The State of the Water Industry Survey

In the June 2020 issue of Opflow, the American Water Works Association published a survey of 3,351 water industry professionals. The State of the Water Industry (SOTWI) survey identifies challenges to the water industry and seeks to understand their causes.

Several issues regarding water resource management made the top ten concerns of the industry professionals surveyed. “Long-term water supply availability” was the third-highest ranked issue on the list at #3, followed closely by “watershed/source water protection” (#5) and “groundwater management and over-use’ (#10).

Water Demand

Specifically, 57 percent of surveyed respondents indicated that their utilities could meet anticipated long-term water demand. However, about 12 percent of respondents claim that it will be challenging to meet future supply needs. This uncertainty creates reverberating effects throughout the industry. Uncertainty affects many other aspects of water resource management and quality, including the other issues mentioned in the survey. Future supply shortfalls will lead to increased price and competition as well as the potential for more frequent litigation over water rights.

Source Water Protection

In addition, source water protection was another critical issue for water resource managers. 76 percent of utility respondents to the survey said that they had implemented or were implementing a source water protection program. When considering only large utility respondents, that share increased to 89 percent. Clearly, utilities focus on strong source water protection programs. These programs are often cost-effective ways to protect and improve both water quality and quantity. Further, states are generally responsible for implementing water quality standards under the Safe Drinking Water and Clean Water Acts for drinking water. Recently, the AWIA, America’s Water Infrastructure Act amended the Safe Drinking Water Act, signed into law in 2018.

Groundwater

Finally, this was the second consecutive year that groundwater issues were front and center in the survey. 2019 California drought and wildfire conditions stressed groundwater resources, bringing those issues to the front of many survey respondents’ minds. Those issues show no signs of abating, as drought and wildfires continue to ravage the West.

In conclusion, many of the challenges highlighted by survey respondents are similar to those faced by water resource managers throughout the years. While there may be some cause for concern in certain areas, overall the survey shows a positive outlook for the future. Utilities are using existing water resources more efficiently as they comply with the AWIA, protect their water sources, and engage in asset management planning. The water industry has poised itself to meet its challenges with resilience.

This blog was drafted with the assistance of Drew Hancherick, a current law student attending Lewis and Clark Law School.

In a previous blog, we looked into who owns an aquifer: does it belong to private individuals or the public? Under the ad coelum doctrine, the surface owner holds the ground itself – rocks, dirt, and the like – as private property, owned all the way down to the Earth’s core. On the other hand, the public collectively owns water, taken for private use through the rule of capture, or the ferae naturae doctrine.^[1] Because an aquifer is a “body of permeable rock which can contain or transmit groundwater,”^[2] the rules related to aquifers are a complex combination of the two competing doctrines. In our previous update, we highlighted a California district court case, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Desert Water Agency, et al, that seeks an answer to the question of aquifer pore space ownership.^[3]

Background

The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (“Tribe”) sued the Coachella Valley Water District and Desert Water Authority (“Defendants”) to protect the aquifer under its reservation from groundwater depletion and water quality degradation. The Tribe argued that the pore spaces within the aquifer are its property under the ad coelum doctrine. The Defendants believe that the public owns pore spaces. The court has not yet addressed the question of whether the pore spaces are public or private property. However, the case has progressed since our last post and we are due for an update.

The Tribe and Defendants agreed to split the litigation into three phases when the Tribe first filed the case in 2013. Phase 1 was to decide whether the Tribe had a reserved right to groundwater in principle. Thereafter, Phase 2 would resolve if this reserved right contained a water quality component, the method of quantification of a reserved groundwater right, and if the Tribe owned pore spaces within the aquifer. Phase 3, if necessary, would quantify the Tribe’s reserved groundwater right and ownership of pore space.

In Phase 1, the court granted summary judgment to the Tribe on its groundwater right claim. The decision essentially declared without a trial that the Tribe did in fact have a reserved right to groundwater. Phase 2 was delayed while the Defendants unsuccessfully appealed to the 9th Circuit and then unsuccessfully sought Supreme Court review.

Update

Like Phase 1, Phase 2 proceeded to summary judgment. The court ruled that the Tribe can seek a declaration that it has an ownership interest in sufficient pore space to store its groundwater. However, the Tribe did not argue that it owns the pore space as a “constituent element” of its land ownership in its initial complaint, and the court could not consider it. Recently, the Tribe submitted an amended complaint including its pore space as “constituent element” of land ownership argument, which is now before the court.

The question of whether the Tribe has ownership of the pore space beneath its reservation is the only item left for the court to decide in this phase; the answer could have a real impact on groundwater issues, as it may be one of the first cases to directly address the pore space question. Another controversy is bubbling over pore spaces in North Dakota, starting with the case Mosser v. Denbury Res., Inc., 2017 ND 169 (2017), passage of H.B. 2344, and legal challenges to the bill by the NW Landowners. Keep an eye on the blog for our next update on this case that could affect you!

This blog was drafted with the assistance of Drew Hancherick, a current law student attending Lewis and Clark Law School.

^[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum,_eius_est_usque_ad_coelum_et_ad_inferos

^[2] Oxford Online Dictionary, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/aquifer

^[3] The case is presently before the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Docket No. ED CV 13-00883-JGB-SPX. Plaintiffs filed the complaint on May 14, 2013.

Well sharing agreements are more common than you might expect! These types of agreements allow neighbors to share a well along with the costs for electricity and maintenance. However, there are several pitfalls that can be a big headache for landowners!

What are well sharing agreements?

Basically, these kinds of agreements are a combination of easements and covenants. Easements allow owners land, called the dominant estate, to use adjacent property, called the servient estate. Another kind of easement, called an easement in gross, do not have a dominant estate, like utility easements. The easement components of these kinds of agreements typically allow access to the well, maintenance, and repairs.

On the other hand, the covenant portions of these agreements contain the contractual terms. These contractual requirements pass with the sale of the land to new owners. For example, the agreement typically require the landowners to share electrical and maintenance costs. Also, parties must typically share water production if water is not available to meet the demand. In addition, terms can include dispute resolution terms, limitations on adding new parties, limit water uses, or describe the process to withdraw.

