed a doctorate in biochemistry. Today, my legal practice at Schroeder Law Offices, P.C. includes water rights, public lands, administrative appeals, environmental compliance, public records, and litigation.

Environmental Law in the Classroom Benefits Students

Environmental Law introduces students to the major federal regulatory statutes and the different approaches Congress has used to address environmental problems. Students examine laws governing environmental review, water and air pollution, oil spills, endangered species, hazardous waste, and contaminated sites. The NEPA Compliance course takes a closer look at federal environmental review, including Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements, alternatives analysis, mitigation, public participation, agency decision-making, and judicial review.

Teaching these subjects reinforces an important lesson: environmental law operates at the intersection of law, science, public policy, and practical decision-making. A statute may appear straightforward, but applying it often requires agencies, attorneys, scientists, project proponents, and affected communities to work through technical information, competing priorities, and detailed procedural requirements.

Environmental law in the classroom also benefits my legal practice

Explaining complex statutes and cases to students requires identifying the central rule, understanding how the pieces fit together, and communicating the answer clearly. Those same skills are essential when advising clients, working with technical consultants, preparing administrative filings, and litigating disputes involving water and other natural resources.

At Schroeder Law Offices, P.C., our attorneys regularly work at the intersection of law, science, government decision-making, and natural-resource management. Teaching Environmental Law and NEPA Compliance complements that work by encouraging continued engagement with developing legal issues and by strengthening our ability to explain complex environmental requirements clearly and practically to clients.

The sheer number and size of wildland fires in 2026 is astounding.  It seems this year we all know someone who

• evacuated from their home,
• had to move cattle ahead of the fire while it burned a grazing allotment,
• had to divert to an alternate route while traveling on summer vacation,
• or had to live for weeks watching the air quality index to determine if it was a good day for an outside activity.

At Schroeder Law Offices, we individually experienced all these factors this year.

Whether these fires were human caused or nature caused after years of drought and lightning events, we have dealt with consequences.  We now just pray for a winter with lots of moisture to increase water resources and restore mother nature. 

Our water resources do not exist in isolation. The quantity and quality of water available to communities, agriculture, industry, and the environment are directly tied to the health of the watersheds. It is they that collect, store, and deliver that water. As wildland fires become more frequent and severe across the western United States, understanding the relationship between watershed and water supply has become increasingly important.

Watershed

A watershed is the area of land that drains rainfall and snowmelt into a common stream, river, lake, or aquifer. Healthy watersheds function as natural water storage infrastructure. Forests, grasslands, and soils capture precipitation, reduce erosion, recharge groundwater, and help regulate streamflows. When watersheds are functioning properly, they provide cleaner and more reliable water supplies at lower cost.

However, wildland fires can dramatically alter these natural processes. While fire is a normal ecological event in many landscapes, large, high-intensity fires can damage vegetation, consume organic ground cover, and change soil characteristics. As a result of these high-intensity fires, natural watershed infrastructure is damaged by increased runoff, erosion, and sediment transport during storms.  Like we witnessed in Nepal and the Grand Canyon, large flash floods can cause significant damage.  And this destruction will only be compounded in areas that experienced these high-intensity fires.

Natural watershed damage only increases after fires when increased sediment impairs reservoirs, reduces storage capacity, and raises treatment costs for municipal water providers. Ash and debris may introduce nutrients, metals, and contaminants into streams and lakes, affecting water quality and aquatic habitat. In some cases, post-fire flooding and debris flows can damage water diversion structures, pipelines, and other critical infrastructure.

Watershed Protection

Wildland fires on public lands present additional challenges because many major watersheds originate on federally managed lands. Post-fire conditions may influence water management decisions, watershed restoration efforts, and investments in infrastructure protection. The connection between water resources and watershed health has always been important. Today, however, the growing threat of severe wildland fire highlights just how interconnected these systems truly are. Protecting water supplies requires more than managing water itself; it requires stewardship of the landscapes that produce it. As western states continue to confront drought, climate variability, and increasing wildfire risks, watershed protection will remain a critical component of long-term water resource security.

Irrigation Return Flow Exemption

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a Ninth Circuit ruling that preserved the Clean Water Act’s permit exemption for irrigation return flows. The dispute centered on California’s Grassland Bypass Project. The Project conveys farm drainage from about 97,000 acres in the San Joaquin Valley into the San Luis Drain. From there it goes to a slough that empties into the San Joaquin River.

The river is a protected water under the CWA.

The Project has operated without a permit since 1997 under the statute’s irrigation return flow exemption.

Environmental groups filed a law suit in 2011. They asserted that the exemption shouldn’t apply because the drainage water, while being transported, commingled with pollutants from nonagricultural sources before reaching protected waters. In a 2025 decision, the Ninth Circuit held that the presence of nonpoint source pollution does not negate the exemption unless there is a separate point source discharge unrelated to crop production. The plaintiffs sought Supreme Court review. The Court’s refusal to hear the case leaves the Ninth Circuit’s decision in place

Don’t miss out on the 2026 USCID Conference in Reno Nevada!

The USCID 2026 Annual Conference

Schroeder Law Offices’ Therese Stix is the President of USCID. She personally invites water professionals, irrigation districts, engineers, consultants, and policy makers to mark their calendars! October 20-23, 2026 marks the U.S. Committee on Irrigation and Drainage (USCID) 2026 Annual Conference. It will be at the Eldorado Resort Casino in Reno, Nevada. The conference will bring together experts from across the western United States to discuss water supply, water demand, irrigation operations, drainage, infrastructure, and emerging water management challenges.

What it’s About

The USCID 2026 Annual Conference is a forum for water district staff, water agency personnel, irrigation and drainage specialists, consultants, and academics to share practical solutions and learn from one another’s experience. The event also offers significant opportunities for continuing education, professional collaboration, and networking.

A particular highlight of the 2026 conference will be its focus on irrigation delivery operations. This topic is increasingly important as districts confront myriad issues including

• aging infrastructure,

• workforce challenges,

• technological change,

• competing demands for water supplies,

• denser populations,

• urban expansion

• and the growing complexities of managing both agricultural and urban water delivery in systems originally designed only for ag.

