In 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) issued a joint administrative rule, the “WOTUS Rule,” attempting to define the statutory term “waters of the United States” within the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) in order to more clearly define the agencies’ jurisdiction. Schroeder Law Offices summarized the background and scope of the WOTUS Rule in a 2015 blog. The WOTUS Rule was stayed in 2015. Three year later, and after a ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States, litigation over the WOTUS Rule continues. 

On January 22, 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion, written by Justice Sotomayor, which settled the jurisdictional question of where challenges to the WOTUS Rule must be filed. The Court held that challenges to the WOTUS Rule must occur in federal district court rather than courts of appeals. The case was remanded to the Sixth Circuit and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

This decision by the Supreme Court will likely prolong litigation on the merits of the WOTUS Rule because a decision by a district court for either party is likely to be appealed. Environmentalists have applauded the proposed changes in the rule, while coalitions like the American Farm Bureau Federation and American Petroleum Institute have said the rule will stifle economic growth and add burdensome regulation on farmers and business owners because of expansion of CWA jurisdiction.

On July 27, 2017 the EPA and Corps published a notice of a new proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register. The agencies proposed to replace the stayed 2015 WOTUS Rule with their pre-2015 regulatory procedure. The agencies solicited public comment on the proposed procedure, although, making clear they did not seek public comment on the substance of the pre-2015 rule.

On February 6, 2018, the agencies published the final rule in the Federal Register. The final rule suspends the applicability of the 2015 WOTUS Rule until February 6, 2020. The agencies assert that the suspension of the rule gives agencies the time needed to reconsider the regulatory definition of “waters of the United States.” As reported by Capital Press, the same day the agencies published their final rule a lawsuit was filed by the Attorneys General of New York, California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia in the Southern District of New York. Another lawsuit was filed by numerous environmental groups in Charleston, South Carolina District Court. Both lawsuits challenge the two-year delay in applicability of the WOTUS Rule.

The attorneys general and environmental groups both take the same positions on two issues in their complaints. First, the parties allege the agencies failed to provide meaningful opportunity for public comment in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) because the agencies solicited comments solely on the procedure of the rule, proscribing comment on the substance of the pre-2015 rule. Second, the parties allege the agencies failed to consider all the relevant issues and offer a rational explanation for the suspension of applicability rule, another alleged violation of the APA.

The attorneys general and environmental groups differ in their last claim, however. The attorneys general claim that the CWA does not give the agencies authority to suspend the WOTUS Rule after its effective date passed. The environmental groups claim the agencies violated the APA by failing to publish the pre-2015 rule in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Stay tuned as Schroeder Law Offices brings you updates!

This article was drafted with the assistance of Law Clerk Derek Gauthier, a student at Lewis & Clark Law School.

In November 2017, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) published the Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study, Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment (Study). The purpose of the Study (which can be viewed in its entirety here) is to evaluate the reallocation of 1,590,000 acre-feet of Willamette Valley Project stored water. The Study analyzes current and future water demand in the Willamette basin to determine how the water should be reallocated. The analyzed demand uses include agricultural irrigation, municipal and industrial water supply, and conservation storage for Endangered Species Act listed fish. 

The Corps constructed a series of thirteen federal reservoirs in the middle and upper Willamette Basin beginning in the 1930s. Currently, the water is stored under Bureau of Reclamation water use rights that authorize storage for irrigation. The Corps’ proposal would reallocate 962,800 acre-feet of water to fish and wildlife. This discrete category has been allocated the most water in the draft Study, followed by agricultural irrigation at 253,950 acre-feet, and municipal and industrial with the least at 73,300 acre-feet.

For those keeping score at home, those figures do not add up to the allocated 1,590,000 acre-feet. The Corps chose to earmark 299,950 acre-feet to what the agency is classifying as “joint-use.” Joint use allocation is water that can be assigned to any of the other three discrete categories. Thus, the Corps would simply hold that amount in reserve to accommodate “unforeseeable changes to demand trends.” Simply put, this provides the Corps flexibility in the future to disperse water according to demand while simultaneously allowing the agency to avoid allocating all of the water at the current time.

While everyone can agree more water available for appropriation is a good thing, some are unhappy about the way the Corps has proposed to allocate stored water. The Capital Press reported the Oregon Farm Bureau’s position is that water allocated to agricultural irrigation is “not nearly enough.” 

There is still much uncertainty about what will happen next and how long the process will take before water stored in the Willamette Valley Project is available for appropriation. The Study is currently a draft environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Therefore, the Corps is still in the stage where it is developing and evaluating the alternatives. The comment period on the draft Study closed on January 5, 2018.

If the Corps finds no significant impact from the chosen alternative action in the NEPA process, water will then need to be reallocated to the proposed uses. Because the Bureau of Reclamation currently holds the water right certificates that authorize storage for irrigation, the federal agencies must go through the Oregon Water Resources Department’s transfer review process to change the purposes of use for the Project storage rights.

Only after the water use rights authorizing storage in the Project are transferred to the reallocated uses will the water be available for new appropriations in addition to the current authorized use, irrigation. The reallocation could stimulate a rush to the Oregon Water Resources Department’s office for application submission. As the old adage goes, “the early-bird gets the worm.” More aptly, those ready to file for a water right upon the successful completion of the impending process are more likely to get to obtain a much-coveted water use right from the reallocated storage.

