At the end of 2018, the Oregon Water Resources Commission adopted new rules to facilitate small municipal water suppliers’ completion of Water Management and Conservation Plans (“WMCP”). The Oregon Water Resources Department (“OWRD”) stated the new Oregon Administrative Rules (“OAR”), OAR 690-086-0300 to 0370, are intended to provide more flexibility for small municipal water suppliers to meet water conservation and curtailment objectives. Small municipal water suppliers in turn hope the new rules will reduce complexity to lessen the financial and staffing challenges previously associated with completing a WMCP.

WMCPs are only required to be submitted to OWRD if required by a water right permit condition, a Final Order approving a permit extension of time, or a Final Order approving a previous WMCP. While WMCPs are otherwise optional, OWRD encourages submission as a way to pursue long term water supply planning.

A Small Municipal Water Supplier is defined under the new OARs as: (1) a municipal water supplier that serves a population of less than 1,000 people or has less than 300 service connections, and (2) within the previous 5 years, the system’s maximum daily demand or maximum instantaneous rate, has not exceeded 2 million gallons per day or 3.1 cubic feet per second.[1] If a water supplier satisfies that definition, then it may be able to complete an “Alternate Municipal WMCP” in accordance with the new OARs.

Rather than submitting a regular WMCP, an Alternate Municipal WMCP may be submitted by a Small Municipal Water Supplier, if in order to meet current and projected demand in the next 10 years the supplier will not need to:

• Acquire a new water right; or
• Expand or initiate diversion of water allocated under an Extended Permit.[2]

Another notable change in the WMCP OARs is the revision to the annual Water Audit provisions. If a Municipal Water Supplier notes Water Losses exceed 10 percent within 2 years of approval of its WMCP, the supplier must undertake steps to explain the losses and remedy the situation.[3] However, Small Municipal Water Suppliers completing an annual Water Audit need only remedy losses if the Water Losses exceed 15 percent and the supplier serves a population greater than 300 people or has more than 100 service connections.[4]

Therefore, Small Municipal Water Suppliers that must soon complete a WMCP should determine whether an Alternate Municipal WMCP is appropriate, and what impact the new OARs will have on the supplier as it completes its WMCP. Schroeder Law Offices frequently works with municipal water suppliers and consultants to ensure WMCPs comply with the OARs and to assist in obtaining OWRD’s approval.

[1] OAR 690-086-0030(8).

[2] OAR 690-086-0300(1).

[3] OAR 690-086-0150(4)(e).

[4] OAR 690-086-0350(4)(e).

In 2013, the Oregon legislature adopted Senate Bill 838, which imposed a five year moratorium on motorized mining techniques in rivers and streams designated as essential salmon habitat.[1] A group of mining companies, a mining district, and individual miners with mining claims on federal lands in Oregon who use motorized mining techniques called “suction dredge mining” sued the State of Oregon.[2]

While the litigation progressed, the Oregon legislature passed Senate Bill 3, which repealed Senate Bill 838; however, the litigation continued as a challenge to Senate Bill 3. Senate Bill 3 imposes a permanent restriction on the use of motorized mining equipment in waters classified as “essential anadromous salmonid habitat,” which is defined as “the habitat that is necessary to prevent the depletion of indigenous and anadromous salmonid species during their life history stages of spawning and rearing.”[3] The restriction in Senate Bill 3 only applies within rivers and streams and does not extend onto the banks of the waterways.[4]

Bureau of Land Management regulations issued under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act require mining operators comply with applicable state environmental laws that do not conflict with federal law.[5] The regulations also state there is no conflict between state and federal law when the state law requires a higher standard of protection for public lands than does the federal law.[6]

While “reasonable environmental regulation” may be imposed by state law on federal lands, the miners argued Senate Bill 3 is preempted by federal law because it is: (1) a state land use planning law, not an environmental regulation; (2) “prohibitory, not regulatory, in its fundamental character;” and (3) not a reasonable environmental regulation.[7] The miners asserted Senate Bill 3 is a land use planning law rather than environmental regulation because it prohibits a specific use of the land in particular zones.[8]