What’s Included

The USCID 2026 Annual Conference will include a half-day Irrigation District Operations Workshop, followed by plenary sessions addressing both technical and policy issues, presentations from invited speakers, and a concluding technical tour. The draft conference schedule is posted here: https://www.uscid.org/events

For water districts throughout the West, the Irrigation District Operations Workshop should be especially valuable. Many districts face similar operational challenges. the workshop will offer a venue to exchange ideas, discuss effective management strategies, and explore practical approaches to improving service delivery and system reliability.

USCID has long served as a leading organization promoting sustainable irrigation, drainage, and flood control practices. The annual conference continues that mission by fostering dialogue among water managers, engineers, agricultural interests, and policymakers who are working to address the complex water issues facing irrigated agriculture and western communities.

Additional conference information, registration details, and schedule updates are expected to be released by USCID as the event approaches. More information is available at www.uscid.org, and don’t forget to sign up for our newsletter and mailing list so you can keep up to date on conference registration.  

On a personal note, Therese reports that she can’t wait to attend the USCID Annual Conference because your attendance will contribute to making this conference a success!  Therese (and shareholders Caitlin Skulan and Laura Schroeder) look forward to seeing you there!

For centuries across Asia, farmers have combined rice cultivation with raising ducks. This creates a system that benefits both agriculture and the environment. Known as aigamo in Japan, duck-rice farming can reduce the need for herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizer. It also gives rice farmers an additional source of income.

How Duck-Rice Farming Works

Duck-rice agriculture works by introducing young ducks into flooded fields after rice has been planted but before the crop fully covers the paddies. Because the ducks are still small and the rice plants are developing, the ducks generally ignore the crop, instead feeding on weeds and pests that threaten it.

The system lowers reliance on chemical inputs. Ducks help control pests and weeds, while their manure fertilizes the rice plants. That reduces the need for artificial fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides that can harm surrounding ecosystems. Some farmers also incorporate fish and aquatic plants such as Azolla, or water fern, creating a small, productive ecosystem that further supports pest control and soil fertility.

By the time the rice plants mature enough to attract the ducks’ interest, the crop is well established and able to dominate the paddies, outcompeting weeds and pests. The ducks can then provide meat and eggs as secondary income streams. In systems that include fish, farmers may gain yet another marketable product or supplementary food source.

The United States as a Rice Producer

Although duck-rice farming is widely practiced across parts of Asia, it remains unfamiliar in the United States. The U.S. is one of the world’s leading rice exporters. But duck is not a major part of the average American diet compared with countries such as China, where duck consumption is much higher.

For farmers seeking more sustainable production methods, duck-rice farming offers a practical model. It reduces dependence on labor-intensive weeding, costly chemical inputs, and environmentally damaging practices while creating additional revenue opportunities. This ancient approach continues to align with modern ideas of organic agriculture, integrated farming, and permaculture.

Choosing the Right Entity for an Oregon Drinking Water System

Communities, homeowners’ associations, and businesses in Oregon face a key structural question: what is the best legal entity to own and operate a shared drinking water system?

The answer depends on governance needs, regulatory context, and the structure of underlying water rights. Selecting the right entity at the outset can significantly reduce disputes, improve cost recovery, provide financial advantages, and support long-term system stability.

Below is a brief overview of the most commonly used entity types and when each may be appropriate.

Mutual Benefit Nonprofit Corporation (ORS Chapter 65)

For most shared systems, a mutual benefit nonprofit corporation is the most practical and widely used option.

Why it works:

• Flexible governance structure tailored by bylaws
• Ability to allocate voting rights and board representation among users
• Well-suited for service-based, non-profit operations

Limitations:

• Does not have statutory enforcement tools (such as lien authority)
• Relies on volunteer participation
• Operation and maintenance expenses rely on contract for billing and collection

This structure as a member-controlled organization is often the best choice where multiple private users need to cooperate and retain control over operations.

Domestic Water Supply District (ORS Chapter 264)

A domestic water supply district provides a more formal, public-law structure.

Advantages:

• Authority to set and collect rates
• Ability to shut off water for nonpayment
• Power to impose special assessments that can become liens

Considerations:

• Upfront costs to establish are larger requiring a petition to the County that must approve formation,  boundary determination, and either unanimous written approval from a majority of the landowners or by vote of a majority of the landowners to be included in a public election
• Governed by an elected board
• Subject to public meeting and public records laws

While districts offer strong enforcement tools, they are typically more complex to form and operate, and may reduce direct control by individual participating landowners.

For-Profit Corporation or LLC

Private business entities—such as corporations (ORS Chapter 60) or LLCs (ORS Chapter 63)—are also available.

Key points:

• Allows flexible ownership and governance arrangements
• Provides liability protection

However, these structures are less common for water systems because:

• Profit orientation can complicate rate-setting that can be regulated by the Oregon PUC
• They may raise concerns for regulators or funding programs
• They do not provide statutory enforcement mechanisms

They are generally best suited when the water system is part of a broader commercial operation.

Key Considerations in Choosing an Entity

When evaluating these options, several factors are critical:

• Governance: who controls decisions and how disputes are resolved
• Enforcement: how costs are collected and whether lien or shutoff authority is needed
• Regulatory context: including state water law compliance and any federal land or permitting issues
• Water rights: who holds the rights and how they will be administered
• Long-term flexibility: ability to adapt to growth or changing use

Practical Takeaway

For many Oregon water systems, a mutual benefit nonprofit corporation provides the best balance of flexibility and control, particularly where multiple private parties must coordinate ongoing management.

More formal structures, such as water districts, may become appropriate as systems grow or where stronger enforcement powers are needed. 

Importantly, entity formation should be coordinated with water right management. Aligning the legal structure with water rights and regulatory requirements is essential to creating a stable, lawful water supply system.

Conclusion

Selecting the right entity is a foundational decision for any shared water system. Careful analysis at the outset can help avoid governance disputes, improve financial stability, and ensure compliance with Oregon water law and applicable federal requirements.

Title: The long awaited Middle Humboldt River Basin Model is out!