Stay tuned to Schroeder Law Offices’ Water Law Blog as this process unfolds!

This article was drafted with the assistance of Law Clerk Derek Gauthier, a student at Lewis & Clark Law School.

The Oregon Water Resources Department will no longer be issuing water use permits for “nursery operations use” in the Willamette, Sandy, and Goose & Summer Lakes Basins. This decision follows a very long history of the Department’s issuance of nursery operations permits all across the State, including these basins. The Department recently decided to read its Basin Program rules in such a way to not allow this popular and pervasive type of use in these particular basins.

Nursery water use permits are different than irrigation use permits. The “default” characteristics of a nursery use permit include year-round water use, a rate equal to one-fortieth cubic foot per second per acre for containerized nursery plants, and a duty of five acre feet per acre per year for containerized nursery plants. By contrast, irrigation use permits are limited to the “irrigation season” that is typically from March through October, one-eightieth cubic foot per second per acre, and two and a half acre feet per acre (depending on the location). Moreover, irrigation use is limited to artificial application of water to plants, while nursery operations use includes use in nursery facilities for much more than direct application to plants (soil preparation, temperature control, application of chemicals or fertilizers, etc.).

The Department’s Basin Program rules may be found at Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 690 Division 500 and thereafter. Each Basin Program outlines classified water uses that are authorized within the basin, or within particular stream reaches of the basin. None of the Basin Programs specifically classify nursery operations use as an authorized water use. The Basin Programs do, however, classify irrigation and agricultural water use as authorized uses. Nursery use comes under the umbrella of these two types of water uses. As such, the Department issued nursery operations use permits on a regular basis throughout the State.

Division 500 provides definitions that are particular to the Basin Programs that follow. The definition of “irrigation use” in Division 500 is “the use of water for agricultural water use, cranberry use, irrigation, nursery operations use, or temperature control…” However, this definition is limited to specific Basin Programs, excluding the Willamette, Sandy, and Goose & Summer Lakes Basins. As such, Department staff recently informed us that the Department will no longer issue nursery operations use permits in the Willamette Basin. We assume the Department will have the same opinion as to the Sandy and Goose & Summer Lakes Basins. Further, it is possible the Department will also cease issuing cranberry use and/or temperature control permits in all three basins, depending on the specific classifications in the basins.

It will be very important for new applicants in the Willamette, Sandy, and Goose & Summer Lakes Basins to realize the limitations of different types of water uses available to them in different basins, and to clearly articulate all details of the requested water use. In our recent revision of a pending nursery use application in the Willamette Basin, our office drafted the specific water use conditions we were requesting on behalf of our client to ensure no errors occurred during permitting. Costs will also increase if additional fees must be paid to the Department to request multiple uses (such as irrigation and agricultural use) to replace the more “global” nursery operations use applications.

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

Update:

At the beginning of 2018, the Department rethought its position with regard to ceasing nursery use permits in the Willamette, Sandy, and Goose & Summer Lakes Basins. The Department resumed issuing such permits as of the date of this update. It is important to realize how agency policy and interpretation can shift over time, affecting water use rights in Oregon. This is a good example of that phenomenon.

Eastern Oregon is already experiencing above-average snowpack levels for this time of year, reports the Capital Press: link.

This follows above-average snowpack and precipitation reports from the 2016-2017 water year, and looks to be good news for Oregon water users as we continue to climb out of the recent drought. (You may remember seeing the Owyhee Reservoir draining water through the “Ring Gate” or “Glory Hole” in 2017 for the first time since 2011; see the video here.) See also, Natural Resources Conservation Service Oregon Basin Outlook Report (June 1, 2017): link.

The good start to the 2017-2018 water year, combined with carryover storage in some Eastern Oregon storage reservoirs, could even result in water releases for flood control in early 2018, according to the Capital Press.

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

Attorney Sarah Liljefelt and Paralegal Tara Jackson attended the Oregon Ground Water Association’s Fall Convention at the end of October. Tara’s team won fourth place in the annual golf tournament, winning machetes as part of their prize package! Tara also won the women’s long drive; way to go, Tara! Sarah presented at the convention on the topic of groundwater transfer challenges, and received great questions and feedback from attendees.

The Oregon Ground Water Association’s Fall Convention is always a blast with a lot of wonderful folks! Check out the organization at: http://www.ogwasite.org/.

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

Do you remember when extensions of time were approved by the Oregon Water Resources Department routinely with ease? That time was over for municipal water providers years ago (see related article); however, until recently, other permit holders simply faced increasing amounts of application paperwork.  Now, that time may be over for every permit holder. Our office has seen requests for extensions of time receive increased scrutiny from the Department as of late.

Recently, a client applied for their first extension of time after investing substantial resources towards diligent development under their water use permit. The proposed final order approving the extension of time was 13 pages long, discussing every single inquiry from the extension application and whether the client’s response was sufficient. Even though the Department is proposing approval, it is clear that such approval will be more difficult to receive going forward.