The District Court of Oregon’s grant of Summary Judgment in favor of the State of Oregon was appealed and heard by a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court determined the Federal Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 declared that a policy of the U.S. is to develop an “economically sound and stable domestic mining” industry, but subject to “environmental needs.”[9] The Court ruled Senate Bill 3 is an environmental regulation, not a land use planning law, and it has a specific environmental purpose: to protect sensitive fish habitat.[10] Additionally, the Court found Senate Bill 3 is not a prohibitory regulation that violates federal law because it does not completely prohibit all mining activities on federal lands.[11] Finally, the Court found Senate Bill 3 reasonably restricted mining activities in waters on federal land to protect essential salmonid habitat because it only regulated certain types of mining and in certain waters.[12]

Judge Smith dissented from the majority opinion, asserting that Senate Bill 3 is a land use regulation since it “does not identify an environmental standard to be achieved” and prohibits all motorized mining operations irrespective of the miner’s compliance with state and federal environmental standards, including the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act.[13]

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

[1] Bohmker v. Oregon, __ F.3d __, 5 (9th Cir. 2018).

[2] Id. at 7.

[3] Id. at 7-8 (quoting ORS 196.810(1)(g)(B)).

[4] Id. at 9, fn 2.

[5] Id. at 21-22 (citing 43 C.F.R. § 3809.3).

[6] Id.

[7] Id. at 27.

[8] Id. at 30.

[9] Id. at 17 (quoting 30 U.S.C. § 21a).

[10] Id. at 27-28.

[11] Id. at 50.

[12] Id. at 53-54.

[13] Id. at 64, 67-68.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“agencies”)  issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to seek additional comments on the repeal of the 2015 “waters of the United States” rule under the Clean Water Act (“2015 WOTUS Rule”).

In July 2017, the agencies first issued a notice of a proposed rulemaking to repeal the 2015 WOTUS Rule. On February 6, 2018, the agencies published a final rule in the Federal Register adding an applicability date of February 6, 2020 to the 2015 WOTUS Rule, but at that time the agencies did not repeal the 2015 WOTUS Rule. The applicability date of February 6, 2020, makes it such that the pre-2015 regulatory definition of waters of the United States will be in effect until February 6, 2020 or until the 2015 WOTUS Rule is repealed. For additional background, see Schroeder Law Offices blog post, available here.

The agencies issued the supplemental notice to provide the public an opportunity to comment on additional agency considerations to support the repeal of the 2015 WOTUS Rule that were not discussed in the July 2017 notice of proposed rulemaking. The supplemental notice also aims to clarify that the agencies’ July 2017 proposal would completely and permanently repeal the 2015 WOTUS Rule in its entirety, replacing it with the pre-2015 regulatory definition.[1]

The supplemental notice also provides an additional comment period for interested parties to consider new factors and reasoning the agencies recently published as further support for the agencies’ decision to consider repealing the 2015 WOTUS Rule.[2] The additional information and comment period provided by the supplemental notice may also be designed to strengthen the July 2017 rulemaking process as any final rule will inevitably be challenged in a lawsuit.[3]

While the pre-2015 waters of the United States regulatory definition is in effect, the agencies will draft a new regulatory framework to define “waters of the United States.” The agencies will then publish a proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register to adopt a new definition.[4]

The public has 30 days to comment on the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. The comment period closes August 13, 2018.

[1] EPA New Release, EPA and Army Seek Additional Public Comment on ‘Waters of the U.S.’ Repeal (June 29, 2018) https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-and-army-seek-additional-public-comment-waters-us-repeal.

[2] Environmental Protection Agency, Definition of Waters of the United States-Recodification of Preexisting Rule, 83 Fed. Reg. 32,227 (July 12, 2018) https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0203-15104.

[3] Juan Carlos Rodriguez, EPA, Corps Expand Legal Case Against Obama Water Rule, Law360 (June 29, 2018) available at https://www.law360.com/articles/1059064/epa-corps-expand-legal-case-against-obama-water-rule.

[4] EPA, Waters of the United States (WOTUS) Rulemaking, https://www.epa.gov/wotus-rule/step-two-revise.

While the negotiation of U.S. international treaties has been in the news lately, the renegotiation of an international treaty of particular importance to the Pacific Northwest has not received much coverage. However, May 29-30, 2018 marked the first round of negotiations between the U.S. and Canada in the effort to renegotiate the Columbia River Treaty.