The Nevada Division of Water Resources announced the Middle Humboldt River Basin Model is released!  While a few portions of the model were identified as needing further updates, this release was long awaited by all Humboldt River water users. 

From NDWR Model Release:

June 18, 2026

Release of Nevada Water Resources Bulletin No. 51 — Middle Humboldt River Basin Model

The Nevada Division of Water Resources (NDWR) is pleased to announce the release of Nevada Water Resources Bulletin No. 51: Evaluation of Stream Capture Related to Groundwater Pumping, Middle Humboldt River Basin, Nevada. Prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and also published as USGS Professional Paper 1906, this report completes the series of technical studies undertaken to update and modernize the scientific understanding of water resources throughout the Humboldt River Region.

This publication presents a comprehensive numerical groundwater-flow model developed to improve understanding of how groundwater pumping influences the hydrology of the Humboldt River and tributaries within the Middle Humboldt River Basin. It provides a full technical evaluation of groundwater–surface water interactions across the basin, including historical conditions, current stresses, and long-term responses under continued pumping.

With the release of this model, NDWR now has an integrated scientific foundation spanning the Upper, Middle, and Lower Humboldt River Basins. This marks an important step forward in supporting conjunctive-management planning and ensuring that water-resource decisions continue to be informed by the best available science.

To maintain this strong scientific foundation, the model will be updated over time as new data becomes available. While the report identifies areas where further refinement and additional work will continue to strengthen understanding, it provides significant new insight and tools that will aid long-term management of the Humboldt River system. NDWR remains committed to a transparent, collaborative review of this work with stakeholders as this process moves forward.

Really interesting attorney jobs in Portland Oregon are hard to come by! Schroeder Law Offices, PC, (SLO) is a small law firm. It has been a leader in water rights and real property for nearly 35 years!

What We Do

With offices in Portland, Oregon and Reno, Nevada SLO provides comprehensive water rights and real property legal services. Our expertise encompasses

• farm and ranch due diligence,
• contract negotiation and preparation,
• state and federal permitting
• litigation in state and Federal courts and administrative forums.

For more about what we do see our educational videos.

The Challenge

This position offers a unique opportunity to develop a full-service practice in a highly specialized field while learning from domain experts. SLO provides clear advancement potential, extensive professional development opportunities, and the chance to work on impactful legal matters affecting small communities and agricultural producers of food and fiber across the western United States.

The person who takes this attorney job in Portland Oregon will have two years of experience. They will be comfortable with and enthusiastic about working with agricultural interests. They will be self-starters who may be excited about the changes coming to the legal world with the explosive growth of AI.

For more information, see our attorney job in Portland Oregon page.

For irrigation districts, contractors, and water users, water infrastructure projects often depend as much on process and coordination as on engineering and funding. When schedules extend, costs and delivery risk can increase, and communities may face added uncertainty for operations and long-term planning. Secretarial Order (SO) 3446 is a recent policy direction affecting the Bureau of Reclamation. It cuts red tape and streamlines certain administrative processes. It supports more efficient project delivery while maintaining appropriate oversight.

What is Secretarial Order 3446?

SO 3446 directs the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation to reduce unnecessary administrative burden, lower consumer costs, and accelerate delivery of Reclamation construction projects. Practically, the order signals an emphasis on streamlining how projects are managed. It does this by, where appropriate, leveraging qualified local partners—while maintaining federal roles and responsibilities.

How implementation could change project delivery

The Bureau of Reclamation has already signaled that implementation will focus on practical steps to move work faster, especially in a period of real staffing constraints. According to the Bureau’s SO 3446 implementation information (Bureau of Reclamation SO 3446), the intent is to reduce duplication, streamline review and procurement where appropriate, and expand local responsibility for capable partners. The result should be fewer process-driven delays and more on-the-ground momentum for needed water infrastructure.

For irrigation district managers, contractors, and water users, the most relevant questions are likely to be practical:

• whether project decision points become clearer,
• whether procurement and reviews are more predictable, and
• whether there are well-defined opportunities for local entities to take on discrete tasks (e.g., design support, contracting support, construction management elements) with Bureau of Reclamation coordination.

As implementation evolves, documenting current bottlenecks and identifying realistic handoffs can help stakeholders assess potential schedule, cost, and constructability impacts.

Why local partners should lean in now

Over the past year, the Family Farm Alliance and the National Water Resources Association have worked with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of the Interior to advance a more efficient, less bureaucratic approach to project delivery. That effort is now taking shape in a way that can directly benefit irrigation districts, contractors, and water users across the West, especially where local capacity already exists to manage pieces of work more efficiently with federal coordination.

A simple step that can make a real difference

Practical next step: Consider reaching out to your local Bureau of Reclamation area or field office in the next few weeks. Ask how SO 3446 implementation is being approached locally. Ask whether there are near-term opportunities to improve coordination on priority projects. The aim can be an initial, informational conversation—not a formal proposal—to better understand expectations, constraints, and potential roles.

• Where can timelines be shortened without reducing quality or oversight?
• Which review steps are creating delay due to process rather than substance?
• Are there functions your district is already equipped to handle locally (with federal coordination)?
• Which projects have been slowed by staffing bottlenecks or duplicative approvals?
• What would “success” look like over the next 6–12 months with fewer handoffs, faster procurement, clearer decision points?

To support your outreach, a short one-page guide is available here: one-page outreach guide.

Close the loop: share what you’re hearing

As you engage locally, report back to the Alliance and NWRA with what you’re seeing: opportunities, challenges, and feedback from local offices. That information helps keep national-level implementation grounded in field realities. It helps identify barriers that can be addressed quickly.

Key takeaway: SO 3446 is intended to support more efficient delivery of Bureau of Reclamation construction projects, and its practical effects will largely be determined at the field level. Irrigation districts, contractors, and water users may benefit from tracking how implementation affects schedules, review steps, contracting approaches, and local roles on specific projects. If you have active or planned Bureau of Reclamation-related work, an early check-in with your area office can help clarify what changes (if any) may be relevant to near-term planning and delivery.