Certain factors are of extreme importance for water users hoping to obtain extensions of time for their water use permits. Physical construction must begin and be diligently prosecuted during the time to complete construction under the permit or prior extension period. The Department will closely examine how much physical development of the water system has occurred and the permitee’s reasons for not completing construction. The Department will also evaluate and balance financial investment, market and present demands for water, the amount of water available to satisfy other affected water use rights, scenic waterway flows, and habitat needs of sensitive, threatened or endangered species.

Of additional importance is compliance with permit conditions. If a groundwater use permit requires annual static water level measurements following well construction, it is extremely important that the permittee complies with the condition. The same is true for installation of flow meters, submission of water use reports, and more. The Department may deny an application for extension of time for less than full compliance with all permit terms.

Applications for extensions of time have increased in length and complexity over the years. The current permit extension application is 12 pages long. (Extension of time application forms are available here.) Our office routinely completes extension of time applications for clients. It takes time to provide all the development details and documentation now required by the Department. Do not wait until the day before your permit expires to start your extension application. We recommend seeking assistance one year before your permit or current extension term expires to consider if an extension can be avoided, and, if not, making sure all conditions are met before an extension of time application is filed.

It is more important now than ever to make sure you have all your “ducks in a row” when using water under a permit and seeking an extension of time. Stay tuned to Schroeder Law Office’s Water Law Blog for more news that may affect you!

Law Clerk Jakob Wiley will be presenting on unitization approaches to aquifer governance at the next Groundwater Advisory Committee (“GWAC”) meeting held June 30, 2017. He will be presenting his research on voluntary aquifer governance agreements, focusing on aquifer governance rather than groundwater management. The approach is the topic of his graduate thesis as part of his master’s degree, as well as his portion of an upcoming book co-authored with Dr. Todd Jarvis titled Collective Aquifer Governance: Dispute Prevention for Groundwater and Aquifers through Unitization, currently being prepared for the Cambridge University Press.

Jakob’s presentation will show how groundwater governance has “missed the aquifer for the wells,” focusing attention on groundwater levels and failing to incorporate other aquifer resources, such as storage potential, heat exchange, water quality, or future aquifer uses like carbon sequestration. With some aquifers, the focus may lead to damage to the reservoir (See https://ngwa.confex.com/ngwa/renew08/techprogram/P5225.HTM).

Unitization techniques look at the aquifer as a whole, encourage subsurface exploration, and may create “aquifer communities” that create a regional identity with the aquifer. (See https://www.scribd.com/document/112436071/Jarvis-W-Todd-In-search-of-a-New-Identity-Good-Water-Neighbors). Contract approaches to groundwater governance have been seen internationally, but have yet to be clearly seen in the United States relating to groundwater. (Contract-based approaches are common in other natural resource areas, like the recent Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances for the sage grouse, see http://www.conservationhabitat.org/local-resources/Harney-County-Sage-Grouse-CCAA/36004/). Jakob will bring these examples to the GWAC meeting and present the approach as a possible addition to Oregon’s groundwater governance toolbox.

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

This article was drafted with the assistance of Law Clerk Jakob Wiley, a concurrent student at Oregon State University’s Water Resources Policy and Management graduate program and a law student at the University of Oregon School of Law.

The Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (“ODFW”) filed applications for numerous instream water use rights in the last few months for salmon habitat in the Hood River basin. Instream water use rights in Oregon are held by state agencies for the preservation of a public purpose, like preserving salmon habitat. Beginning in December 1, 2016, ODFW began filing a series of applications with the Oregon Water Resources Department (“OWRD”) in the Hood River basin. The most recent applications were filled May 1, 2017.

ODFW filed similar instream water use applications in the past on various Oregon stream reaches. Such applications have been protested on the grounds that ODFW requested more water than is actually available from the source, that the amount of water requested is more than what is necessary for fish preservation and is not supported by data, injury to senior water users, detriment to the public interest, and more. The amount of water requested in the Hood River basin applications ranges from 10 cubic feet per second (“cfs”) to 175 cfs, depending on the application and time of year.

OWRD’s regulations allow instream water use rights to exceed the volume of water actually available at the source. Instream water use rights may be granted when a stream is already fully appropriated, although regulations state that instream rights may not exceed natural flows. Therefore, should senior water use rights be cancelled in the future, such cancellation would not free up water for new appropriations; rather, the cancelled water use rights would be swallowed by the ODFW instream rights that appropriate more water than is available at the source.

ODFW must provide scientific information used to determine the habitat needs supporting its water use applications. Two scientific methods were used in the recent applications. First, the quantities were determined using the Oregon Method, developed by Thompson in 1972, which determines the theoretical minimum needed for salmon spawning, adult passage, and rearing. (See http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/water/). The method focuses on the shallowest portion of a stream and determines the minimum flow required for salmon habitat needs. Using another study, habitat for the East Fork of the Hood River was determined using river modeling software. (See the draft report at http://www.co.hood-river.or.us/vertical/sites/%7B4BB5BFDA-3709-449E-9B16-B62A0A0DD6E4%7D/uploads/Appendix_C_Instream_Flow_Assessment_Draft_Report.pdf).