Notably, May 30, 2018 also marked the 70th anniversary of the historic Vanport flood that wiped out a town of approximately 18,000 residents situated between Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington.[1] On that day in 1948, the Columbia River crested at Portland to fifteen feet above its flood plain and breached the embankment protecting Vanport, which just years earlier was Oregon’s second largest town.[2] While the town of Vanport no longer exists, one of the many legacies of the devastating flood is the Columbia River Treaty and its flood control provisions.

 A Columbia River Treaty between the U.S. and Canada was seriously considered beginning in 1944, but it was not until 1960 that the U.S. and Canada began negotiating the Treaty, which was signed in 1961 and took effect in 1964. The Treaty has no specific end date, but 2024 is the earliest either party may terminate the Treaty and to do so, the party must provide a minimum of 10 years written notice of termination.

The impetus for renegotiating now is that the assured annual flood control procedures in the Treaty will end after 2024 whether or not the Treaty is terminated.[3] After 2024, on-call flood control measures will apply requiring the U.S. to ask Canada to store water after the U.S. has used all available flood control space in U.S. reservoirs.[4] These on-call procedures have been referred to by Oregon and Washington’s Congressional Representatives Peter DeFazio and Cathy McMorris Rodgers as “ad hoc, unplanned” and with the likely potential to cause uncertainty and international disputes.[5]

The Canadian storage created by the Columbia River Treaty includes 15.5 million acre-feet of water in the upper reaches of the Columbia, including the storage behind Libby Dam, which sits near the U.S. and Canada border in Montana and created Lake Koocanusa, a reservoir that backs up 42 miles into British Columbia. While the U.S. benefits from the flood control measures, both countries realize a benefit from the power generated. However, the Treaty was not written specifically to provide water for irrigation or fish subsistence.[6]

Both Canada and the U.S. have spent recent years studying the effects of the Treaty and the various issues that will serve as levers in the negotiation to balance the current and future needs of both countries. These studies ultimately led both countries to consult with stakeholders in their regions and to issue regional recommendations that will serve as the basis for renegotiating the Treaty.[7]

While neither county has given notice of termination, the entities began renegotiating the Treaty on May 29-30, 2018. The next scheduled negotiation is August 15-16, 2018. [8] The renegotiation of the Columbia River Treaty will be important for Pacific Northwest irrigators and water users as the eventual revisions to the Treaty will likely: impact future reservoir storage, alter the timing of reservoir releases, take into account ecological and fish impacts of the Columbia River Power System, and effect utility rates for all electricity customers.

[1] Michael N. McGregor, The Vanport Flood, The Oregon History Project: Oregon Historical Society (Mar. 17, 2018) available at https://oregonhistoryproject.org/articles/essays/the-vanport-flood/#.WxhNxkgvyUm.

[2] Carl Abbott, Vanport, The Oregon Encyclopedia: Oregon Historical Society (Mar. 17, 2018) available at https://oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/vanport/#.WxhNwUgvyUn.

[3] Northwest Power & Conservation Council, Columbia River Treaty, available at https://www.nwcouncil.org/reports/columbia-river-history/columbiarivertreaty.

[4] Id.

[5] Cathy McMorris Rodgers & Peter DeFazio, Modernizing our Columbia River Treaty, OregonLive (Mar. 14, 2018) available at http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2018/03/peter_defazio_modernizing_our.html#article.

[6] Columbia River Treaty.

[7] Id.

[8] U.S. Dept. of State, Press Release: On the Opening of Negotiations to Modernize the Columbia River Treaty Regime (May 30, 2018) available at https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2018/05/282867.htm.

Every year there are significant cases that affect water resources law, as well as administrative and legislative actions that impact the use of the water resource. We endeavor to stay apprised of such changes and the impacts such changes will have on our clients and the industries in which our clients work. As a part of such work, Schroeder Law Offices’ Portland attorneys wrote the 2017 Oregon Year in Review for the Water Resources chapter of the American Bar Association’s Environment, Energy, and Resources Law: The Year in Review 2017 publication.

The American Bar Association works with local attorneys in every state to determine the notable changes or occurrences affecting water resources in their state, from a legal perspective, and then publishes those updates in their annual Energy, Environment, and Resources Law Year in Review publication. The Year in Review 2017, Water Resources chapter is available here: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/yir/2017/YIR17_24_wr.authcheckdam.pdf.