In contrast, sometimes the terms of the agreement are not in writing. Selling adjacent property served by a common well or subdividing property and providing well water using a pipeline can create an unwritten wells sharing agreement. If a dispute arises, parties might file a lawsuit to establish the agreement as an implied easement or as irrevocable license. Since parties must establish the terms of an unwritten easement by costly litigation, parties sharing a well should consider drafting a written agreement instead of “handshake deals.” We discussed these kinds of agreements in a free webinar available here.

What are the common problems with well sharing agreements?

First, these agreements typically share electricity and other expenses equally. Conflicts often arise when one party allegedly uses more water than the others, but each party pays the same amount. To avoid this issue, terms can allocate costs to each party based on their use. This approach might require installation of water meters to measure water use to each property and renegotiation of the terms of the agreement.

Second, the costs for maintenance of the well often become a point of controversy. Many wells operated using a well sharing agreement were drilled many years ago and have fallen into disrepair. The costs to reconstruct a failing well or drill new well can be significant. Further, wells constructed in the past often do not meet modern well construction standards. We discussed well construction issues in a free webinar available here. When the agreement does not clearly determine cost allocations, parties often disagree about who should pay for the repairs.

Third, the agreements often omit terms related to legal requirements under the Water Code. Oregon law requires a water use right for any domestic use that exceeds 15,000 gallons per day under ORS 540.545(1)(d). In addition, irrigation from a single exempt group domestic well cannot exceeds ½ acre under ORS 540.545(1)(b), meaning the parties to the well sharing agreement must share the available ½ acre for irrigation. Each party is not allowed their own ½ acre of outdoor irrigation under Oregon law. However, landowners can drill their own wells to provide additional irrigation if needed. Unfortunately, these agreements often omit the explicit allocation of outdoor irrigation to the parties.

What do I do if I have an issue with my well sharing agreement?

Of course, the best way to prevent a dispute is to develop a fair and complete well sharing agreement that avoids the problems identified above. However, if you are already participating in an agreement and would like to modify its terms, the parties may renegotiate a new agreement. A written agreement can also supersede an unwritten well sharing agreement by explicitly outlining its terms. Plus, a written document that is recorded with the county notifies future buyers of the property.

We routinely review and draft these kinds of agreements, so if you have specific questions, please contact us! We provide an extensive overview on how we can assist you with your agreements and other water items in Nevada or Oregon. We recently created a series of free webinars covering a variety of water-related topics published as a Water Right Video Handbook available here. Make sure to stay tuned to Schroeder Law Offices’ Water Blog for more news that may affect you!

In the final COVID-19 webinar, Laura Schroeder, Therese Ure, and Sarah Liljefelt discuss various types of easements and how to protect water access. The webinar airs on June 17, 2020 from 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM. You can view the webinar here!

First, learn the different types of easements, how they are created, and when they might apply. Secondly, the panelists discuss the interpretation of easements and how the interpretation can evolve over time. Further, the presentation outlines common easement issues specifically related to water and protecting water access. Generally, topics will include:

• Basics of property law
  • Estates, deeds, and the “bundle of sticks”
• Types of Easements
  • Express, implied, prescriptive, and “irrevocable licenses”
  • The specific attributes of each kind of easement
  • How you can protect water access to points of diversion, ditches, and pipelines
• Utility easements
• Well sharing agreements

Afterwards, we post our webinars in the COVID-19 Series here, giving you “on demand” access to Schroeder Law Office’s educational events under the “social distancing” orders! This is the final webinar in our COVID-19 series, so stay tuned to our blog for announcements for information about our next events. If you have any issues with viewing the webinars, please contact Scott Borison at: scott@water-law.com.

In the eighth COVID-19 webinar, Laura Schroeder, Michelle Owen, and Scott Revell discussed various types of water organizations. The webinar aired originally on June 3, 2020 from 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM. You can view the webinar here!

Above all, learn the differences between public and private water organizations. For instance, the panelists will provide examples of the different types of public and private water management organizations. Further, the presentation reviews the generally applicable rules pertaining to public water agencies and regulatory oversight of private water utilities. Generally, topics will include:

• Types of Water Management Organizations
  • Residential and domestic
  • Irrigation
  • Flood control and drainage
• Comparing Public and Private Water Management
  • Formation, organization, and dissolution
• Public Water Organizations
  • Municipal, irrigation, domestic, and flood control agencies in Oregon, Nevada, and Washington
  • Applicable laws, rules, and requirements for public agencies
• Private Water Organizations
  • Corporations, ditch companies, and community water systems
  • Different agencies providing oversight of private water management organizations

Afterwards, we posted our webinars in the COVID-19 Series here, giving you “on demand” access to Schroeder Law Office’s educational events under the “social distancing” orders! Additionally, the COVID-19 Webinar series continued over several weeks covering topics, including livestock water rights on public lands. If you can’t make it, stay tuned to our blog for announcements for information about the next webinars or watch the webinars later on our website. If you have any issues with registration or viewing the webinars, please contact Scott Borison at: scott@water-law.com.

In the seventh COVID-19 webinar, Laura Schroeder and Catherine Hansford explained the basic steps in determining the value of water rights. The webinar aired originally on May 27, 2020 from 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM. You can view the webinar here!

First, participants learn the different water right components that might either add value to your home, farm, commercial operation, or provide separate value if severed to transfer for a different use. Secondly, the presentation will explain what assessors use to gauge the value of water rights, the most desirable kinds of water rights, and water markets. Further, the webinar covers both the law and economics of water right sales and transfers. Generally, topics will include:

• Real Estate Components and Value of Water Rights
  • Surface Water vs Groundwater Sales
  • How elements of a water right determine value
• The “Legal” Value of Water Use Types
  • Compare exempt uses, permits, certificates, and decreed rights and water use in “closed” basins
• Valuation of Water Rights
  • “Assessments” of the value of water rights
• Water Markets
  • The issues with developing water markets
  • Discussion of the Deschutes Groundwater Mitigation Program
  • Concurrency laws and water banking

Afterwards, we posted all our webinars in the COVID-19 Series here, giving you access to Schroeder Law Office’s educational events under the “social distancing” orders! Additionally, the COVID-19 Webinar series continued over several weeks. These webinars covered topics related to water management organizations and livestock water rights on public lands. Stay tuned to our blog for announcements for information about the next webinars or watch the webinars later on our website. If you have any issues with viewing the webinars, please contact Scott Borison at: scott@water-law.com.