While the public comment period has passed for many of the applications, comments may still be submitted for the May 1, 2017 applications (Application Numbers IS 88336, IS 88333, IS 88332) after OWRD issues Initial Reviews for those applications. Anyone may comment on the applications within 30 days of the initial review and public notice. Additionally, protests may be filed after OWRD issues Proposed Final Orders for the applications, and additional applications may still be filed by ODFW.

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

This article was drafted with the assistance of Law Clerk Jakob Wiley, a concurrent student at Oregon State University’s Water Resources Policy and Management graduate program and a law student at the University of Oregon School of Law.

Partner Sarah Liljefelt and Assistant Administrator Kelley Wesson are heading to Olympia, Washington this weekend to race dragon boats with the Oregon Women Lawyers team, the Dragonflies, at the Port of Olympia. The Oregon Women Lawyers Dragonflies is an all-women, competitive dragon boat team made up of attorneys, paralegals, and other legal professionals. The team took bronze at last year’s race, and they are hoping to medal again this year! For more information about the team, visit their website. Come on down to the race if you are in the area. Sarah and Kelley would love to visit with you between race heats.

Last month, attorney Sarah Liljefelt organized a tour of the Whooshh Innovations fish passage structure constructed for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife on the Washougal River. Members of the Oregon State Bar Environmental and Natural Resources Section attended, including attorneys in private practice, working for the State of Oregon, and public interest.

Whooshh has patented new technology that propels fish through a rubber tube fish canon from one location to another in mere seconds, be the end result a truck to haul fish, or to the other side of a dam as a new type of fish passage. Studies have shown that stress on the fish is lesser in the Whooshh system than traditional fish passage, and the cost is only a fraction of renovating a dam for traditional fish passage.

Check out videos of the Whooshh system (and fish flying through the system) at Whooshh’s website: http://www.whooshh.com/.

Stay tuned to Schroeder Law Offices’ Water Law Blog for more news!

California Water Right Ownership Updates Required

The State of California wants to know when you sell or transfer water rights. As part of any land use transaction involving water rights, regulations require landowners to provide notice to the Water Resources Control Board (WRCB) when water rights transfer to new owners.

The WRCB will accept any change of ownership unless the change is challenged. If so, the WRCB will wait to update ownership listings until the dispute is settled outside of the agency.

Notification to WRCB should include information like the application number for the water right, name, and address of the new owner. The notice must also be signed by the previous owner. The process is easy. Forms are available at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ewrims/ownership/. The forms may be sent electronically, by mail, or fax. Questions regarding the forms may be sent to: changerequest@waterboards.ca.gov.

For other states’ recording procedures and requirements, see: http://www.water-law.com/water-rights-articles/water-right-assignment-and-ownership/.

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

This article was drafted with the assistance of Law Clerk Jakob Wiley, a concurrent student at Oregon State University’s Water Resources Policy and Management graduate program and a law student at the University of Oregon School of Law.

The Oregon Water Resources Commission’s (OWRC’s) rulemaking for the Greater Harney Valley Groundwater Area of Concern (Area of Concern) became effective on April 15, 2016. The new regulations limit pending and new applications for groundwater use in the Malheur Basin. Citing concern over lowering groundwater levels in the region, OWRC passed the new regulations to limit new water development until the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) can adequately study the basin’s groundwater. This regulation is a component of the Malheur Basin Program. The drafts, maps, and rules are available at: http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/Pages/law/Department_Rulemaking.aspx.

Over a year ago, OWRD stopped issuing new ground water permits within the Area of Concern. Until the most recent rulemaking, however, no rules were in place allowing OWRD to halt permit processing and issuance. Usually, OWRC will create by rule Critical Groundwater Areas, Groundwater Limited Areas, and Serious Water Management Problem Areas prior to OWRD ceasing to issue new permits.

OWRC can designate Critical Groundwater Areas for multiple reasons, including declining groundwater levels, substantial interference between wells, overdraft of groundwater, or water quality degradation. OWRD must indicate the boundaries of the area and review the designation at least every 10 years. The designation allows OWRD to, for example, close the area to any further appropriation, limit the total withdrawal from the aquifer, and refuse applications for new groundwater permits.

Groundwater Limited Areas limit future appropriations of water to specified uses, but do not restrict existing consumption of water within the area. Serious Water Management Problem Areas allow OWRD to collect usage data from current water use right holders, but not restrict water consumption. These tools are used to collect information and guide future development of water resources in Oregon.

Rather than designating a critical or limited groundwater area, or a serious water management problem area, OWRD addressed the Harney Valley Groundwater Area of Concern by amending the Malheur Basin Program. Basin programs are used by OWRC to guide water right permitting decisions and coordinate with other state agencies. Within basin plans, OWRC may classify the highest and best uses for particular basins and waterways for future uses, including proscribing types of uses available to future applicants.  Oregon’s basin programs are listed in the Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 690, beginning at Division 500, and the Malheur Basin Program is located at Division 510, available at: http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_600/oar_690/690_510.html.

