The first goal of the Millennium Challenge adopted by United Nations declaration in 2000 is to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/bkgd.shtml

The three targets for this goal are: (1) halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than $1 a day; (2) achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people; and (3) halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger.

In Armenia this goal has translated into improving agricultural food production which in Armenia requires improved irrigation facilities and methods.

Laura Schroeder’s July-August 2010 mission is to work with the Millennium Challenge group and its contractor to draft legislation that will adopt and promote the goals of agricultural water policy to achieve improved use of land and water resources in Armenia for food production.

As attorneys for the Oregon Ground Water Association (OGWA), Schroeder Law Offices was pleased to do the legal research that successfully overturned the Oregon Water Resources Department’s determination of fees. As a result of advocacy for OGWA, refunds of over $100,000 were paid back to Oregon citizens after the Oregon Water Resources Department was found to have erroneously “jumped the gun” and required payment of fees before the Governor had signed the fee increase into law. For details, see

http://www.capitalpress.info/content/ml-water-fees-101609

This comes from Terry Witt at Oregonians for Food and Shelter:

This is a new National Corn Growers Association video on the subject of increased sustainability in agriculture.  It debuted October 3 on the program This Week in Agribusiness. The short video features family farmers telling the story of how better management and modern technology spells good news for both consumers and the environment.  The video does a nice job talking about how responsible farm management is helping everything from carbon emission, to soil erosion, to food prices. Click here to watch the video.

Do you keep your deeds in the safe? A secure file?  If so, you surely know what water uses you are entitled to and have these records kept safe and secure reviewing them annually?

If not, you’re lucky that the state has records on the water uses related to your property.  However, it’s unlikely these records have not been reviewed in the recent past.  It is also probable that there are lurking “time bombs” in your water use records.  Such “time bombs” include:  (1) Permits or Transfer orders that need extensions; (2)  Permit Conditions that have not been met; (3) Final Proofs past due; (4)  Certificates yet to be issued.

For a fixed fee of $375 and a copy of your property deeds, Schroeder Law Offices, PC, will make a public records request to the proper agency, make a complete copy of your water rights providing you with either a paper or electronic copy or both, as well as one hour of free consultation to provide you an overview on the phone and a summary in writing of issues spotted in your water right files needing attention.

Email Ms Daryl Cole (d.cole@water-law.com) now to begin the process—and start the New Year out right knowing that your water rights are secure!

Federal Judge Robert C. Jones called Schroeder Law Offices attorney Laura Schroeder and others to court today to end 29 years of litigation related to over 200 transfer applications filed by various farmers in the Newlands Project, Nevada.  These transfers were tied up for years by the Pyramid Lake Indian Tribe appeals to Nevada State Engineer rulings on the issues of lack of perfection, forfeiture and abandonment.

Decisions on these transfers were complicated by two factors:

1. The United States issued individual contracts for the storage water in the Newlands Project rather than through an irrigation district (now the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District); and
2. The Orr Ditch Decree and Alpine Decree issued water rights to the Newlands Project farmers in a lump acres allocation rather than describing the allowed decreed water rights for irrigation to particularly described acres.

Today’s final order from the bench at last closed the matter.  Ultimately, a few farmers gained approved water right transfers, many farmers lost water righted acres, and some farmers simply withdrew as the transfer process became too costly over the many years.  A confirming written order will follow shortly.

Today- September 30, 2009, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued a major decision in favor of Stockton East Water District and the Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District determining that the US Bureau of Reclamation and the Districts have binding contracts for specified quantities of water to which Reclamation is obligated to provide.

The underlying trial court, the Court of Claims found, Reclamation failed to provide those specified quantities from 1990 to 2004.  Accordingly the Court remanded the case to determine the amount of damages owed by the US Bureau of Reclamation to the Stockton and Central San Joaquin districts.

Completing a teaching tour through Central Nevada, it will come as no surprise that the number one issue in the minds of participants are the duties of the Southern Nevada Water Authority to counties from which it intends to export water.  Emphasis was placed on the need for affected counties to be involved in the transfer and exporting process as provided by Nevada water law.