In the fifth COVID-19 webinar, Laura Schroeder and Therese Ure discussed adjudications and filing a claim for a “vested” water right. The webinar originally aired on May 13, 2020 from 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM. You can view the webinar here! Stay tuned to our blog for announcements for information about the next webinars. You can view previous webinars in the series here.

Learn the elements of a claim and the process of adjudication leading to an enforceable pre-code priority water right. Receive the “how to” provide evidence of a claim, and prepare for the inevitable issues that arise in the adjudication process. If you hold a decreed right, you will leave knowing how to “read” the Court’s decree. Topics will include:

• History of water rights in Oregon and Nevada
  • Water codes generally
  • Pre-code water rights
• Adjudications
  • Initiation, process, claims, and types of evidence
• Decrees
  • General discussion of decrees, appeals, and final decrees
• Important deadlines
  • Nevada’s sunset date
  • Oregon claim registration deadline

The COVID-19 Webinar series will continue over next several weeks, including topics related to online water right research, water right sales, and water management organizations. Previous webinars are available on our website, giving you access to Schroeder Law Office’s educational events under the “social distancing” orders! Follow Schroeder Law Offices’ Water Law Blog for the most up to date information and announcements!

In the fourth COVID-19 webinar, Laura Schroeder and Wyatt Rolfe discussed how to conduct due diligence on water use rights. The webinar originally aired on May 6, 2020 from 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM. You can view the webinar here! Stay tuned to our blog for announcements for information about the next webinars. You can watch previous webinars in the series here.

Learn the basics about water use rights in property transactions and determining if any issues are present. Receive practical information to locate any “red flags,” the most common issues encountered in water use right due diligence, including those related to small utilities. Topics will include:

• Why conduct a water use right due diligence review?
  • What gets missed in the typical process.
• What water use rights do I have?
  • General overview of water right types.
• What are the major issues encountered with water use right due diligence?
  • Discussion of forfeiture, abandonment, deviations from allowed uses, compliance, and conditions of use.
• What red flags are associated with water use right due diligence?
  • Learn the most commonly encountered issues and special considerations for cannabis producers.
• What special considerations pertain to water utilities and water providers?
  • Consider the issues of purpose, water management and conservation planning, and service boundaries for public water providers.

The COVID-19 Webinar series continued over several weeks, including topics related to using the OWRD website to locate information and real property issues associated with water use rights. All webinars are available on our website, giving you access to Schroeder Law Office’s educational events under the “social distancing” orders! Follow Schroeder Law Offices’ Water Law Blog for the most up to date information and announcements!

In the third COVID-19 webinar, Laura Schroeder, Clint Kinney, and Bob Long discussed what to do when you receive a notice that your well construction is non-compliant. The webinar aired originally on April 29, 2020 from 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM. You can watch the webinar here! Stay tuned to our blog for announcements for information about the next webinars! You can view other webinars in the series here.

Learn the basics about well construction rules from the legal perspective, including why well construction matters, when it can interfere in water use right transactions, and what you can do to fix or avoid issues. Receive practical information to investigate wells, determine issues with wells when purchasing new property, and investigate well issues on property you already own. Topics will include:

• Agency Regulation of Wells
  • What agencies and rules apply to well construction?
• Well Construction
  • What forms are required to drill or reconstruct a well?
  • What construction rules apply?
  • What happens when these rules aren’t followed?
• Well Construction and Water Use Rights
  • What is the definition of an “aquifer?”
  • Does OWRD analyze well logs?
  • When does well construction interfere with water right issues?
• Remedies to Well Construction Issues
  • How can one overcome construction issues in OWRD applications?
  • Does the well driller need to fix (or pay to fix) the well?
  • What options are available to fix an improperly constructed well?

The COVID-19 Webinar series continued the following several weeks, giving you access to Schroeder Law Office’s educational events under the “social distancing” orders! Other webinars covered common water-related issues, including due diligence reviews in water use rights. Follow Schroeder Law Offices’ Water Law Blog for the most up to date information and announcements!

In the second COVID-19 webinar, Laura Schroeder and Sarah Liljefelt discussed what to do when you receive a notice of cancellation of your water right in Oregon. The webinar aired originally on April 22, 2020 from 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM. You can view the webinar here!. Stay tuned to our blog for announcements for information about the next webinars! You can view the other webinars in the series here.

Learn the basics about water rights cancellation, including the types of cancellation applicable to different water use rights, the steps in the process, and how to address or challenge the agency’s cancellation decision. Receive practical information to protect your water use rights, determine if water use rights are in good standing when purchasing new property, and conduct assessments of the water use rights on property you already own. Topics will include:

• Regulation of Exempt Uses
  • What are exempt uses?
  • Can exempt uses be cancelled?
• Cancellation
  • What kinds of water use rights can be cancelled?
  • What is the process for cancellation?
  • How does one address or challenge a cancellation decision?
• Voluntary Cancellation or Abandonment
  • What is abandonment?
  • Why would anyone abandon a water use right?
• Avoiding Cancellation
  • How can a person protect their water use rights from cancellation?
  • What are the best kinds of records to maintain to protect water use rights?

The COVID-19 Webinar series will continued in following several weeks, giving you access to Schroeder Law Office’s educational events under the “social distancing” orders! Later webinars will cover common water-related issues, including well construction issues, and illegal water uses. Follow Schroeder Law Offices’ Water Law Blog for the most up to date information and announcements!

As the first COVID-19 Webinar in new weekly series, Laura Schroeder and Therese Ure discussed the ins and outs of how watermasters regulate water in Oregon and Nevada. The webinar aired originally on April 15, 2020 from 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM.  You can view the webinar here! Stay tuned to our blog for announcements and information for the next webinars! You can view other webinars in the series here.

Learn the nuts and bolts of how watermasters regulate water, issue shut off orders, and the rules watermasters must follow to distribute water. Receive practical tips to challenge a watermaster’s decision, potentially preventing enforcement until the decision is reviewed. Topics will include:

• State Watermasters & Agency Roles
  • What are “existing water rights of record?”
  • How a “call” works when insufficient water is available for senior water users
• How Watermasters Enforce Water Codes
  • Oral and Written Orders
  • Final Orders
  • Service and Notice
• Final Order Validity
  • The components of a valid watermaster order
• Review of a Watermaster’s Order
  • Reconsideration, judicial review, and associated timelines
  • Stays in enforcement pending review

The COVID-19 Webinar series continued the following several weeks, giving you access to Schroeder Law Office’s educational events under the “social distancing” orders! Upcoming webinars will cover common water-related issues, including water use right cancellations, well construction issues, and illegal water uses. Follow our blog for the most up to date information and announcements!