The new regulations for the Greater Harney Valley Groundwater Area of Concern propose to both limit future uses and collect information before OWRD completes a full study of the aquifer, expected to be completed by 2020. The proposed rules received 22 comments, which can be viewed at: http://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/misc/vault/vault.aspx?Type=WrdNotice&notice_item_id=6640. In the meantime, 39 groundwater use applications are pending before OWRD, and these applications will not be approved, unless they meet conditions included in the new basin plan regulations. This is in direct opposition to the rule that applications must be processed based on the laws and regulations in effect at the time of filing, but OWRD is taking the position that groundwater is not available for the applications, rather than a regulatory change affected the outcome of the applications (this is not a new approach from OWRD).

The “area of concern” is, in effect, a moratorium on new groundwater development in the region. The new regulations create restrictions on new applications reminiscent of critical groundwater areas, but within the basin program scheme.   The moratorium will put a halt to development in the region, at least while OWRD studies the groundwater in the area. Locals familiar with groundwater in the Malheur Basin are resentful of OWRD’s blanket moratorium when certain areas within the basin do not appear to show the same level of strain as others, and continue to produce great quantities of groundwater.

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

This article was drafted with the assistance of Law Clerk Jakob Wiley, a concurrent student at Oregon State University’s Water Resources Policy and Management graduate program and a law student at the University of Oregon School of Law.

California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Regulations Issued

California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”) was passed in 2014. The SGMA requires local agencies to bear the burden of creating, implementing, and enforcing Groundwater Sustainability Plans (“GSP”) in certain groundwater basins to manage the aquifer in a “sustainable” manner. The California Department of Water Resources (“CDWR”) recently issued regulations that help clarify the requirements of the GSPs, but also include some information about how the law will impact local agencies and groundwater users in the State. However, the regulations fail to satisfy some fundamental questions raised by the SGMA.

The new regulations were issued on May 18, 2016 by CDWR provide some insights into how the agency plans to implement the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. A copy of the regulations may be found at: http://water.ca.gov/groundwater/sgm/pdfs/Proposed_GSP_Regs_2016_05_10.pdf. Under the regulations, the agency set out the requirements for plan contents, including administrative information, a description of the basin, sustainable management criteria, a description of the monitoring network, and projects associated with the plans.

The administrative information section must include general information about the region, description of the local agency developing the plan, and the agency decision-making process with public engagement.

The basin setting section must thoroughly describe the basin’s hydro-geologic conditions and must create a “water budget” that describes all the surface and groundwater movement into and out of the basin. Under this section, the local agency must estimate the “sustainable yield” of the basin.

Sustainable Management Criteria have also been outlined by the regulations. These criteria require local agencies to set a sustainability goal that eliminates undesirable results of groundwater use within 20 years of the statutory deadline. CDWR will evaluate sustainability goals based on the achievement of minimum thresholds established by the local agency. The minimum thresholds expand on the statutory language for “undesirable results.” For example, a significant and unreasonable reduction in groundwater storage levels will be evaluated based on the locally defined “undesirable results,” supported by the “sustainable yield” of the basin. The local agency must also include a measuring system and “measurable objectives” that are revisited every five years.

The regulation also outlines the procedure that CDWR will use to evaluate plans, timelines for approval and reporting, and how local agencies can amend their plans. It also sets out the procedure for interagency agreements and addresses adjudications and alternatives to GSPs.

The real impact will come from the local agencies’ interpretation of the word “sustainable.” The new regulations use the term throughout, defining the quantity of water in the water budget available and defining allowable groundwater depletions. Traditionally, sustainable yield is considered the amount of water that can be withdrawn in balance with recharge. At first glance, the definition makes sense. The meaning, however, simplifies a more complex concept. When water is pumped from an aquifer, three results can occur: a reduction in stored water stored in the aquifer, capture of surface water (like rain or seepage from a river), or a reduction in discharge (like a spring or river baseflow), or any of these effects in combination depending on the specific aquifer. Ponce, Victor M., Sustainable Yield of Groundwater, (available at: http://ponce.sdsu.edu/groundwater_sustainable_yield.html). It remains to be seen how “unreasonable” and how “significant” the undesirable effects have to be in order to become unsustainable.

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

This article was drafted with the assistance of Law Clerk Jakob Wiley, a concurrent student at Oregon State University’s Water Resources Policy and Management graduate program and a law student at the University of Oregon School of Law.

On April 6, 2016, amendments to the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) and the new Klamath Power and Facilities Agreement (KPFA) were signed at a ceremony at the mouth of the Klamath River on the Yurok Indian Reservation. These changes come in the wake of the Congress’s decision not to pass legislation for the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA). Negotiations between the signatories of the new agreements in the Klamath Basin were kept secret, the results of their discussions can be seen in these new agreements, available at: https://www.oregon.gov/owrd/Pages/adj/index.aspx.

The amended KHSA’s purpose is to establish a process for removal of Iron Gate, Copco 1, Copco 2 and J.C. Boyle dams under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commissions relicensing procedures. The decision to remove the dams was made based on a cost-benefit analysis that was not released to the public. The amended agreement will also shield PacificCorp and its customers from liability for damages associated with dam removal. The amended agreement transfers the ownership of the dams to the Klamath River Renewal Corporation. The new corporation will conduct the dam removal, while PacificCorp will operate the dams until their decommissioning. The dams are expected to be removed in 2020. The U.S. Department of the Interior, the U.S. Department of Commerce, California and Oregon States, and PacificCorp were parties to the agreement.