The entire publication is available here: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/yir/2017/YIR17_final.authcheckdam.pdf

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a U.S. District Court opinion requiring the Army Corps of Engineers to increase spill at dams on the Federal Columbia River Power System (“FCRPS”) to the maximum spill levels that still meet total dissolved gas criteria allowed under state law. The increased spills required by the District Court’s order and affirmed by the Court of Appeals began on April 3, 2018. The Court of Appeals’ decision is available here.

The Court of Appeals’ decision in National Wildlife Federation v. National Marine Fisheries Service is the most recent decision in this case, which has been ongoing since 2000. The decision stems from a challenge to the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (“NMFS”) 2014 Biological Opinion (“BiOp”) that concluded operation of the FCRPS dams would jeopardize salmon and steelhead species (“listed species”) listed under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). Because NMFS’s BiOP concluded operation of the FCRPS dams would jeopardize the listed species, pursuant to NFMS responsibilities under the ESA, NFMS proposed an alternative action that included, among other measures, some spill over the FCRPS dams as a means to avoid jeopardizing the listed species.

However, in 2016 the District Court found NMFS’ violated the Endangered Species Act when NMFS concluded the alternative in the 2014 BiOp did not jeopardize the listed species. The District Court gave NMFS until March 1, 2018 to issue a new BiOp. (This deadline was later extended to December 31, 2018.) However, in January 2017, the plaintiffs moved for injunctive relief, requesting the District Court order additional spill at the maximum level from April through June at dams along the FCRPS. In April 2017, the District Court granted plaintiffs’ injunctions and ordered increased spills to take effect April 3, 2018. The District Court’s decision was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals issued its decision upholding the District Court’s order requiring increased spills on April 2, 2018, the day before the increased spills were to begin. The Court of Appeals found the District Court did not err under the ESA in finding the plaintiffs had shown the listed species would suffer irreparable harm sufficient to order the increased spill. Nor did the Court of Appeals find it error that the District Court analyzed the harm that would be caused to the listed species in operation of the FCRPS dams as a whole, rather than focusing only on the spill related components of the BiOp alternative NMFS selected.

As irrigation season begins in the areas of the Columbia and Snake Rivers that rely on the water flowing through the FCRPS, and as the increased spills begin to take effect, some congressional leaders in the affected states are attempting a congressional solution to negate the effects of the court decisions. House Bill 3144, introduced by Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) in June 2017, reported out of the House Committee on Natural Resources on April 11, 2018. It remains to be seen if and when H.R. 3144 may be scheduled to be heard on the floor of the House of Representatives; however, the Court of Appeals’ decision has, and any outcomes from H.R. 3144 will have, immediate impacts on water rates and utility rates for irrigators and residents throughout the Pacific Northwest. H.R. 3144 is available here.

(Photo: Lake Koocanusa, Libby, MT)

Hydropower relicensing and compliance has become a process of constant adaptation and engagement, both with regulatory agencies and with stakeholders. Both adaptation in the licensing and relicensing process and engagement early and frequently helps hydropower facilities better anticipate and adapt to a regulatory process that undergoes many changes in the life of a hydropower license and even in the multiple years (or decades) it can take for relicensing.

Common themes at the Northwest Hydroelectric Association Conference last week in Portland included the importance of engagement with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) when undertaking relicensing, even in pre-filing phases, to determine the scope of a facility’s study plan. This focus on engagement with FERC is largely driven by the Integrated Licensing Process that requires more pre-filing consultation and involvement with FERC and other resource agencies and stakeholders, such as Indian Tribes, rather than the Traditional Licensing Approach in which review and consultation are a sequential process.

Not only is engagement critical, and now required by FERC, but it helps hydropower projects better adapt to changing natural resource protection requirements during the relicensing process. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance continues to require extensive analysis in the pre-filing process to conduct scoping with FERC and the resource agencies. Throughout the regulatory workshop, participants emphasized that hydropower facilities’ staff can effectively manage issues, such as invasive species, and will have a better grasp of their license conditions to ensure compliance with and adaptability to license conditions once a license is issued if there is engagement.

A jury recently decided in Malheur County Circuit Court Case #16CV32005 that local farmers, Delos & Barbara Lee, were entitled to the lost profits they incurred when Owyhee Irrigation District (“OID”) failed in 2014 to deliver the Lees their entire allocation of water and delivered their 2015 allocation in late July. The jury decided OID was negligent based on a computer error that caused the Lees to receive the improper allocations of water.