Was your upcoming water law conference cancelled? Or are you itching to learn more about Oregon water law, but could never attend one of Schroeder Law Offices speaking events? Stuck inside due to Covid-19 orders? You’re in luck! Laura Schroeder will be offering a series of free webinars this spring covering a wide range of water law topics on our website.

The current schedule will include:

• How to React to a “Red Tag” From the Water Master Shutting Off Your Water Righted Diversion? (April 15, 2020): This webinar will discuss the role of watermasters, the rules they enforce, and how to challenge incorrect watermaster decisions.
• What to Do When You Receive a Notice of Cancellation on Your Water Right? (April 22, 2020): This webinar covers the grounds for cancellation used by the Oregon Water Resources Department, how a cancellation is initiated, and how to protect your water rights of use!
• What Options Are Available When Your Receive Notice Your Well Construction is Non-compliant? (April 29, 2020): This webinar will review Oregon Water Resources Department and Oregon Health Authority rules regarding well construction, why well construction matters to water rights of use, and options to resolve the problems.
• How to Prepare a Response to a Notice of Violation Concerning Illegal Water Use? (May 6, 2020): This webinar provides an overview of the appeal process for challenging a notice of violation, what tools are available, and how the process works.

Further updates and instructions to attend will be coming soon. Stay tuned to our blog receive updates on these upcoming events and other water news!

Oregon dairy farmers produce great milk products for the northwest! Jakob Wiley attended the Oregon Dairy Farmers Association (“ODFA”) conference in Salem, Oregon this February. The conference included a fascinating keynote presentation by Alison Van Eenennaam of UC Davis. Her presentation addressed the intersection of climate change, dairy products, and cultured meat. Cultured meat is difficult to manufacture at any commercial scale. Her conclusion: cultured meat won’t be available anytime soon. 

Additionally, other topics at the Oregon Dairy Farmers conference included the carbon footprint of dairy products and the looming carbon cap and trade bill, resulting in the flight of Republican lawmakers just before and during the conference. A presentation by Troy Downing at the OSU Extension Service discussed the carbon cycle and its effects on climate. Likewise, David Grimes of the World Meteorological Organization discussed increasing variability in climate. Later, attendees mingled during the receptions with ODFA leadership, other dairy farmers, local businesses, and state lawmakers (at least those still in town!).

At least 200 multi-generational dairy farms provide milk products to Oregon consumers. All of these dairy farms have a “Grade A” license. These licenses allow production, transportation, and processing of milk for sale. You can find more information about dairy licenses here.

Later, attendees tried new products from local dairy companies, sampled ice cream, and visited with local vendors. You can find more information about the Oregon Dairy Farmers conference here. Jakob continues to support ODFA members and assist with their water right problems!

Associate Attorney Jakob Wiley recently co-authored an article titled “Groundwater Management: The Movement Toward Local, Community-Based, Voluntary Programs” in the Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy (Volume 29, Issue 1) available for download here. Jakob’s contribution provided the western United States’ examples and perspectives for the paper. The paper is a product of a panel discussion at the American Water Resources Association’s 2016 conference in Orlando, Florida presented by the authors.

The article investigates a general trend in groundwater management towards bottom-up, basin-scale, voluntary organizations. This trend contrasts with the traditional top-down, regulatory approach to manage groundwater depletion. The paper analyzes the “voluntariness” of several case studies across the United States, including Kansas’s “Local Enhanced Management Areas” (or LEMAs), the Texas’s Edwards Aquifer Authority, and innovative uses of intergovernmental agreements and water districts in Oregon, California, and Colorado.

Co-author John Peck is a recently retired Connell Teaching Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Kansas School of Law. Rick Illgner is a retired Groundwater Resources Specialist, working in Kansas and Texas. Constance Owen was formally an administrative law judge for the Division of Water Resources for the Kansas Department of Agriculture, but recently was appointed by the Kansas Senate as Chairperson of the Kansas Water Authority.

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

            The Oregon Water Resources Department (“OWRD”) does not use a single definition of an aquifer. Instead, it uses different applications of the word depending on the context. Scientifically, there is a generally accepted definition (which we discussed here: https://www.water-law.com/who-owns-an-aquifer/): “body of permeable rock which can contain or transmit groundwater.”^[1] Depending on the location, context, and situation, OWRD and other state agencies might use a different definitions for “aquifer.” Each of these definitions have their own features, potentially leading to different interpretations.

OWRD’s General Definition

            OWRD generally defines an aquifer under Oregon Administrative Regulation (“OAR”) 690-200-0050(9) as “a geologic formation, group of formations, or part of a formation that contains saturated and permeable material capable of transmitting water in sufficient quantity to supply wells or springs and that contains water that is similar throughout in characteristics such as potentiometric head, chemistry, and temperature (see Figure 200-2 [above]).” Potentiometric “head” is akin to the pressure of the water at a given location.

            Compared to the scientific definition outlined above, OWRD restricts aquifers to those with similar potentiometric head, chemistry, and temperature. Aquifer characteristics can vary from location to location while still being within the same hydraulically connected system, called “anisotropic” or heterogeneous conditions. Permeability, water quality, and temperature can vary within an aquifer under the scientific definition above, but OWRD’s general definition does not allow for anisotropic conditions in a single aquifer.

“Aquifers” in the Upper Klamath Basin

            Another definition of “aquifer” is located in the newly adopted rules in OAR Chapter 690, Division 25. These rules are restricted to the Upper Klamath Basin and supplant the Division 9 rules during 2019 and 2020 only. Under these rules, “groundwater reservoir” or “aquifer” is defined as “a body of groundwater having boundaries which may be ascertained or reasonably inferred that yields quantities of water to wells or surface water sufficient for appropriation under an existing right of record.” OAR 690-025-0020(4).

            This definition merges the groundwater (the contents) with the aquifer (the container). Interestingly, this definition restricts the “aquifer” to areas that produce water “under an existing right of record.” This definition combines physical aspects, legal rights, and geographic components into a single non-scientific definition.