The KPFA is an agreement designed to mitigate economic and regulatory issues facing users of water and land in the Klamath Basin. Oregon and California States, the Klamath Water Users Association, public interest groups (including American Rivers, Trout Unlimited, and Sustainable Northwest), the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the National Marine Fisheries Service were parties to the agreement. The KPFA stipulates that the signing parties must meet and confer when there is an unforeseen circumstance related to the fishery restoration and regulatory impacts on the local economy. It also obligates the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (“BOR”), upon transfer of the operation of Link River and Keno Dams, to operate the dams without adding any associated costs to water users for the maintenance of infrastructure. The BOR will operate those dams consistent with existing contracts for irrigation and flood control, and attempt to prevent salmon from entering irrigation canals and ditches. Funding for projects preventing salmon entry into irrigation infrastructure will come from a variety of sources, including irrigation districts, federal, state, and private parties. The agreement also requires the signing parties to support and defend the KHSA, refrain from making statements in opposition to the KHSA, and support the KHSA in administrative and judicial forums. Notably, representatives of the local landowners that will be affected were not included in negotiations, and are not signatories to the agreement.

In short, after many years of receiving a clear message from Congress that it was not going to fund the KBRA’s dam removal plan, the proponents are moving forward without Congress’s approval, or the approval of the local residents that will be most affected. Rather than retrofit the dams to allow fish passage and other updates, the negotiating parties are removing the dams. Along with the dams, the negotiating parties are doing away with inexpensive power, jobs, and water storage for increased reliability within the basin, in a proverbial “flushing the baby with the bathwater” situation. It remains to be seen how severe the impacts from dam removal will be on top of the other stresses that the Klamath Basin has suffered since the administrative phase of the Klamath Basin Adjudication was completed, and since the region has suffered from severe drought for several years.

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

This article was drafted with the assistance of Law Clerk Jakob Wiley, a concurrent student at Oregon State University’s Water Resources Policy and Management graduate program and a law student at the University of Oregon School of Law.

The Oregon Water Code provides that construction of a water system must be completed within certain time limits from issuance of water use permits (5 years for non-municipal water use permits, and 20 years for municipal permits). ORS 537.230 (“…the holder of a water right permit shall prosecute the construction of any proposed irrigation or other work with reasonable diligence and complete the construction within a reasonable time, as fixed in the permit…”); ORS 537.630. The same provisions allow the Oregon Water Resources Department (“the Department”) to grant extensions of time for completion of construction.

The Oregon Water Code also provides that water use permits may be cancelled when a permittee fails to begin construction within permit deadlines. ORS 537.410(1) (“Whenever the owner of a permit to appropriate the public waters of Oregon fails to commence actual construction work within the time required by law, or having commenced construction work as required by law, fails or neglects to prosecute the construction work with reasonable diligence, or fails to complete the construction work within the time required by law, or as fixed in the permit, or within such further time as may be allowed under ORS 537.230, or having completed construction work, fails or neglects to apply the water to beneficial use within the time fixed in the permit, the Water Resources Commission may cancel the permit on the records in the Water Resources Department as provided in ORS 537.410 to 537.450.”)

In determining whether to grant an extension of time, the Department considers: 1) the cost of the appropriation and application of water to a beneficial purpose, 2) the good faith of the appropriator, 3) the market for water or power to be supplied, 4) the present demand for the water or power to be supplied, and 5) the income or use that may be required to provide fair and reasonable returns upon the investment. ORS 537.230(3); ORS 539.010(5); see also OAR Chapter 690 Division 315. The Department’s general practice has been to liberally grant extensions of time if the permittee is able to show a financial investment to begin construction and/or water use under the permit and a reasonable explanation for the delay. Permit extension of time applications are available on the Department’s website at: http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/PUBS/docs/forms/App_Ext_WR_perm.docx.

Recently, the Department has added the following condition to new permits: “The deadline to begin construction may not be extended.” Although the new permit condition does not mark a departure from the Oregon Water Code’s provisions, it does mark increased seriousness from the Department about what is necessary to obtain an extension of time to develop a new water use right. Permittees should be sensitive to the change in climate regarding beginning construction and applying water to beneficial use.

Now, more than ever, it will be important to begin construction within the 5-year deadline in order to avoid permit cancellation. “Actual construction” means “physical work performed towards completion of the water system, which demonstrates both the present good faith of the water right permit holder and the water right permit holder’s intention to complete the project with reasonable diligence.” OAR 690-315-0020(3)(d)(A). This does not include planning, securing financing, entering into contracts, surveying, or purchasing (but not installing) equipment. OAR 690-315-0020(3)(d)(B).

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

On September 18, 2015, the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) and United States Forest Service (“USFS”) issued Records of Decision (“RODs”) related to land management in support of sage grouse populations on lands managed by the agencies. The RODs put land use plans in place in lieu of listing sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). The land use plans are extremely long and complicated, and are summarized in the article Sage Grouse Conservation without an Endangered Species Act Listing: Digging into the National Greater Sage Grouse Planning Strategy Records of Decision, available at: http://www.water-law.com/water-rights-articles/sage-grouse-conservation/.