Tough times dictate that we cut our discretionary spending.  Property owners may defer some maintenance and other due diligence.  But spending money on education and protecting your property interests must be considered a continued important investment that is not discretionary.

Hunkering down and waiting for it to pass us by will not work.  Business as usual will not work because the usual isn’t any more.  Everything has changed. It is unlikely that what we once thought “normal” will ever be again.

For only $75, you will be both educated and entertained at a full day advanced water rights educational seminar.  Register at www.water-law.com.  If you missed our bootcamp, no matter:  We will answer any questions you bring to the advanced seminar to raise you to the advanced level!

Another opportunity for only $375 is to have us make a specific public records request and pull all your water rights files to provide you with a full electronic copy. Likely you keep your deed to the property is a safe place, your water right files should have equal status.  Many property owners have more value in their water rights than the dirt and don’t even know it.  At minimum, we recommend obtaining your water rights files.  Email Ms. Daryl Cole:  d.cole@water-law.com to obtain a water rights authorization form to make this due diligence investment.

Most Western states allow an exemption from water right permitting for domestic wells.  In New Mexico this exemption was recently challenged as being inconsistent with the prior appropriation doctrine.  Other western states seek to legislatively limit the scope of such exemptions.

Oregon which has perhaps the broadest statutory groundwater exemption is seeking in this legislative session to reduce the allowable group domestic exemption.  Given the pressure to establish critical and limited groundwater areas in Oregon, such a reduction should be given some environmental and practical consideration.

Interestingly, the opponents to the reduction come from the agricultural sector, those who are most affected by group domestic withdrawals which impact aquifer recharge and thus critical and limited groundwater area water rights.  One must presume that the natural law rights to domestic water weigh heavier in the minds of the opponents than the allocation issue.

The Oregon Water Coalition has asked Laura  Schroeder to present Chet Prior with its annual “Friend of Farmer” award on January 27, 2009, in Hermiston, Oregon.

The Oregon Water Coalition actively supports water development projects including the recently funded research to develop aquifer recharge and aquifer storage in the critical ground water areas located in Morrow and Umatilla Counties.

Attorneys Cortney Duke and Therese Ure presented a half day seminar at the January 27 Hermiston meeting on “hot topics” in water law including: exempt well use, sharing and stacking groundwater exemptions;  critical groundwater regulation and compliance; forfeiture of water rights in critical groundwater areas; reclamation contracts and jurisdiction; Overlap of Division 33/Peak Flows, Division 9 and Scenic waterways; and Oregon water courts.  Many of these topics may be considered in the 2009 session of the Oregon Legislature and in the Oregon administrative rule making process.

Accepting associations and referrals in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Nevada, Schroeder Law Offices recently opened its new office in Reno, Nevada.  With a population of 250,000, Reno is at the center of water controversies on the Truckee, Carson, and Walker rivers.

Each of these desert rivers interestingly terminate at a lake with an associated Indian reservations adding to the possible legal issues.  Municipal and agricultural interests use and divert waters from these rivers adding to the on-going controversies over high valued water.  With the official opening of its staffed office in October, Schroeder Law Offices plans to expand its Nevada natural resources clientele.

Colm Moore and Laura Schroeder will present a 4-hour seminar on Nevada water rights in Winnemucca on December 9 and in Elko on December 10. For more information click here.

PAYETTE NATIONAL FOREST RELEASES A DRAFT EIS AS RELATED TO BIGHORN SHEEP AND DOMESTIC SHEEP THAT OMITS COMMITMENTS MADE IN 1997 AND THAT OMITS ANALYSIS OF MANY CRITICAL ELEMENTS

By Alan Schroeder

To view the full text of this press release please click here.

Weiser, Idaho. October 7, 2008. Is removing domestic sheep from the Payette National Forest (PNF) the answer to protecting bighorn sheep? The Forest Service says yes, but Ron Shirts of Shirts Brothers Sheep and Frank Shirts, Jr. — who are third generation domestic sheep operators that are permitted to graze on several domestic sheep allotments in the Payette National Forest — disagree.