“Hydraulic Connection” under Divisions 9 & 25

            Oregon Revised Statute Chapter 690 Division 9 regulates conjunctive management of surface water and groundwater throughout the State. The regulations prescribe when new groundwater appropriations may be allowed, and when existing groundwater use rights must be regulated off in times of shortage when a senior surface water call is made. The Division 25 rules supplant the portion of Division 9 for the Upper Klamath Basin related to regulation of existing groundwater use rights.

          Under the Division 9 regulations, “hydraulic connection” means “water can move between a surface water source and an adjacent aquifer.” Under the Division 25 rules specific to the Upper Klamath Basin, however, “hydraulically connected” means “water can move between or among groundwater reservoirs and surface water.” Further, OWRD applies these differing definitions exactly the same, regulating down to deep, confined aquifers under Division 9 that are not “adjacent” to the surface water source, much as one would imagine OWRD doing under the more broad Division 25 definition that talks about water movement between various groundwater reservoirs.

Well Construction & Commingling Rules

            Another version of “aquifer” is found in OWRD’s well construction rules. OAR 690-200-0050(9) defines “aquifer” as a “geologic formation, group of formations, or part of a formation that contains saturated and permeable material capable of transmitting water in sufficient quantity to supply wells or springs and that contains water that is similar throughout in characteristics such as potentiometric head, chemistry, and temperature.”

           Under OAR 690-200-0043, a water supply well cannot be “constructed in a manner that allows commingling or leakage of groundwater by gravity flow or artesian pressure from one aquifer to another.” OWRD interprets its rules to prohibit comingling of groundwater between aquifers even when no water is currently present at the location of an alleged aquifer. Such is the case when a well is deepened due to the original water bearing zone no longer producing water. OAR 690-215-0045(4) prohibits the deepening of a well in such a way that will “result in commingling of aquifers.” OWRD interprets this rule to require sealing off the now-dry layers from the deeper water-bearing layers. Here, OWRD’s interpretation of an aquifer addresses the potential for commingling of groundwater, not actual commingling. In this case, the term “aquifer” refers to groundwater potentially, but not actually, present in a former water-bearing zone.

            When a well is constructed, the well driller submits a report called a “well log” to OWRD. These logs show the various types of soils and water bearing layers found during the course of the drilling. OWRD does not require well drillers to be certified geologists, so these descriptions are often informal and not scientifically reviewed. Well logs typically do not include potentiometric head, chemistry, or temperature information for each water-bearing zone encountered in a well. Thus, whether a water-bearing zone constitutes a distinct aquifer is a challenging question when only reviewing a well log without the scientific information required in the definition above.

            OWRD does not typically review well logs unless an issue arises. A bill introduced in this legislative session, H.B. 2331 A (2019), would have required OWRD to review well logs when received by the agency: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Measures/Overview/HB2331. However, this bill remained in committee and was not adopted. Therefore, OWRD continues at the present time to review well logs inconsistently and sometimes not until decades after well completion, and it can sometimes be challenging for drillers to identify separate aquifers for the purpose of meeting well drilling standards due to OWRD’s differing and numerous aquifer definitions.

DEQ Rules

          To compare with OWRD, the Department of Environmental Quality’s (“DEQ’s”) rules, defines aquifer as “an underground zone holding water that is capable of yielding a significant amount of water to a well or spring.” OAR 340-044-0005(2). This definition is the most similar to the scientific definition above, without the restriction to a certain characteristic (like water quality) or legal status (like status of water rights or ascertainable boundary).

Conclusion

            The definitions for “aquifer” used by OWRD and DEQ deviate from the generally accepted scientific definition. Under the scientific definition, the permeable rocks define the extent of the aquifer (even if no water is present at the time). Under both OWRD and DEQ definitions, the water-filled-portion of the aquifer determines its extent, rather than the permeable rock “container” for the groundwater. Further, OWRD’s definitions add other characteristics, like potentiometric pressure, chemical, temperature, ability to determine a boundary, location in proximity to surface water, or legal right to the basic scientific term, though it is questionable whether OWRD gives due regard to these additional elements, and OWRD usually regulates groundwater in the most restrictive manner regardless of the applicable definitions in each context. As groundwater management controversies continue, the differences between these definitions may (and should) come under additional scrutiny.

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

[1] Oxford Online Dictionary, https://www.lexico.com/definition/aquifer

The adoption of efficient water technologies is identified as a goal under Oregon Water Resources Department’s (“OWRD”) 2017 Integrated Water Resources Strategy (https://www.oregon.gov/OWRD/programs/Planning/IWRS/Pages/default.aspx). For agricultural uses, weather-based irrigation, soil moisture controls, computer controlled irrigation, and piping and drip irrigation systems are being developed to substantially reduce the amount of water applied to land for the same use. At first glance, the adoption of efficient irrigation technology appears to be a “no-brainer” with few downsides. However, the problem can be more complex than it first appears.

A core tenant of prior appropriation is the prevention of “injury” to existing water rights by reducing water available to fulfill existing rights of use. A component of a water right is the “consumptive use” or the amount of water for which the water user loses control usually from a described place of use or otherwise does not return to the source, the excess becomes available for subsequent use. Efficient irrigation technology alters irrigation’s consumptive use and runoff, sometimes reducing the water available to other water users that were benefitting from the “waste” created by inefficient irrigation techniques.

Often, inefficient irrigation seeps into shallow aquifers, sometimes contributing to surface streams days, months, or years later as return flow. Oregon’s conjunctive management rules have attempted to jointly regulate surface and groundwater sources, as described by Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 690, Division 9, yet these rules do not directly account for the effects of irrigation seepage on return flows. By encouraging efficient irrigation technologies, OWRD’s strategic planning might inadvertently cause injury to downstream water users that benefit from the increased return flow due to current irrigation techniques.

The United States Supreme Court (“Court”) addressed this issue in the case Montana v. Wyoming. 563 U.S. 368 (2011). The Yellowstone Compact distributes water of the Yellowstone River, which flows north from Wyoming into Montana. Water users in Wyoming adopted the use of more efficient sprinkler irrigation systems. The sprinklers increased the consumptive use portion of the water withdrawn compared to the earlier flood irrigation where a portion of the excess seeped into the ground. Montana alleged that the switch in technologies reduced seepage and runoff by 25% in some locations while still diverting the same quantity of water. In short, Montana lost access to water due to the increase in “efficiency” by Wyoming water users.