The Lees grow alfalfa and have farmed in the Oregon Slope area their entire lives. The Lees discovered OID’s computer error in late 2015 after complaining to OID beginning in 2014 that even though they had timely paid their yearly assessments for water delivery, they were not receiving their full water allocation. While there was a drought in 2014 and 2015 that reduced water allocations throughout OID, the failure to deliver even the reduced allocation to the Lees’ 39 acre field caused their hay stand and hay production to suffer more than would otherwise have occurred if the Lees had received the reduced allocation of water.

In late July 2015, OID admitted that it failed to deliver any of the water allocated to the Lees’ 39 acre field in 2014 and had yet to deliver the 2015 water allocation. After its admission, OID then delivered water to the Lees, but it was too late for the Lees’ hay stand to produce as it would have otherwise. At trial, the jury found OID’s failure to deliver and failure to timely deliver water made OID negligent and awarded judgment in favor of the Lees for the entire amount of Lees’ lost profits.

Unfortunately, the judgment will not “make the Lees whole” due to the expense of the case going to trial rather than settling. Additionally, OID has now decided to appeal the decision to the Oregon Court of Appeals. OID argued at trial, and may take up a similar argument on appeal, that a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (“BOR”) Repayment Contract from 1951 between the BOR and OID, along with other irrigation districts, makes OID wholly immune from liability even when OID failed to deliver water to the Lees when the water was allocated and available for delivery. The BOR repayment contract is a contract for the irrigation districts to repay the BOR for the construction obligations incurred to build the Owyhee Project.

Schroeder Law Offices was privileged to have the opportunity to work with the Lees to hold OID accountable for its failure to deliver water that was available, paid for, and allocated to the Lees.

The Oregon Water Resources Department (“OWRD”) issued amended rules designating the Walla Walla subbasin as a Serious Water Management Problem Area (“SWMPA”).[1] The amended rules, filed on May 22, 2017, specify new groundwater permits will not be issued in the SWMPA and new groundwater uses will only be allowed for the statutorily exempt uses outlined in Oregon Revised Statutes (“ORS”) 537.545.[2] Some of the statutorily exempt uses for which groundwater may be used, as outlined in ORS 537.545, include stockwatering purposes, watering a one-half acre lawn or noncommercial garden, single or group domestic purposes not exceeding 15,000 gallons per day, or a commercial purpose in an amount not exceeding 5,000 gallons a day.

The SWMPA designation applies to the areas shown on the map accompanying the revised Oregon Administrative Rules (“OAR”).[3] Any already existing groundwater well that is drilled into the basalt and develops groundwater from the Columbia River Basalt Group will be required to install a totalizing flow meter on their well by January 1, 2019.[4] The totalizing flow meter measures and displays both the instantaneous flow rate of groundwater produced from the well and the total volume of groundwater produced from the well. The water right holder, well owner, or well operator will also be required to keep a complete record of the volume of water appropriated each month and submit an annual report of those water use measurements to OWRD.

OWRD implemented the new rules because it has tracked that groundwater levels have dropped by up to four feet per year in the deeper basalt aquifer and by about 100 feet over the past 80 years in the deeper basalt aquifer. The stated policy behind the new rules is to attempt to prevent the declining groundwater levels from growing worse and to ensure enough water is available for senior water use right holders. While some drillers and water users have concerns that OWRD did not consider the possibility that additional water is available in deeper basalt levels, some water use right holders have stated they are glad OWRD is taking steps to protect the resource.[5]

An additional concern was that the Walla Walla Subbasin spans the border between Oregon and Washington and that any action taken by Oregon water users to preserve the resource could be undermined by Washington; however, the two states advise that they have been working together to ensure neither state’s water usage undermines the water savings of the other state. OWRD also plans to work with the local community in the Milton-Freewater area to implement a voluntary, long-term water plan.

This is the first SWMPA established in Oregon.

[1] Or. Admin. R. 690-507-0030.

[2] Or. Admin. R. 690-507-0030(3).

[3] Or. Admin. R. 690-507-0030, Exhibit Map 507-1, available at http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/LAW/docs/law/690_507_Exhibitmaps_2017_May_22.pdf.

[4] Or. Admin. R. 690-5070-0030(4).