References

• SO 3446 – Cutting Red Tape and Reducing Consumer Costs at Reclamation Construction Projects
• Bureau of Reclamation: SO 3446

While the legal journey may have ended for Iron Bar Holdings and Brad Cape and his companions, the saga continues on other legal fronts. On May 14, 2026, two conservation organizations filed a lawsuit in Lewis and Clark District Court in Montana. The purpose: to clarify corner crossing law in the state.

Federal Corner Crossing Lawsuit

            The issue of corner crossing gained significant publicity in 2025 due to a case captioned Iron Bar Holdings v. Cape, et al. It was filed in the Federal District Court for the District of Wyoming.  The case centered around a group of hunters accessing checkerboarded Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) land. They did so via the touching corners of public land (“corner crossing”).  The case was initiated by the adjacent private landholder Iron Bar Holdings, that sued the hunters for trespass to its private land and airspace.

            After losing before the District Court, Iron Bar Holdings appealed the case to the Tenth Circuit Court of appeals.  The Court of Appeals upheld the District Court decision. It found that while corner crossing may constitute trespass under Wyoming State Law, it was overridden by the federal Unlawful Enclosure Act.  Iron Bar sought review of the case before the United States Supreme Court, but the Court denied review. As a result, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision stands in Tenth Circuit states. Those include Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.  However, BLM owns large areas of land in Western States outside of the Tenth Circuit.  While Iron Bar Holdings is highly persuasive outside of the Tenth Circuit, it is not binding law.

Montana’s Position on Corner Crossing

            Following Iron Bar Holdings, public land advocates encouraged Montana to follow suit. However, on May 13, 2026, Montana Lieutenant Governor Kristen Juras gave a presentation to the Montana Environmental Quality Council on this issue.  Juras presented that corner crossing potentially violates multiple Montana State laws. Those include civil trespass, criminal trespass, and hunting without landowner permission. Juras’s presented five key takeaways:

• The Iron Bar Holdings ruling only applies to Tenth Circuit states;
• The ruling only applies on federal, not state public lands;
• The ruling does not allow corner crossing if there is a road, trail, or other access to the federal land;
• Hunters must locate a physical survey marker before stepping over a corner, digital maps or tools are not sufficiently accurate; and
• Hunters, their gear, and any game carcasses must not touch private property while corner crossing.

Juras represented the State’s position, as of November 2025. She said “corner crossing remains unlawful in Montana”, Montanans should continue to obtain private property owner permission before crossing corners, and game wardens are authorized to issue citations for trespass.

The Lawsuit

            The next day, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers (“BHA”) and Public Land and Water Access (“PLWA”) filed a lawsuit against Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks and its director Christy Clark. A copy of the Complaint is available on BHA’s website.

            In their lawsuit, BHW and PLWA challenge an internal policy memorandum stating “corner crossing remains unlawful in Montana”.  The Complaint argues the memo is a “rule” adopted without complying with the Montana Administrative Procedures Act. It further seeks a declaration from the Lewis and Clark District Court that the agency’s “memo” and position that corner crossing is illegal is inconsistent with state law, violates the Public Trust Doctrine, and is preempted by the federal Unlawful Enclosures Act as outlined in Iron Bar Holdings.

            The case is still in its infancy, and the State has not filed an Answer to BHA and PLWA’s allegations. However, the case’s progression and outcome may inform how corner crossing is applied by other Western States absent a Supreme Court ruling providing binding law across the nation. 

Are You Prepared for a Potential Adjudication?

The Nevada State Engineer has announced it will begin initiating new Nevada adjudications.

Vested water users have until December 31, 2027 to submit their vested claims, or Proofs of Appropriation that assert their pre-water code use. But vested rights holders should start now completing their historical research to support their claims.

This article on Vested Nevada Water Rights can help get you started on the process. Additionally, we encourage watching our adjudications webinar which can be found here: https://water-law.com/webinars/water-right-adjudication.

Please remember that the process cannot be completed overnight. We encourage everyone to start researching now!

The impacts of drought are felt by all, but perhaps none more than those who rely on water for their livelihoods. Amidst predictions of growing drought throughout Oregon, a timely primer on navigating the state’s Emergency Groundwater Use (Drought) Permit process.

Introduction to Oregon Drought Permits

When the well is dry, we know the worth of water. -Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard’s Almanack

After experiencing the warmest winter in almost a century, Oregonians are bracing for the specter of drought conditions throughout many parts of the state in 2026. In late March of this year, Governor Tina Kotek signed an executive order declaring drought emergencies in three eastern Oregon counties: Baker, Deschutes, and Umatilla. The Governor’s declaration came months over three months earlier than the first similar drought declaration in Baker county in 2025. The last drought emergencies in Deschutes and Umatilla Counties occurred in 2023 and 2021, respectively.

Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) has resources available to help mitigate the challenges of drought emergencies. Among them is the water right permitting system for issuing Emergency Groundwater Use Permits, which are commonly referred to as drought permits (herein “Oregon Drought Permits”). This system authorizes the temporary use of groundwater during these declared drought emergencies, with the confines of the legal framework described below.

1. Legal Framework of Oregon Drought Permits

ORS 536.700 et seq. “Emergency Water Shortage Powers”

In Oregon, eligible water rights holders can apply for Emergency Groundwater Use Permits for Drought, established under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 536.700 et seq. These sections codify the legal framework for “Emergency Water Shortage Powers” authorizing temporary flexibility in the regulation of water use during declared drought conditions.

Under ORS 536.740, the Governor may declare that a severe, continuing drought exists within a defined geographic area. Upon such declaration, the Director of Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) may authorize emergency water use. ORS 536.750 provides that OWRD may approve temporary use of water to replace water under an existing water right that is made unavailable due to drought. In so doing, OWRD is authorized to impose terms and conditions to protect existing water rights and the public interest.

OAR 690 Division 19 “Drought Mitigation”

Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 690, Division 19  “Drought Mitigation” implements ORS 536.700 et seq. The Rule becomes operative only during these extraordinary drought emergencies and only upon such declaration by the Governor. OAR 690-019-0040 governs the permit application requirements, approval process, and additional considerations for Emergency Water Use Permits. 