The Court decided that the switch did not cause injury to Montana water users, since these states appeared to only apply these rules to changes in “place of diversion, place or purpose of use” and not to changes in “crop changes or day-to-day irrigation adjustments or repairs.” The Court reasoned that a switch to efficient irrigation was more like an adjustment or repair than a change that would prompt the injury analysis. Likewise, the Court reasoned that the transition to sprinklers was akin to recapture doctrines under Wyoming and Montana, which allow water users to reuse water still remaining on their land after initial use. The Court reasoned that sprinklers are a form of efficient reuse of water rather than a fundamental change in water use supporting injury. The Court decided that Wyoming water users did not violate the Yellowstone Compact by using efficient irrigation technologies, even when significantly less water flowed to Montana.

The United States Government Accountability Office has recently released a report on irrigation technologies and their effects on return flows: https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-128SP?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery#summary. The report notes that efficient irrigation can expand the area of irrigation, enabling more production, using the same volume of water. At the same time, the report identifies that return flows might be significantly reduced and might diminish water availability for downstream users.

The key issue to consider is if water that seeps into an aquifer is considered a part of the consumptive use or whether it is returned to a source for further use. If consumption only includes the volume of water used by plants, other water users might have a right to the runoff from inefficient irrigation practices (which fits more with Oregon’s conjunctive management policies). If consumption is any water placed on the land without regard to the destination of the water applied, any reduction in return flow might not be considered an injury. As efficient irrigation practices are increasingly adopted, the dark side of decreased runoff might rise as a real issue in the future!

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

The year 2019 marks the 50th anniversary of the Willamette Valley Project, a tumultuous time in the history of the project. These dams are operated by the United States Army Corp of Engineers’ (“Corp”) Portland District, which utilizes 13 dams to prevent flooding and provide water storage for various water users and aquatic species in Western Oregon. (https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/Locations/Willamette-Valley/) Since their construction, flooding like that seen in the Christmas Flood of 1964 has been rare. This April, the Willamette Valley saw substantial flooding as an “atmospheric river” overwhelmed the capacity of the dams, forcing the Corp release water at historic rates to prevent overtopping of the dams. (https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2019/04/07/oregon-flooding-willamette-river-santiam-river-eugene-salem/3393877002/). As these dams were created specifically to prevent flooding, what went wrong?

The various interests in water stored in these dams leads to considerable controversy over how to operate the Willamette Valley Project dams. Combined, these dams hold 1.6 million acre-feet in the summer months for various uses including municipal, irrigation, and hydropower. The controversy in operations relates to these uses. For example, storing additional water in the dams benefits electricity production and recreational boating uses (requiring high lake levels), but harms aquatic species and irrigators. Releasing the stored water during the summer reduces electricity production and leaves little for migrating salmon in the fall, but provides irrigation for many Willamette Valley farms. The Corp is left to balance these competing interests for the use of “conservation storage” (the water stored for use in the summer months).

Recently, the Corp considered reallocating water between theses interests, which focuses primarily on how to use the water stored in the summer months. We have discussed this potential reallocation here: https://www.water-law.com/study-willamette-valley-project-reallocation/. The allocations of uses between these interests has not been reconsidered since the original construction of the dams. (The Capital Press recently covered the discussion here: https://bit.ly/2IyzCfr). While the reallocation will determine how stored water is used, the dam regulation curves determine when the dams are emptied and space is made for flood mitigation.

Flood control is another “interest” competing for the Corp’s attention and a reservior’s capacity. In the winter, these dams are emptied to allow the space to be used to absorb the brunt of storms. In the spring, the dams are gradually refilled up to their maximum operating capacity during the summer, for use for power and water storage. The image to the right depicts the regulation curve for the Cougar Reservoir, which stores water from the South Fork of the McKenzie River. The Corp developed the operating curve for the Cougar Reservoir in 1964, located in the Cougar Reservoir Regulation Manual. (https://bit.ly/2PtpANm). Each dam has its own manual, determining how and when water is released from the reservoir. While the allocation determines how stored water is used, the “conservation storage” hump determines when, how much, and for how long the dams are filled.

This year’s atmospheric river struck on April 7-8, 2019, just as these dams were being filled for use as summer storage. While not at “max conservation pool” level (occurring around May 1), the dams were approaching their upper limits. Cougar Reservoir, for example, was at around 494 meters (1620 feet) before the storm and according to its operating curve, the reservoir should have been around 500 meters (1640 feet) (seen in the graph to the right, reservoir levels are measured by elevation to sea level, not depth). After April 12, 2019, the South Fork of the Willamette River discharged between 3,000 and 5,000 cubic feet per second (“cfs”) compared to its typical average of about 400-800 cfs at this time. (https://on.doi.gov/2Izcf5n). By April 13, 2019, Cougar Reservoir levels had shot up to nearly 515 meters (1690 feet), the maximum summer flood control level shown in the regulation curve above, several weeks early. By releasing record volumes of water from these dams, and using up any remaining storage capacity still available, the Corp prevented overtopping of the dams at the cost of downstream riparian landowners.

Water releases over this period prevented an overflow, but opens the question of whether more flood control space may be required for spring storms in the future. When the reservoirs are full late in the season, the Corp has little choice but to open the gates, flooding downstream homes, farms, and cities. Calls for changing the Corp’s dam regulation curves may also come alongside the calls to reallocate stored water, adding even more controversy for the Willamette Valley Project near its 50^th birthday.

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

            The Oregon Water Resources Department (“OWRD”) will present proposed temporary rules to the Water Resource Commission that would place a temporary hold on Upper Klamath Basin well regulation for two years, during which time OWRD would only regulate off wells within 500 feet of surface water sources in response to validated calls for water. Since the administrative phase of the Klamath Basin Adjudication concluded in 2013, groundwater users have challenged OWRD’s application of Oregon’s conjunctive management rules to wells in the Klamath Basin. The deluge of litigation has cost the OWRD millions of dollars and does not appear to have an end in sight.