The Forest Service released a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on September 18, 2008. The Forest Service proposes in its DEIS to eliminate domestic sheep grazing on all but 4 domestic sheep allotments within the PNF in an effort to protect the bighorns due to a claimed disease transmission problem between the bighorns and the domestic sheep.

The Forest Service’s proposal ignores the fact that the bighorns in Hells Canyon in Idaho were reintroduced only through a commitment that the domestic sheep operators would be held harmless from any disease transmission problem associated with the bighorn reintroduction.

Beyond the 1997 commitment, the Forest Service’s proposal is based upon a premise that certain pathogens (bugs) exist which bighorns and domestic sheep can share, and that if these bugs are transmitted between the two animals, the bugs may cause the death of the bighorns. However, there are several elements that are necessary to confirm this premise, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) The scientific research needs to document that disease transmission occurs between bighorns and domestic sheep; (2) he facts need to disclose that the bighorns themselves are free of the offending bugs; (3) The facts need to disclose that the domestic sheep upon the allotments are carriers of the offending bugs. The Forest Service ignores any discussion in its DEIS of these elements in an apparent effort to advocate for the objective to separate the bighorns and domestic sheep and to eliminate domestic sheep allotments on the PNF.

Comments should be submitted before January 2, 2009, asking the Forest Service to redo its DEIS and to maintain the existing domestic sheep allotments on the PNF. In so asking, you will not be advocating for or against bighorns or for or against domestic sheep. Instead, you will be advocating for an objective analysis of bighorn and domestic sheep interaction and for ratification of the commitments made in 1997.

With food prices at all time highs, agricultural market prices rising, and water rights at a premium, now is the time to plan for the future.  We suggest that water users create and update water management plans with an eye to water rights security, stability, and development.  A water management plan will analyze the current state of the water rights designated and appurtenant to property or other boundary and will provide a tool to consider options for their use, development or marketing.  One can begin this work by emailing Kelley Wesson for a water rights authorization packet.

Retired Reclamation Commissioner John Keyes passing is sad news. I first “engaged” Reclamation with John at the helm in the Boise Regional office in 1992 when working for the Teel Irrigation District. We were dealing with issues surrounding “water spreading” then making headlines in the Umatilla Project by Water Watch of Oregon. Over the years, we kept in close touch on various Reclamation issues. Most recently, John assisted me in obtaining a position with the USAID working in Armenia. He was a southern gentleman in the best way. Kind and considerate always interested in a balance between what was best for the individual as well as the public. He told me that retirement to him meant a chance to spend more time flying.

Focusing on the soon to be launched adjudication in north Idaho, water and real estate lawyers gathered in Coeur d”Alene, Idaho May 15 and 16, 2008.

As in other McCarran adjudications in which we are involved, issues expected to be included will be federal including Indian, Forest Service and Reclamation issues; instream including hydro, water quality, and endangered species issues; and state issues including municipal, water district, and individual claims. It is likely that in all adjudications, the best water attorneys will be picked up early and conflicted out quickly. Speaker Steven C. Moore, a staff attorney for the Native American Rights Fund out of Boulder, Colorado, quoted Professor Drew Kershen at the University of Oklahoma College of Law stating “A good water rights case can be willed to your kids.”

We suggest that our clients and potential clients contact us early to prepare and review potential claims BEFORE the claim is filed.

An historic agreement has been reached in a dispute over water in the Rio Grande Project. It has taken 29 years in a process stagnated by several lawsuits to prepare an operating agreement negotiated between the Bureau of Reclamation, Elephant Butte Irrigation District (EBID), and the El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1. No previous operating agreement has been signed by either of these districts. Rather, they have been complying with the Bureau’s requests and procedures on a yearly basis. In working to negotiate the new operating agreement, EBID used the “Managing for Excellence” report prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation to guide settlement discussions.