2. Permit Requirements

Threshold Requirements

To qualify for an emergency groundwater use permit, an applicant must satisfy the threshold criteria set forth in OAR 690-019-0040(2); specifically, that (a) drought conditions have created an inability to obtain water under an existing water right, and (b) the technical and legal description of the proposed use is in a designated drought area.

No Enlargement

Importantly, the proposed use may only function as a replacement for and not an enlargement of an existing water right. ORS 536.750. To this end, OWRD must determine that the proposed use will not injure existing water rights or be either an impairment or detriment to the public interest. ORS 536.750(3).

Conservation and Curtailment Measures

OWRD retains discretion to impose additional requirements on applicants, including that the applicant submit a plan and evidence showing conservation and water use curtailment measures have been taken before use is made of an emergency use permit. OAR 690-019-0040(2)(c).

3. Approval Process for Oregon Drought Permits

Completeness Review

OWRD’s first step is to evaluate whether the application satisfies the application’s threshold requirements above, rejecting or returning incomplete applications. OAR 690-019-0100 proscribes the fees required for application.

Substantive Application Evaluation

During the substantive evaluation of the application, OWRD considers possible injury to existing water rights and public interest considerations, including the factors of OARs 690-310-0120 and 690-310-0130. OWRD also considers the term length and emergency nature of the request.

Public Notice and Comment

Notice of emergency use permits is included in OWRD’s regular public notice process, however, no contested case hearing under ORS 537.170 et seq. is required. OAR 690-019-0040(4)(a); ORS 537.170 (not applicable). 

OWRD considers all public comments that the agency receives concerning the actual or proposed use under the emergency use permit. The agency continues to consider such comments throughout the entire life of the permit. OAR 690-019-0040(4)(b).

Decision and Issuance

If approved, OWRD issues the emergency use permit to the water user. By rule, OWRD is authorized to regulate the use of water under an emergency use permit at any time in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit. OAR 690-019-0040(4)(c).

4. Additional Considerations

Mandatory Permit Conditions for Oregon Drought Permits

All emergency permits must include certain special terms and conditions. 

• First, as above, water use under emergency permits must not constitute enlargement or otherwise injure existing water rights. Therefore, emergency permits are considered subordinate to all “prior water right permits, certificates, decreed rights, scenic waterway flows and minimum stream flows.” OAR 690-019-0400(5)(a).
• All emergency use permits are also time bound to not exceed one year or the term of the declared drought. OAR 690-019-0085(5)(b)&(d). 
• Additionally, all such permits are required to impose rate, volume, and season limitations to not exceed the underlying water use right or extend the historical season of use. OAR 690-019-0040(5).
• Finally, OWRD is authorized to revoke the emergency use permit if injury to another water right occurs after issuance, unless the agency determines that the water user has sufficiently mitigated their injury. OAR 690-019-0040(5)(e). 

Additional Requirements for State Agencies or Political Subdivisions

State agencies and political subdivisions that apply for emergency use permits are also required to either submit a water conservation or curtailment plan for approval by OWRD, or, when so directed by the Governor, implement a plan that has already been approved. OAR 690-019-0040(6)-(7). 

Temporary and Conditional Nature

Oregon Drought Permits are strictly temporary and establish no permanent water rights. Accordingly, water use under these permits remains subject to regulation and curtailment by OWRD at any time. ORS 536.750; OAR 690-019-0040(4)(c). Permit renewals are governed by OAR 690-019-0085.

Conclusion

Oregon Drought Permits (Emergency Groundwater Use Permits) are special, narrow authorizations designed to provide temporary relief to existing water right holders in Oregon who experience the effects of declared drought emergencies. A successful application must establish the connection between the inability to obtain water under existing water right(s) to the emergency drought conditions. It must also provide the proposed use under the permit sought, while accepting OWRD’s terms and conditions on the use to avoid injury and protect the public interest. 

Authorities

ORS 536.700 et seq.

https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors536.html

OAR 690 Division 19

https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/displayDivisionRules.action?selectedDivision=3144

Additional References

OWRD Public Declaration Status Report

https://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/wr/wr_drought/declaration_status_report.aspx

https://katu.com/news/local/oregon-now-85-in-drought-washington-65-with-hotter-and-drier-spring-forecast-hood-weather-low-snow-pack-timberline-lodge

Northern Nevada has experienced a significant economic boom in recent years, driven by the growth of technology companies, manufacturing facilities, logistics hubs, and expanding residential developments. As these communities grow, concerns about long term water availability have become increasingly urgent. This article explores how ongoing development is intersecting with the region’s water systems and what current reports suggest for the future.

1. A Region Defined by Limited and Variable Water Resources

Water in Northern Nevada is heavily dependent on mountain snowpack, especially from the Sierra Nevada and connected basins. Early 2025 assessments showed above normal snowpack levels—in some northern basins as high as 164% of median—which offered short term optimism for water availability. Additionally, water year precipitation across much of Northern Nevada measured between 108% and 129% of median levels.

However, this stability is fragile. A December 2025 drought status update reported that despite a relatively wet start to Water Year 2026, long term drought still persisted in parts of central and southern Nevada. This ongoing volatility underscores the region’s vulnerability: a single dry season can quickly offset several productive years.

2. Development Pressures Across the Region

Reno–Sparks, Fernley, and the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center (TRIC) continue to expand rapidly. These fast-growing areas increase demands on both surface and groundwater supplies.

The Nevada State Water Plan progress update emphasizes the importance of accurately assessing statewide water use and projecting future demands. The plan outlines the need to evaluate challenges arising from growing development and increased strain on water resources. This aligns with the fact that burgeoning industries, data centers, advanced manufacturing, and distribution facilities consume considerable water.

At the same time, several basins crucial to Northern Nevada’s water supply, such as the Carson, Upper Humboldt, Snake, and Clover basins, have shown below normal soil moisture levels in recent measurements. Lower soil moisture reduces natural groundwater recharge, an essential buffer for communities relying on aquifers.

3. Snowpack Variability and Climate Uncertainty

Because much of Nevada’s water originates from winter snowfall, climate shifts pose a serious challenge. Forecasts from statewide Water Supply Outlook Reports show that streamflow projections can vary significantly due to uncertainties in weather patterns, snowfall levels, and model limitations.