[5] Mateusz Perkowski, New Agricultural Wells Prohibited in Oregon’s Walla Walla Subbasin, East Oregonian (May 18, 2017) http://www.eastoregonian.com/eo/local-news/20170518/new-agricultural-wells-prohibited-in-oregons-walla-walla-subbasin

The Oregon Water Resources Department’s (“OWRD”) requires water suppliers to submit Water Management and Conservation Plans (“WMCP”) as part of its integrated resource management strategy. WMCPs are required when a municipal water supplier requests new water use permits or permit extensions.[1] Municipal water suppliers serving more than 1,000 people must prepare WMCPs to describe the municipality’s sources of water, to determine the need for increased diversions of water under their permits as their demands grow, and to explain how the water supplier will manage their water supplies to meet future needs.

Currently, WMCPs must include: a municipal water supplier description, a conservation element, a municipal water curtailment element, and a municipal water supply element, among other items.[2] A water supplier has two years to submit a WMCP after a new water use permit has been issued and three years after issuance of a final order approving a permit extension of time.[3]

A WMCP must include a schedule of water conservation measures with five year benchmarks for implementation of those activities, which must then be reported to OWRD.[4] The conservation element includes: conducting an annual water audit for the system, implementing a program to install meters on all un-metered water service connections, a meter testing and maintenance program, a rate program based on quantity of water metered, a systematic program to detect leaks, a public education program to encourage efficient water use, and if the water supplier proposes to expand or initiate diversion of water under an extended permit, a description of such activities.[5]

If a water supplier submits a permit extension request for the permit to be issued for quasi-municipal use and the service population is less than 1,000 (“Small Municipal Water Suppliers” or “SMWS”) or the supplier demonstrates they will apply water to full beneficial use under the permit in less than five years, then a WMCP may not be required, though OWRD has discretion to require a WMCP. As one might imagine, the requirements to submit a WMCP have become burdensome for SMWS, imposing financial and staffing strains. In addition, the criteria of the WMCPs are not always applicable to the SMWS. This burden was acknowledged by OWRD at its May 11, 2017 meeting before the Oregon Water Resources Commission meeting at which OWRD proposed adding new rules to Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 690, Division 86 to allow SMWS to submit a WMCP tailored to small municipalities.

To decrease the burden to SMWS, OWRD announced it will be proposing a new rule allowing SMWS to submit a WMCP that will require less detail and analysis than the current WMCPs. OWRD noted that SMWS will still be required to demonstrate water is being used responsibly, that emergency plans are in place, and that the supplier understands water rights and diversion amounts. OWRD will convene a Rules Advisory Committee this fall or summer, at which time further proposed changes to the WMCPs and the impact of those changes on SMWS will become clearer.

[1] Or. Admin. R. 690-315-0090.

[2] Or. Admin. R. 690-086-0125.

[3] Oregon Water Resources Dept., Water Management and Conservation Plans: A Guidebook for Oregon Municipal Water Suppliers, 2d. ed. (Mar. 2015) available at http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/docs/wmcp_guidebook.pdf.

[4] Or. Admin. R. 690-086-0130.

[5] Or. Admin. R. 690-086-0160.

The Oregon Task Force on Drought Emergency Response met throughout 2016 to propose statewide recommendations to address current and future water shortages throughout the State. One of the task force’s recommendations has been embodied in House Bill 3051,[1] which has garnered support from Democrats and Republicans alike.

H.B. 3051 will help pay for the installation, repair, and replacement of measuring devices on authorized diversions and points of appropriation to measure groundwater use. The bill authorizes the use of the Water Measurement Cost Share Program Revolving Fund, which has been available since 2000 to incentivize surface water users to measure their water use, to now fund the installation or replacement of groundwater measuring devices.

This is a voluntary system that allows the Oregon Water Resources Department (“OWRD”) to work with landowners to install measuring devices at their points of appropriation or points of diversion. Additionally, the fund can pay up to seventy-five percent of the cost of installing the measuring device.

The widespread support for this bill stems from a desire to protect priority of water rights through improving the amount of information about groundwater use available to OWRD. OWRD uses this type of groundwater use data to better understand the availability of water in a basin, to determine how much water is available for withdrawal, and to better manage any interference between junior and senior groundwater users.

H.B. 3051 passed out of the Oregon House of Representatives on April 3, 2017 and has been referred to the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee.