            OWRD may be offering a temporary truce to groundwater users while the agency reviews and determines a “longer term approach” to water management in the Klamath Basin. The temporary rules, expected to go into effect in April, would remain in effect until March 1, 2021. The proposed rules would eliminate the rules adopted in preparation for the defunct Upper Klamath Basin Comprehensive Agreement (“UKBCA”), and replace them with deceptively simple rules for regulating calls for water. The Upper Klamath Basin has been regulated under original Division 25 and Division 9 rules since 2013, and the proposed temporary rules propose a third regulatory regime in under a decade, with a fourth to be revealed in two-years time. If no new rules are adopted by March 1, 2021, regulation would revert to the conjunctive management rules under OAR Division 9. The proposed rulemaking is available at the following link: https://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/misc/vault/vault.aspx?Type=WrdNotice&notice_item_id=8113.

            Under the prior appropriation doctrine, when a water user makes a call for water, OWRD’s watermasters investigate to validate the call. Junior water users may be ordered to shut off water use to allow senior water users to receive their full delivery of water. Oregon’s conjunctive management rules are designed to allow regulation of hydraulically connected surface water and groundwater as a single source of water. Oregon’s conjunctive management rules have historically been found in OWRD’s Division 9 rules (Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 690 Division 9). However, a portion of the Division 9 rules were superseded by original Division 25 when those rules were in effect.

            The Division 9 rules require, under certain conditions, that water use rights appropriating water from groundwater sources be regulated in priority with surface water use rights when a valid, senior “call” is made. Unless the well drawing from an unconfined aquifer is within one-quarter mile of a surface water stream, OWRD must find that the source of water appropriated by the well is “hydraulically connected” to the surface stream, meaning that water can move between the surface water stream and the adjacent groundwater aquifer. OWRD presumes any well closer than one-quarter mile is hydraulically connected to the surface stream. Further, wells are presumed to cause “potential for substantial interference” if they are (1) within one-quarter mile of a stream, (2) the appropriated rate of groundwater use is greater than 5 cubic feet per second, and within one mile of the stream, (3) the appropriated rate of groundwater use exceeds 1% of a pertinent adopted minimum perennial streamflow or instream water use right, or the natural flow of the surface water source that is exceeded 80 percent of the time, or (4) continued use of the well for 30 days would result in stream depletion greater than 25% of the well’s rate of appropriation.  Stream depletion is calculated using computer modeling, the method for which OWRD has substantially changed over the last several years, creating a moving target for water users wishing to challenge OWRD’s application of the rules to their groundwater uses. Under Division 9, wells located over one mile from surface water sources may only be controlled through designation of a critical groundwater area.

            OWRD’s proposed temporary rules are designed to operate in lieu of Division 9 for the Upper Klamath Basin. Rather than merely putting the majority of groundwater regulation on hold while permanent rules are considered and adopted, OWRD’s proposed rules factually declare that all groundwater sources are hydraulically connected to surface water in the Klamath Basin, and that all wells that withdraw groundwater in the Klamath Basin reduce groundwater discharge and surface water flow. Since these factual findings are totally unnecessary for the purpose of temporarily staying regulation while enacting permanent rules, many view the rules as an attempt by OWRD to cut off current and future legal challenges to OWRD’s regulation of groundwater wells. Under the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act, state agencies are afforded a degree of deference by courts to their factual findings and legal conclusions, and OWRD’s efforts to make the aforementioned findings—findings that are currently disputed by the scientific community—have the (likely intended) effect of garnering support for a claim of deference by OWRD in legal disputes. Moreover, and perhaps most troubling, OWRD’s proposed rules state that OWRD can regulate off a groundwater user if interference “impends,” meaning the junior water user need not even be interfering with the senior water user’s right to be regulated off by OWRD. This provision is in clear contradiction with the Oregon Ground Water Act that requires actual “impairment or interference,” rather than mere speculation, prior to regulation. ORS 537.525(9).

            Many water users oppose the new rules, realizing that the inducement of temporary regulatory relief will come at a very high price that will likely eradicate groundwater irrigation of agriculture in the Upper Basin. Because the rules also determine that all wells in the Klamath Basin are hydraulically connected to surface water, the temporary rules remove the threshold question that allowed Division 9 rules to apply to an even larger area than previously implicated by the rules. (See: https://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors/water/scaled-back-klamath-groundwater-regulation-debated/article_8e22ab30-23fb-11e9-951c-33070f078fa7.html?utm_source=Capital+Press&utm_campaign=6366754200-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_01_30_05_40&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3bfe2c1612-6366754200-241522174.) Other persons have criticized OWRD’s temporary rules for harming downstream senior surface water users, like the Klamath Tribes that hold senior surface water rights. (See: https://www.heraldandnews.com/members/forum/letters/proposed-groundwater-drilling-rule-unsustainable/article_77126c71-c978-5ade-9be3-82c025359f40.html.)

            Under OWRD’s application of the Division 9 rules (which is currently being challenged in court), 140 wells in the Klamath Basin would be subject to regulation. Under the proposed temporary Division 25 rules, only 7 wells would be regulated until March 1, 2021. Over the next two years, OWRD asserts it will continue to study the hydrogeology of the Upper Klamath Basin and enact permanent rules to replace the temporary Division 25 rules. The water wars in the Klamath Basin continue, and groundwater users may get a very short period of relief from regulation while OWRD once again moves the bar for how OWRD will regulate off groundwater users in the Upper Klamath Basin.

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

The Public Trust Doctrine is seeping to California’s aquifers, bringing something like conjunctive surface water and groundwater management to the state. Conjunctive management is a legal approach to managing surface water and groundwater as an interconnected resource. Often states separate the regulation of groundwater from surface water. Conjunctive management attempts to reconnect the regulation of surface water and groundwater to better match real-world hydrological effects.

            Groundwater often supplies water to rivers, called “baseflow” within a “gaining reach,” and pumping can reduce groundwater’s contribution to surface streams. (See https://water.usgs.gov/edu/rivers-contain-groundwater.html). Likewise, surface water recharges aquifers in “losing reaches.” Regulating surface water and groundwater together is a relatively new development in water law, as legal systems catch up to modern scientific understanding. California has never adopted a groundwater code, let alone explicitly adopt conjunctive management.

            The passage of California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act in 2014 ushered in new planning and review scheme for groundwater use and management in the State. (https://www.water-law.com/groundwater-sustainability-plan-regulations/ ). The legislation attempts to prevent “undesirable effects” of groundwater overconsumption and bring groundwater use into a sustainable pattern. Cal. Water Code § 10721(x)(1)-(6).