In general, producers are skeptical that existing activities will not be affected by the new land use plans, as the agencies promise, and are worried about increased fire risks due to the plans. Further, the plans may prove more restrictive than an ESA listing. Parties in Idaho and Nevada have filed lawsuits to challenge the amended land use management plans. See: http://www.gov.idaho.gov/mediacenter/press/pr2015/2%20Feb/pr_61.html, and http://ag.nv.gov/News/PR/2015/Attorney_General_Laxalt_Issues_Statement_Confirming_the_Support_of_Nevada_Counties_in_Sage-Grouse_Lawsuit/.

Law suits involving sage grouse have not halted in the shadow of these new, comprehensive land use plans. On March 29, 2016, Western Watersheds Project (“WWP”) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada against the BLM for approving fences within the Argenta Allotment in Nevada, claiming the approval violated the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) and that alternatives to fencing existed that BLM should have considered. WWP also alleges that the BLM sage grouse use plan required BLM to consider certain alternatives. To view a copy of WWP’s complaint, visit: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1T2j7JW1SeoWV9FbVh2SW1wdEU/view. WWP’s law suit comes on top of other attacks against grazing in the Argenta Allotment that are currently being litigated.

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

In the Northwest, a substantial percentage of our power comes from hydroelectric projects. California’s new legislation requires utilities to provide electricity from 50% renewables by 2030, and Oregon’s new legislation requires the same by 2040. The hydro power industry is viewing these renewable standards as creating continuing demand for hydro power, but several trends are creating serious hurdles for the hydro power industry.

More large projects are going through FERC re-licensing than those large projects that would seek first-time licenses. The result is that older projects are becoming subject to new instream flow and fish passage requirements. The older projects going through re-licensing are usually required to make facility upgrades, and regulate the projects to send more water downstream.

Additionally, climate change means that water patterns are also changing. Scientists predict that more precipitation will fall during the winter, with less flows from snow pack runoff and precipitation in the spring and summer. Predicted changes will create a large burden on facilities that provide flood control, possibly exceeding the amounts of water the facilities were designed to withstand. Further, flows released to meet instream flow requirements in the spring could mean that water is not available for power production and water users later in the season when there is a larger demand.

Moreover, new in-stream storage projects often meet substantial opposition from environmental groups.  Therefore, some innovative hydroelectric developers are constructing out-of-stream projects. For example, the Snohomish Public Utility District in Washington is reviewing an opportunity to construct the Sunset Fish Passage and Energy Project, http://www.snopud.com/?p=1956. An underwater intake structure would divert water from the South Fork Skykomish River, and would flow one-half mile through an underground tunnel to the PUD powerhouse, thereafter emptying back into the river. The PUD would also update the Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife’s trap-and-haul facility as part of the project. In this way, the PUD proposes an innovative way to create hydro power while satisfying those who are typically opposed to new projects.

Schroeder Law Offices is assisting a client to develop a closed-loop hydro power project using existing agricultural groundwater use rights. It is the first of its kind in Oregon, and will not have undesired effects on surface water streams or fish passage. These types of innovative hydro power designs will need to be used more and more if hydro power is to keep a foothold in renewable energy portfolios in the West.

Stay tuned to Schroeder Law Offices, PC’s Water Law Blog for water news that could affect you!

California Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 88 into law on June 24, 2015. Part of that Bill amended the California Water Code to require that all persons who divert 10 acre-feet or more of water per year after January 1, 2016 must install a water measuring device to measure the rate of diversion (including diversion into and out of storage). Water users must report installation to the Water Board, as well as provide evidence that the measuring device is functioning properly at five-year intervals. Water users must maintain records of diversion at time intervals of one hour or less (in some cases) and total amounts of water diverted.

Annual diversion reports must be submitted to the Water Board, and the law states: “Compliance with the applicable requirements of this section is a condition of every registration, permit, or license.” The new law imposes civil fines in an amount not to exceed $500 per violation, per day, which may be enforced civilly through the superior court, or administratively by the Water Board. The Water Board will provide forms for reporting.

On January 19, 2016, the Water Board adopted emergency regulations to implement the new water measuring law. Those regulations were sent to the Office of Administrative Law for approval. Of note, the proposed regulations give the Deputy Director of the Division of Water Rights the authority to require monthly, daily, or more frequent reporting in times when there are insufficient flows to support all diversions. Additionally, the regulations propose a phased approach that takes into account the amount of water diverted, with larger diverters needing to comply with more stringent requirements than smaller diverters.

The recent drought spurred California law makers to enact this law that will mark a drastic change in the way water users operate. The Water Board reports that this new measurement, recordkeeping, and reporting law will apply to approximately 12,000 water users in California. The Water Board hopes that the new law and regulations will improve water use regulation and planning. Industry groups, including the California Cattlemen’s Association, oppose the regulations.

In Oregon, the Water Resources Department has phased in water use measuring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements into new water use permits that are issued. California’s new law and regulations impose a new condition on existing water use rights, raising red flags about regulatory takings.

For access to S.B. 88 and the draft administrative rules, visit: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/measurement_regulation/.