[1] https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Measures/Overview/HB3051 

Oregon Legislative Updates

A drought task force, authorized in 2016 by the Oregon Legislature, submitted their year-end report[1] to the Governor in November discussing how Oregon can better anticipate and adapt to increasingly common years of drought. Specifically, the report encourages the State to review the drought declaration process to better assist with drought response, to help communities with preparedness and resiliency, and to evaluate management options for stored water to better address instream and out-of-stream needs.

The Oregon Water Resources Department (“OWRD”) also extended reservations of water for future economic development in the Hood Basin, the Grande Ronde Basin, the Burnt River Basin, the Malheur Basin, and the Owyhee River Basin.         

Governor’s Office Updates

The Governor’s Office’s strategic initiatives for 2017 emphasize investing in water infrastructure to improve resilience and growth. Despite the decreased allocation of money to OWRD from the general fund budget, OWRD anticipates continued investment for development of instream and out-of-stream water supplies and for capital investment in sewage and water systems.

Cannabis Legalization on Water Usage

The passage of Measure 91 in Oregon has led to an increase in cannabis cultivation, part of which requires individuals who were growing cannabis before Measure 91, as well as new cannabis growers, to apply for water rights to irrigate their crop. However, only state water rights, not federal water rights, such as those under a Bureau of Reclamation contract, may be applied to irrigate cannabis. Federal water rights may be used to grow cannabis if the water is delivered from an irrigation district under a Bureau of Reclamation contract and is commingled with water under a state water right. An additional challenge is that water rights to grow cannabis will likely require a year-round water right and not simply a traditional irrigation season water right.

Upcoming Adjudications

With the Klamath Basin adjudication largely completed, OWRD announced it plans to begin adjudication of the Deer Creek Basin east of Roseburg in late 2016. OWRD will also begin two to four small adjudications in the South Coast Basin in late 2016 or early 2017.

Water Rights Auditing in Real Estate Transactions

The first day of the seminar wrapped up with a panel emphasizing the importance of determining the validity and extent of any water right that is part of a real estate transaction. The panel encouraged anyone involved in a transaction that includes water rights to request the files for any associated water rights from the applicable state department, such as OWRD or the Washington State Department of Ecology. This type of analysis is offered by Schroeder Law Offices at a flat fee. We encourage our clients to contact us for this service before any issue arises!

[1] https://www.oregon.gov/owrd/docs/HB4113/Draft_Final_Task_Force_Report_11_1_2016_Final.pdf.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bonneville Power Administration, and the Bureau of Reclamation (“federal agencies”) are engaged in a five year process to analyze the effects of the Federal Columbia River Power System on salmonid species. In May 2016, District Court Judge Michael Simon found the federal agencies had violated the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.[1] Specifically, Judge Simon said the federal agencies erred in failing to manage the Federal Columbia River Power System with strategies beyond the hydro-mitigation efforts that failed in the past.

Therefore, the Judge ordered the federal agencies to develop a new biological opinion to address: 1) mitigation measures to avoid jeopardy to salmonid species; 2) development of a Biological Opinion that complies with the Endangered Species Act; and 3) development of an Environmental Impact Statement that complies with the National Environmental Policy Act and addresses the impact of the Snake River dams on salmonid species. In his opinion, Judge Simon suggested a proper analysis should include considering breaching, bypassing, or removing the Lower Snake River dams.

The federal agencies will hold public scoping meetings around Washington, Idaho, and Oregon in the next weeks, in addition to two webinars.[2] Written comments will also be accepted until January 17, 2017. The meetings will be held from 4-7 PM as follows:

• November 29th, Boise, Idaho
• December 1st, Seattle, Washington
• December 6th, The Dalles, Oregon
• December 7th, Portland, Oregon
• December 8th, Astoria, Oregon

The scoping meetings are an important way for stakeholders to help the federal agencies narrow the issues and focus on key concerns. After the time period for the scoping meetings, the federal agencies will prepare a draft environmental impact statement that will be available for public comment.[3] The federal agencies must respond to all substantive comments on the draft environmental impact statement.

It is recommended that parties interested in the outcome of the federal agencies’ decision attend a scoping meeting and make comments. If an interested party later wants to challenge the federal agencies’ decision that a certain alternative should have been analyzed in the NEPA document, the court may not hear the concern.