Recent winters have brought warmer storms, leading to more rainfall and less lower elevation snow accumulation. While mountain snowpacks remain healthy, the decline in valley level snowfall limits natural water retention.
For a region dependent on spring runoff, this change raises long term concerns, especially as development accelerates.

4. Persistent Drought Challenges

Despite temporary improvements, drought continues to shape Nevada’s water outlook. Late 2025 assessments showed that although drought conditions improved in many areas, long term drought still persisted across central and southern Nevada. This presents increasing challenges for water managers attempting to serve:

• Expanding residential neighborhoods
• Growing industrial water demands
• Agricultural users
• Environmental and ecological requirements

As development continues during persistent drought cycles, the pressure on water allocation strategies increases significantly.

5. Statewide Water Planning Efforts

Nevada’s water agencies are preparing for the future through updates to the Nevada State Water Plan. The ongoing 2023–2025 update process includes:

• Assessing climate impacts on water supplies
• Estimating current and future statewide water demands
• Evaluating water resource challenges emerging from population and economic growth
• Developing recommendations for long?term water management

The plan acknowledges the need to consider water quantity alongside climate driven changes in availability. These steps will be crucial as Northern Nevada faces the intersection of rapid development and uncertain water supply conditions.

6. Conclusion: Balancing Growth and Sustainability

Northern Nevada’s growth offers economic opportunity but also challenges the region’s most limited resource: water. While recent data shows positive trends in snowpack and precipitation, long term drought and significant year to year variability remain defining features of the region.

Sustainable planning, informed policymaking, and responsible development will be essential for ensuring that Northern Nevada can continue to thrive without compromising its water future. As cities, businesses, and state agencies collaborate on solutions, Northern Nevada stands at a critical balancing point: maintaining economic momentum while preserving long term water security.

Foodscaping – A New Trend!

With spring just around the corner, many homeowners are starting to plan what flowers to plant to welcome the season. This year, try “foodscaping.” It’s a smart, space-saving approach that lets even those with limited outdoor space grow edible plants alongside ornamentals.

 Foodscaping blends vegetables, fruits, herbs, and edible shrubs with traditional flowers and foliage. It’s ideal for renters or anyone without room for a dedicated vegetable plot who still wants to start a home garden. Whether you have a large backyard, a modest suburban lot, or a few pots on a patio, spring is the perfect time to mix the beauty flowers with the practicality of home-grown fruits and vegetables.

If you are just beginning some easier plants to start with are:

• Potatoes are simple to grow, especially in containers, and come in red, purple, brown and yellow.
• Garlic can be stuck along the edges of flower beds as it takes up little room and animals avoid it.
• Lettuces comes in many colors and textures, making them beautiful fillers for empty pockets in the garden.

Nevada residents with a warmer climate may consider:

• Figs & Mulberries that are low?maintenance fruit trees that handle heat well.
• Sunshine Blueberries that add some color to a pot or garden and are heat resistant.
• Rosemary and Lavender are drought?tolerant, deer?resistant, and ideal for borders.

Those with very little space but still wanting to add some edible beauty to their homes or windowsills could use:

• Basil, sage, oregano, or bay laurel can be put in smaller pots in indirect sunlight so that they may thrive.
• Hanging baskets are perfect for strawberries, trailing herbs, and dwarf tomatoes. They can add some color to a balcony or porch.

Those with a little more room and wanting to try ‘foodscaping’ could plant:

• Olive trees, pomegranates, or shrubby edibles such as blackberries, raspberries, or elderberries in their yard for vibrant color and harvests that trim your grocery bill.
• Instead of installing outdoor art, try training apples, pears, or fig trees flat against a fence or wall (espalier) so the colorful fruit ripens right in time for outdoor living.

Foodscaping can be as simple as a few pots on the patio or as extensive as replacing all your flowers with fruits, vegetables, and herbs. It adapts to your lifestyle and abilities, making it a fun way to beautify your space while shortening your grocery list.

Hoard, Emily. Foodscaping Incorporates Edibles into Ornamental Landscapes. Oregon Association of Nurseries., 2025 https://diggermagazine.com/foodscaping-incorporates-edibles-into-ornamental-landscapes/

An Act to Approve a New Pipeline Through Sloan Canyon in the Las Vegas Area!

Southern Nevada is one of the driest places in the country. And it is experiencing significant growth in population.

Residents and businesses in areas like Henderson and Las Vegas receive 40 percent of their drinking water from a single pipeline. It is known as the South Valley Lateral. The South Valley Lateral was completed in the 1990s. It was not built with today’s population in mind. There will be trouble if the South Valley Lateral pipeline experiences an outage or requires repairs. Many residents, businesses and tourists can find themselves in a bad predicament with no water.

On February 26, 2026 the U.S. Senate passed the Sloan Canyon Conservation and Lateral Pipeline Act (also known as Bill H.R. 972) with no amendment, and by unanimous consent. The bill will expand the boundaries of the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area in Clark County, Nevada. It will grant Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) rights-of-way for construction of an underground water pipeline.

The proposed 40-mile pipeline will move up to 375 million gallons of water per day to communities in Henderson and South Las Vegas. The construction of this new pipeline will strengthen the region’s access to water. It will be there in case the South Valley Lateral pipeline experiences a disruption.

Additionally, the bill will expand the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area by adding 9,290 acres to protect the local desert landscape and wildlife.

You can track the Bill’s status by going to H.R.972 – 119th Congress (2025-2026): Sloan Canyon Conservation and Lateral Pipeline Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Record low snow accumulation and warm temperatures in Western river basins raise concern about water supply in the Western U.S.[1]. The future of the Colorado River Basin, one of the most contested water resources in the nation, impacts over 5 million acres of agricultural land and drinking water for a population of over 40 million. It also affects economic stability for major municipalities including Las Vegas. [2] These are all affected by drought and the “Law of the River”.

Spanning water use by seven “Basin States” including southern Nevada, the Basin provides a life source to those states and Tribal Nations. It even crosses the international border into Mexico. This valuable water source has been subject to a multitude of legal disputes for over a century. It additionally faced a critical deadline this past Friday, February 14, 2026. There is much concern about Drought and the Law of the River. The concern is not new according to an earlier article on this site.

