Schroeder Law Offices first highlighted the proposed rule change to the Clean Water Act in a May blog posting.

Growing opposition to the rule has caused the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to extend the public comment period through October 20, 2014 from the original comment deadline of July 21.

Opponents and supporters characterize the Revisions to the CWA as either a federal government “land grab” or a clarification of rules depending on point of view.

Opponents generally believe the Rule will give the EPA increased jurisdiction over water adversely affecting farmers and ranchers; while proponents of the change claim the proposal will help eliminate confusion over what types of waters are covered by federal regulations. Texas Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott submitted comments and threatened to sue if the proposal is not withdrawn. Farm Bureau Federations in Oregon, Nevada, California and nationally are marshaling member support and urging the EPA to Ditch the proposed CWA provisions.

Supporters suggest the proposed rule clarifies issues regarding streams and wetlands.
The article linked here and the photos above demonstrate the varying opinions on the proposed rule change.
Information gathered from a variety of news sources.

Follow this link to leave comments.

In response to a recent ruling by the U.S. District Court for Idaho, the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) will be making the names and addresses of grazing permit holders and lessees available to the public via a publicly accessible website.  Personal phone numbers and financial information will not be included.  This change is derived from an attempt to balance two Federal laws including The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) of 1966 and The Privacy Act of 1974.

In the December 29, 2010 release published by BLM in the Federal Register, the statement regarding this change was addressed in a System of Records Notice (“Notice”). A System of Records Notice provides interested parties forty (40) days to comment on the proposed change.  If you wish to provide comments to BLM, they must be submitted by February 7, 2011 to the BLM Privacy Office at 1849 C Street N.W., Room 725 LS, Washington D.C. 20240 or by email to privacy@blm.gov.  The change will take affect as outlined above unless submitted comments require a contrary determination.  It is important to note that all comments submitted, along with personal identifying information (including name, address, email, etc…), may be made available to the public at any time.

Public Land Council (“PLC”) has suggested that people affected by this notice should consider obtaining a P.O. Box to provide to their local BLM office to prevent the release of their physical address to the public.  Interested parties have up to sixty (60) days from the date the BLM Notice was published to provide an alternate address to the their local BLM office.  Upon such a change, all official mail from BLM will be forwarded to the updated address.

A copy of the Notice is available for review at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/browse.html.  For additional information from BLM, you may contact Robert Roudabush, Division Chief, Rangeland Resources, Bureau of Land Management by phone at (202) 912-7222 or by email at Rob-Roudabush@blm.gov.

If you would like further information or assistance from our office in preparing comments for BLM’s review, please contact us at (503) 281-4100.

TCID’s Policy Committee will meet on Monday, September 8, 2008 at the TCID office (2666 Harrigan Road, Fallon NV) to review their policy and  decide on a  “Possible Increase in ‘In Lieu’ Charges for the Retiring of Water Rights.” Your attendance is encouraged.
The In Lieu charges are those one-time payments that TCID Policy provides it should receive when a land owner retires his water rights through AB380 program, through individual settlement of the Tribe’s Petition acres, or through any other retirement.  For example, if a person entered into an individual settlement of his water rights wherein a portion of his water rights were retired (meaning the  water rights are no longer available for diversion from the source by TCID to the landowner), that individual is required to pay TCID.

TCID’s policy states  that “in lieu” payments help them offset “the proportionate share of tolls, charges, fees, assessments, and tax levies that such water rights would have paid in the future.” (See TCID Management Policies dated September 7, 2000). The “in lieu” payment policy was created out of the AB 380 program wherein TCID would receive the “in lieu” payment from federal funds upon the successful retirement of water rights challenged by the Tribe through the AB380 program.  There is no more money in the AB 380 program.

TCID also remains whole on the backs of its patrons.  Despite the fact that TCID patrons paid TCID assessments for challenged acres while not receiving a water allocation, TCID patrons now retiring these same non-allocated water rights are required to pay the “in lieu” fee to TCID.  Pursuant to TCID policy, TCID patrons are to pay  $1200 per water righted acre that is retired in order for TCID to remove the retired acres from the assessment roles.

While there is little question that TCID has authority to charge an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) fee for each assessed acres to which TCID provides water delivery services through an allocation, the question is whether TCID has authority to charge O&M for water righted acres to which it does not deliver an allocation?  In addition, there is a question as to the authority of OCAP and TCID acting under OCAP to deny water allocations since this effectively cancels the water rights?  Cancellation is a function of state law and requires that the landowner be afforded due process before the loss of his property interest.

TCID’s role is to deliver water to water right holders in the Newlands Project.  TCID is governed by the Alpine and Orr Ditch Decrees as well as the Bureau of Reclamation under OCAP or the Operating Criteria and Procedures for the Newlands Reclamation Project, Nevada (found at 43 C.F.R. 418 et seq).  No where in OCAP or the Decrees does it say that TCID is the owner of the water rights, or that TCID can charge  landowners when it does not delivery water to existing water righted acreage.  In fact, OCAP at Sec. 418.26 states that TCID should give consideration to adopting a financing and accounting system that provides reasonable financial incentives for the economical and efficient use of water.

While it may be appropriate to “charge” a fee to remove water righted acres from the assessment roles, patrons retiring water rights that have not received an allocation under these “retired” water rights for years are owed some consideration for their many years of payments to TCID.  TCID should not be allowed to effectively condemn landowner water rights by making OCAP non-allocation orders, take money from the landowners for delivery when TCID has no intention to provide water delivery, and charge the landowner again to remove non-allocated/cancelled water rights from the assessment roles when the landowner retires them.