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

Oregon Revised Statute 537.225 was enacted in 2013, allowing water use permit holders with irrigation, nursery, temperature control, stock watering, or agricultural water uses and subsequent completion dates to apply for assignment of all or part of the water use permit, and for the issuance of a replacement water use permit that reflects that assignment. Thus, for the first time in Oregon, the Oregon Water Resources Department (“OWRD”) may issue a new permit after an assignment, rather than merely recognizing the assignment in OWRD’s records. Moreover, for the first time in Oregon, shared water use permits may be split so that holders of shared permits can move forward with perfection at their own pace, or make changes through the permit amendment process without affecting the other permittee’s portion of the shared water use permit.

Oregon Administrative Rule (“OAR”) Chapter 690 Division 325 was enacted in 2014, outlining the requirements for split permit applications. The OWRD forms for split permit applications were completed at the end of 2014, and are available at: http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/Pages/pubs/forms.aspx. OWRD disseminated information about the new split permit application to Certified Water Right Examiners so that they may advise their clients around the State of the new opportunity.

As provided in OAR 690-325-0060(1), the applicant is required to pay OWRD the full cost to processing the split permit application. OWRD is estimating costs in a similar manner to its Reimbursement Authority Program, and provides an Applicant Agreement for a nonrefundable fee of $125.00 that outlines the estimated costs for processing the application. The applicant can then sign the agreement and pay the estimated costs to move forward with their application.

This month, OWRD issued its first Proposed Final Order proposing to approve a split permit application, and the Final Order is set to issue at the end of January, 2016. The estimated cost outlined in the relevant Applicant Agreement was $585 (in addition to the $125 nonrefundable fee for estimate).

OWRD and water use permit holders are still waiting to see how efficiently the new split permit process works, but we are very excited about the new opportunities this process provides! We look forward at Schroeder Law in assisting permit holders in Oregon through this new process.

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

With the 2015 Oregon Legislative Session in full swing, below is a list of water-related bills that may be of interest:

• HB 2207 Authorizes Environmental Quality Commission to adopt by rule procedures for implementing alternative ballast water management strategies for vessels with empty ballast tanks

• HB 2451 Extends maximum loan term for loans made from Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund to 30 Years. Allows Department of Environmental Quality to buy or refinance debt obligations of public agencies for all projects otherwise qualified for financial assistance through Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund.

• HB 2498 Prohibits Environmental Quality Commission and Department of Environmental Quality from adopting any rule or issuing any order concerning water quality that imposes requirements, standards or any other limitation that exceeds requirements, standards or any other limitation imposed under federal law.

• HB 2499 Prohibits Environmental Quality Commission from adopting any rule concerning air quality and water quality that imposes requirements, standards or any other limitation that exceeds requirements, standards or any other limitation imposed under federal law.

• HB 2517 Modifies definition “native fish” for purposes of salmon and trout enhancement program.

• HB 2589 Requires State Department of Agriculture to adopt rules prohibiting application of pesticide products containing nitro-group neonicotinoids.

• HB 2666 Establishes process for county to evaluate whether proposed mining use causes significant change or significant increase in cost when federal or state agency has not issued permit authorizing proposed mining use. Requires county to find that proposed mining use does not force significant change in accepted farm or forest practice or significantly increase cost of accepted farm or forest practices if mining use complies with applicable federal, state and local environmental standards.

• HB 3123 Prohibits application of pesticide by aircraft except under terms and conditions of pest emergency declaration issued by State Department of Agriculture or State Forestry Department.

• HB 3220 Eliminates authority of irrigation districts to condemn real or personal property outside boundaries of district.

• HB 3415 Imposes 10-year moratorium on use of hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas exploration and production.

• SB 0191 Creates guidance document as new form for statement of state agency’s practice, policy or interpretation of law. Provides that issuance of guidance document is not subject to rulemaking procedures. [Although not 100% water-related, this bill relates to the way the Oregon Water Resources Department, Department of Environmental Quality, and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife operate, as well as the other Oregon agencies.]

• SB 0204 Establishes Working Forests and Farms Advisory Committee to provide advice regarding three new programs for maintaining or restoring conservation benefits of working forests and farms.

• SB 0205 Creates Task Force on Innovations in Water Quality.

• SB 0261 Increases ballast water trip fee to $88.

• SB 0412 Defines conditions when rock, gravel, sand, silt and other similar material removed from waters of state are and are not solid waste.

• SB 0537 Establishes Task Force on Standing in Proceedings Regarding Water.

• SB 0744 Requires agencies to estimate costs borne by businesses and industrial sectors to comply with proposed rules. Prohibits adoption of proposed rule unless estimated cost of compliance with proposed rule is offset by estimated cost reductions from other proposed rule, amendment or repeal of existing rules or modifications of existing compliance with regulatory burden placed on business, as specified by agency proposing rule. [Although not 100% water-related, this bill relates to the way the Oregon Water Resources Department, Department of Environmental Quality, and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife operate, as well as the other Oregon agencies.]

• SB 0829 Directs Environmental Quality Commission to adopt by rule methodology for Department of Environmental Quality to apply certain water quality standards in assessing waters of state.

Stay tuned to Schroeder Law Offices’ Water Law Blog for more news about these bills!