Understanding the “Law of the River”

Without a working agreement between the many parties who rely upon it, the future of the Colorado River Basin water supply is increasingly threatened for agricultural, domestic, and municipal users alike. As the threat increases, understanding the tools for water use agreements between states becomes ever more important. So, what really dictates access to water?

Interstate water compacts are negotiated agreements among states (think of the domestic equivalent of international treaties) endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court as an alternative to litigation. [3]

The Colorado River Compact represents one of the first “successful” interstate water dispute negotiations. It equitably apportions use of the Colorado River between the Upper and Lower Basin states. Nevada, one of the Lower Basin states and the driest state in the country, relies heavily on this apportionment. The compact is still in effect today over a century after its ratification.[4]

Equitable apportionment is a resolution tool specifically designed for disputes between states. When interstate water disputes arise, the Court invokes equitable apportionment principles to distribute water between the parties in line with the water laws of the contending states. 

The “Law of the River” includes a series of legal documents: compacts including the Colorado River Compact of 1922, supreme court decisions, federally recognized Tribal reserved water rights, and the 1944 international treaty with Mexico.[5] Together, these treaties, compacts, and decrees govern the allocation of the Colorado River Basin waters. The multitude of users who rely on it each year are governed by these rules.

Drought Contingency Plan

The 2019 Agreement, also known as the Upper Basin and Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plans (DCP) is a more recent addition to address drought and the Law of the River. The DCP is the culmination of negotiations between the seven Basin States facing a 19-year drought.[6] In the DCP, the Basin States voluntarily agreed to reduce water use to avoid regulation by the federal government and hold the Upper Basin States accountable. This theoretically leaves enough water downstream for the Lower Basin States even in years of drought. This type of cooperation is a necessary sacrifice in the face of warmer, drier years ahead and sets a precedent for conservation of the vital water supply. However, the current allocation agreement is at risk due to failure of the Basin States to come to an updated compromise that meets the modern needs of the Basin.

Changes in snow, rain, and temperature distribution as well as increasing pressure on water supply threaten the continued functionality of the current Basin water allocations. The original allocations cannot sustain the current demand. Use already exceeds the current river flows. [7]

The Current Status of Drought and the Law of the River.

Increasingly at odds across the Upper and Lower Basins, the seven states governed by the terms of the Colorado Compact have yet again missed a deadline set by the Secretary of the Interior to properly manage the river water. While Lower Basin users are offering to reduce their allocation, the Upper Basin claims that the Lower Basin States are seeking water that “simply does not exist. This has led to the current impasse.[8]

Failure by the Basin States to reach a deal by February 14, 2026, has resulted in the Secretary of the Interior, the watermaster under the Colorado Compact, taking over negotiations and compelling the states to agree on a compromise plan. The Bureau of Reclamation announced last week that the Department of the Interior will progress with finalizing “operating guidelines” for the Basin by October of this year. This ends a multi-years long process to find adequate alternatives to the current agreement and hopefully avoiding expensive litigation.[9]

Monitoring What is Next

As this (dis)agreement progresses, it is important to stay informed about where your water comes from and who really has a right to it. Sustainable management highly depends on water users knowing and protecting their rights, playing an active role in water use agreements, and speaking up about local policymaking that will aid the longevity of one of the most important water supplies in the West. Only by working together will the future of the Colorado River Basin be stabilized.

[1] https://www.drought.gov/drought-status-updates/snow-drought-current-conditions-and-impacts-west-2026-01-08

[2] https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/western-states-miss-deadline-colorado-river-water-rights-2026-02-14/

[3] Legal Control of Water Resources by Barton H. Thompson, Jr.  

[4] https://www.unr.edu/nevada-climate-office/about-our-climate

[5] https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/lawofrvr.html

[6] https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/dcp/index.html

[7] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/climate/colorado-river-water.html

[8] https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/western-states-miss-deadline-colorado-river-water-rights-2026-02-14/

[9] https://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/news-release/5283

Idaho Water Management Challenges Take Center Stage at IWUA’s 89th Annual Convention

The 89th Annual Convention of the Idaho Water Users Association (IWUA) brought more than 200 water leaders to Boise January 21–22, 2026. There were two days of policy updates, technical briefings, and forward-looking discussions about the most pressing Idaho water management challenges.

This year, Schroeder Law Offices’ founder, Laura Schroeder, was elected to the IWUA Education Committee, representing the Associate Membership. One of the committee’s key responsibilities is providing support for Headgate, Idaho’s respected water leadership academy. The program equips future leaders of water delivery organizations with the practical tools, relationship?building strategies, and leadership skills needed to navigate an increasingly complex water landscape.

Key Updates in Idaho Water Policy and Supply

Conference attendees heard updates from:

• Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR)
• Idaho Water Resource Board (IWRB)
• U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)
• Federal water policy leaders, including representatives from the Family Farm Alliance (FFA) and the National Water Resources Association (NWRA)

Despite an unusual weather pattern this year, the water supply outlook for southeastern and central Idaho reservoirs remains positive. According to reports from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the BOR, rainfall—rather than snowpack—is supporting reservoir levels, though the situation could shift depending on February and March storms. Southwestern Idaho’s outlook is less optimistic, though some basins benefit from 2024–2025 carryover storage.

The Shift from Groundwater to Recharge: A Full-Circle Policy Moment

Laura attended breakout sessions exploring:

• The role of basin studies in future water management
• Recharge coupled with irrigation efficiency
• Groundwater challenges in the Upper Snake region

One compelling theme emerged: Idaho, much like Oregon, Washington, and Nevada, is reevaluating decades of policy that encouraged a shift from surface water to groundwater use.

Modern, highly efficient irrigation methods—such as pivot and drip systems—reduce incidental recharge to aquifers. As a result, current policy now promotes:

• Aquifer recharge through “leaky” canals
• Managed recharge ponds fed by surface water
• Limitations on groundwater pumping

One water user observed that today’s groundwater levels are approaching natural, pre?irrigation conditions—levels that rose dramatically during earlier eras of flood irrigation and began to fall again as irrigation technology improved. The policy goal now is not a return to natural historical levels, but rather to the artificially elevated aquifer levels that existed during the height of flood?irrigation practices.