The Managing for Excellence Plan was created in response to a comprehensive report regarding the Bureau’s construction and infrastructure, prepared by the National Research Council and the National Academy of Sciences. Ultimately, the principles outlined in the Managing for Excellence report helped to develop an agreement which aims to increase transparency, cost effectiveness, and efficiency while allowing irrigation districts some independence in their operation. The agreement will also allow regional issues to be addressed and will allow for carryover of conserved water to be stored in project reservoirs on a yearly basis, promoting recreation and allowing upstream storage of water. The agreement is notable not only for resolving this long standing dispute, but also for establishing an interstate agreement between New Mexico and Texas, which could be used as a model for other states.

To read the full operating agreement visit http://ebid-nm.org/static/pdf/opag/opag.pdf.
To learn more about other water issues like this visit the Family Farm Alliance at http://www.familyfarmalliance.org/ and click on the Water Review Link.

Armenia’s Public Services Regulatory Commission (PSRC) has suggested that new operator contracts with Yerevan Water require provisions requiring audit controls. Given some commentator’s thoughts on the management failures of the present agreements this request is not surprising.

Providing contract requirements for audits is not uncommon. However, determining what audit level is appropriate for a domestic water utility management contract is not easy. Regardless, it is a necessity. Comprehensive management audits can cost upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars so selecting appropriate management criteria to limit output is critical to obtaining a true picture of management. As Armenia moves forward with new contracts between the Joint State-Controlled Stock Companies, it will be interesting to note, not if, but what auditing mechanisms will be selected.

The government of Armenia is inaugurating a new president on Wednesday, April 9, at 2 in the afternoon. Large crowds are expected in the downtown area in connection with the official events, which will include a military procession through Freedom Square and evening festivities at Republic Square.

It is not expected that much dramatic change will occur in Armenia with the inauguration. However, the Presidential election process, has substantially delayed our efforts to complete the revisions to the water code and place it before the legislative assembly for adoption.

In addition to the process delay, the State Committee has “filibustered” revisions to the water code involving sections of the water code related to dam inspection and safety, the transfer of the water system use permit, and the authorities of the Public Services Regulatory Commission (PSRC) as to the issuance of the water system use permit (WSUP). The WSUP permit is issued in Armenia to those operators who hold management or lease contracts with the State Committee acting through a joint stock company for operations of the water system. In most cases, the joint stock ownership is 51% to the State Committee and 49% to the local government “owning” the water system facilities.

Thus, the State Committee does not want revisions to the Water Code that would make it “beholding” in the sense of WSUP requirements or conditions for system inspections, control of tariff setting (and therefore “income” to the Operator), or other regulatory controls necessary to protect the public that the PSRC would hold if the water code revisions were adopted. If the State Committee continues to “filibuster” these changes, a ministry level committee is in charge of resolving any remaining issues to the revisions. This committee is scheduled to meet April 18th.

Armenia’s current water code requires a water system use permit (WSUP) without exception for any system of facilities. The WSUP is issued by the Public Services Regulatory Commission (PSRC). It has been suggested municipalities and small community water associations that own and operate their own domestic water delivery system should be exempt from the requirement for a WSUP. The major reason for the exemption would be to prevent dual regulation, ie regulation by the locals and also by the state through the PSRC. In addition, where access to the local person operating the water system can be made by “visiting with the neighbor across the street”, consumer and often times operator are one and the same. In such circumstances over arching state regulation is not required.

Since the PSRC has not enforced the WSUP requirement against the locals, the need for changes in the present water code may be overlooked at present. The real reason in fact may be that very few local delivery schemes exist (except rurally). Armenia’s urban population receives water services by conveying their water facilities to the State in return for a 49% in a joint stock company controlled by the State which owns a 51% share. The stock company then contracts with a third party operator for water services.

These Company-Operator contracts are “issues of public importance.” As such, the Prime Minister of Armenia appoints a Commission to develop and approve these contracts. Since the Yerevan Jur contract is up for tender in October 2008, it is expected that a Commission will be appointed soon. This Commission may well set the stage for the four other water companies who exist in Armenia who will also need new tenders in the near future. This process of developing the new contract for Yerevan Jur may well set the stage to move further into water sector privatization or not.