            Regulation of surface water in California has been affected by the Public Trust Doctrine. Nat’l Audubon Soc’y v. Superior Court explicitly recognized that the Public Trust Doctrine would supplement statutes governing surface water. 33 Cal. 3d 419 (1983) (“Audubon”). (The Public Trust Doctrine is a well-established principle in California that the State hold certain resources in trust for the benefit of the public, and must take these principles into account when making natural resource decisions.) The case dealt with diversions from non-navigable streams flowing into Mono Lake that is “navigable” under state law. The Court found support for the application of the Public Trust Doctrine to non-navigable tributaries in previous cases like Audubon, showing that the doctrine can reach upstream to prevent harms to downstream navigable streams and lakes.

            In the recent decision Environmental Law Foundation v. State Water Resources Control Board, California’s Third District Court of Appeals held that the Public Trust Doctrine can apply to groundwater that is hydraulically connected to navigable surface waters, like a “tributary” to the surface stream. 237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 393 (2018) (“Control Board”). (Interestingly, this application of the Public Trust Doctrine implicitly favors surface water over groundwater sources, since the reasoning does not support finding surface water as “tributary” to groundwater sources).

            Until Control Board, the courts did not apply the Public Trust Doctrine to groundwater, likely on the basis that aquifers are non-navigable. The court, using the reasoning found in Audubon, found groundwater extraction in the region near the Scott River would reduce surface flows and harm public trust interests in the navigable river. In effect, the Public Trust Doctrine would extend to any groundwater source that provides water, or has stopped providing water, to a navigable surface water body.

            This follows a trend in applying surface water laws and regulations to groundwater. In Hawaii Wildlife Fund. v. County of Maui, the Ninth Circuit decided that discharges into groundwater could be regulated by the Clean Water Act. 881 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 2018). Typically, the Clean Water Act does not apply to groundwater. See 80 Fed. Reg. 37054, 37099 (June 29, 2015). But since the aquifer was hydraulically connected to the Pacific Ocean, the aquifer was a “conduit” transporting pollutants to the sea. For more information, see: https://www.water-law.com/ninth-circuit-upholds-groundwater-conduit-theory/. Like the Public Trust Doctrine in Audubon, the Clean Water Act has begun to seep into aquifers as courts attempt to wrestle with modern hydrogeological science.

            Will these rules seep into aquifer pore spaces as well? As discussed in previous blog posts, California courts are currently deciding if aquifer pore spaces are public or private property. (See https://www.water-law.com/who-owns-an-aquifer/). The Control Board decision adds another layer to the aquifer questions in California: Is there a public trust aspect to aquifer pore spaces that potentially hold (or held) groundwater? Or does the doctrine remain confined to the groundwater alone? Keeping the doctrine out of the pore spaces would be difficult, as aquifers are complex systems of transresources. (Transresource systems are interconnected, yet distinct, resources in a dynamic relationship, see https://www.water-law.com/new-associate-attorney-jakob-wiley-defends-collective-aquifer-governance-agreements/.) Scientifically, aquifers and groundwater are in a constant dynamic relationship. The legal question remains open whether aquifer pore spaces are public, like water, or private, like the land and geological materials that make up aquifers.

            As the Public Trust Doctrine sinks into the aquifer, California courts and agencies may face pressure to implement “backdoor conjunctive management” through litigation and planning for Groundwater Sustainability Plans related to the Public Trust Doctrine. Groundwater Sustainability Agencies in California will likely have to take the Public Trust Doctrine into account as they develop and review Groundwater Sustainability Plans and make land use decisions for groundwater development. (See https://californiawaterblog.com/2018/10/07/the-public-trust-and-sgma/ ). While never adopting a groundwater code or conjunctive management regulations, California may then begin to regulate surface water and groundwater as a connected resource.

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

            Are aquifers public or private property? The question is more complicated than it first appears! To answer the question, one must dive down into the fundamental origins of our legal system, fraught with complicated Latin phrases, just like the dangers of the deep itself!

            Aquifers are scientifically defined as a “body of permeable rock which can contain or transmit groundwater.”[1] However, the word, in its common use, refers to the groundwater, not the permeable rock that actually makes up the aquifer. Traditionally, rocks, soil, and dirt are considered private property under the ad coelum doctrine, making them private property owned by the overlying landowner.[2] Ownership under this doctrine reaches from the atmosphere above to the center of the Earth, shaped like vertical column. However, water is traditionally seen as commonly owned by the public, available for private use under the ferae naturae doctrine. Under this doctrine, water is commonly owned, like wild animals, but can be captured and privately used, like by hunting and capturing it. The various water doctrines, including prior appropriation, the rule of capture, and riparianism, all derive from a negotiation between these two doctrines.

            The law continues to navigate the paradox of aquifer ownership: Is the aquifer the water or the rocks holding it? At least one court is now facing this challenge. The California case Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Desert Water Agency, et al places this question at the heart of the litigation.[3] The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (“Tribe”) filed a suit to protect the aquifer underlying their reservation from groundwater use that threatened to cause subsidence, contamination degrading water quality, and aquifer recharge activities that filled storage space with foreign water. As part of the Tribe’s claim, they assert that the Tribe owns pore spaces (storage) within the aquifer that are being permanently destroyed by subsidence. The Tribe argues under property principles that the pore spaces are a part of the reservation under principles of the ad coelum doctrine. The opposing parties argue that the pore spaces are publicly owned, and the Tribe cannot claim injury to something they never owned or, in the opposing argument, “captured” under the ferae naturae doctrine. While the trial is still ongoing, the court will eventually have to face the core question: Are aquifer pore spaces public or private property?

            While the debate over ancient Latin phrases, injury, and rocks may seem like an uninteresting legal squabble, the results of the case could have real ramifications for many groundwater issues! For example, could an artificial recharge project seeking to replenish depleted aquifers actually be trespassing, if aquifers are privately owned? Or, if publicly owned, can a neighbor to the recharge project whose land is inundated with water have shaky ground to make a claim, since they do not own the pore spaces? Courts will likely have to wrestle with these questions for many years to come.

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

[1] Oxford Online Dictionary,https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/aquifer

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum,_eius_est_usque_ad_coelum_et_ad_inferos

[3] The case is presently before the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Docket No. ED CV 13-00883-JGB-SPX. The complaint was filed on May 14, 2013.