This shift is both fascinating and instructive for practitioners and stakeholders navigating Idaho water management challenges and the broader Western water landscape.

Looking Ahead: Laura to Speak at Oregon Women for Agriculture Conference

Laura’s next stop will be the Annual Statewide Conference for Oregon Women for Agriculture on March 6 in Forest Grove. She will speak on current issues in Western water law and ongoing trends affecting water users across multiple states. Conference information is available at: https://www.owaonline.org

EPA and Army Propose Update to the Definition of WOTUS

On November 17, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the U.S. Department of the Army (“the agencies”) released a proposed rule that updates the definition of “Waters of the United States” (“WOTUS”) under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). The proposal aims to bring the regulations into compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. 651, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023).

This article summarizes the proposed changes and why they matter for landowners, developers, and regulated entities. For additional background, readers may want to explore earlier WOTUS analysis on this website, including discussions of the Sackett decision and the history of the “significant nexus” test.

Why the Agencies Are Updating the Definition of WOTUS

Before Sackett, agencies used the “significant nexus” test to determine federal jurisdiction. Under that test, waters could fall under the CWA if—alone or combined with similar waters—they significantly affected the integrity of traditionally navigable waters. This standard came from Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715, 719, 126 S. Ct. 2208, 2214 (2006) (Kennedy, J., concurring).

The Supreme Court rejected the significant nexus test in Sackett. The Court held that the CWA covers only those wetlands with a continuous surface connection to waters that are themselves WOTUS. The connection must make the wetlands “indistinguishable” from those waters. Sackett, 598 U.S. at 684.

To follow Sackett, the agencies now propose several key regulatory revisions.

Key Proposed Changes

1. New Definition of “Relatively Permanent”

The prior regulations used the phrase “relatively permanent” but did not define it. The proposed rule defines it as:

• Standing or continuously flowing bodies of surface water
• That exist year-round or at least during the wet season

This means seasonal waters can still qualify as WOTUS if they persist during the wet season.

2. Clarified Definition of “Continuous Surface Connection”

The agencies propose that a continuous surface connection exists when waters:

• Have surface water at least during the wet season, and
• Abut (touch) a jurisdictional water

The proposal emphasizes that the water body must directly touch the jurisdictional water. Any land feature between them breaks the surface connection.

3. Other Important Term Updates

The proposed rule also revises several additional terms:

Removal of “Intrastate”

• The term “intrastate” would be removed.
• This makes clear that a water body is not WOTUS solely because it crosses state lines if it does not otherwise meet the criteria.

Revised Exclusion for “Ditches”

• Only ditches constructed or excavated entirely on dry land qualify for exclusion from WOTUS.

Updated Exclusion for “Prior Converted Cropland”

• The agencies clarify when abandonment of prior converted cropland may allow reclassification as a wetland.

Expanded Definition of “Waste Treatment Systems”

• The proposal further explains which waste treatment systems fall outside the definition of WOTUS.

Purpose of the Proposed Changes

These revisions aim to help States, Tribes, and private parties understand which water bodies fall under the CWA after Sackett. Clearer definitions allow landowners and regulators to make informed land?use and water?use decisions with greater confidence.

What Happens Next?

The proposed rule has been submitted for publication in the Federal Register. A 45-day public comment period will begin once publication occurs. A final rule will be released after the agencies review and consider submitted comments.

Litigation over WOTUS is expected to continue, and this rulemaking will likely be part of that ongoing legal landscape.

For further context, readers can review other WOTUS?related analyses on water-law.com, which discuss both the long regulatory history leading to Sackett and the challenges that continue to shape federal jurisdiction over water resources.

The City of Portland’s Big Pipe Project was a major effort to reduce the amount of pollution entering the Willamette River and the Columbia Slough. This project cost about $1.4 billion and took 20 years to finish. Thanks to this work, Portland has reduced combined sewer overflows (CSOs) by 94% into the Willamette and 99% into the Columbia Slough.

Even with these improvements, a few overflow events still happen during very heavy storms.

Why Stormwater Was a Problem Before the Big Pipe

Portland has a combined sewer system in many areas. That means sewage and stormwater flow through the same pipes. When big rainstorms hit, millions of gallons of stormwater rush into the system at once. Before the Big Pipe Project, this caused sewage and pollutants to overflow directly into local rivers many times each year.

To reduce this problem, the City first worked to keep stormwater out of the sewer system whenever possible. Beginning in 1991, Portland:

• Built new stormwater-only pipes
• Redirected small streams into the Willamette River
• Captured runoff from streets and buildings
• Sent stormwater to Ramsey Lake, a constructed wetland that helps clean the water
• Increased the use of trees, gardens, and other green spaces to absorb rain naturally

All these steps helped lower the amount of water entering the sewer pipes and reduced the chance of overflows.

How Portland’s Big Pipes Work

Portland now has three major “Big Pipes”:

• Columbia Slough
• West Side
• East Side

Together they stretch 12.5 miles and carry combined sewage to the Columbia Boulevard Wastewater Treatment Plant. These pipes store and move huge volumes of water during storms so the treatment plant isn’t overwhelmed.

This system has greatly reduced the amount of untreated wastewater that reaches the Willamette River and the Columbia Slough.

However, during extreme weather—like the December 9, 2025 ‘atmospheric river’ storm, which dropped more than five inches of rain—the system can still reach capacity. When that happens, overflows may release polluted water into the river. The good news is that Portland now sees only about four overflow events per year, compared to around fifty before the Big Pipe Project was completed.

Conclusion

The Big Pipe Project was a huge, long-term effort involving city agencies, engineers, and the people of Portland. Since its completion in 2011, it has made the city’s rivers much cleaner and safer. While occasional overflows still occur during major storms, the combination of stormwater diversion, green infrastructure, and increased pipe capacity has made a major positive impact on local water quality.

Stay tuned to Schroeder Law Offices’ blog for more updates on water issues in the Pacific Northwest!