Written comments may be made in person at one of the scoping meetings, submitted via mail, via email, or through the federal agencies’ online portal. Information about how to submit such comments is available at www.crso.info. 

[1] Nat’l Wildlife Federation v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59195 (D. Or. 2016).

[2] www.crso.info

[3] 40 C.F.R § 1502.9

The American Water Works Association (AWWA), Pacific Northwest Section’s October meeting focused on seismic resiliency and emergency preparedness by discussing strategies implemented by the Willamette Water Supply Program in building a water delivery system that should withstand a disaster.

The meeting emphasized the importance of building a water supply distribution system on soils that will be less prone to shifting when a disaster, such as an earthquake, strikes. Discussion also ensued relating to a new type of water supply pipe that can withstand ground motion and deformation.

The presentation encouraged all entities in the water delivery sector, no matter at what stage in the water supply distribution process they are involved, to prepare a disaster plan and to develop infrastructure in a way that will withstand the forces of a disaster with minimal damage.

In attending this meeting, it was evident how important it can be to look at not only the minor legal aspects of a client’s current issue, but also to understand and know how the client operates their system. Knowing and understanding the “Big Picture” will allow us to engage in discussions on seismic resiliency and disaster preparedness for our purveyor clients.

The Montana Supreme Court recently issued its decision in the long fraught dispute about exempt groundwater wells. The ruling by the Montana Supreme Court in The Clark Fork Coalition v. Tubbs, will protect the rights of senior water users from exempt groundwater wells that often deplete the amount of available surface water.[1]

The Montana Water Use Act exempts certain groundwater appropriations from the state’s permitting process if the groundwater appropriation pumps below a certain threshold and is applied to a limited area. This type of exemption is common in water use acts in other states, including Oregon and Nevada. However, Montana’s Water Use Act has an exception to the exemption, which requires a permit for any “combined appropriation” from the same source by multiple wells that exceeds 10 acre-feet per year.[2]

In 1993 the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (“DNRC”) amended its 1987 administrative rule, interpreting the term “combined appropriation” within the Water Use Act’s exception to the exemption. The DNRC’s 1993 rule (the rule in effect through the deciding of this case) stated “combined appropriation” means “groundwater developments, that are physically manifold into the same system.”[3] In application, this rule allowed groundwater wells to be drilled and as long as the appropriator did not connect the wells, even though the wells drew water from the same source, the appropriator could avoid obtaining permits for the wells and could end up appropriating a limitless amount of water from the same source.

The Montana Supreme Court determined the DNRC’s rule interpreting the term “combined appropriation” in the Montana Water Use Act improperly allowed these infinite withdrawals from the same source. The Montana Supreme Court recognized that the purpose of the Montana Water Use Act is to protect senior water right users from appropriation by junior water right users when there is not enough water physically available. Therefore, the Montana Supreme Court invalidated the 1993 rule and determined the DNRC must issue a new rule reflecting the need to recognize the effect that multiple wells drawing from the same source have on other water appropriators.

Many states, like Montana, have exemptions that allow groundwater wells to be drilled for specific purposes without going through any sort of permitting process to determine if the well will have an effect on water availability in the region. Additionally, many states, Nevada being one, continue to manage groundwater and surface water as two separate systems, rather than through conjunctive management. The failure to recognize the interconnectedness of groundwater and surface water and the cumulative effect of exempt wells on water availability in a region leads to over appropriation and fails to protect senior appropriators.

Conjunctive management is continuing to gain more traction; however, there is still much discussion about how states can implement this new management approach. Schroeder Law Offices Shareholder Therese Ure will be adding her voice to the conversation at the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage’s World Irrigation Forum in Thailand, November 6th – 12th. Attorney Ure’s paper that was accepted for the Forum discusses Nevada’s failure to conjunctively manage its groundwater and surface water systems, including the effects of mine dewatering in such a disjunctive system and suggestions for creating a “dynamic” system of water management.

Make sure to stay tuned to Schroeder Law Offices’ Water Blog for more news about the upcoming World Irrigation Forum!

[1] The Clark Fork Coalition v. Tubbs, 2016 MT 229 (Mont. 2016).

[2] Mont. Code Ann. 85-2-306(3)(a)(iii).

[3] Admin R. M. 36.12.101(13) (1993).